4 ms·

One interesting snippet, which gets to the one of the key areas around this case for me (I know there are more issues here than just this one): > Mark Summers

One interesting snippet, which gets to the one of the key areas around this case for me (I know there are more issues here than just this one): > Mark Summers then re-examined Professor Feldstein. He said that Lewis had suggested that Assange was complicit in Manning obtaining classified information but the New York Times was not. Is it your understanding that to seek to help an official leaker is a crime > Professor Feldstein replied “No, absolutely not”. > “Do journalists ask for classified information?” > “Yes.” > “Do journalists solicit such information?” > “Yes.” > “Are you aware of any kind of previous prosecution for this kind of activity.” > “No. Absolutely not.” > “Could you predict it would be criminalised?” > “No, and it is very dangerous.” There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the chilling effect around the prosecution of journalists gaining access to classified information is a worry for me. I realise that the US Government might claim that Assange isn't a journalist. They're certainly claiming that he crossed the line from journalism into hacking, but that line seems to be blurrier and more arbitrary than it used to be (at least from where I sit in the cheap seats).

young_unixer 6y ago
I don't think regular citizens should have less rights than journalists in the first place, but maybe I'm just nutty.
- tomalpha 6y ago
  So I will respectfully disagree with you there. In general I agree with you about most (almost all?) rights - they should be available to all citizens equally. However if you agree that: - The state should be allowed to keep secrets - The state can't always be trusted to choose what should be secret or not - There is a need to hold the state to account, but somehow not make all secrets public by doing so Then there needs to be some subset of citizenry who can gain access to those secrets without the blessing of the state. In history this has been likely to occur when a person with access to the secrets feels strongly enough about something that they feel the secret should be made public. For good reasons or bad reasons (which not everyone will agree with either way). A good journalist can fulfil that role IMHO. I realise that "good" there is another assumption...
  - diffeomorphism 6y ago
    Why does it need to be a subset? Then you run the risk that whoever uncovers wrongdoing is labeled "not a journalist". Same reason freedom of speech applies to everybody and not just registered "free speakers".
    - tomalpha 6y ago
      If everyone knows, or can easily know, then you can't keep secrets. You might argue that we shouldn't have secrets at all and everything should be public. I think that's a worthy goal, but doesn't work in practice. If another state is competitive with you (and all states are competitive with each other to some extent), then I think you need the ability to keep some information confidential somehow.
      - eternalban 6y ago
        That argument immediately slides down its own slippery slope to total control over information by government and corporations and their colleagues in the "news business". Responsible disclosure of "secrets" in service of public interest is, to me, one of the defining characteristic of a free and thoughtful society. [p.s.] It should be noted that your position is effectively arguing that 'Journalism is a component of state-craft and as such can only be practiced by official members of the governing class'.
        tomalpha 6y ago
        I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets. Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons). If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them. Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Should employees of a corporation have more rights than a citizen? A very good question. Are these "journalist" actually maintaining a sacred trust of "digging out the truth and publishing it"? Cursory review of American Journalism in the past few decades indicates otherwise to this consumer of their product. If American Journalism actually worked, if American journals were actually committed to "digging out the truth and publishing it", there would no "conspiracy theories" whatsoever, starting with theories around the assissination of a sitting American president. This phoneomena -- the public maintaing an ad-hoc narrative of events after rejecting offical narratives -- are known side-effects of living under "managed public discourse" political regimes. Free societies do not indoctrinate their populace. Press is the tool of the powerful in every corner of this planet. And no, it is not "nutty" to think "all should be equal before the law".

young_unixer 6y ago

I don't think regular citizens should have less rights than journalists in the first place, but maybe I'm just nutty.

tomalpha 6y ago
So I will respectfully disagree with you there. In general I agree with you about most (almost all?) rights - they should be available to all citizens equally. However if you agree that: - The state should be allowed to keep secrets - The state can't always be trusted to choose what should be secret or not - There is a need to hold the state to account, but somehow not make all secrets public by doing so Then there needs to be some subset of citizenry who can gain access to those secrets without the blessing of the state. In history this has been likely to occur when a person with access to the secrets feels strongly enough about something that they feel the secret should be made public. For good reasons or bad reasons (which not everyone will agree with either way). A good journalist can fulfil that role IMHO. I realise that "good" there is another assumption...
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  Why does it need to be a subset? Then you run the risk that whoever uncovers wrongdoing is labeled "not a journalist". Same reason freedom of speech applies to everybody and not just registered "free speakers".
  - tomalpha 6y ago
    If everyone knows, or can easily know, then you can't keep secrets. You might argue that we shouldn't have secrets at all and everything should be public. I think that's a worthy goal, but doesn't work in practice. If another state is competitive with you (and all states are competitive with each other to some extent), then I think you need the ability to keep some information confidential somehow.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      That argument immediately slides down its own slippery slope to total control over information by government and corporations and their colleagues in the "news business". Responsible disclosure of "secrets" in service of public interest is, to me, one of the defining characteristic of a free and thoughtful society. [p.s.] It should be noted that your position is effectively arguing that 'Journalism is a component of state-craft and as such can only be practiced by official members of the governing class'.
      - tomalpha 6y ago
        I get the principle of the point you’re making but I don’t see how it can work if (and maybe this is the key bit) a state is allowed to have secrets. Perhaps I’m blinkered, but I can’t see how a modern state can function without them in some form. To offer an extreme example, nuclear launch codes must remain secret. (Separate argument obvs about the merits for and against nuclear weapons). If the state is going to have some secrets, I don’t see how they can work in practice if everyone is allowed to know them. Separately I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument as an absolute given. It’s a clear risk yes, but I see good journalism as one of the safeguards against all forms of government malpractice, corruption or straight incompetence.
eternalban 6y ago
Should employees of a corporation have more rights than a citizen? A very good question. Are these "journalist" actually maintaining a sacred trust of "digging out the truth and publishing it"? Cursory review of American Journalism in the past few decades indicates otherwise to this consumer of their product. If American Journalism actually worked, if American journals were actually committed to "digging out the truth and publishing it", there would no "conspiracy theories" whatsoever, starting with theories around the assissination of a sitting American president. This phoneomena -- the public maintaing an ad-hoc narrative of events after rejecting offical narratives -- are known side-effects of living under "managed public discourse" political regimes. Free societies do not indoctrinate their populace. Press is the tool of the powerful in every corner of this planet. And no, it is not "nutty" to think "all should be equal before the law".