4 ms·

I wonder if this turn of strategy could convince at least a part of the mainstream media to push the story. the "Assange is not a journalist" take was somethin

by kace91 6y ago

I wonder if this turn of strategy could convince at least a part of the mainstream media to push the story. the "Assange is not a journalist" take was something they liked. The "any journalist can be punished anyway" take should raise some alarms.

k1m 6y ago
Yes, will be interesting to see if it changes anything, but I doubt it will. As Murray suggests, it's probably becuase prosecution has seen so little media interest in the court case that they've now changed tack: > The purpose of the earlier approach was plainly to reduce media support for Assange by differentiating him from other journalists. It had become obvious such an approach ran a real risk of failure, if it could be proved that Assange is a journalist, which line was going well for the defence. So now we have “any journalist can be prosecuted for publishing classified information” as the US government line. I strongly suspect that they have decided they do not have to mitigate against media reaction, as the media is paying no attention to this hearing anyway.
specialist 6y ago
Quoting Craig Murray TFA: "The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it... Are they really so stupid as not to understand that they are next? Err, yes." NYT editorial defends the establishment. They are neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. NYT is the status quo. Exactly and precisely, nothing more and nothing less. As Murray notes, you'd think their own instinct for self preservation would motivate them to care about US Govt applying the Espionage Act towards the journalists. But that's not what the NYT does. I don't know anything about WP, so can't comment. I'm totally fine with there being a "paper of record". I just wish people who should know better understood the role NYT plays.
cskinner 6y ago
IANAL, but I expect this is part of the prosecution's strategy from the start rather than a change. My understanding is that lawyers like to use a multiple lines of attack/defense approach. So in the context of this case, they would first argue that object A is not of type B (and hence not afforded any protection that type B might confer), and next argue that even if A is of type B, that all type Bs are subject to prosecution anyway. My guess is the next step of the prosecution's argument will be, even if A is of type B and type Bs are generally afforded protection from this type of prosecution, this case is an exemption because of "national security."

by kace91 6y ago

k1m 6y ago

Yes, will be interesting to see if it changes anything, but I doubt it will. As Murray suggests, it's probably becuase prosecution has seen so little media interest in the court case that they've now changed tack: > The purpose of the earlier approach was plainly to reduce media support for Assange by differentiating him from other journalists. It had become obvious such an approach ran a real risk of failure, if it could be proved that Assange is a journalist, which line was going well for the defence. So now we have “any journalist can be prosecuted for publishing classified information” as the US government line. I strongly suspect that they have decided they do not have to mitigate against media reaction, as the media is paying no attention to this hearing anyway.

specialist 6y ago

Quoting Craig Murray TFA: "The Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the “great liberal media” of the USA are not in court to hear it and do not report it... Are they really so stupid as not to understand that they are next? Err, yes." NYT editorial defends the establishment. They are neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative. NYT is the status quo. Exactly and precisely, nothing more and nothing less. As Murray notes, you'd think their own instinct for self preservation would motivate them to care about US Govt applying the Espionage Act towards the journalists. But that's not what the NYT does. I don't know anything about WP, so can't comment. I'm totally fine with there being a "paper of record". I just wish people who should know better understood the role NYT plays.

cskinner 6y ago

IANAL, but I expect this is part of the prosecution's strategy from the start rather than a change. My understanding is that lawyers like to use a multiple lines of attack/defense approach. So in the context of this case, they would first argue that object A is not of type B (and hence not afforded any protection that type B might confer), and next argue that even if A is of type B, that all type Bs are subject to prosecution anyway. My guess is the next step of the prosecution's argument will be, even if A is of type B and type Bs are generally afforded protection from this type of prosecution, this case is an exemption because of "national security."