3 ms·

>these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Why is it that you think Wikileak

>these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Why is it that you think Wikileaks is 'obviously a journalistic work'? I really do struggle with this idea, and I would prefer what follows to be considered in the spirit of engagement on this question, rather than a defense of the prosecution or a general opposition to Assange. What prior examples of journalism are characterized by undifferentiated, unedited, mass dissemination of third-party documents? I accept that many focal cases of journalism have revolved around disclosure of government secrets that have revealed malfeasance, and that many journalists have needed to work with government sources to get access to privileged information in order to write those stories. But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature. If the theory is that this is a new kind of journalism, I think that theory calls for discussion on its own merits. I am initially very unconvinced that 'X is secret therefore X is newsworthy and leaking documents on X is journalism' is sustainable.

nobody9999 6y ago
>But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature. The blog post, and the facts, seem to give the lie to your argument. IIUC (and this was, presumably, the point of much of the testimony related in the blog post) Wikileaks kept the government documents encrypted and provided redacted versions to news organizations for publication and analysis. That the journalist from The Guardian (his name escapes me at the moment) and not Assange/Wikileaks published a book which provided the decryption key for the unredacted documents, points to Assange/Wikileaks attempting to control the release of information through a number of journalists, without just dumping it all out onto the 'net. In fact, the testimony relayed in the blog post states that explicitly. As such, I'd argue that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to act as an archive for journalists to use in presenting the leaked documents. If that's actually the case, it's difficult to accept the argument that Wikileaks just dumped everything out there willy-nilly.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  Wikileaks is acting as source to journalists in the case you described above; not acting in a journalistic capacity itself. I would also ask you please to look at the broader pattern of behavior. You have the Iraq War leaks, the Afghan War leaks, the Syria leaks, the DNC leaks, the Vault 7 leaks etc. These were all largely indiscriminate releases. The whole debacle around Cablegate (David Leigh is the name of the journalist I think you're looking for) makes it hard to know what the plans for the State Dept cables was originally intended to be; as I understand it, the whole archive is now hosted by Wikileaks for public consumption. For the cases where documents were withheld, Wikileaks generally makes it clear because these were demanded by their sources, rather decided upon by Wikileaks.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    A reasonable assessment. Thank you. I'd only add that my point was absolutely not that Wikileaks/Assange have always been responsible in their public releases of information. Rather it was that the testimony given (at least as reported by the blog post) gives at least the appearance that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to responsibly (for some values of the term) push these disclosures through journalistic outlets, who, at least at first attempted to provide context around the released, redacted documents. Once there were multiple torrents and hosts for the un-encrypted, unredacted data, there was little point (and little publicity/exposure) in Wikileaks maintaining their encrypted archive. As for other releases that Wikileaks has done both before and since, those aren't really relevant to the current extradition hearing. IMHO, what you or I may think about the broader picture is relevant in a larger discussion, but not one about the current legal proceeding.

nobody9999 6y ago

>But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature. The blog post, and the facts, seem to give the lie to your argument. IIUC (and this was, presumably, the point of much of the testimony related in the blog post) Wikileaks kept the government documents encrypted and provided redacted versions to news organizations for publication and analysis. That the journalist from The Guardian (his name escapes me at the moment) and not Assange/Wikileaks published a book which provided the decryption key for the unredacted documents, points to Assange/Wikileaks attempting to control the release of information through a number of journalists, without just dumping it all out onto the 'net. In fact, the testimony relayed in the blog post states that explicitly. As such, I'd argue that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to act as an archive for journalists to use in presenting the leaked documents. If that's actually the case, it's difficult to accept the argument that Wikileaks just dumped everything out there willy-nilly.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
Wikileaks is acting as source to journalists in the case you described above; not acting in a journalistic capacity itself. I would also ask you please to look at the broader pattern of behavior. You have the Iraq War leaks, the Afghan War leaks, the Syria leaks, the DNC leaks, the Vault 7 leaks etc. These were all largely indiscriminate releases. The whole debacle around Cablegate (David Leigh is the name of the journalist I think you're looking for) makes it hard to know what the plans for the State Dept cables was originally intended to be; as I understand it, the whole archive is now hosted by Wikileaks for public consumption. For the cases where documents were withheld, Wikileaks generally makes it clear because these were demanded by their sources, rather decided upon by Wikileaks.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  A reasonable assessment. Thank you. I'd only add that my point was absolutely not that Wikileaks/Assange have always been responsible in their public releases of information. Rather it was that the testimony given (at least as reported by the blog post) gives at least the appearance that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to responsibly (for some values of the term) push these disclosures through journalistic outlets, who, at least at first attempted to provide context around the released, redacted documents. Once there were multiple torrents and hosts for the un-encrypted, unredacted data, there was little point (and little publicity/exposure) in Wikileaks maintaining their encrypted archive. As for other releases that Wikileaks has done both before and since, those aren't really relevant to the current extradition hearing. IMHO, what you or I may think about the broader picture is relevant in a larger discussion, but not one about the current legal proceeding.