3 ms·

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

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
    > They can do whatever they want. But they need to be aware of and accept the consequences of doing so. Okay, and are you willing to stand behind journalists who accept these consequences in order to make the world a better place while you sit on your thumbs playing the blame game? Are you willing to fight for their freedoms, or just reap the benefits of their actions while throwing them under the bus and saying, "Well, they should have known better before attacking an authoritarian state"? > Not really. There's a lot of tantrum throwing, though. Tantrum throwing != fighting for journalism rights. The general decline of journalism quality is part of this attack on journalism, btw. Surely you would agree that journalistic integrity in the last two centuries has suffered greatly. > The world's largest military. This doesn't grant them any ethical passes, it just allows them to enforce their totalitarian practices and silence dissenters. Using this as an excuse literally makes you an authoritarian, and means you accept human rights violations such as Collateral Murder, one of the main leaked elements which Assange is now under threat of extradition for. Do you stand by the soldiers' actions in Collateral Murder? Do you think these actions should have stayed secret? > What if I don't recognize the authority of local law enforcement? Can I start doing as I please? You can certainly try. And if I feel you have been unjustly persecuted for actions which should not be illegal, I will be there protesting for your freedom. Remember, the government is a public service meant to keep us safe and protect our rights, not our daddies and mommies whose job is to teach us right and wrong. It's the public's job to teach the government what is right and wrong, through public education, voting and protesting. Law and ethics are entirely orthogonal, the only people who try to purport they are the same seek to benefit from this lie. > 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. Trump has nothing to do with this. Let's focus please and stay away from identity politics. The United States is an Inverted Totalitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism > 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). Wow. You really like to presume things. So because I am politically engaged, I lack focus and emotional composure? Lol what? I don't know my meaning in life? What shit are you smoking? My meaning in life is to fight for individual freedoms and spend my time helping others, which I am literally doing right now. Methinks you doth project too much.

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
  > They can do whatever they want. But they need to be aware of and accept the consequences of doing so. Okay, and are you willing to stand behind journalists who accept these consequences in order to make the world a better place while you sit on your thumbs playing the blame game? Are you willing to fight for their freedoms, or just reap the benefits of their actions while throwing them under the bus and saying, "Well, they should have known better before attacking an authoritarian state"? > Not really. There's a lot of tantrum throwing, though. Tantrum throwing != fighting for journalism rights. The general decline of journalism quality is part of this attack on journalism, btw. Surely you would agree that journalistic integrity in the last two centuries has suffered greatly. > The world's largest military. This doesn't grant them any ethical passes, it just allows them to enforce their totalitarian practices and silence dissenters. Using this as an excuse literally makes you an authoritarian, and means you accept human rights violations such as Collateral Murder, one of the main leaked elements which Assange is now under threat of extradition for. Do you stand by the soldiers' actions in Collateral Murder? Do you think these actions should have stayed secret? > What if I don't recognize the authority of local law enforcement? Can I start doing as I please? You can certainly try. And if I feel you have been unjustly persecuted for actions which should not be illegal, I will be there protesting for your freedom. Remember, the government is a public service meant to keep us safe and protect our rights, not our daddies and mommies whose job is to teach us right and wrong. It's the public's job to teach the government what is right and wrong, through public education, voting and protesting. Law and ethics are entirely orthogonal, the only people who try to purport they are the same seek to benefit from this lie. > 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. Trump has nothing to do with this. Let's focus please and stay away from identity politics. The United States is an Inverted Totalitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism > 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). Wow. You really like to presume things. So because I am politically engaged, I lack focus and emotional composure? Lol what? I don't know my meaning in life? What shit are you smoking? My meaning in life is to fight for individual freedoms and spend my time helping others, which I am literally doing right now. Methinks you doth project too much.