You should read about the Pentagon Papers scandal in 1971, which was decided by the Supreme Court. The third circuit appellate decision does not supersede that ruling. It said that once the press has classified documents, it can't be subject to prior restraint.
Well what I thought you meant was a beautiful piece of writing containing the soulful passion of some of our greatest ideals. I think that's some pretty good credit right there. I mean, you did read the rest of that post, right? Where I said that the image of a defiant 12-year-old taking a photo stirred a little bit of that idealism in me?
Next time, just name the goddamn bridge. :P
It was 18 years ago. I can't remember the name of the damn bridge.
I read the post, and liked it, but you kinda missed me point. I'm not even that bothered about idealism, I'm more bothered about pragmatism, as that is the thing that often gets shit accomplished.
Sounds to me like Visa and Mastercard are trying to protect their business interests. In other words, it's nefarious dealings on the part of the credit cards, not the US government. But I'll reserve judgment until I get to read it. I don't like visiting Wikileaks while at work. Better safe than sorry.
Today I did a podcast review of 1984, a book I just finished reading. At the time of recording, my view on this wasn't quite so firm. I mentioned the idea of "crimestop", a Newspeak word that explains the mind process that stops people doing "wrong" things, even in a world where there IS NO LAW.
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
I presumed that, even without pressure from the US government, that Visa and Mastercard were acting in the interests that they presume are for "the good of the country" on a corporate level, yes, but also on an instinctive level. These are payment methods that don't give a shit about paying for porn or gambling or guns or anything. How could they stop donations to a non-profit news organization for "illegal activity" when I could use my same credit card to buy copies of newspapers or iPad apps that support other news organizations that are holding and releasing exactly the same material?
Surely this was goodthink and crimestop!
But no. It's just good old "I scratch your back, you scratch mine!"
It said that once the press has classified documents, it can't be subject to prior restraint.
"A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case."
You should read about thePentagon Papers scandal in 1971, which was decided by the Supreme Court. The third circuit appellate decision does not supersede that ruling. It said that once the press has classified documents, it can't be subject to prior restraint.
Bam! Also, were this not the case, basically everyone in the US has been committing crimes since the whole fiasco began. Unless the government goes after the US press, this is effectively a nonissue.
Hm. Interesting. I thought there was nothing with which he could be charged.
Well, even if he somehow could be under this, he's still not a US citizen, and will likely never set foot on US soil. He's violated no laws in his home country related to Wikileaks.
Well, even if he somehow could be under this, he's still not a US citizen, and will likely never set foot on US soil. He's violated no laws in his home country related to Wikileaks.
I bet he will be extradited to the U.S. and charged (at least) with violating the Espionage act.
Also, were this not the case, basically everyone in the US has been committing crimes since the whole fiasco began.
Even with the Pentagon Papers case, the majority of people with possession of the documents would not be considered members of the Press.
Bam! Also, were this not the case, basically everyone in the US has been committing crimes since the whole fiasco began. ;^)
Exactly. Going after Assange or Wikileaks accomplishes exactly nothing by now. It would actually stand to worsen the situation. The only plausible solution right now is for the US government to batten down the hatches and weather this out, and then be more transparent and, though I'm hesitant to say it, trustworthy in the future.
I read an interesting comment on BoingBoing stating that, if WikiLeaks can be taken down (for violating its host's TOS) under government pressure, then so too should every other site with similar violations. The commenter then pointed to a few sites wherein an individual writing for the site called for Assange to be killed or accuses him of terrorism, which breaks the hosts' TOS by soliciting a crime or violating slander laws. I feel like the guy had a point.
I bet he will be extradited to the U.S. and charged (at least) with violating the Espionage act.
He'll seek asylum before that, and he will get it. There is no doubt in my mind. Hugo Chavez would love to have this man operating on Venezuelan soil. Which would even further fuck the US, since Venezuela gives us tons of oil and we can't do a goddamn thing about it when they get cocky.
I bet he will be extradited to the U.S. and charged (at least) with violating the Espionage act.
I doubt it. Is there precedent for extraditing someone to a country they've never entered from a country where they did not commit a crime in said country? I doubt he would be handed over in such an event. That would be like Saudi Arabia trying to extradite a US citizen for violating a Saudi law on US soil.
Even with the Pentagon Papers case, the majority of people with possession of the documents would not be considered members of the Press.
So what defines "the press?" Does GeekNights count?
Ha, haha, hahaha... am I the only one finding the DDoS attacks hilarious? This is what happens when you piss of the internets. If you're gonna go after someone, at least be honest about your motives, or the internets will get you.
Hi-larious. ^_^
LAWL, we are totally fucking up legitimate transactions and businesses because we have a sense of self entitlement and justice. MOB RULE FTW.
/sarcasmtothemax How many people will have to pay late fees because they couldn't pay their bills on time?
