4 ms·

CNN says that it’s illegal to read Wikileaks for anyone but the media [video]

37 points by grej 10y ago

robinhoodexe 10y ago
>Remember it's illegal to posses these documents. It's different for the media; everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us This is terrifying. Like, 1984-style terrifying.
- nickff 10y ago
  Members of the media routinely make the argument that they are different from the remainder of the public when it comes to free speech and campaign finance issues; we shouldn't be surprised when they take a similar view of access to information.
- killwhitey 10y ago
  This sounds more like gross incompetence than anything
- tps5 10y ago
  What's with the knee-jerk reaction where everything is "Orwellian" or "1984-like?" I actually think this kind of hyperbole is damaging because, when something actually is "Orwellian," no one's going to listen because we've all been inured to people throwing this word around like it's nothing. When it comes to incidents like this I'm reminded of Hanlon's Razor more than anything from Orwell: "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
rjeli 10y ago
The reporter defends his statement on twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo edit: maybe HN will care about CNN collusion with the Clinton campaign... Larry King on a hot mic telling Bill Clinton that Ted Turner (CNN founder) would "serve" him https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4 https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4 CNN reporter Donna Brazile gave town hall question in advance https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 CNN edits HRC speech http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/cnn-edits-out-tired-clintons-reference-nyc-explosion-bombing?page=3 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/cnn-edits-out-tired... CNN coaches "independent" focus group before interview https://youtu.be/jz5Jtz74CUU https://youtu.be/jz5Jtz74CUU For those who would dismiss this as conspiracy theory, none of this stuff is remotely "out there." This is just what's on tape and record. This kind of stuff makes me genuinely afraid for the future of the American people and western democracy.
- disposablezero 10y ago
  With Amy Goodman and Deia S. facing charges for doing their ostensibly Constitutionally-protected civic duties and job requirements, either ND gov went full George Wallace or enforcement and accountability for journalistic protection is reaching a historic low. would have check CPJ for quantitive data, but qualitatively it seems to feel like it's 1964 and rights have to be fought for anew, all over again. Don't take them for-granted, eternal vigilance.
- Overtonwindow 10y ago
  Ya know growing up my father would vent at CNN calling it the "Clinton News Network" .. perhaps he wasn't far from the truth.
- dplgk 10y ago
  Link to actual tweet: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788011326488580096 https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788011326488580096 backup: http://imgur.com/a/Ui3NC http://imgur.com/a/Ui3NC
ankurdhama 10y ago
Wikipedia says "Media (the singular form of which is medium) is the collective communication outlets or tools that are used to store and deliver information or data". Hmmm so basically these media people are just tools :)
danielrhodes 10y ago
Just to create a discussion here instead of jumping all over the guy for his questionable legal assertions: You could make the argument that a news organization in possession of stolen documents has a legitimate claim to possessing them for the public good. An individual could not reasonably make the same claims.
- nickff 10y ago
  So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?
  - danielrhodes 10y ago
    I didn't say that at all, but I'm going to respond to your questions anyways. I don't actually believe the media should have special legal carve outs (namely because it creates alignments that end up being against the public interest), but it's fun to argue it anyways. > but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking each other. > If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too? The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.
    - pritambaral 10y ago
      > If you have a free market for the media And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an individual" then it's not a free market.
- internaut 10y ago
xjdjfjjdjcs 10y ago
This is insanity. Can you imagine if Richard Nixon had told the world that the Watergate tapes were a Russian plot to defame him, and not only the media went along with it, but they also insisted that it was illegal to listen to the tapes?
- helthanatos 10y ago
  Watergate was someone's attempt to defame him... Why do we still reference Watergate as if it's any worse than surveillance today?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chroem- 10y ago
There is absolutely no reason for this to be flagged. Both candidates' actions and the media's response to them have been deplorable this election cycle, and we have a right to recognize them as being such. I am deeply concerned that CTR may now be operating on HN. I have vouched for this submission to be reinstated.
greenyoda 10y ago
Here's a rebuttal from attorney Eugene Volokh, writing in the Washington Post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727143 "Now, while knowingly possessing tangible stolen property would often be a crime for both the media and others, possessing copies of illegally leaked materials is generally not treated the same way. See Pearson v. Dodd, 410 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1969). But in any event, remember that, whatever First Amendment rules may apply, the media has no more First Amendment rights than the rest of us."

