20 ms·

Are you claiming the judge’s decision was made on political grounds rather than on legal grounds under UK law? It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws

by Veen 6y ago

Are you claiming the judge’s decision was made on political grounds rather than on legal grounds under UK law? It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. That’s her job and it has nothing to to do with “siding with the US”. Whether they are good laws or not is a matter for the UK Parliament and people.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. It is true that the UK technically doesn't guarantee 'freedom of the press' per se, it does have laws however that protect the freedom of expression, not as strongly as the 1st Amendment but still. Further, there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted. It's clear Assange is someone who the intelligence community views as an individual who crossed them and needs to be used to deter others. Reading the judgment it is hard not to come to the conclusion she agrees with this view.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pdonis 6y ago
  > there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, since that would put the lives of those informants at risk. Wikileaks did not do that with the information obtained from Manning; they just released it all. The judge quotes the newspapers themselves condemning Wikileaks for doing that.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    Except of course she fails to note that Assange tried[1] to do that and was rejected. She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2]. In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed. 1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303
    - Veen 6y ago
      This just proves the point. Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism. They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing, but we couldn’t, so we knowingly did the wrong thing instead.
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism. There's (luckily) no exams (yet) for what makes a journalist. Someone who has a blog is no less a journalist than anyone at a national newspaper. > They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing Actually it is. That's why intention is regularly taken into account in court cases and it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact and if needed even via the Pentagon. > but we couldn’t, so we did the wrong thing instead. They did no 'wrong' thing instead. They tried to consult the U.S. Government about any needed redactions and then published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name. Not publishing that would've been wrong and was most likely the goal of the Pentagon in not cooperating. Is similar with zero days, researchers publish them if the vendor doesn't cooperate because not doing so and letting black hats exploit a known bug is way more 'wrong' than publishing the 0day widely is.

by Veen 6y ago

AsyncAwait 6y ago

> It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. It is true that the UK technically doesn't guarantee 'freedom of the press' per se, it does have laws however that protect the freedom of expression, not as strongly as the 1st Amendment but still. Further, there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted. It's clear Assange is someone who the intelligence community views as an individual who crossed them and needs to be used to deter others. Reading the judgment it is hard not to come to the conclusion she agrees with this view.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pdonis 6y ago
> there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, since that would put the lives of those informants at risk. Wikileaks did not do that with the information obtained from Manning; they just released it all. The judge quotes the newspapers themselves condemning Wikileaks for doing that.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  Except of course she fails to note that Assange tried[1] to do that and was rejected. She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2]. In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed. 1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303
  - Veen 6y ago
    This just proves the point. Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism. They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing, but we couldn’t, so we knowingly did the wrong thing instead.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism. There's (luckily) no exams (yet) for what makes a journalist. Someone who has a blog is no less a journalist than anyone at a national newspaper. > They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing Actually it is. That's why intention is regularly taken into account in court cases and it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact and if needed even via the Pentagon. > but we couldn’t, so we did the wrong thing instead. They did no 'wrong' thing instead. They tried to consult the U.S. Government about any needed redactions and then published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name. Not publishing that would've been wrong and was most likely the goal of the Pentagon in not cooperating. Is similar with zero days, researchers publish them if the vendor doesn't cooperate because not doing so and letting black hats exploit a known bug is way more 'wrong' than publishing the 0day widely is.