Iknowrite? Totally awesome to fuck over people who have nothing to do with this whole Wikileaks thing because of a temper tantrum. The internets are watching, and they want their free shit!
Honestly, don't these people have anything better to do?
I've asked this question a couple times, but those who are so vehemently pro-wikileaks have yet to answer. Where do we draw the line between what should be kept secret and what should not? Who has the authority to make that judgement?
But no. It's just good old "I scratch your back, you scratch mine!"
Maybe, but I'm going to reserve judgment until I read the papers. Just because you ask the US government for something doesn't mean you're going to get it.
This could just as readily be a PR move; they're distancing themselves from Wikileaks because it's controversial and unpopular for the majority of their business.
I've asked this question a couple times, but those who are so vehemently pro-wikileaks have yet to answer. Where do we draw the line between what should be kept secret and what should not? Who has the authority to make that judgement?
Sharing a secret is speech. It's just saying something. Therefore, sharing a secret should follow the exact same guidelines as free speech. If sharing the secret equates to the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" then don't share. Otherwise, go nuts.
On that same token, think about other scenarios. What if I say something that I purport to be a revealed secret, but is a lie. It has to fall under the same judgement. If that lie is the equivalent of fire in a crowded theater, it's actually worse than a truth with the same effect.
And now imagine if someone makes up something, but it turns out to coincidentally be true, and a secret. I could write a fictional story about the nuclear launch codes and I make up a code that is 890230612304192347. There is an incredibly minuscule, yet not 0%, chance that random mashing on my keyboard is the actual code. What then?
Everyone is a member of the press. "The press" as it is presented in the Constitution is not an elite or protected group; it means "dissemination of information."
I've asked this question a couple times, but those who are so vehemently pro-wikileaks have yet to answer. Where do we draw the line between what should be kept secret and what should not? Who has the authority to make that judgement?
Reporters wrestle with this problem every day. I know you, buddy, and know that you want a clear-cut, black-and-white answer, but there is none. The answer is, "I know pornography when I see it."
The press is constantly self-censoring. A couple of weeks ago, a public employee committed suicide in my coverage area. We didn't report that he "terminated due to self-inflicted cranial gunshot wounds" as the coroner's report stated. We deemed it that publishing the information, while interesting in a schaddenfreud-ish way, had no benefit to the paper or readership.
There's a rubric for deciding whether to publish information: Will it cause direct harm to a specific person? Does the information have a direct benefit to readers? Can the information lead to social/policy change? Does the information shine a light on injustice? Will it ruin relationships with indispensable sources?
The Berkeley City Council is considering calling the leaker of the information (the only person who actually committed a crime here) a hero. From the article, "Bob Meola, the peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution, tells the San Francisco Chronicle that Manning is a patriot and should get a medal."
I've asked this question a couple times, but those who are so vehemently pro-wikileaks have yet to answer. Where do we draw the line between what should be kept secret and what should not? Who has the authority to make that judgement?
I don't know. I don't believe that I can ever find fault with a person stating a true fact of which they are aware. They may exercise discretion in choosing not to state said fact, but should never be hated for not exercising said discretion.
I, for example, wouldn't let on if I knew about a deep agent who was in North Korea's military leadership, ready to shut down C&C; in the event of war. But, at the same time, if I were able to find the information, it is highly unlikely that the information was actually secret. If someone else let on (from, say, some investigative reporting), I might be saddened that the information was released before it could be used, but I simultaneously could not fault someone for seeking and uncovering truth.
If we ever live in a world where the seeking of truth is considered dangerous, or where the uncovering of truth is a crime, we live in a truly fucked up world.
Personally? I am pro-Wikileaks for only a few reasons:
1. I feel that the US government is far too opaque, and that there is no practical way to address this in the short term outside of actions like this. 2. There being little evidence of any real harm coming of the current set of leaks, they have and will be an amazing boon to historians the world over forevermore. These documents would likely never have been seen by the public ever had they not been leaked. (In the future, there should be timely expirations on classified information which does not involve active and imminent action). 3. Very little of what was released was a surprise to anyone: it was little more than confirmation of what we always suspected. 4. As was the general consensus at the Open Everything conference we attended at UNICEF some time ago (itself consisting largely of what I consider very intelligent people*)... open everything. 5. I personally find the cables interesting and amusing, as someone who enjoys exploring abandoned, hidden, and inaccessible places. 6. The US government has engaged in strikingly immoral behavior of late (torture, extraordinary rendition, etc...), and I do not trust it without some third-party accountability. Wikileaks is the closest thing to that we have.
There's a rubric for deciding whether to publish information: Will it cause direct harm to a specific person?
Hm, interesting. No consideration for larger-scale, distributed harm?
