dagblog - Comments for "First they came for Wikileaks..."

Fox News doing a classic

artappraiser — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:16:57 +0000

In reply to First they came for Wikileaks...

Fox News doing a classic Murdoch thing with this:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/04/25/pamela-anderson-writes-about-her-special-relationship-with-julian-assange.html

Maybe more in their future....ET channel is so tired, so yesterday....

So they thought about it for

artappraiser — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:48:17 +0000

In reply to Somebody wants to contribute

So they thought about it for a day or two and decided to that uppity was the way to go:

WikiLeaks releases top-secret CIA documents as US considers charges against Julian Assange

A 31-page manual on how to use the CIA's 'Weeping Angel' surveillance software is now available online

By Caroline Mortimer @ The Independent, 23 April 2017 20:16 BST

Somebody wants to contribute

artappraiser — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:43:28 +0000

In reply to First they came for Wikileaks...

An interested party wants to contribute to our discussion that:

AG Sessions declines to answer when asked if prosecution of WikiLeaks will extend to other publishers https://t.co/uVG7tt6IT3
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 21, 2017

The NYT and others wouldn't

CVille Dem — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:44:31 +0000

In reply to What 1st Amendment rights are

The NYT and others wouldn't publish "the dossier" because they couldn't confirm that it was factual but Wikkeleaks publishes people's emails and they are EVERYWHERE without any corroboration.

How is that justified?

Which brings me back to my

Obey — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 10:12:32 +0000

In reply to In the corporate world you

Which brings me back to my original point. I haven't dug deep into the Vault 7 story, but the revelations seem not very earth-shattering from a public interest point of view, whereas it may harm the IC's offensive cyberwarfare capabilities. And given that Assange is at best an unpleasant asshole, the worry is that the Justice department may think there will be little public pushback if they charge him. And that would clearly - to me - be an erosion of press freedoms, whether or not you consider what he does 'journalism'. I don't think you need to be a lunatic to worry about that.

Of course, maybe they do have evidence of active collusion with the Russian government, but all the emphasis by the DOJ about Assange not being protected by the first amendment as a foreigner suggests that they don't have the goods on bona-fide espionage

Yes, but as per Dick Day

Obey — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 09:59:18 +0000

In reply to Weren't the NYT documents on

Yes, but as per Dick Day below, I don't know if that exonerates them.

Hey Maître Dick Day! Nice to

Obey — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 09:58:36 +0000

In reply to Hi Obey!

Hey Maître Dick Day! Nice to have the input of a man of the law. Not sure how first amendment rights apply here if at all, but the Justice department made a point of noting that, irrespective of whatever justifications Assange may offer, he is not protected under the first amendment because he is not a US citizen. So that is what makes him easier to prosecute I guess.

Thank goodness Rupert Murdoch got US citizenship eh!

Hi Obey!

Richard Day — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:44:57 +0000

In reply to The ethics of publishing the

Hi Obey!

Yeah, I repeat a lie and I might be, by common law liable for slander or libel or defamation I suppose.

But this takes us all back to Daniel Elsberg off course. hahahah

Such a prosecution is not a slam dunk.

Oh, and how does one define 'secret' let alone a government 'secret'.

Oh and the great NYT and Politico; are they really ever on solid ground.

hahahah

In the corporate world you

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:13:00 +0000

In reply to A rerminder that Bradley

In the corporate world you can certainly be sued and possibly imprisoned for making off with or exposing internal documents - as noted, the guys who found the not-yet-released iPhone and sold access pleaded no contest and were fined with probation, slap on the wrist as it was even though the prosecutor asked for jail time. There is certainly leeway for reporting crimes, whether animal cruelty for factory farming, pharmaceutical testing / trials coverups for big pharma, or Manning's exposing outright targeting of civilians (crimes against humanity) or torture.

I'm not sure where "Hillary was mean to Bernie" falls on that scale, but I'm sure it's pretty high up there, as was Wikileaks' quiz on "what might be ailing Hillary".

PS to add: they obviously won't try to indict Assange for leaking Hillary info - has to be tied to state secrets and abetting Russian espionage or other high level crimes, nothing that can be considered "journalism".except by the usual lunatic supporters.

A rerminder that Bradley

artappraiser — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:12:09 +0000

In reply to What 1st Amendment rights are

A rerminder that Bradley Manning was court martialed, it wasn't a civilian crime. In effect one gives up certain free speech rights when signing to join the military and taking the oath that goes with it (and also when getting security clearances.) When you take that oath and sign on the dotted line, and then for example you are told you must remain silent on your orders or where you are being sent, even with your family you remain silent or you commit a military crime.

In civilian world, even before special protection whistle blower laws, one could whistle blow with corporate documents one has seen and only be subject to losing a job or a civil suit (anyone can sue anyone for anything, one of a sued leaker's defenses for leaking might be free speech and public good etc..)