6 ms·

Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act.

by plutonorm 7y ago

dmurray 7y ago
It's much more tribal than that. For example, Russian authoritarians are pretty happy with him.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  "Russian authoritarians" are happy both that he exists and that Western authoritarians are torturing him to death.
scient 7y ago
What moral act? Working for Russia and helping them push their agenda - willingly or out of ignorance? You are blind if you thing Assange and Wikileaks was some kind of a knight for truth.
- forgetfulusr 7y ago
  Hmm, maybe if our 'fourth estate' actually wasn't the govs bitch, Assange's org wouldn't have looked so moral. But here we are.
  - peteretep 7y ago
    Your point and the publication of Snowden’s material by the mainstream media can’t both be true
    - forgetfulusr 7y ago
      For some reason I thought that Snowden went to a UK publisher because the US outlets were not interested. Once the Guardian agreed, were the outlets here expected to ignore it?
      - peteretep 7y ago
        Snowden went to two US journalists, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Greenwald and Poitras don't have glowing opinions of USA news media firms either.
- ben_w 7y ago
  It is possible for multiple things to all be true. I see no contradiction between the following: 1. Assange helped reveal severe wrongdoings by various governments. 2. Assange engaged in unprotected sexual activity with two women that violated the scope of their consent, because they only consented to protected sex, and also because one woman was asleep in one case. This would have also been illegal in the UK. 3. No prosecution would have been attempted if Assange has not already made political enemies. 4. Russia made hay while the sun was shining by using Assange as a conduit to publish dirt they wanted published. 5. Assange definitely and unambiguously broke UK law by fleeing to the Ecuadorean embassy. 6. The fact that the UK would not allow Assange to depart the Ecuadorian embassy was condemned by the UN as indefinite detention without trial. 7. The current condition of Assange is really suspicious and makes the UK look bad. (Which of these are actually true is for someone more qualified than I am, but they are all compatible.)
INGELRII 7y ago
It's not mutually exclusive. * Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. * Just because one is breaking the law for common good, civil servants can't and should not be expected to stop enforcing the law. If you allow that, it's the end of the rule of law based society. The whole idea of just society is that you restrict what individuals in the government can do. If you decide that civil disobedience is the way and you break the law, you should not ask to be treated differently under the law. Political pardons exist for a reason. (I'm not taking position on the legality of actions Assage took, or justification of his actions. I'm arguing general principle.)
- samatman 7y ago
  Civil disobedience is breaking a law because you believe the law itself is wrong. As invented by Thoreau, and practiced by Gandhi and MLK. Breaking a law you otherwise believe in, in the service of some broader goal, is called direct action, riot, or terrorism, depending on the severity of the law broken, and/or the sympathies of the person describing it.
  - INGELRII 7y ago
    In both cases, if you believe in society based on laws, what I said stands. Agreed?
    - samatman 7y ago
      I was speaking to your first point, namely: > Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. Which is not a complete description of civil disobedience. It is accurate, but not precise. Civil disobedience implies the actor wishes the law to be changed. They might expect not just a pardon for themselves, but a pardon for everyone who broke the unjust law. It's a distinction with a difference. We agree that its effectiveness depends on accepting the punishment, sure.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act. It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes, which were successfully attained. That it was also illegal is why it can be punished rather than merely pointed to as the kind of thing that must be tolerated despite its immorality. The argument has, however, been made that the law as it is prohibits some other acts that are not so immoral and it could not effectively address what Assange did without so doing, and so it should be narrowed (or treated as more narrow by the executive) so as to let Assange go free in order to not chill more legitimate acts. This is, IMO, a not entirely unreasonable argument that I can respect, though I am unconvinced by it as yet.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes The immoral purpose of letting the people know of the crimes that the US army has committed?

Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act.

dmurray 7y ago

It's much more tribal than that. For example, Russian authoritarians are pretty happy with him.

jessaustin 7y ago
"Russian authoritarians" are happy both that he exists and that Western authoritarians are torturing him to death.

scient 7y ago

What moral act? Working for Russia and helping them push their agenda - willingly or out of ignorance? You are blind if you thing Assange and Wikileaks was some kind of a knight for truth.

forgetfulusr 7y ago
Hmm, maybe if our 'fourth estate' actually wasn't the govs bitch, Assange's org wouldn't have looked so moral. But here we are.
- peteretep 7y ago
  Your point and the publication of Snowden’s material by the mainstream media can’t both be true
  - forgetfulusr 7y ago
    For some reason I thought that Snowden went to a UK publisher because the US outlets were not interested. Once the Guardian agreed, were the outlets here expected to ignore it?
    - peteretep 7y ago
      Snowden went to two US journalists, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Greenwald and Poitras don't have glowing opinions of USA news media firms either.
ben_w 7y ago
It is possible for multiple things to all be true. I see no contradiction between the following: 1. Assange helped reveal severe wrongdoings by various governments. 2. Assange engaged in unprotected sexual activity with two women that violated the scope of their consent, because they only consented to protected sex, and also because one woman was asleep in one case. This would have also been illegal in the UK. 3. No prosecution would have been attempted if Assange has not already made political enemies. 4. Russia made hay while the sun was shining by using Assange as a conduit to publish dirt they wanted published. 5. Assange definitely and unambiguously broke UK law by fleeing to the Ecuadorean embassy. 6. The fact that the UK would not allow Assange to depart the Ecuadorian embassy was condemned by the UN as indefinite detention without trial. 7. The current condition of Assange is really suspicious and makes the UK look bad. (Which of these are actually true is for someone more qualified than I am, but they are all compatible.)

INGELRII 7y ago

It's not mutually exclusive. * Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. * Just because one is breaking the law for common good, civil servants can't and should not be expected to stop enforcing the law. If you allow that, it's the end of the rule of law based society. The whole idea of just society is that you restrict what individuals in the government can do. If you decide that civil disobedience is the way and you break the law, you should not ask to be treated differently under the law. Political pardons exist for a reason. (I'm not taking position on the legality of actions Assage took, or justification of his actions. I'm arguing general principle.)

samatman 7y ago
Civil disobedience is breaking a law because you believe the law itself is wrong. As invented by Thoreau, and practiced by Gandhi and MLK. Breaking a law you otherwise believe in, in the service of some broader goal, is called direct action, riot, or terrorism, depending on the severity of the law broken, and/or the sympathies of the person describing it.
- INGELRII 7y ago
  In both cases, if you believe in society based on laws, what I said stands. Agreed?
  - samatman 7y ago
    I was speaking to your first point, namely: > Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. Which is not a complete description of civil disobedience. It is accurate, but not precise. Civil disobedience implies the actor wishes the law to be changed. They might expect not just a pardon for themselves, but a pardon for everyone who broke the unjust law. It's a distinction with a difference. We agree that its effectiveness depends on accepting the punishment, sure.
- jessriedel 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act. It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes, which were successfully attained. That it was also illegal is why it can be punished rather than merely pointed to as the kind of thing that must be tolerated despite its immorality. The argument has, however, been made that the law as it is prohibits some other acts that are not so immoral and it could not effectively address what Assange did without so doing, and so it should be narrowed (or treated as more narrow by the executive) so as to let Assange go free in order to not chill more legitimate acts. This is, IMO, a not entirely unreasonable argument that I can respect, though I am unconvinced by it as yet.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes The immoral purpose of letting the people know of the crimes that the US army has committed?