4 ms·

> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. Seems Bradley Manning was as naive a

> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. Seems Bradley Manning was as naive as you. You are of course joking right? I'd like to draw your attention to this if you think that freedom of speech in the USA is any better than anywhere else. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/...

csense 14y ago
The Manning case is a little different than this. He systematically leaked tons of classified information that he had access to as part of his job. I'm not going to take the discussion off topic by taking a position either way on whether his actions were right or wrong. I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified, but also believe that criminalization of the burning poppy and "die and go to hell" comment discussed in the article goes too far. (Interestingly, "criminalization" isn't a word in my browser's spellcheck dictionary, but "decriminalization" is. I'm running Chromium 20.0.1132.47 (the latest in the main repos as of this writing) on Linux Mint 13.)
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified Torture is never justified.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    csense never said it was.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I never said he did.
- mseebach 14y ago
  Bradley Manning is not a case of free speech. He only ever had access to the information he leaked under a completely unambiguous agreement with the US government to maintain the secrecy of it. That, of course, does not justify torture. Even in a theoretical Jack Bauer world where it's OK to torture the bad guy to find out where the bomb is, it is clear that Manning had no such information. He should be tried in a court of law and be punished, for what he did was unambiguously criminal, but he, like anybody else, enjoys the constitutions protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

csense 14y ago

The Manning case is a little different than this. He systematically leaked tons of classified information that he had access to as part of his job. I'm not going to take the discussion off topic by taking a position either way on whether his actions were right or wrong. I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified, but also believe that criminalization of the burning poppy and "die and go to hell" comment discussed in the article goes too far. (Interestingly, "criminalization" isn't a word in my browser's spellcheck dictionary, but "decriminalization" is. I'm running Chromium 20.0.1132.47 (the latest in the main repos as of this writing) on Linux Mint 13.)

jacquesm 14y ago
> I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified Torture is never justified.
- icebraining 14y ago
  csense never said it was.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    I never said he did.
mseebach 14y ago
Bradley Manning is not a case of free speech. He only ever had access to the information he leaked under a completely unambiguous agreement with the US government to maintain the secrecy of it. That, of course, does not justify torture. Even in a theoretical Jack Bauer world where it's OK to torture the bad guy to find out where the bomb is, it is clear that Manning had no such information. He should be tried in a court of law and be punished, for what he did was unambiguously criminal, but he, like anybody else, enjoys the constitutions protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]