6 ms·

Traditional journalists may abandon WikiLeaks’ Assange at their own peril

115 points by danso 8y ago

telesilla 8y ago
Outline link: https://outline.com/spbLvB https://outline.com/spbLvB
pie_hacker 8y ago
I have frequently seen the argument that Assange should be incarcerated because he is dis-likeable. Thankfully, that is not a crime in the U.S. It seems that the federal government is trying to prosecute Assange for obtaining classified information from a source, a practice that is common among investigative journalists. (The details, I suppose, are in exactly how he obtained that information from the source). This seems to me to be clearly protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A democracy that prosecutes civillians who obtain secret information from sources for the purpose of disseminating said information to the public will likely not remain a democracy for long.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  That's not what they're trying to prosecute him for. They're prosecuting him for conspiracy to break into DoD computers. That's kind of similar, but it's not the same thing.
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > They're prosecuting him for conspiracy to break into DoD computers. So for doing source research.
    - trothamel 8y ago
      I suspect that if someone did source research by breaking the security of your computer, you would want them prosecuted, too. Journalists can't be persecuted for what they write, but they're not above the law.
      - jammygit 8y ago
        Persecuting journalists for what they write is becoming more and more common. "[Reporters Without Borders] is also still troubled by the arrest of journalists during #Blacklivesmatter protests in Baltimore and Minneapolis." https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/475017281/u-s-ranks-41st-in-press-freedom-index-thanks-to-war-on-whistleblowers https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/475017281...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      I have to remember that one if I ever feel like burgling someone’s house. “Ah yes yer honor, I did try to break in for research purposes!”
    - ghda 8y ago
      No, for conspiracy to break into DoD computers. This actually seems like great news for journalists. The fact that this is the only charge implies that prosecutors have decided that wikileaks’ core activity of publishing classified information obtained by others was actually legal. The fact that assisting someone to break into a DoD computer turns out to be illegal probably shouldn’t surprise anyone. If someone asked for your help breaking into a DoD computer would you say “oh sure, that sounds like a perfectly legal thing that can’t possibly get me into trouble”?
      - JudgeWapner 8y ago
        I wouldn't underestimate the US. They could be laying this nice, comfy-looking trap to ease the extradition process from UK. Then once on US soil, the real charges are unveiled.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > So for doing source research. Sure, in the same sense that the same description could apply to torturing someone with relevant knowledge. Freedom of the press is the right to publish, not an exemption from all criminal law so long as the object of the crime is acquisition of material for publication.
  - pie_hacker 8y ago
    You're correct, but it's not immediately clear to me what it means to be part of such a conspiracy. Would simply receiving classified information from Chelsea Manning count? (Probably not, I would guess.) What about receiving classified information and then remarking "Wow, this is great stuff! I'm going to pass this information on to prominent news organizations through my website called Wikileaks. You don't have more that you could send me, do you?" Would this count as conspiracy if his remark lead to Manning obtaining more information in an illegal manner? It seems that something along these lines may have happened. It seems to me that Assange should only be prosecuted if he broke into DoD computers himself. It doesn't appear that such an event occurred. I believe that discourse between a journalist and a source (or any two civillians, for that matter) is protected by the 1st Amendment. Thus, encouraging Manning to hack government computers, or even describing to her how to hack government computers[1], should both be protected by the 1st Amendment. [1] Perhaps this opinion is controversial. Allow me to lay out an example: Source: "I've sent you all the info I have! Everything else is password-protected." Reporter: "The password isn't 'password123', is it?" Source: "Hey, that worked! Let me send you some more stuff to help with your expose." In this case, or even if the reporter suggested something more technically advanced like "Hey, look up sql injection on Wikipedia," I believe that the reporter's speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. (The source's activities are almost certainly illegal, but that doesn't answer the question of whether they should be prosecuted for them).
- rayiner 8y ago
  No, he’s being prosecuted for working with Manning to break into government computers, including trying to crack a password. That is not protected journalistic activity.
  - Shivetya 8y ago
