3 ms·

Not sure I understand your point, he is not being indicted for publishing false information. Assuming he never did, why would that make the charges bullshit?

• nickysielicki 6y ago
  I'm not saying his record means the charges are bullshit, but I'm saying if the charges are bullshit and his record is infallible then the implication is that we live under a government without freedom of the press, where truthful hard-hitting journalism gets you put in prison. If you don't believe that Assange has done truthful hard-hitting journalism, or you believe that he isn't a journalist at all, then you can maintain the belief that we don't put journalists in prison while sitting idle as he rots in prison, because he is not a True Journalist. "We wouldn't do that to True Journalists. Assange is different."
  • hilbertseries 6y ago
    To be fair, true journalists don’t host shows on RT.
  • vwarner1411 6y ago
    Freedom of the Press doesn't give you carte blanche to disclose state secrets without repercussions. Just because the information is hard hitting doesn't give you a pass on the crimes you committed to get it.
  • balls187 6y ago
    Freedom of the Press has limitations. Example, as a journalist you cannot just walk into a US Army base and start reporting.
    • jessaustin 6y ago
      Gee, that sounds problematic. We give them $750B/yr, they kill innocent people around the world, and they don't submit to public oversight? I wish we lived in a free society...
      • balls187 6y ago
        The Senate Committee on Armed Services is the public government "group" charged with oversight of the US Military. I don't know if that meets your definition of public oversight.
        • jessaustin 6y ago
          Congress is infamously bad at overseeing anything. For that reason, from time to time journalists have helped the public to make direct policy recommendations. Of course the bureaucratic state prefers not to accommodate that form of oversight.
• mint2 6y ago
  It’s a common talking point people use to obfuscate and defend wikileaks. As you note, it’s irrelevant but also, if true, illustrates how selectively showing true info is deceptive.
  • travmatt 6y ago
    The better question is whether he’s buried true facts in order to help public figures. There’s strong evidence he’s censored whistleblowers leaking damaging documents about Russia involvement in syria[0], along with his pretty open partnership with the Russian government. [0]https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-reporters-syria-russia-emails https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/9/9/12864328/wiki...