5 ms·

Not sure which set of free speech you subscribe to but I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of

Not sure which set of free speech you subscribe to but I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It is NOT. I am not sure what publish rights you are talking about. You must be kidding yourself, if I may borrow your language, to talk about publishing rights and WikiLeaks in the same breath. The thing is I do love the principle on which WikiLeaks was founded. Is what WikiLeaks doing legal ? Hell, no. But morally I know it is the right thing to do. Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. And telling the truth selectively and conveniently. And that does not deserve the moral approval, which I would have given earlier.

thecatspaw 8y ago
Agreed, whereas previously they told the unconvenient truth, they grew into a political outlet asking their twitter followers to vote for specific presidency candidates
rndgermandude 8y ago
>I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It actually is legal to publish stolen information, and there is a lot of legal precedent in the US saying it is. And that's a good thing as it is sometimes the only way to hold those in power accountable for their actions they'd otherwise hide. See e.g. Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, US torture program, Snowden, Panama papers, just to name a few, all of which were at least in part based on leaked (read: stolen) information. Also the Trump administration is leaking like a sieve these days. Do you consider the journalists who publish such information criminals too? This is legally different to stealing the information yourself and/or instructing somebody else on how to steal information. I'd wager they'll at least try to pin the latter on Assange if they ever get him in a court.
sneak 8y ago
> Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. Being anti-Democratic Party is not inherently being pro-anyone-else. The Democratic Party was being shady as fuck and regardless of who you or they prefer to be or not be president, exposing their corruption was valuable and useful—irrespective of where that information came from or who it may have indirectly benefited. I do not think the results from that publication constitutes Wikileaks "taking a side". People could make the argument that they could have assumed that publishing would have had a certain outcome or effect upon the election, but one cannot reasonably assert that they would have had to reach the exact same conclusion about the effects of publishing. It's a big stretch to ascribe motive or bias based on your assumption that you can't assert someone else must have made (especially without the benefit of hindsight). Which "side" precisely do you think Wikileaks has taken, and what specific facts support such a conclusion?
- __Joker 8y ago
  It is very hypocritical of you to ask facts when whole your arguments is based on conjecture. Again, I don't have a problem with releasing information. But timing the release with a coordinated effort to profit from it, it reeks of corruption from WikiLeaks.

thecatspaw 8y ago

Agreed, whereas previously they told the unconvenient truth, they grew into a political outlet asking their twitter followers to vote for specific presidency candidates

rndgermandude 8y ago

>I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It actually is legal to publish stolen information, and there is a lot of legal precedent in the US saying it is. And that's a good thing as it is sometimes the only way to hold those in power accountable for their actions they'd otherwise hide. See e.g. Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, US torture program, Snowden, Panama papers, just to name a few, all of which were at least in part based on leaked (read: stolen) information. Also the Trump administration is leaking like a sieve these days. Do you consider the journalists who publish such information criminals too? This is legally different to stealing the information yourself and/or instructing somebody else on how to steal information. I'd wager they'll at least try to pin the latter on Assange if they ever get him in a court.

sneak 8y ago

> Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. Being anti-Democratic Party is not inherently being pro-anyone-else. The Democratic Party was being shady as fuck and regardless of who you or they prefer to be or not be president, exposing their corruption was valuable and useful—irrespective of where that information came from or who it may have indirectly benefited. I do not think the results from that publication constitutes Wikileaks "taking a side". People could make the argument that they could have assumed that publishing would have had a certain outcome or effect upon the election, but one cannot reasonably assert that they would have had to reach the exact same conclusion about the effects of publishing. It's a big stretch to ascribe motive or bias based on your assumption that you can't assert someone else must have made (especially without the benefit of hindsight). Which "side" precisely do you think Wikileaks has taken, and what specific facts support such a conclusion?

__Joker 8y ago
It is very hypocritical of you to ask facts when whole your arguments is based on conjecture. Again, I don't have a problem with releasing information. But timing the release with a coordinated effort to profit from it, it reeks of corruption from WikiLeaks.