3 ms·

Editors/publishers exercise judgement and take responsibility for what they put out into the world. AFAICT, Assange's best argument for his innocence is that he

Editors/publishers exercise judgement and take responsibility for what they put out into the world. AFAICT, Assange's best argument for his innocence is that he bears no responsibility because... he neither took nor accepts any responsibility.

yesbut 5y ago
I'm pretty sure it is everyone's responsibility to inform the world about war crimes when that information is brought to our attention.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Everyone is responsible for everything that is unacceptable, but it doesn't really help to try to enforce that. Scoping to a reasonable level, publishers' primary job is to review and filter information for quality, safety, and fitness for mass consumption. Assange and WikiLeaks explicitly do not do that. At best, they are a distributor.
  - yesbut 5y ago
    I've never heard of any law that requires a publisher to review / filter information for public consumption. The only responsibility that a publisher at a capitalist media outlet has is to make sure their publications bring in a profit. That is their only "obligation".
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I've never heard of any law that requires a publisher to review / filter information for public consumption The law generally views the publisher as responsible for unlawful (defamatory, copyright infringing, etc.) content without evidence of specific knowledge, whereas distributors are generally liable only when they have specific knowledge of the facts that make the content unlawful. This, in effect, makes publishers responsible for reviewing/filtering content, because if they fail to do so, they will be held responsible. That's the whole source of significanxe of, e.g., the section 230 protection against hosts or other users of online services meeting certain descriptions being treated as the publisher of other-user submitted content.
      - yesbut 5y ago
        TIL: facts about the US empire's criminality are defamatory.
hulitu 5y ago
You should take a look at Kissinger. A real responsible person.

yesbut 5y ago

I'm pretty sure it is everyone's responsibility to inform the world about war crimes when that information is brought to our attention.

darkerside 5y ago
Everyone is responsible for everything that is unacceptable, but it doesn't really help to try to enforce that. Scoping to a reasonable level, publishers' primary job is to review and filter information for quality, safety, and fitness for mass consumption. Assange and WikiLeaks explicitly do not do that. At best, they are a distributor.
- yesbut 5y ago
  I've never heard of any law that requires a publisher to review / filter information for public consumption. The only responsibility that a publisher at a capitalist media outlet has is to make sure their publications bring in a profit. That is their only "obligation".
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I've never heard of any law that requires a publisher to review / filter information for public consumption The law generally views the publisher as responsible for unlawful (defamatory, copyright infringing, etc.) content without evidence of specific knowledge, whereas distributors are generally liable only when they have specific knowledge of the facts that make the content unlawful. This, in effect, makes publishers responsible for reviewing/filtering content, because if they fail to do so, they will be held responsible. That's the whole source of significanxe of, e.g., the section 230 protection against hosts or other users of online services meeting certain descriptions being treated as the publisher of other-user submitted content.
    - yesbut 5y ago
      TIL: facts about the US empire's criminality are defamatory.

hulitu 5y ago

You should take a look at Kissinger. A real responsible person.