This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Remember That Julian Assange Kerfluffle?

#41mizukage2Posted 7/13/2011 3:55:33 PM
98fm9sajf9mdnr2 posted...
mizukage2 posted...
Well, one could very easily view what they do as spying. Which tends to be frowned upon. Personally I don't care so long as they aren't releasing actual high clearance material and don't release things that could endanger lives.

1. It's not spying to publish materials provided to you by third parties.
2. Julian Assange isn't American and isn't subject to America's security clearance laws.


Which is why I said one could easily view what they are doing as spying instead of actually saying it was spying. Not many people care enough about semantics to see the difference in taking material and using material you know is stolen.

Since when has not being a citizen stopped governments from punishing people for doing things they don't like?
---
http://gerardwhyte.net/images/misc/reaganomics.jpg
#42HadriPosted 7/13/2011 4:05:31 PM
Even though the US doesn't have jurisdiction over Assange's activities, Wikileaks may still be committing crimes by distributing stolen information, especially inside the US. There's also the encouragement to betray your own country if you're an American by using Wikileaks as a platform and sending them materials you don't have a legal right to. If you do that, you'd better have a damn good reason to.
---
Fight the orbits as they drive us
#4398fm9sajf9mdnr2Posted 7/13/2011 4:07:54 PM
Journalists distribute "stolen" information all the time. It's called investigative journalism. You think corporations consent to journalists publishing articles exposing the dirt that corporations engage in?
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_employer_sanctions
#44HadriPosted 7/13/2011 4:22:52 PM
How foolish of you to apparently not read the articles you posted earlier in this topic defining investigative journalism.

Investigative journalism is accomplished through legal procedures and research. Occasionally, it involves clever but not necessarily illegal deception. Even if a journalist is presented with illegally obtained information they still need to verify it by legal means or they can't report on it.

This is all very different in principle from Bradley Manning stealing a massive amount of data and wikileaks publishing it.

Journalists are not above the law (as gratuitously demonstrated in the UK this month) and neither is Wiklieaks. Get over it.
---
Fight the orbits as they drive us
#4598fm9sajf9mdnr2Posted 7/13/2011 4:27:15 PM
There's nothing illegal about distributing information that you yourself didn't steal, otherwise the NY Times and every other news outlet that published what Wikileaks published is also guilty of distributing "stolen" information.
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_employer_sanctions
#46battouryePosted 7/13/2011 5:49:41 PM
So, by your logic, can I give the credit of "investigative journalism" to the NYT as well? Because after all it did the same thing that Wikileaks does, distribute stolen information.
---
Fools think there are good and bad guys in intl. relations.-Terran
Currently Listening To: Ondore's Lies
#47RufusNKenRSTierPosted 7/13/2011 7:43:18 PM
"There's nothing illegal about distributing information that you yourself didn't steal,"

I'll be sure to bring that up the next time I get a letter from Comcast.
---
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/59182173
#48mizukage2Posted 7/13/2011 7:46:47 PM
98fm9sajf9mdnr2 posted...
There's nothing illegal about distributing information that you yourself didn't steal, otherwise the NY Times and every other news outlet that published what Wikileaks published is also guilty of distributing "stolen" information.

There is a difference between giving out information that has hitherto been secret and printing something that has been made public anyway.
---
http://gerardwhyte.net/images/misc/reaganomics.jpg
#49HadriPosted 7/13/2011 8:29:28 PM
Mizukage sums it up well. The newspapers are also more accountable, because their source of information is Wikileaks whom they're openly working with. Wikileaks is the only party interacting with people who have committed crimes, and they solicit them to do so

by your logic, can I give the credit of "investigative journalism" to the NYT as well?

One of the good things that did come out of this is reinvigorated scrutiny of US foreign policy. At least some of their work there could be considered "investigative journalism" since it's surely not based solely on the Wikileaks dump.
---
Fight the orbits as they drive us