    it may be what they are prosecuting him but they sending a very direct message to all the press at the same time. as in, like we have read with many other cases, the government can make any charge they want to get you. you might walk that fine line perfect but it doesn't matter when the people who hold the law in the backpocket can create new lines and stretch them as needed. what people like assange, snowden, and manning, did, along with organizations like wikileaks, is take the muffled humor everyone joked about knowing their governments were up to no good and put it out in the open. sadly we need people and organizations like this because no matter how much we claim to be free we truly never are. are there better ways to do what has been done? probably, but it is no less likely that better ways will simply be portrayed as needed to get the same legal outcome. seeing that they are so narrow in their prosecution they are probably hoping to make it swift but I suspect as the weeks roll by there will be many more people standing behind assange. not necessarily for him but what his actions represented and accomplished.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > it may be what they are prosecuting him but they sending a very direct message to all the press at the same time. as in, like we have read with many other cases, the government can make any charge they want to get you. you might walk that fine line perfect but it doesn't matter when the people who hold the law in the backpocket can create new lines and stretch them as needed. I have seen cases where the government did that first hand, and it's definitely a problem when it happens. But this is not one of those cases. There is not a fine line between a journalist receiving confidential material from a leaker, and someone trying to help someone else illegally expropriate confidential material from government computers. It's in fact a bright line, one that is absolutely necessary. It is critical that, when real journalists invoke their privilege of publication, they be free from any accusation of engaged in illegal conduct to expropriate that material in the first place. Journalists have carefully avoided dabbling in illegal conduct themselves to protect their credibility and the leeway they receive from the law. Assange is the one who jeopardizes that privilege. Because the next time a journalist publishes stolen information, the government can hold up Assange as an example of why the journalist should be investigated to see if they had a hand in illegal activity.
- danso 8y ago
  I have no doubt that many folks who should be protesting Assange's arrest but aren't are acting thus because they dislike him. But I haven't seen anyone actually make that argument explicitly. I've seen more of the opposite -- e.g. that even though he may be an asshole, his arrest is wrong and sets a bad precedent.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Here, I will try. In my opinion, Assange lost his moral high ground after it came out that he was communicating with Trump Jr. and helping the Trump campaign. And that he delayed and timed the DNC and Podesta leaks to cause maximum advantage to Trump, instead of just releasing them when ready. On top of that Wikileaks lied that they did not have contacts with the Trump campaign. Not to mention that DNC and Podesta were private entities, not government officials and zero illegality was revealed by those leaks. He later was asking Trump Jr to ask Trump to recommend himself as the Aussie ambassador to the US as payment for helping Trump win. If he exposed corruption or overreach in the Obama admin, or something that Hillary did as SoS, that had the side effect of Trump winning, that's fair game and he would have my support. In other words, exposing government overreach = good. Indiscriminately releasing private entities emails with intent to politically influence and gain political clout = bad. For all of Snowden's fault of releasing too much information and details of NSA thats expected of a foreign focused intelligence agency like NSA after the initial leaks, atleast he never took partisan political sides.
    - danso 8y ago
      But those aren't (imho) compelling arguments for charging Assange with a crime. Press protections should not be contingent on making a judgment of whether a journalist's work is deemed "good" or otherwise noble. Also, being a "private entity" is not a litmus test for whether an entity is public and newsworthy -- news orgs aren't barred from publishing secret/confidential material from corporations or entertainment celebrities.
      - belltaco 8y ago
        You asked this: >I have no doubt that many folks who should be protesting Assange's arrest but aren't are acting thus because they dislike him. But I haven't seen anyone actually make that argument explicitly. I am making that argument explicitly, though I don't claim to speak for everyone. Public opinion and sympathy varies from case to case based on perceptions. > Also, being a "private entity" is not a litmus test for whether an entity is public and newsworthy What's newsworthy about leaking someone being on maternity leave? The only newsworthy thing that came out of Podesta's emails was that 4chan and alt right trolls and conspiracy theorists created Pizzagate out of thin air, causing death threats to families and communities. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john... And someone going to Comet Ping Pong and firing shots. Feel free to point me to Podesta's emails being newsworthy. Not to mention Assange intentionally falsely implying Seth Rich was the real leaker, causing distress to his family. >news orgs aren't barred from publishing secret/confidential material from corporations or entertainment celebrities That's why I never thought Gawker held a high moral ground. What's newsworthy about doxxing almost all women in Turkey? http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-hel... What's newsworthy about publishing details of agents in secret in places like Afghanistan, apart from endangering their lives at the hands of terrorists? What's newsworthy about publishing social security numbers and passwords unredacted? Why should press protections apply to someone that tried to crack a NTLM password of a login of the US military? If anyone else did that, they would be prosecuted, why should Assange get special treatment? Edit: In case you think things like Pizzagate were not aided and abetted by Wikileaks, they helpfully created a wiki for it. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Basically helping spread nonsensical fringe conspiracy theories to destabilize the US, just like Russia wants. Their goal wasn't to expose anything, it was to inflame the US and support Trump at any cost to divide the nation and weaken it.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It seems that the federal government is trying to prosecute Assange for obtaining classified information from a source No, they are prosecuting him for conspiring with Manning to gain access to classified material to which Manning did not have lawful access. Conspiracy to commit a crime involves two or more people agreeing to a common purpose, which purpose involves a crime, and at least one of those people taking at least one overt act to advance toward acheiving the criminal purpose. (Note they the overt act can be by any member of the conspiracy, and all of them.can be charged.)
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
>and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to news organizations The news media likes to pretend that there is a special status for news organizations and journalists. This is a common misconception that we need to fight against. The First Amendment is not just for news organization, it is for every US person. Back when the First Amendment was proposed and ratified, anyone could obtain a printing press. The First Amendment makes no distinction for a news organization or other publisher vs an ordinary citizen. An example of new organizations trying to give themselves special status is Chris Cuomo assertion that if you were not a media organization it would be a crime for you to possess the Wikileaks emails. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- danso 8y ago
  I agree that people misinterpret the 1st Amendment as providing protections specific to "news organizations" (though various states have given various state-level protections to news orgs). But the author here doesn't appear to be doing that. The full paragraph and the next: > Is the WikiLeaks founder, who until Thursday had been holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London for years, essentially a publisher — though a notably strange one — who believes in taking radical steps to expose government secrets, and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to news organizations? > Or is he a reckless traitor — and by no means a journalist — who deserves no such consideration and who should be prosecuted without worrying about free-press concerns. Her rhetorical question allows for Assange, an individual, to be considered a publisher, i.e. a news organization. In the next graf, it's clearer she's framing the conflict as: "Is Assange a journalist and thus are his actions protected by the rights to a free press?". But I agree that the sentence you quoted could have been better stated as: > and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to journalists. But I assume the reason why she said "news organizations" is because her intended audience are people who work at news organizations, i.e. they should be reading it as: > and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to you.
nilskidoo 8y ago
WL publishes documents with minimal context and no subtext, no added commentary or presentation whatsoever. Which shows how dependent on presentation has news reporting become. What Assange accomplished should be viewed as a priceless resource for journalists, reams of data and pure info, in unedited original words, there to speak for itself. If "fake news" is the grand enemy today, then the feds are after the one and only purveyor of hard facts without color, what they purport to favor in reactionary ideology.
- senectus1 8y ago
  but they also release selectively. and with precision timing. I'm deeply conflicted about WL and Assange. I agree that a WL like org is needed for open democracy. but at the same time these fuckers were clearly working against democracy and in cahoots with the Russians.
- belltaco 8y ago
  ...while DM'ing Trump Jr at the same time: >“Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us,” WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump’s followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. “There’s many great stories the press are missing and we’re sure some of your follows [sic] will find it,” WikiLeaks went on. “Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4.” What a joke. And propagating nonsense on the website. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-pod...
- laughinghan 8y ago
  What you describe sounds great, but that's not what WikiLeaks was like. They exposed stuff like "information for every female voter in 79 of Turkey’s 81 provinces — more than 20 million entries’ worth of addresses and cell-phone numbers". Is that the kind of "reams of data and pure info", "hard facts without color" that should be viewed as a "priceless resource for journalists"? Of course not. That's negligent exposure of people's private information, towards absolutely no public interest whatsoever, and causing much public harm. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-hel...

