3 ms·
I agree that people misinterpret the 1st Amendment as providing protections specific to "news organizations" (though various states have given various state-lev
by 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.
- hermitdev 8y agoWell, regardless of your opinion of Assange, he cannot be guilty of traitorous activity. He is not a US citizen or even resident. He is not in a position to have committed treason against the US. Might he have committed crimes against the US? Sure, if the conspiracy to break into US Gov systems charge is true. Now Manning? That was treason, arguably during a time of war. Once upon a time, that was a summary execution. Manning got off easy with the 35 year initial sentence and even easier after Obama commuted the sentence.
- austincheney 8y agoManning wasn’t convicted of treason though. You cannot apply sentencing for charges not convicted. 35 years was excessive sentencing for Manning’s conviction. Considering the volume and seriousness of conduct a sentence of 5-8 years would have been more appropriate as compared to other related convictions.
- hermitdev 8y agoWhether convicted or not, Manning was found guilty of disclosing tens of thousands of classified documents to someone/some organization Manning knew that was intent on publicly disclosing that information, thus aiding an enemy in a time of war, aka, treason. Manning may not have been convicted of treason, but it is obvious from the crimes Manning was convicted of, and the circumstances under which the crimes were committed, that treason was committed. IANAL, but it seems to me that given the conviction they were able to get, prosecution could have easily gotten a treason conviction as well. Seems to me to have been more of a political play. Obama got a "win" in being tough on leakers of classified info, got a tough sentence, and then with a wink of the eye on the way out the door after 2 terms commutes the sentence (yes, not a full pardon). Like I said, stinks of political interference and nothing to do about the totality of the crime(s) committed.
- austincheney 8y agoManning was convicted of a real crime, a felony. It doesn't matter how much you wish Manning were convicted of anything else. Manning could only be sentenced for the crimes convicted.