Like, if I told you that products A, B, and C were all under investigation for their potential involvement in an outbreak, you wouldn't consider the ramifications of reporting that information? Like if it's actually product C, but industries A and B suffer anyway because of your release?
I'm asking as a scientist to a journalist. I'm always very very careful about what I say to the press, just as a precautionary measure.
The Berkeley City Council is considering calling the leaker of the information (the only person who actually committed a crime here) ahero. From the article, "Bob Meola, the peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution, tells the San Francisco Chronicle that Manning is a patriot and should get a medal."
The government has enacted protections for corporate whistle-blowers. Should it not have equal protections for government whistle-blowers? Should the government be immune to whistle-blowing, and if so, would that provide a legal shelter to hide wrongdoing?
If someone else let on (from, say, some investigative reporting), I might be saddened that the information was released before it could be used, but I simultaneously could not fault someone for seeking and uncovering truth.
Really? Even if they're covert ops in a hostile and exposing them would put their lives in direct jeopardy?
But, at the same time, if I were able to find the information, it is highly unlikely that the information was actually secret.
That is an amazingly dangerous and unsupported assumption.
No, your ass does. Burn! Also, did you see my inquiry up above?
Hm, interesting. No consideration for larger-scale, distributed harm?
Like, if I told you that products A, B, and C were all under investigation for their potential involvement in an outbreak, you wouldn't consider the ramifications of reporting that information? Like if it's actually product C, but industries A and B suffer anyway because of your release?
I'm asking as a scientist to a journalist. I'm always very very careful about what I say to the press, just as a precautionary measure.
This is a very genuine question, because I very rarely talk to reporters or press agencies, and when I do it's with guidance from our Communications department. This is pure curiosity.
There's a rubric for deciding whether to publish information: Will it cause direct harm to a specific person?
Hm, interesting. No consideration for larger-scale, distributed harm?
Like, if I told you that products A, B, and C were all under investigation for their potential involvement in an outbreak, you wouldn't consider the ramifications of reporting that information? Like if it's actually product C, but industries A and B suffer anyway because of your release?
I'm asking as a scientist to a journalist. I'm always very very careful about what I say to the press, just as a precautionary measure.
If there is an investigation into whether a product is potentially harmful, then I would report that there is an investigation into whether a product is potentially harmful.
Imagine a world in which reporters only reported on trials after the verdict was read! It's the same thing. Do you think we shouldn't report that somebody's been charged with murder just because the trial hasn't happened yet?
Even when stating a truth leads to the direct and imminent death of a human being?
As I said, stating a lie can do the same thing. Any speech that leads o the direct an imminent death of a person is illegal and wrong whether it is a secret, a lie, a non-secret truth, etc.
An example would be inciting a peaceful protest into a riot by yelling something like "Everyone on 3 rush the police. THREE!"
If there is an investigation into whether a product is potentially harmful, then I would report that there is an investigation into whether a product is potentially harmful.
OK. Gotcha. That's what I figured, but it's nice to hear it directly.
The gunship attack on the Reuters journalists made for powerful viewing and heightened the worlds awareness of the atrocities being committed.
I already covered it extensively in another thread - You can find the posts here - but to boil it down to absolute basics - Tragic accident, yes. Atrocity, no. Atrocity implies intent, and I'm afraid the issue isn't nearly as simple as the cleverly edited wikileaks video "Collateral Murder" makes out, nor does anything in the video point where wikileaks says that it does, upon examination.
The Australian foreign minister agrees with me. The US government and the leakers are the ones responsible, if you want to point fingers. WikiLeaks has done no wrong.
That's funny. A Week ago, he - along with the prime minister - was calling for Assange's head upon a lance. The only odd thing to me is that He's turned around on the same day that cables were released basically showing to one and all that he was considered an international joke - That's WAY off Pattern for Rudd and Labour.
LOL I wonder what they would be saying it was Australian documents.
They're already arcing up, and the Prime Minister has declared that he's a criminal, and has previously stated that they were considering revoking his citizenship. Oh, and some of the documents do Originate from here, are about Australia and so on - the point they started crying for Assange's head was when it was revealed that some of the cables originated from here, or were regarding the Australian Government. Man, you are off your game lately.
Comments
I read the post, and liked it, but you kinda missed me point. I'm not even that bothered about idealism, I'm more bothered about pragmatism, as that is the thing that often gets shit accomplished. Today I did a podcast review of 1984, a book I just finished reading. At the time of recording, my view on this wasn't quite so firm. I mentioned the idea of "crimestop", a Newspeak word that explains the mind process that stops people doing "wrong" things, even in a world where there IS NO LAW.
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
I presumed that, even without pressure from the US government, that Visa and Mastercard were acting in the interests that they presume are for "the good of the country" on a corporate level, yes, but also on an instinctive level. These are payment methods that don't give a shit about paying for porn or gambling or guns or anything. How could they stop donations to a non-profit news organization for "illegal activity" when I could use my same credit card to buy copies of newspapers or iPad apps that support other news organizations that are holding and releasing exactly the same material?
