3 ms·

That's the point of due process: to make a conscious judgment about intent based on evidence. In your case, any intelligent person—short of corruption—would rea

That's the point of due process: to make a conscious judgment about intent based on evidence. In your case, any intelligent person—short of corruption—would realize you were stating an example, not encouraging me to commit a crime. Assange broke the law—calling him a journalist is a farce and a tactic—and has to deal with the consequences. Letting him get away with it sets a precedent for interpreting the law in any way we want, effectively rendering laws useless (and creating the exact problem you've described here). Simply put: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbOtyWTRZ_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbOtyWTRZ_g

nkurz 7y ago
Why do you feel that it strengthens your argument to say "calling him a journalist is a farce"? Clearly, lots of people consider him a journalist. He's even won several prizes for being a journalist. Here's one from 2011: "Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism. The annual prize is awarded to a journalist "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel', as Martha Gellhorn called it". https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange... In the absence of a clear legal definition of "journalist" in the US, it seems entirely reasonable to call someone who wins prizes for journalism a journalist. Why do you disagree, and why should your opinion be weighted more strongly than those who disagree with you? I agree, however, that calling him a "journalist" is a tactic. The goal is imply that because he's a journalist, he should not be prosecuted for breaking the law. It's a strange tactic, though, since as far as I know there are no exceptions for journalists to break US federal laws. Anyway, I'd argue that calling him "not a journalist" is a tactic as well. Why not simplify to your stronger point of "Assange broke the law ... and has to deal with the consequences"? Do you feel that if he was a "proper journalist" he should be treated differently? (Personally, I think trying to enforce US law on foreign nationals who have never set foot in your country is a terrible precedent. I believe that prosecuting him is selective-enforcement, intended to punish him for releasing true but embarrassing information about US government misdeeds, and to dissuade others who might be tempted to follow his example. While he likely broke the laws that he is charged with, I think journalists worldwide are right to be afraid of the change in policy that this implies.)
- rglover 7y ago
  Journalist or not I'd expect him to be reprimanded under the same laws. Classifying him as a journalist, though, fits the narrative that journalists writ large are currently under attack (i.e., sympathy vote). > Why do you feel that it strengthens your argument to say "calling him a journalist is a farce"? Because I'm an asshole and I find it humorous that he's cowering when he knew full well what he was doing. > Why do you disagree, and why should your opinion be weighted more strongly than those who disagree with you? I never claimed that my opinion should be. You did that. Pointing to awards is effectively just an appeal to authority.
  - girvo 7y ago
    > Pointing to awards is effectively just an appeal to authority. It would be, if it wasn't followed by the (correct) fact that there is an absence of an official record of who is and isn't a journalist, and saying that this is a decent proxy. And an appeal to authority, when we're discussing whether someone is authoritatively a journalist, seems apt, to me.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Do you believe that journalism at large isn't under attack? Do you truly believe that a political journalist is not ethically allowed to commit digital forensics against an adversary who committed war crimes in secret? What gives the US government immunity from hacking but not Assange? What if Assange does not recognize the authority of a State he has never set foot in? If I am tipped off about a badly protected server in China which contains information about State-wide concentration camps and Buddhist and Muslim persecution which I think the world needs to see, am I acting unethically if I want to acquire this information? Why the hell do I care about the laws of a foreign totalitarian authoritarian regime who commits human rights atrocities on a daily basis?
    - rglover 7y ago
      > Do you truly believe that a political journalist is not ethically allowed to commit digital forensics against an adversary who committed war crimes in secret? They can do whatever they want. But they need to be aware of and accept the consequences of doing so. > Do you believe that journalism at large isn't under attack? Not really. There's a lot of tantrum throwing, though. > What gives the US government immunity from hacking but not Assange? The world's largest military. > What if Assange does not recognize the authority of a State he has never set foot in? What if I don't recognize the authority of local law enforcement? Can I start doing as I please? > Why the hell do I care about the laws of a foreign totalitarian authoritarian regime who commits human rights atrocities on a daily basis? If you're referring to the U.S., it's not a totalitarian, authoritarian regime. There's just a stubborn asshole in charge that a lot of people don't like. And based on your overall tone, I'd assume you lack focus, emotional composure, and have struggled to find meaning in life (using politics as an outlet for your anger).
soulofmischief 7y ago
Sounds like you have an arbitrary heuristic for what defines a journalist, which possibly takes into account political motivation and what organization the journalist works for. That heuristic doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.

