Perhaps based on the standard definition, accepted in US courts, namely: "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" - Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/303/444/case.htmlUS Supreme Court Center said:The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated.
I am talking about the fact that he is still under international warrant for Swedish charges, which this thread is supposed to be about, not those putative US conspiracy charges which take so long to come up with. If the US charges were "better" (whatever the meaning one attach to "good"), it seems that the US would have a warrant as well, and it seems from your original post that you would agree they should have priority over a petty Swedish construction.No idea what you are talking about then since the US is pursuing conspiracy charges (see other thread).
Does anyone here know whether it was against Swedish/EU law for the information about Assange and the case against him to be released? I don't know if it is or not, but if it is, then whoever leaked it should be prosecuted. (Just like whoever gave the documents to Wikileaks from the US should be prosecuted, as they clearly broke US law while in the US jurisdiction)
Are individuals not also required to follow the law? It sounds like you are saying that it is wrong for an agent of the government to break the law, but not wrong for a private individual to break the law.Only difference I see is that one entity is responsible for maintaining order while other is not. I expect Govt. to stay in legal limits and enlarge its legal limits if required rather than putting itself in illegal activities.
I think that claim by wikileaks went out the window when they stopped releasing information on individual wrongs and started just wholesale releases of classified information.Wiki leaks in theory is set up to combat injustice, whereas the leak pertaining to Assange's case, is itself a form of injustice.
I assume that's meant to be your answer to the question of wikileaks being a media outlet? That's not sufficient, as the article goes on to point out that there are questions as to whether it really is. So I want you to explain what you think it is about wikileaks that makes it a news outlet/Assange a journalist. I want you to show that you are actually thinking and not just reacting.I'm too slow to respond to all this while working :grumpy: [quote from wikipedia follows]
Ok....so what is your point?Assanges dirty laundry is aired everywhere when he merely represents Wikileaks. Bidens dirty laundry is not aired everywhere when he represents the Government.
That's a train wreck of thoughtlessness:There appears to be no legal standing to charge Assange on doing anything wrong to date, but there is a lot of dirty laundry, heresay, misinformation, subjective idea's, speculation and preconceived notions. Is it too much to ask for innocence until proven guilty?
I hope that the amazing world captivating case of not wearing a condom (how many people are murdered, raped etc per minute in America? How many people die of hunger, disease, malnutrition in the world?) comes to an end soon, either way.
I assume that's meant to be your answer to the question of wikileaks being a media outlet? That's not sufficient, as the article goes on to point out that there are questions as to whether it really is. So I want you to explain what you think it is about wikileaks that makes it a news outlet/Assange a journalist. I want you to show that you are actually thinking and not just reacting. Ok....so what is your point? That's a train wreck of thoughtlessness:
1. Have you not been paying attention to the news or to the other threads here? There has been a ton of discussion of that legal standing, both for the rape charge and for the [potential] espionage charge. Dismissing it with a handwave implies you've either read nothing or put no thought into the issue or both. Either way, ignorance is not an argument.
2. The courts get to decide if there is legal standing. For the rape charge, they have decided there is.
3. The last sentence doesn't follow from the first: being innocent until proven guilty still requires a charge.
4. Whether a person here personally believes he's guilty of rape is not relevant to whether he is or will be found guilty - and for the record, I believe in holding a fair trial.
5. What he did with wikileaks is public knowledge, so we all know what he is "guilty" of. Whether you can successfully attach a legal case to that (or even get him into a court room to hear it) is still an open question.
6. None of this has anything to do with your claim that it is ok for Assange to leak classified information while wrong for the government to.
That is not what he is charged with. Also, it is worth repeating that his is NOT charged with rape as it is usually understood in the US and the UK; he is charged with what I guess one could call coercion: basically forcing/making a woman do something when she did not agree to do it. It is a milder charge (in terms of possible sentence etc) than rape; it is sort of like the difference between manslaughter and murder.
I don't know what the sentence would be if he was found guilty; but my guess would be 6-12 months or so in prison ("normal" rape would -if I am not mistaken- result in a sentence of between 2 to 6 years)
Of course, if a woman could prove that at some point during sex she wanted to stop, and that the man continued despite her protests or introduced some other element that was unwanted in the USA... IT WOULD BE A CHARGE OF RAPE... at least to start with... he's probably plead to something like sexual battery
But once again, the rape charges were dismissed by the original prosecutor. The current charges are sexual coercion (or maybe a better translation would be "sexual forcing", the Swedish term is "sexuellt tvång") and sexual molestation. These are separate crimes, NOT the same as rape, according to Swedish law (which is why the maximum sentence is lower than for rape).