3 ms·
> 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 possib
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoWhite 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