3 ms·

Or instead of describing Wikileaks publications as "theft" you could describe it as publishing whistle-blowers who are exposing illegal corruption (like the NSA

• buxtehude 7y ago
  This is in reply to @ztratar original comment which is now flagged and so I can't see it - where he was wondering why the Assange case was a first amendment issue. IMO this is an excellent article that explores first amendment issues and the Assange case: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indi... Side comment: while I totally disagreed with zratar's comments, not sure why he's flagged - which ends up being a form of censorship here. Can't imagine what he said was so offensive it had to disappear.
  • danboarder 7y ago
    @buxtehude I agree with you, and while I also didn't agree zratar's comment I don't like the idea of it being hidden here as it's part of the conversation. I did "vouch" for his comment on that premise so maybe you can see it again.
• auntienomen 7y ago
  Whistle-blowing is legally protected in many contexts, but not this one. There's a long continuum of things one is expected to try first -- from complaining to your boss, to reaching out to relevant oversight officials and Congress, to contacting the press -- before you simply send hundreds of thousands of documents to a foreigner working for a GRU propaganda laundry.