4 ms·

Publishing the truth only constitutes interference in the eyes of those who don't want to see it. If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador.

Publishing the truth only constitutes interference in the eyes of those who don't want to see it. If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador. But he doesn't.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Publishing the truth only constitutes interference in the eyes of those who don't want to see it. That something is factually accurate does not mean it is not published with the purpose of manipulating political outcomes. Not that everything Assange has done is non-editorialized relay of fact. > If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador. Ecuador is merely fulfilling it's obligation under international law; the primary offended party is the UK, here, who is the party that has objected that Ecuador permitting Assange’s political activities directed at the UK and other states violates Ecuador's obligations under international law. Having diplomatic facilities on the territory of another country is not a right, it is a privileged extended under terms (many of which are standardized in international law.)
- starik36 8y ago
  But it's factual, as you said. He has a track record of publishing the truth whether you like it or not. >> the primary offended party is the UK Sorry, I disagree. Primary offended party here is Assange - a victim of powers that be trying to contain him. UK is the primary bully here.
ben_w 8y ago
If I had a database of all Wakandan military assets and their locations, and I published it, that would be both truthful and definitely interfering with a (albeit fictional) foreign nation. There are legitimate reasons for countries to keep secrets, just as there are legitimate reasons for individuals to keep secrets. And that’s without one-sided reporting (“Her emails!” “If that’s important, what about his phone?”) or outright falsehoods (I am glad to say I don’t think Assange has done that outside of misrepresenting himself).

Publishing the truth only constitutes interference in the eyes of those who don't want to see it. If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador. But he doesn't.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Publishing the truth only constitutes interference in the eyes of those who don't want to see it. That something is factually accurate does not mean it is not published with the purpose of manipulating political outcomes. Not that everything Assange has done is non-editorialized relay of fact. > If he was publishing fake news, I could understand Ecuador. Ecuador is merely fulfilling it's obligation under international law; the primary offended party is the UK, here, who is the party that has objected that Ecuador permitting Assange’s political activities directed at the UK and other states violates Ecuador's obligations under international law. Having diplomatic facilities on the territory of another country is not a right, it is a privileged extended under terms (many of which are standardized in international law.)

starik36 8y ago
But it's factual, as you said. He has a track record of publishing the truth whether you like it or not. >> the primary offended party is the UK Sorry, I disagree. Primary offended party here is Assange - a victim of powers that be trying to contain him. UK is the primary bully here.

ben_w 8y ago

If I had a database of all Wakandan military assets and their locations, and I published it, that would be both truthful and definitely interfering with a (albeit fictional) foreign nation. There are legitimate reasons for countries to keep secrets, just as there are legitimate reasons for individuals to keep secrets. And that’s without one-sided reporting (“Her emails!” “If that’s important, what about his phone?”) or outright falsehoods (I am glad to say I don’t think Assange has done that outside of misrepresenting himself).