Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

lessig.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#51

Post by wallace_f »

argonaut wrote: post #46
wallace_f wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears the popular perception of the two candidates is that one of them is a "tin pot" dictator who will silence all his critics and act outside the law Sources: NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-h... Comment above mine: >Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump What is even more disturbing is that a presidential candidate has asked, in what appears to be an off-the-cuff suggestion,…

That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up. The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" ( http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki... ).

You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site.

CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fighting for civil rights are being arrested and charged with felony crimes for reporting, so I don't buy into that argument in which corporate media, which a small number of corporations own over 95% of what people see and hear, is over- and under-reporting stories entirely out of ethical and professional consideration: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-...

You and I both are incredibly lucky to live in a country where those charges against Amy Goodman have been thrown out, but would that have happened to a journalist who was not famous? Or what if there was no video evidence, and it was the police and the DA against a citizen?

This story on Hillary is unproven, but so are the allegations against Trump as a sexual assault perpetrator and look at how much media attention that has garnered. I hate Trump but that disparity in and of itself bothers me and in fact lends even more credence to the claim of growing corruption in government. Just also keep in mind, that if this particular claim against Hillary is forged, which is still entirely possible, remember that yet no one has been able to point to any inconsistencies or untruths which would prove that is true.

And your comment of "making things up" is a bit inflammatory.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can say, "you got live in a world with that government, I'll go live in this one," we all have to live with each other's choices.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#52

Post by argonaut »

wallace_f wrote: post #51
argonaut wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up. The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" ( http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki... ).

You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site. CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fi…

Allow me to save anyone reading this thread some time: the assertion about Clinton wanting to drone strike Assange remains unsubstantiated, as the parent comment acknowledges.

I didn't assert anything about any of the other random stuff you're mentioning.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#53

Post by wallace_f »

byuu wrote: post #34
IIAOPSW wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll go ahead and defend wikileaks on this count (despite my statements about Julian in the parent comment). The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not…

I understand that, I just don't agree with it. How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"? I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours? That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest…

The standard for world leaders should be different than for ordinary folks

>I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours?

What did you do that you are so concerned about? I have done plenty of things embarrassing, as has everyone; however I'm not so sure I have done anything that would be life-ruining if it made it to the public. I don't understand why you would feel so differently unless you were engaging in things that people would strongly disapprove of - in which case you probably shouldn't be doing them don't you think? Well, even if you are I think you have a right to your privacy. A generation ago homosexuality could be life ruining, and I think what you choose to do with your personal life is up to you, not your government or other people's personal belief system. That is why unless you decide to become a world leader you should be entitled to your own privacy. As a world leader, though, your personal character has consequences for everyone else.

If you disagree, what do you disagree with here?

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#54

Post by wallace_f »

argonaut wrote: post #52
wallace_f wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site. CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fi…

Allow me to save anyone reading this thread some time: the assertion about Clinton wanting to drone strike Assange remains unsubstantiated, as the parent comment acknowledges. I didn't assert anything about any of the other random stuff you're mentioning.

Instead of being incredibly rude and insulting, next time if you don't follow somebody's argument, try to read it again and try to make sense of it. It does make sense in this case.

I did write that out quickly though, and it is a bit disjointed and quickly-written. Still, I think you should be able to follow along and grasp the points. I think you're being disingenuous that you can't, maybe because you don't want to continue a civil discussion for whatever reason you have.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#56

Post by Kristine1975 »

hackuser wrote: post #14
gragas wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose is to expose the corrupt behind-the-curtain dealings of leaders and political elite---to give power to the people and remove it from the corrupt. > Why can't othe…

> How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ... Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions: * They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the…

Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#57

Post by tanderson92 »

aaron695 wrote: post #42
aub3bhat wrote: post #21

I agree its very gracious of Lessig and completely agree that individuals deserve privacy. But lets be honest, even in this case the forgiveness originates in fact that all individuals involved are on the same side in this election. Further the justification about her being engaged with public / public-sector is hollow. Had it been Karl Rove saying the same thing, would the anger be justified? If we are at all going…

> Journalist Glenn Greenwald also jumped into the conversation to suggest that Tanden had influenced Demos' decision to part ways with Bruenig I see no real proof here?