Surely this was goodthink and crimestop!
But no. It's just good old "I scratch your back, you scratch mine!"
I read an interesting comment on BoingBoing stating that, if WikiLeaks can be taken down (for violating its host's TOS) under government pressure, then so too should every other site with similar violations. The commenter then pointed to a few sites wherein an individual writing for the site called for Assange to be killed or accuses him of terrorism, which breaks the hosts' TOS by soliciting a crime or violating slander laws. I feel like the guy had a point.He'll seek asylum before that, and he will get it. There is no doubt in my mind. Hugo Chavez would love to have this man operating on Venezuelan soil. Which would even further fuck the US, since Venezuela gives us tons of oil and we can't do a goddamn thing about it when they get cocky.
Honestly, don't these people have anything better to do?
This could just as readily be a PR move; they're distancing themselves from Wikileaks because it's controversial and unpopular for the majority of their business.
On that same token, think about other scenarios. What if I say something that I purport to be a revealed secret, but is a lie. It has to fall under the same judgement. If that lie is the equivalent of fire in a crowded theater, it's actually worse than a truth with the same effect.
And now imagine if someone makes up something, but it turns out to coincidentally be true, and a secret. I could write a fictional story about the nuclear launch codes and I make up a code that is 890230612304192347. There is an incredibly minuscule, yet not 0%, chance that random mashing on my keyboard is the actual code. What then?
The press is constantly self-censoring. A couple of weeks ago, a public employee committed suicide in my coverage area. We didn't report that he "terminated due to self-inflicted cranial gunshot wounds" as the coroner's report stated. We deemed it that publishing the information, while interesting in a schaddenfreud-ish way, had no benefit to the paper or readership.
There's a rubric for deciding whether to publish information: Will it cause direct harm to a specific person?
Does the information have a direct benefit to readers?
Can the information lead to social/policy change?
Does the information shine a light on injustice?
Will it ruin relationships with indispensable sources?
I don't know. I don't believe that I can ever find fault with a person stating a true fact of which they are aware. They may exercise discretion in choosing not to state said fact, but should never be hated for not exercising said discretion.
I, for example, wouldn't let on if I knew about a deep agent who was in North Korea's military leadership, ready to shut down C&C; in the event of war. But, at the same time, if I were able to find the information, it is highly unlikely that the information was actually secret. If someone else let on (from, say, some investigative reporting), I might be saddened that the information was released before it could be used, but I simultaneously could not fault someone for seeking and uncovering truth.
If we ever live in a world where the seeking of truth is considered dangerous, or where the uncovering of truth is a crime, we live in a truly fucked up world.
Personally? I am pro-Wikileaks for only a few reasons:
1. I feel that the US government is far too opaque, and that there is no practical way to address this in the short term outside of actions like this.
2. There being little evidence of any real harm coming of the current set of leaks, they have and will be an amazing boon to historians the world over forevermore. These documents would likely never have been seen by the public ever had they not been leaked. (In the future, there should be timely expirations on classified information which does not involve active and imminent action).
3. Very little of what was released was a surprise to anyone: it was little more than confirmation of what we always suspected.
4. As was the general consensus at the Open Everything conference we attended at UNICEF some time ago (itself consisting largely of what I consider very intelligent people*)... open everything.
5. I personally find the cables interesting and amusing, as someone who enjoys exploring abandoned, hidden, and inaccessible places.
6. The US government has engaged in strikingly immoral behavior of late (torture, extraordinary rendition, etc...), and I do not trust it without some third-party accountability. Wikileaks is the closest thing to that we have.
*excepting the batshit crazy crackpot Robert Steele.
Like, if I told you that products A, B, and C were all under investigation for their potential involvement in an outbreak, you wouldn't consider the ramifications of reporting that information? Like if it's actually product C, but industries A and B suffer anyway because of your release?
I'm asking as a scientist to a journalist. I'm always very very careful about what I say to the press, just as a precautionary measure.
Imagine a world in which reporters only reported on trials after the verdict was read! It's the same thing. Do you think we shouldn't report that somebody's been charged with murder just because the trial hasn't happened yet?
An example would be inciting a peaceful protest into a riot by yelling something like "Everyone on 3 rush the police. THREE!"
The only odd thing to me is that He's turned around on the same day that cables were released basically showing to one and all that he was considered an international joke - That's WAY off Pattern for Rudd and Labour. They're already arcing up, and the Prime Minister has declared that he's a criminal, and has previously stated that they were considering revoking his citizenship. Oh, and some of the documents do Originate from here, are about Australia and so on - the point they started crying for Assange's head was when it was revealed that some of the cables originated from here, or were regarding the Australian Government. Man, you are off your game lately.