WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

[Evo]

I'm not going to defend wikileaks, I'm only interested in what the court of law actually says.

Did you see my post #321?

 

[jreelawg]

Did you see my post #321?

I'm not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that they don't qualify under that description. I just watched a debate on CNN about the very subject, and it was a pretty tough debate, and in the end, I don't think there was any clear cut answer. You may be right, but I still think the law needs to be more clear and specific, in order to make the issue more objective.

I think the law is actually intended to protect anyones right to publish including me, and you. The law states it's illegal leak information, but not illegal to publish leaked information.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that they don't qualify under that description. I just watched a debate on CNN about the very subject, and it was a pretty tough debate, and in the end, I don't think there was any clear cut answer. You may be right, but I still think the law needs to be more clear and specific, in order to make the issue more objective.

I think the law is actually intended to protect anyones right to publish including me, and you. The law states it's illegal leak information, but not illegal to publish leaked information.

I'm not a lawyer either, and I think the debate in the courts may well boil down to what you're saying vs. the stance I'm taking. In the end, I just don't see any journalistic element to Wikileaks, which only leaves individual speech. You can't share the secrets of a state and expect it to sit passively... in the end it doesn't matter if this is right or wrong... Assange has clearly been marked to be made an example of, and now Wikileaks is messing with Russia? They're going to get killed or get other people killed, and thus far I haven't seen enough from them to warrant what they do to get the info and the impact it has on diplomacy.

 

[Evo]

Good point Nismar, even a journalist isn't protected if espionage, or conspiracy, or risk to national security are involved.

 

[Newai]

i am still unclear what the journalism distinction has to do with anything. they are clearly running a press, publishing information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_Statesand it is hard to argue that this is not journalism. there are even credits at the end of the video

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."[1] This includes everything from newspapers to blogs.

I thought I covered this somewhere. That quote describes what the press uses, not what the press is:

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. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.

 

[Evo]

I think this thread has run it's course. wikileaks seems like last week's news, they dog has pooped, time to roll it up and stick it in the trash.

 

[Proton Soup]

I thought I covered this somewhere. That quote describes what the press uses, not what the press is:

sure. perhaps i am not being clear. freedom of press in the United States is not freedom of journalism. it is the right to publish, both information and opinion. the bringing up of assange's journalism credentials over and over by certain members is a red herring. whether or not you think he is a journalist is besides the point. the only relevance evo's link has to the discussion is the issue of shield laws for journalists. that is, whether a journalist could be compelled to give testimony regarding their source. in mr. assange's case, that would mean attempting to get him rendered from a foreign country simply to give testimony, not for any crime that was committed. are we really going to render people who have not committed crimes?

oh, and i see i have been edited for content.

 

[Newai]

I can't speak for the others on the red herring, and in fact I don't really care about this issue. I just want to be sure, for whatever reason people are choosing to define the press, that it is correct.

 

[Evo]

sure. perhaps i am not being clear. freedom of press in the United States is not freedom of journalism. it is the right to publish, both information and opinion. the bringing up of assange's journalism credentials over and over by certain members is a red herring. whether or not you think he is a journalist is besides the point. the only relevance evo's link has to the discussion is the issue of shield laws for journalists. that is, whether a journalist could be compelled to give testimony regarding their source. in mr. assange's case, that would mean attempting to get him rendered from a foreign country simply to give testimony, not for any crime that was committed. are we really going to render people who have not committed crimes?

Since Proton Soup knows that no crime has been committed (how *does* he know these things, I wonder if the USG knows yet?)

This thread is done, Assange will be fighting extradtion while living in the lap of luxury for a long time, it seems. If anything new happens, a new thread should be started at that time.