nkurz 7y ago

Why do you feel that it strengthens your argument to say "calling him a journalist is a farce"? Clearly, lots of people consider him a journalist. He's even won several prizes for being a journalist. Here's one from 2011: "Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism. The annual prize is awarded to a journalist "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel', as Martha Gellhorn called it". https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange... In the absence of a clear legal definition of "journalist" in the US, it seems entirely reasonable to call someone who wins prizes for journalism a journalist. Why do you disagree, and why should your opinion be weighted more strongly than those who disagree with you? I agree, however, that calling him a "journalist" is a tactic. The goal is imply that because he's a journalist, he should not be prosecuted for breaking the law. It's a strange tactic, though, since as far as I know there are no exceptions for journalists to break US federal laws. Anyway, I'd argue that calling him "not a journalist" is a tactic as well. Why not simplify to your stronger point of "Assange broke the law ... and has to deal with the consequences"? Do you feel that if he was a "proper journalist" he should be treated differently? (Personally, I think trying to enforce US law on foreign nationals who have never set foot in your country is a terrible precedent. I believe that prosecuting him is selective-enforcement, intended to punish him for releasing true but embarrassing information about US government misdeeds, and to dissuade others who might be tempted to follow his example. While he likely broke the laws that he is charged with, I think journalists worldwide are right to be afraid of the change in policy that this implies.)

rglover 7y ago
Journalist or not I'd expect him to be reprimanded under the same laws. Classifying him as a journalist, though, fits the narrative that journalists writ large are currently under attack (i.e., sympathy vote). > Why do you feel that it strengthens your argument to say "calling him a journalist is a farce"? Because I'm an asshole and I find it humorous that he's cowering when he knew full well what he was doing. > Why do you disagree, and why should your opinion be weighted more strongly than those who disagree with you? I never claimed that my opinion should be. You did that. Pointing to awards is effectively just an appeal to authority.
- girvo 7y ago
  > Pointing to awards is effectively just an appeal to authority. It would be, if it wasn't followed by the (correct) fact that there is an absence of an official record of who is and isn't a journalist, and saying that this is a decent proxy. And an appeal to authority, when we're discussing whether someone is authoritatively a journalist, seems apt, to me.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Do you believe that journalism at large isn't under attack? Do you truly believe that a political journalist is not ethically allowed to commit digital forensics against an adversary who committed war crimes in secret? What gives the US government immunity from hacking but not Assange? What if Assange does not recognize the authority of a State he has never set foot in? If I am tipped off about a badly protected server in China which contains information about State-wide concentration camps and Buddhist and Muslim persecution which I think the world needs to see, am I acting unethically if I want to acquire this information? Why the hell do I care about the laws of a foreign totalitarian authoritarian regime who commits human rights atrocities on a daily basis?
  - rglover 7y ago
    > Do you truly believe that a political journalist is not ethically allowed to commit digital forensics against an adversary who committed war crimes in secret? They can do whatever they want. But they need to be aware of and accept the consequences of doing so. > Do you believe that journalism at large isn't under attack? Not really. There's a lot of tantrum throwing, though. > What gives the US government immunity from hacking but not Assange? The world's largest military. > What if Assange does not recognize the authority of a State he has never set foot in? What if I don't recognize the authority of local law enforcement? Can I start doing as I please? > Why the hell do I care about the laws of a foreign totalitarian authoritarian regime who commits human rights atrocities on a daily basis? If you're referring to the U.S., it's not a totalitarian, authoritarian regime. There's just a stubborn asshole in charge that a lot of people don't like. And based on your overall tone, I'd assume you lack focus, emotional composure, and have struggled to find meaning in life (using politics as an outlet for your anger).

soulofmischief 7y ago

Sounds like you have an arbitrary heuristic for what defines a journalist, which possibly takes into account political motivation and what organization the journalist works for. That heuristic doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.