3 ms·
The idea that releasing documents uncensored has anything to do with courts is nonsense. Assange claims to be doing journalism. You know what a court can do whe
by extra88 10y ago
The idea that releasing documents uncensored has anything to do with courts is nonsense. Assange claims to be doing journalism. You know what a court can do when a real journalist publishes redacted materials? Ask for unredacted copies.
Publishing unredacted documents does help sell their authenticity to the general public but I think too often the harm is too great, especially to innocent parties.
- mattlevan 10y agoHonestly, I don't know why I hadn't thought of this. Good point!
- EdHominem 10y agoIt's like a receipt for a vote. It seems reasonable in the beginning... But what if Wikileaks waited to be asked... Who do they give the docs to? Just courts, or interested civilians? If the former, how does that help citizens know what's going on, and if the later, what's the difference between just releasing it and selectively releasing it? This also requires people risk their freedom to request the full version. And more critically, that means to prevent the publishing of full documents you simply need to kill the messenger. Running Wikileaks the other way wouldn't be useful and still wouldn't appease the wrong-doers.