6 ms·

So are journalists allowed to break any law they want in the pursuit of a story, or is it limited to computer hacking? To be clear, I have no problem with the

So are journalists allowed to break any law they want in the pursuit of a story, or is it limited to computer hacking? To be clear, I have no problem with the publication part. But to frame investigative journalism as being dependent on criminal activity to survive is ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law.

h0l0cube 5y ago
> ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law. That's a little hyperbolic. I'm certain it's possible to do so within the law, but when it comes to corruption or cover-ups at a government or corporate level, there's simply no other way for a journalist to do their work without leaks. This requires some protection by the law, and once such protection is taken away, it would be nigh-on impossible to get it back. There may be some legal peculiarities about JA's case that make him different from a journalist in some way - IANAL - but I worry that even a technical distinction would be unfair, as he has uncovered much that is of public interest.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  And I 100% agree that whistleblowers need protection, as do journalists. This isn't about legal peculiarities. When Assange was offering help to crack passwords and encouraging Manning to access unauthorized material, he wasn't being a whistleblower or a journalist. He was conspiring to commit a crime. He knew that. He'd already been charged with hacking as a teenager. It was a choice he made having weighed up the risks and benefits.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    White hats gain unauthorised access and inform the admins that their systems are insecure, perhaps they should be thrown in a jail cell? The distinction you're missing here between Assange and an actual criminal (in the eyes of a fair citizen) is intent. The average citizen does not want laws that punish people working in the public interest
naasking 5y ago
If you create a gate that investigative journalism cannot cross, then all of the government's dirty secrets will be locked behind that gate. You can call it criminal all you want, but this type of journalism should not be a crime because, per the First Amendment, a free press is essential for the operation of a democracy, and this is what Assange's persecution is really about.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  You make it sound as if Assange is the first person to publish a leak and the only way to do so is by aiding and abetting a crime. Have you heard of Watergate?
  - naasking 5y ago
    Yes, this is the first time the Espionage act will truly be tested against a journalist. Ellsberg only got off because the prosecution was bungled, but they sure wanted to imprison him, just like they really want to imprison Assange.
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    > aiding and abetting a crime You are using this word as a taint, free of context. In the way people toss away drug users because after all possessing drugs is a crime. Therefore, they are a criminal. You don't ask, why is this a crime? Should we respect this law? Forget all that, obviously someone made up this great law and people who don't follow it are bad. Classification blocks real journalists from pursuing stories all the time. It works. It literally almost worked in Watergate. The fist hearings into Nixon's dirty money machine closed with little to show because of government secrecy. The government classifies millions of documents per year. It's not just state secrets. It's anything that could be embarrassing, anything that might undermine a government position, etc.
    - cookie_monsta 5y ago
      So give it some context. What other crimes should journalists be allowed to commit that "normal" people would be tried for?

h0l0cube 5y ago

> ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law. That's a little hyperbolic. I'm certain it's possible to do so within the law, but when it comes to corruption or cover-ups at a government or corporate level, there's simply no other way for a journalist to do their work without leaks. This requires some protection by the law, and once such protection is taken away, it would be nigh-on impossible to get it back. There may be some legal peculiarities about JA's case that make him different from a journalist in some way - IANAL - but I worry that even a technical distinction would be unfair, as he has uncovered much that is of public interest.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
And I 100% agree that whistleblowers need protection, as do journalists. This isn't about legal peculiarities. When Assange was offering help to crack passwords and encouraging Manning to access unauthorized material, he wasn't being a whistleblower or a journalist. He was conspiring to commit a crime. He knew that. He'd already been charged with hacking as a teenager. It was a choice he made having weighed up the risks and benefits.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  White hats gain unauthorised access and inform the admins that their systems are insecure, perhaps they should be thrown in a jail cell? The distinction you're missing here between Assange and an actual criminal (in the eyes of a fair citizen) is intent. The average citizen does not want laws that punish people working in the public interest

naasking 5y ago

If you create a gate that investigative journalism cannot cross, then all of the government's dirty secrets will be locked behind that gate. You can call it criminal all you want, but this type of journalism should not be a crime because, per the First Amendment, a free press is essential for the operation of a democracy, and this is what Assange's persecution is really about.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
You make it sound as if Assange is the first person to publish a leak and the only way to do so is by aiding and abetting a crime. Have you heard of Watergate?
- naasking 5y ago
  Yes, this is the first time the Espionage act will truly be tested against a journalist. Ellsberg only got off because the prosecution was bungled, but they sure wanted to imprison him, just like they really want to imprison Assange.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  > aiding and abetting a crime You are using this word as a taint, free of context. In the way people toss away drug users because after all possessing drugs is a crime. Therefore, they are a criminal. You don't ask, why is this a crime? Should we respect this law? Forget all that, obviously someone made up this great law and people who don't follow it are bad. Classification blocks real journalists from pursuing stories all the time. It works. It literally almost worked in Watergate. The fist hearings into Nixon's dirty money machine closed with little to show because of government secrecy. The government classifies millions of documents per year. It's not just state secrets. It's anything that could be embarrassing, anything that might undermine a government position, etc.
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    So give it some context. What other crimes should journalists be allowed to commit that "normal" people would be tried for?