4 ms·
The author buries the main point under a lot of kvetching about Assange's personality and motivations: This is where censorship begins. No matter what one thin
by carsongross 9y ago
The author buries the main point under a lot of kvetching about Assange's personality and motivations:
This is where censorship begins. No matter what one thinks of Julian Assange personally, or of WikiLeaks’s reckless publication practices, like it or not, they have become the litmus test of our commitment to free speech. If the government successfully prosecutes WikiLeaks for publishing classified information, why not, then, “the failed New York Times,” as the president likes to call it, or any news organization or journalist? It’s a slippery slope leading to a sheer cliff. That is the real risk being presented here, though Poitras doesn’t directly address it.
We are all Julian Assange.
- Upvoter33 9y agoI agree that Assange should not be prosecuted for such practice. However, I think this one person has too much power and seems to use it recklessly - and hence I am not nor will ever be a supporter of Wikileaks. Snowden was much more responsible imho.
- zzalpha 9y ago"Main point"? That's a point among many. This is a documentary about Assange himself. By definition that means a study of the man, not strictly a study of the issues. So "kvetching about Assange's personality and motivations" is exactly the flipping point. Now, pivoting to the issues for a moment: the situation with WikiLeaks is complicated. To distill it down to a simple slippery slope fallacy without acknowledging that complexity is, at best, pretty shallow thinking. It would be dishonest to claim that the kind of radical transparency WikiLeaks espouses has no downsides. Again, the potential threat to Afghani informants is a pretty damn good example. Is that cost worth the 100% censorship free society that WikiLeaks seems to want? Personally, I don't know... because, again, it's actually pretty damn complicated.