3 ms·

You’re being downvoted for knowing factually correct information that happens to disprove some of the biases that’s HN posters hold, which is a shame. Downvotes

You’re being downvoted for knowing factually correct information that happens to disprove some of the biases that’s HN posters hold, which is a shame. Downvotes aren’t supposed to be a consolation prize for having your inferior arguments lose. As a reference point, season 3 of the tv show “The Newsroom” has a plot that centers around a new reporter who aids their source in collecting confidential documents from the US government, and every reporter in the newsroom immediately understands they’ve ‘solicited’ information and thus violated the espionage act. I sincerely doubt that this is a concept that a tv show writer can understand and effectively explain, yet would be opaque to a reporter. As a minor note though, Wikileaks absolutely buried trump related documents and carefully timed the release of Clinton related dumps, which makes sense as Wikileaks had been reduced to a front for Russian intelligence by that time. But the emails they released were themselves authentic, and their veracity can be independently verified by the DKIM system they had enabled. Funnily enough, for all the sound and fury over the Clinton emails, the worst thing that they show is that Clinton received a debate in advance, just like Donald Trump did.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
They're being downvoted for making up their own pet legal theories that go against settled American law. Sycophantically justifying the Trump administration's attack on the press isn't "nuanced." A lot of people dislike Assange because they're upset that Clinton's emails reflected badly on her and might have contributed to her loss, or because they're upset he published documents that embarrassed the US. That's no reason to suddenly start inventing novel legal interpretations that outlaw investigative journalism.
- travmatt 7y ago
  Except for the fact that the lawyer above is correct in their interpretation of the law, and you are wrong. You don’t get to decide that laws you disagree with are ‘pet’, ‘novel’ and go against ‘settled’ law. You’re trying to couch your opinion in certainty that it doesn’t deserve - again, because your interpretation of the law is wrong. You should even have a clue that the DoJ understands this difference, because they specifically allege that Assange helping Manning steal further documents constituted ‘solicitation’. Another clue should be the fact that the articles criticizing this charge, and original Obama era decision not to prosecute the violation, are based on the ‘chilling effect’ that it causes, not that no ‘solicitation’ occurred. If you’re still confused, here’s a short clip from the aforementioned show discussing that it’s wrong with soliciting sources to steal: https://youtu.be/VSPhYdxSTRI https://youtu.be/VSPhYdxSTRI
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Their statement that American free-speech jurisprudence doesn't apply to non-journalists is a dead giveaway that they're speaking nonsense. Maybe you're impressed when the Trump administration's DOJ comes up with a novel legal theory to prosecute a journalist for "solicitation." I'm going to rely on Hugo Black's opinion of this sort of attempt to intimidate journalists and crack down on national security reporting - that it is a fundamental threat to democracy and contravenes the First Amendment. You can trust Trump's cronies over at the DOJ if you'd like.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

They're being downvoted for making up their own pet legal theories that go against settled American law. Sycophantically justifying the Trump administration's attack on the press isn't "nuanced." A lot of people dislike Assange because they're upset that Clinton's emails reflected badly on her and might have contributed to her loss, or because they're upset he published documents that embarrassed the US. That's no reason to suddenly start inventing novel legal interpretations that outlaw investigative journalism.

travmatt 7y ago
Except for the fact that the lawyer above is correct in their interpretation of the law, and you are wrong. You don’t get to decide that laws you disagree with are ‘pet’, ‘novel’ and go against ‘settled’ law. You’re trying to couch your opinion in certainty that it doesn’t deserve - again, because your interpretation of the law is wrong. You should even have a clue that the DoJ understands this difference, because they specifically allege that Assange helping Manning steal further documents constituted ‘solicitation’. Another clue should be the fact that the articles criticizing this charge, and original Obama era decision not to prosecute the violation, are based on the ‘chilling effect’ that it causes, not that no ‘solicitation’ occurred. If you’re still confused, here’s a short clip from the aforementioned show discussing that it’s wrong with soliciting sources to steal: https://youtu.be/VSPhYdxSTRI https://youtu.be/VSPhYdxSTRI
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Their statement that American free-speech jurisprudence doesn't apply to non-journalists is a dead giveaway that they're speaking nonsense. Maybe you're impressed when the Trump administration's DOJ comes up with a novel legal theory to prosecute a journalist for "solicitation." I'm going to rely on Hugo Black's opinion of this sort of attempt to intimidate journalists and crack down on national security reporting - that it is a fundamental threat to democracy and contravenes the First Amendment. You can trust Trump's cronies over at the DOJ if you'd like.