81–90 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't that something that ultimately the courts will have to decide? Why would they need to decide that? Are there laws which only apply to journalists, or don't apply to journalists?
https://www.google.com/search?q=laws+and+journalism&rlz=1C1G...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, many leftist news organizations have been consistently defending him and calling this out as an attack on free speech. For example, the Intercept, Democracy Now, Jacobin, etc.
But that's the marginal class-based left; the liberal left, meaning the ones with any sort of power (e.g. Democratic Party, the Guardian, WaPo, NYT, etc...) generally have a history of condemning him while sometimes at the same moment profiting from publishing his leaks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only is he not a journalist, he actively encouraged others to steal and disseminate classified information. That is a crime in this country and most, if not all, other countries I would imagine. Having a website doesn't make you a journalist. Calling yourself a journalist didn't make it so. Courts will have to decide that I suppose.
He's not even a US citizen. Why should he face our laws? Should American woman be extradited to Saudi Arabia for not following their laws? Should American citizens be extradited to North Korea, or China, for exposing their government secrets? It's extremely authoritarian for the United States to do this. It's not only an attack on free speech, it's the United States applying it's laws to everyone in the world. Also,…
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…
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…
> a basket with soap and socks Does this have some cultural significance? It a symbolic snub of some kind? The speaker in the video says that they sent him this care package and then pauses and stares into space like it's the most obviously terrible thing they could have done and needs no further comment. I don't get it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not even a US citizen. Why should he face our laws? Should American woman be extradited to Saudi Arabia for not following their laws? Should American citizens be extradited to North Korea, or China, for exposing their government secrets? It's extremely authoritarian for the United States to do this. It's not only an attack on free speech, it's the United States applying it's laws to everyone in the world. Also,…
Actually we have extradition treaties/agreements with many countries so yes if an American were to break the law of another country that country could in fact ask to have that person arrested and extradited.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't that something that ultimately the courts will have to decide? Why would they need to decide that? Are there laws which only apply to journalists, or don't apply to journalists?
https://www.google.com/search?q=laws+and+journalism&rlz=1C1G...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.google.com/search?q=laws+and+journalism&rlz=1C1G...
All those links seem on first look to say ‘they need to follow all laws like anyone else would’. Was there something specific? I think people think there’s some kind of special legal status of being a journalist, like a police officer or something. I’m not sure that’s the case.
"Under the First Amendment, laws "abridging the freedom...of the press" are invalid. Most states also have their own laws in place which protect reporters from having to disclose their sources and, in certain cases, unpublished materials. Some states have even included "free press" provisions in their state constitutions." ~ https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-force....
You can try and call yourself a journalist but you will need a court to uphold it.
You are free to believe whatever youd like but I choose to live in reality... Assange is no journalist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but your web site seems like a bit of nonsense veiled in a guise that it's out to present "the truth". Many of the linked tweets don't resolve, and the rest of the web site appears to be purely a Greenwald support group in his seeming vendetta against his former employer. The site also proclaims [paraphrasing] "do not trust the Guardian—read our write-ups of the same subjects instead". I can't take that an…
I would argue that the only good journalism done by The Intercept is by Glenn Greenwald. As for the rest of your comment, the general thrust of the page is accurate -- it is incredibly well-known that the Guardian has had a bone to pick with Julian Assange for years. Pretending that is not the case is an example of being intentionally misleading or deciding to ignore facts which disagree with your views.
I also didn't say that they were inaccurate about their pointing out of the Guardian's treatment of Assange.
I'd argue that the Guardian never hid it. Also, that media literacy matters and you shouldn't treat every outlet as a single voice. It's terribly inaccurate and, I'd say, in bad faith to do so—as long as said outlet has a general track record for accuracy. Or, even more common, many outlets may have an injected column by interests, but they do not operate so unified as the page presumes.
I didn't read into the articles they've pointed out in any detail, but I'd pay more attention to who is writing them than painting an entire organization with one brush. That's a fools game. And likely to end up in reciprocal treatment.
Also to note—I wasn't just commenting on the page, but on the rest of the web site which maintains a theme of celebrating the Intercept above all other outlets.
It also comes across to me that GP's comment is derailing the nascent subject.