115 points by danso 8y ago

Outline link: https://outline.com/spbLvB https://outline.com/spbLvB

I have frequently seen the argument that Assange should be incarcerated because he is dis-likeable. Thankfully, that is not a crime in the U.S. It seems that the federal government is trying to prosecute Assange for obtaining classified information from a source, a practice that is common among investigative journalists. (The details, I suppose, are in exactly how he obtained that information from the source). This seems to me to be clearly protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A democracy that prosecutes civillians who obtain secret information from sources for the purpose of disseminating said information to the public will likely not remain a democracy for long.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
That's not what they're trying to prosecute him for. They're prosecuting him for conspiracy to break into DoD computers. That's kind of similar, but it's not the same thing.
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > They're prosecuting him for conspiracy to break into DoD computers. So for doing source research.
  - trothamel 8y ago
    I suspect that if someone did source research by breaking the security of your computer, you would want them prosecuted, too. Journalists can't be persecuted for what they write, but they're not above the law.
    - jammygit 8y ago
      Persecuting journalists for what they write is becoming more and more common. "[Reporters Without Borders] is also still troubled by the arrest of journalists during #Blacklivesmatter protests in Baltimore and Minneapolis." https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/475017281/u-s-ranks-41st-in-press-freedom-index-thanks-to-war-on-whistleblowers https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/475017281...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    I have to remember that one if I ever feel like burgling someone’s house. “Ah yes yer honor, I did try to break in for research purposes!”
  - ghda 8y ago
    No, for conspiracy to break into DoD computers. This actually seems like great news for journalists. The fact that this is the only charge implies that prosecutors have decided that wikileaks’ core activity of publishing classified information obtained by others was actually legal. The fact that assisting someone to break into a DoD computer turns out to be illegal probably shouldn’t surprise anyone. If someone asked for your help breaking into a DoD computer would you say “oh sure, that sounds like a perfectly legal thing that can’t possibly get me into trouble”?
    - JudgeWapner 8y ago
      I wouldn't underestimate the US. They could be laying this nice, comfy-looking trap to ease the extradition process from UK. Then once on US soil, the real charges are unveiled.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > So for doing source research. Sure, in the same sense that the same description could apply to torturing someone with relevant knowledge. Freedom of the press is the right to publish, not an exemption from all criminal law so long as the object of the crime is acquisition of material for publication.
- pie_hacker 8y ago
  You're correct, but it's not immediately clear to me what it means to be part of such a conspiracy. Would simply receiving classified information from Chelsea Manning count? (Probably not, I would guess.) What about receiving classified information and then remarking "Wow, this is great stuff! I'm going to pass this information on to prominent news organizations through my website called Wikileaks. You don't have more that you could send me, do you?" Would this count as conspiracy if his remark lead to Manning obtaining more information in an illegal manner? It seems that something along these lines may have happened. It seems to me that Assange should only be prosecuted if he broke into DoD computers himself. It doesn't appear that such an event occurred. I believe that discourse between a journalist and a source (or any two civillians, for that matter) is protected by the 1st Amendment. Thus, encouraging Manning to hack government computers, or even describing to her how to hack government computers[1], should both be protected by the 1st Amendment. [1] Perhaps this opinion is controversial. Allow me to lay out an example: Source: "I've sent you all the info I have! Everything else is password-protected." Reporter: "The password isn't 'password123', is it?" Source: "Hey, that worked! Let me send you some more stuff to help with your expose." In this case, or even if the reporter suggested something more technically advanced like "Hey, look up sql injection on Wikipedia," I believe that the reporter's speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. (The source's activities are almost certainly illegal, but that doesn't answer the question of whether they should be prosecuted for them).
rayiner 8y ago
No, he’s being prosecuted for working with Manning to break into government computers, including trying to crack a password. That is not protected journalistic activity.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  it may be what they are prosecuting him but they sending a very direct message to all the press at the same time. as in, like we have read with many other cases, the government can make any charge they want to get you. you might walk that fine line perfect but it doesn't matter when the people who hold the law in the backpocket can create new lines and stretch them as needed. what people like assange, snowden, and manning, did, along with organizations like wikileaks, is take the muffled humor everyone joked about knowing their governments were up to no good and put it out in the open. sadly we need people and organizations like this because no matter how much we claim to be free we truly never are. are there better ways to do what has been done? probably, but it is no less likely that better ways will simply be portrayed as needed to get the same legal outcome. seeing that they are so narrow in their prosecution they are probably hoping to make it swift but I suspect as the weeks roll by there will be many more people standing behind assange. not necessarily for him but what his actions represented and accomplished.