41–50 of 183 posts
The extradition request was just signed by the UK home secretary - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48624024 Now the court system will decide over the coming months/years whether or not to hand him over to the US, where he has a good chance of being imprisoned for a very long time.
Just because Assange did one (or more) good things (Collateral Murder) does not make everything else he does, also good. Assange is not a journalist, and ceased being a journalist when he decided to enforce personal agendas and arguably work with nation-states to harm other nation-states. Even if you believe he's a journalist, journalists should not be above the law even if part of their work is for the good of the p…
I hope you really didn't think that through. Because you just suggested that journalists should not exist when outlawed then. If they are completely subservient to the law then they should not break it even when it is wrong. Therefore it is justified to do violence against them. Goddamn right journalists should be above the law! The truth is fundamentally above the law as nothing written as law can change the truth.…
The last people I would want to have additional privileges are journalists, who often love to create spin or ruin people's lives for a story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. There is such thing as legitimate secrets. The threat of jail for wholesale and thoughtless release of top secret information... is a good threat. Professional journalists know this and shouldn't jump on the Assange bandwagon; they understand that their power comes a duty of care.
Secrets are just that, secrets. Not some legally protected object. If you don't want your secrets getting out, then don't tell people them, or better yet - don't do bad things. Making secrets legally protected for those that have not signed an NDA and do not participate in government inner-workings or aren't even citizens of that country is a dangerous precedent that erodes the first amendment. What would stop a gove…
I find it incredible that it took the Guardian 7 years to decide to write this article. EDIT: In fact, it's not even by the Guardian -- it's an opinion piece by an ex-Guardian editor who was (at least implicitly) part of the smear campaign against Julian Assange "back in the day". Let's not forget that the Guardian sent Julian Assange a basket with soap and socks when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy[1]. What…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
I find it incredible that it took the Guardian 7 years to decide to write this article. EDIT: In fact, it's not even by the Guardian -- it's an opinion piece by an ex-Guardian editor who was (at least implicitly) part of the smear campaign against Julian Assange "back in the day". Let's not forget that the Guardian sent Julian Assange a basket with soap and socks when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy[1]. What…
Especially damning now with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture describing his treatment as psychological torture: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
There's a pretty big difference between: 'free media' and 'doxing individuals who's identities were protected because if they are publicly revealed not only are their lives at serious risk but it also exposes their close family and friends to rape/murder/torture until a time at which they are found and violently murdered because terrorists and hostile governments actually do this sort of thing to their perceived enem…
The irony in your argument is absolutely breath taking. The footage of the US Military murdering a dozen people, of which 2 worked for the press, was part of leaks for which he now faces charges. "How dare he show the US murdering journalists! That could lead to more journalist getting murdered."
I wish people would just focus on the part that regards journalism, free press, free speech, sources and releasing leaked information. All the rest will fall along political lines. Liked or disliked for the effects on political allies and foes. It’s obvious if you have followed this case. Three years ago the right loathed him, today they love him and conversely today the left loathes him but 3 years ago they loved hi…
See...this is why places like YComb and just about ANY social media or news aggregate service have become a cesspool of negativity. My FIRST comment on this board, and I get a downvote and a flag.
Ladies and gentleman...behold...the tiny minded individuals that make up the underbelly of the hive mind.
[flagged]
Who gets to decide who is a journalist? The government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope you really didn't think that through. Because you just suggested that journalists should not exist when outlawed then. If they are completely subservient to the law then they should not break it even when it is wrong. Therefore it is justified to do violence against them. Goddamn right journalists should be above the law! The truth is fundamentally above the law as nothing written as law can change the truth.…
> Goddamn right journalists should be above the law! In very select instances, and under certain circumstances. A corrupt journalist is terrible and shouldn't be above the law at all. Granted you could argue that he's not a journalist if he doesn't adhere to journalistic standards, but that just makes it a battle over "is this person a journalist?"
the proper angle would be "was the presented data believed true at the moment of reporting" - even if this leave the door open for manipulation by omission, it can't really be more stringent than that without becoming dangerous.