There is no public proof; at this point it is a he-said she-said over what happened behind the scenes. I acknowledge the benefit of the doubt in this situation goes to Tanden. Though I do not have good experiences with her truthfulness and tend to disbelieve her on this point, I acknowledge others don't share the background and will likely (fairly) conclude otherwise.

I am hopeful that future Wikileaks releases shed some light on this affair.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#58

Post by byuu »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #37
byuu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that, I just don't agree with it. How many of us would want to have everything we've ever said or done in private aired out in public, under the guise that "the public is smart enough to not editorialize anything"? I'm quite certain that would have disastrous consequences on my life, as well as just about anyone else's. How about yours? That said, when it comes to something affecting the public interest…

I agree in principal but in practice how do you decide what to include and what not to include. I respect that wikileaks has a rigorous criteria despite having the flaws you point out. If you can think of a well defined way to incorporate the common sense concept of respecting Joe Public's personal space I'd be all for it.

This pattern seems to come up a lot; I just had the same discussion around the Citizens United ruling here.

There is always going to be an uncomfortable point where you draw a line that isn't quite fair, where up to that line is fine and doesn't really do much harm, but crossing that line would be a detriment to the public interest, and so the liberties of the one end up curtailed in the best interest of the whole.

Legally defining that line will always be a challenge. And there will always be people that question exactly where the line is drawn and want it moved further. And in some cases, some people won't want any line whatsoever.

Let's take free speech. I support this 100%. Even if it means defending the KKK's hate rallies, the WBC's protesting of military funerals, etc. I even take it further and don't support obscenity laws. It's not free speech if you can't say something just because someone else thinks it's 'obscene'. I go as far as supporting eg Handley in US v Handley on the importation of loli material. Yet even I will draw the line at real pictures of victims (I believe your freedoms end at the point they harm someone else's freedoms), so some might even say I'm not a true supporter of free speech.

Let's take capital punishment. If you are for executing terrorists or serial killers, then why be against murder in general? I mean, where do you draw the line? What about self-defense in the case of home invasion? That's okay too? What about self-defense against a brutal assault (that wouldn't kill you)? Is that okay? What about to stop someone from stealing your car? You can keep whittling this back and eventually say, "well we shouldn't make any laws against murder, because it's too hard to draw the line!", which is silly.

If you're against the death penalty, then how about drugs? Why do we allow alcohol when it causes more harm than weed? Okay, let's legalize weed (which I support.) Now what about LSD and mushrooms? Let's legalize those too (I also support that.) How about crack cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and krokodil? (I don't support that.) But wait! How do we draw a line here? We should just legalize everything, right? Well ... no. When a heroin addict can't get their fix, they'll start breaking into cars and houses to get money for their habit. They'll end up in the ERs and racking up bills that you and I end up paying in the form of increased insurance fees to pay for them. Whereas someone eating mushrooms is just going to feel great for six hours, throw up, then feel bad for two hours, then go back to their everyday lives.

There are cases where no matter what we decide, there will be consequences. You can be pro-choice, and that's to the detriment of all the children that won't ever be born as a result. You can be pro-life, and that's to the detriment of women who are forced to act as breeders against their will and be saddled with huge amounts of child rearing pain, a child, possible medical complications, huge amounts of debt, and very little to no real support for it.

Real progress in society requires us to say, "damn, yes, this is a really hard problem! How do we improve things?", not throw our hands up in defeat and effectively embrace full-on anarchy.

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#59

Post by orbat »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #22
byuu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead. Of course, being f…

I'll go ahead and defend wikileaks on this count (despite my statements about Julian in the parent comment). The entire point of wikileaks is that they publish information as is under the belief that the public is smart enough to reach their own conclusions without editorializing. This means publishing everything they got with its full mundane nature on display (if for no other reason than as proof that they are not…

If the general public was smart enough to draw their own conclusions about, well, anything, Trump wouldn't be a viable candidate

Re: On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

#60

Post by tedunangst »

harry8 wrote: post #32
tedunangst wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What possible corruption is revealed by the quoted email?

Context for the remainder so you can know they aren't cherry-picked and your reading of whatever you get out of any of them is through your own bias alone and not Assange's, the NYT editorial team's or whoever else. You only need to trust that Assange will publish you don't have to care what he thinks about anything else.

This would be more convincing if Assange wasn't always talking up the next batch, the contingency files, etc. Not only is he withholding publication, but he's bragging about it, which really does make it hard to believe he's just passing everything along.
Post reply on HN