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > it may be what they are prosecuting him but they sending a very direct message to all the press at the same time. as in, like we have read with many other cases, the government can make any charge they want to get you. you might walk that fine line perfect but it doesn't matter when the people who hold the law in the backpocket can create new lines and stretch them as needed. I have seen cases where the government did that first hand, and it's definitely a problem when it happens. But this is not one of those cases. There is not a fine line between a journalist receiving confidential material from a leaker, and someone trying to help someone else illegally expropriate confidential material from government computers. It's in fact a bright line, one that is absolutely necessary. It is critical that, when real journalists invoke their privilege of publication, they be free from any accusation of engaged in illegal conduct to expropriate that material in the first place. Journalists have carefully avoided dabbling in illegal conduct themselves to protect their credibility and the leeway they receive from the law. Assange is the one who jeopardizes that privilege. Because the next time a journalist publishes stolen information, the government can hold up Assange as an example of why the journalist should be investigated to see if they had a hand in illegal activity.
danso 8y ago
I have no doubt that many folks who should be protesting Assange's arrest but aren't are acting thus because they dislike him. But I haven't seen anyone actually make that argument explicitly. I've seen more of the opposite -- e.g. that even though he may be an asshole, his arrest is wrong and sets a bad precedent.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Here, I will try. In my opinion, Assange lost his moral high ground after it came out that he was communicating with Trump Jr. and helping the Trump campaign. And that he delayed and timed the DNC and Podesta leaks to cause maximum advantage to Trump, instead of just releasing them when ready. On top of that Wikileaks lied that they did not have contacts with the Trump campaign. Not to mention that DNC and Podesta were private entities, not government officials and zero illegality was revealed by those leaks. He later was asking Trump Jr to ask Trump to recommend himself as the Aussie ambassador to the US as payment for helping Trump win. If he exposed corruption or overreach in the Obama admin, or something that Hillary did as SoS, that had the side effect of Trump winning, that's fair game and he would have my support. In other words, exposing government overreach = good. Indiscriminately releasing private entities emails with intent to politically influence and gain political clout = bad. For all of Snowden's fault of releasing too much information and details of NSA thats expected of a foreign focused intelligence agency like NSA after the initial leaks, atleast he never took partisan political sides.
  - danso 8y ago
    But those aren't (imho) compelling arguments for charging Assange with a crime. Press protections should not be contingent on making a judgment of whether a journalist's work is deemed "good" or otherwise noble. Also, being a "private entity" is not a litmus test for whether an entity is public and newsworthy -- news orgs aren't barred from publishing secret/confidential material from corporations or entertainment celebrities.
    - belltaco 8y ago
      You asked this: >I have no doubt that many folks who should be protesting Assange's arrest but aren't are acting thus because they dislike him. But I haven't seen anyone actually make that argument explicitly. I am making that argument explicitly, though I don't claim to speak for everyone. Public opinion and sympathy varies from case to case based on perceptions. > Also, being a "private entity" is not a litmus test for whether an entity is public and newsworthy What's newsworthy about leaking someone being on maternity leave? The only newsworthy thing that came out of Podesta's emails was that 4chan and alt right trolls and conspiracy theorists created Pizzagate out of thin air, causing death threats to families and communities. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john... And someone going to Comet Ping Pong and firing shots. Feel free to point me to Podesta's emails being newsworthy. Not to mention Assange intentionally falsely implying Seth Rich was the real leaker, causing distress to his family. >news orgs aren't barred from publishing secret/confidential material from corporations or entertainment celebrities That's why I never thought Gawker held a high moral ground. What's newsworthy about doxxing almost all women in Turkey? http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-hel... What's newsworthy about publishing details of agents in secret in places like Afghanistan, apart from endangering their lives at the hands of terrorists? What's newsworthy about publishing social security numbers and passwords unredacted? Why should press protections apply to someone that tried to crack a NTLM password of a login of the US military? If anyone else did that, they would be prosecuted, why should Assange get special treatment? Edit: In case you think things like Pizzagate were not aided and abetted by Wikileaks, they helpfully created a wiki for it. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Basically helping spread nonsensical fringe conspiracy theories to destabilize the US, just like Russia wants. Their goal wasn't to expose anything, it was to inflame the US and support Trump at any cost to divide the nation and weaken it.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It seems that the federal government is trying to prosecute Assange for obtaining classified information from a source No, they are prosecuting him for conspiring with Manning to gain access to classified material to which Manning did not have lawful access. Conspiracy to commit a crime involves two or more people agreeing to a common purpose, which purpose involves a crime, and at least one of those people taking at least one overt act to advance toward acheiving the criminal purpose. (Note they the overt act can be by any member of the conspiracy, and all of them.can be charged.)

