4 ms·

In what country on earth is divulging classified information (ala Snowden) protected under "freedom of speech?" Criticizing a war is not even remotely in the s

In what country on earth is divulging classified information (ala Snowden) protected under "freedom of speech?" Criticizing a war is not even remotely in the same league as divulging classified information.

vetinari 3y ago
It is not for criticizing; the first sentence of TFA says "accusing Russian soldiers of committing crimes in Ukraine." So, libel. Libel isn't free speech either.
- dralley 3y ago
  > It is not for criticizing; the first sentence of TFA says "accusing Russian soldiers of committing crimes in Ukraine." So, libel. He shared a video of Russian troops committing crimes, in Ukraine. Which they are - both in that video and thousands of others besides. Truthful statements are not libel.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    > Truthful statements are not libel. But they might impact national security.
    - dralley 3y ago
      In approximately the same sense that reporting about Abu Ghraib could be considered to impact American "national security", or sharing videos of abuses by Israeli soldiers in Gaza could be considered to impact Israeli "national security".
    - 221qqwe 3y ago
      Well, the Nazis were using the same arguments when they were publicly hanging children and other people for what they said...
  - donottell 3y ago
    And then there are thousands of ucranian war crimes which you have no trouble to ignore. Or your own war crimes in Iraq and other countries, exposed by Assange, who, unlike Gluhovskii, trusted his part of the world legal system to protect him..
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  What most countries consider libel is free speech in the US, which is why the US standards for libel, especially against public figures, is higher than most other countries. Specifically, the First Amendment protection of free speech (and the identical rules incorporated against the states by the 14th Amedment) are why, among other impacts: (1) In the US, falsity is an element of libel, rather than truth being a defense (or, in some foreign jurisdictions, not even necessarily being defense always.) (2) In the US, libel against public figures (either in general, or limited purpose public figures within the scope in which they are public figures), requires the plaintiff to prove actual malice on top of the elements of libel that apply in other cases.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  Grandparent poster says "US is no better than Russia" (with regards to freedom of speech) which is patently false. We can prove it false right now. The US committed multiple crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. There, I said it. If grandparent poster is correct, then I guess I'll be arrested here in America for committing the same crime. We'll see.
  - donottell 3y ago
    But the correct comparison is with Julian Assange of course, not you..
zlg_codes 3y ago
Snowden exposed the twofacedness of America's leadership, in a way that can't be easily swept under the rug. He's a whistleblower and people appear to care more about his revelation of information than the information itself, which is damning. Maybe if America ran a proper ship, things wouldn't get released.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mjan22640 3y ago
It sounds like if the war crimes Glukhovsky criticized were classified, you would approve of his sentencing.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  No. Bad inference.

vetinari 3y ago

It is not for criticizing; the first sentence of TFA says "accusing Russian soldiers of committing crimes in Ukraine." So, libel. Libel isn't free speech either.

dralley 3y ago
> It is not for criticizing; the first sentence of TFA says "accusing Russian soldiers of committing crimes in Ukraine." So, libel. He shared a video of Russian troops committing crimes, in Ukraine. Which they are - both in that video and thousands of others besides. Truthful statements are not libel.
- pphysch 3y ago
  > Truthful statements are not libel. But they might impact national security.
  - dralley 3y ago
    In approximately the same sense that reporting about Abu Ghraib could be considered to impact American "national security", or sharing videos of abuses by Israeli soldiers in Gaza could be considered to impact Israeli "national security".
  - 221qqwe 3y ago
    Well, the Nazis were using the same arguments when they were publicly hanging children and other people for what they said...
- donottell 3y ago
  And then there are thousands of ucranian war crimes which you have no trouble to ignore. Or your own war crimes in Iraq and other countries, exposed by Assange, who, unlike Gluhovskii, trusted his part of the world legal system to protect him..
dragonwriter 3y ago
What most countries consider libel is free speech in the US, which is why the US standards for libel, especially against public figures, is higher than most other countries. Specifically, the First Amendment protection of free speech (and the identical rules incorporated against the states by the 14th Amedment) are why, among other impacts: (1) In the US, falsity is an element of libel, rather than truth being a defense (or, in some foreign jurisdictions, not even necessarily being defense always.) (2) In the US, libel against public figures (either in general, or limited purpose public figures within the scope in which they are public figures), requires the plaintiff to prove actual malice on top of the elements of libel that apply in other cases.
JohnBooty 3y ago
Grandparent poster says "US is no better than Russia" (with regards to freedom of speech) which is patently false. We can prove it false right now. The US committed multiple crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. There, I said it. If grandparent poster is correct, then I guess I'll be arrested here in America for committing the same crime. We'll see.
- donottell 3y ago
  But the correct comparison is with Julian Assange of course, not you..

zlg_codes 3y ago

Snowden exposed the twofacedness of America's leadership, in a way that can't be easily swept under the rug. He's a whistleblower and people appear to care more about his revelation of information than the information itself, which is damning. Maybe if America ran a proper ship, things wouldn't get released.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mjan22640 3y ago

It sounds like if the war crimes Glukhovsky criticized were classified, you would approve of his sentencing.

JohnBooty 3y ago
No. Bad inference.