37 points by grej 10y ago

>Remember it's illegal to posses these documents. It's different for the media; everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us This is terrifying. Like, 1984-style terrifying.

nickff 10y ago
Members of the media routinely make the argument that they are different from the remainder of the public when it comes to free speech and campaign finance issues; we shouldn't be surprised when they take a similar view of access to information.
killwhitey 10y ago
This sounds more like gross incompetence than anything
tps5 10y ago
What's with the knee-jerk reaction where everything is "Orwellian" or "1984-like?" I actually think this kind of hyperbole is damaging because, when something actually is "Orwellian," no one's going to listen because we've all been inured to people throwing this word around like it's nothing. When it comes to incidents like this I'm reminded of Hanlon's Razor more than anything from Orwell: "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

rjeli 10y ago

The reporter defends his statement on twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo edit: maybe HN will care about CNN collusion with the Clinton campaign... Larry King on a hot mic telling Bill Clinton that Ted Turner (CNN founder) would "serve" him https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4 https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4 CNN reporter Donna Brazile gave town hall question in advance https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 CNN edits HRC speech http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/cnn-edits-out-tired-clintons-reference-nyc-explosion-bombing?page=3 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/cnn-edits-out-tired... CNN coaches "independent" focus group before interview https://youtu.be/jz5Jtz74CUU https://youtu.be/jz5Jtz74CUU For those who would dismiss this as conspiracy theory, none of this stuff is remotely "out there." This is just what's on tape and record. This kind of stuff makes me genuinely afraid for the future of the American people and western democracy.

disposablezero 10y ago
With Amy Goodman and Deia S. facing charges for doing their ostensibly Constitutionally-protected civic duties and job requirements, either ND gov went full George Wallace or enforcement and accountability for journalistic protection is reaching a historic low. would have check CPJ for quantitive data, but qualitatively it seems to feel like it's 1964 and rights have to be fought for anew, all over again. Don't take them for-granted, eternal vigilance.
Overtonwindow 10y ago
Ya know growing up my father would vent at CNN calling it the "Clinton News Network" .. perhaps he wasn't far from the truth.
dplgk 10y ago
Link to actual tweet: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788011326488580096 https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788011326488580096 backup: http://imgur.com/a/Ui3NC http://imgur.com/a/Ui3NC

ankurdhama 10y ago

Wikipedia says "Media (the singular form of which is medium) is the collective communication outlets or tools that are used to store and deliver information or data". Hmmm so basically these media people are just tools :)

danielrhodes 10y ago

Just to create a discussion here instead of jumping all over the guy for his questionable legal assertions: You could make the argument that a news organization in possession of stolen documents has a legitimate claim to possessing them for the public good. An individual could not reasonably make the same claims.

nickff 10y ago
So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?
- danielrhodes 10y ago
  I didn't say that at all, but I'm going to respond to your questions anyways. I don't actually believe the media should have special legal carve outs (namely because it creates alignments that end up being against the public interest), but it's fun to argue it anyways. > but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking each other. > If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too? The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.
  - pritambaral 10y ago
    > If you have a free market for the media And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an individual" then it's not a free market.
internaut 10y ago

xjdjfjjdjcs 10y ago

This is insanity. Can you imagine if Richard Nixon had told the world that the Watergate tapes were a Russian plot to defame him, and not only the media went along with it, but they also insisted that it was illegal to listen to the tapes?

helthanatos 10y ago
Watergate was someone's attempt to defame him... Why do we still reference Watergate as if it's any worse than surveillance today?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

chroem- 10y ago

There is absolutely no reason for this to be flagged. Both candidates' actions and the media's response to them have been deplorable this election cycle, and we have a right to recognize them as being such. I am deeply concerned that CTR may now be operating on HN. I have vouched for this submission to be reinstated.

greenyoda 10y ago

Here's a rebuttal from attorney Eugene Volokh, writing in the Washington Post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727143 "Now, while knowingly possessing tangible stolen property would often be a crime for both the media and others, possessing copies of illegally leaked materials is generally not treated the same way. See Pearson v. Dodd, 410 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1969). But in any event, remember that, whatever First Amendment rules may apply, the media has no more First Amendment rights than the rest of us."