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

>and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to news organizations The news media likes to pretend that there is a special status for news organizations and journalists. This is a common misconception that we need to fight against. The First Amendment is not just for news organization, it is for every US person. Back when the First Amendment was proposed and ratified, anyone could obtain a printing press. The First Amendment makes no distinction for a news organization or other publisher vs an ordinary citizen. An example of new organizations trying to give themselves special status is Chris Cuomo assertion that if you were not a media organization it would be a crime for you to possess the Wikileaks emails. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

danso 8y ago
I agree that people misinterpret the 1st Amendment as providing protections specific to "news organizations" (though various states have given various state-level protections to news orgs). But the author here doesn't appear to be doing that. The full paragraph and the next: > Is the WikiLeaks founder, who until Thursday had been holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London for years, essentially a publisher — though a notably strange one — who believes in taking radical steps to expose government secrets, and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to news organizations? > Or is he a reckless traitor — and by no means a journalist — who deserves no such consideration and who should be prosecuted without worrying about free-press concerns. Her rhetorical question allows for Assange, an individual, to be considered a publisher, i.e. a news organization. In the next graf, it's clearer she's framing the conflict as: "Is Assange a journalist and thus are his actions protected by the rights to a free press?". But I agree that the sentence you quoted could have been better stated as: > and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to journalists. But I assume the reason why she said "news organizations" is because her intended audience are people who work at news organizations, i.e. they should be reading it as: > and who thus should be afforded the same First Amendment protections given to you.

nilskidoo 8y ago

WL publishes documents with minimal context and no subtext, no added commentary or presentation whatsoever. Which shows how dependent on presentation has news reporting become. What Assange accomplished should be viewed as a priceless resource for journalists, reams of data and pure info, in unedited original words, there to speak for itself. If "fake news" is the grand enemy today, then the feds are after the one and only purveyor of hard facts without color, what they purport to favor in reactionary ideology.

senectus1 8y ago
but they also release selectively. and with precision timing. I'm deeply conflicted about WL and Assange. I agree that a WL like org is needed for open democracy. but at the same time these fuckers were clearly working against democracy and in cahoots with the Russians.
belltaco 8y ago
...while DM'ing Trump Jr at the same time: >“Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us,” WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump’s followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. “There’s many great stories the press are missing and we’re sure some of your follows [sic] will find it,” WikiLeaks went on. “Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4.” What a joke. And propagating nonsense on the website. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-pod...
laughinghan 8y ago
What you describe sounds great, but that's not what WikiLeaks was like. They exposed stuff like "information for every female voter in 79 of Turkey’s 81 provinces — more than 20 million entries’ worth of addresses and cell-phone numbers". Is that the kind of "reams of data and pure info", "hard facts without color" that should be viewed as a "priceless resource for journalists"? Of course not. That's negligent exposure of people's private information, towards absolutely no public interest whatsoever, and causing much public harm. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-help-dox-most-of-turkeys-adult-female-population.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/why-did-wikileaks-hel...