Media Thread - what is the MSM ?

[Ken]

Why not both

[DMT]

Why not both

Because without the former we'd never know about the latter's crimes. Should we punish all whistle blowers who break rules to expose criminal behavior?

[The Feral Slasher]

So to what extent do y'all view Assange and WikiLeaks as part of "the media" or "the press"? Historically, the First Amendment has allowed media to shield anonymous sources, including "leakers", but WikiLeaks generally, at least to my knowledge, hasn't engaged in investigative journalism, but rather has just dumped out whatever confidential records and communications it can acquire through leaks or hacks. Is my understanding off? If it's basically correct, is that protected by the First Amendment broadly, and then what legal limits, if any, can or should protect against the release of information that is classified/confidential under other laws and regulations?

I'm not aware of any articles and so forth that they publish, they do have a twitter account. I'd much rather assume they are part of the press and put the burden on the government to argue why they aren't protected, than the other way around. If you look on wikipedia it lists their most notable leaks, and they are not insignificant. I think what they are providing is a good thing on the whole, although I probably wouldn't agree with everything Assange or wikileaks has done.

And I certainly agree with DMT. I think there is far more damage that is done by the government withholding info than by whistleblowers and reporters exposing it.

[The Feral Slasher]

I wonder how many Dems would want to arrest and imprison a hacker who got and released Donald Trump's taxes and the full Mueller report ?

[Ken]

Because without the former we'd never know about the latter's crimes. Should we punish all whistle blowers who break rules to expose criminal behavior?

You know more about this case than I do, so you may be right.

I thought Assange was accused of rape? I'm not sure he's the best posterboy for protecting whistle blowers, but again, I don't know much about the cases against him so I could just be ignorant.

[Sour Masher]

I wonder how many Dems would want to arrest and imprison a hacker who got and released Donald Trump's taxes and the full Mueller report ?

The leak that is most concerning to me is the cables. Yes, as a citizen, there was some juicy stuff in them, but there was also a lot of damaging information in there that hurt US standing and relationships with other countries. One can argue that anything untoward that the US should be embarrassed about should be out in the open, because we should be a moral beacon for all the world. Maybe. I'm still torn and unsure on that.

Personally, I'm ambivalent on my feelings about Assange for a few other reasons as well:

1. while I see the value of what he has done, and, in general, I'm sympathetic and supportive of whistle blowers, I think there is a distinction between a whistle blower and Assange. Manning can be called a whistle blower because he saw things he felt morally compelled to share, despite the personal costs. Assange was more an indiscriminate distributor. My understanding is he did not make editorial decisions about the benefits and justification for releasing documents vs the potential negative ramifications. The data dump method or releasing en masse everything he got (or more accurately, everything he got that could damage his chosen targets), including all kinds of personal communications and emails around the time of 9/11 for others to sift through and draw conclusions from just seems incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.
2. The rape charge. Is it possible that a man as hated and hounded as Assange would be targeted with a false accusation? Yes, it is. But I don't have enough information to be as sure as his supporters. And it also strikes me as odd that some of those supporting him as innocent of these crimes are also people that support accusations from women against those they don't like. We need to be consistent on taking all such accusations seriously, and on wanting those facing such charges to have to answer to whatever evidence is gathered. However, regardless of his personal crimes, I understand that is separate from whether what he did with Wikileaks was wrong or right.
3. Assange is so obviously motivated in what he does by personal politics and grudges. Anyone who saw him on Bill Maher or other interviews he has done saw that he gleefully embraced the mantra of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in targeting HRC. Many might argue that motivation should not matter, but to me it does. When the pizzagate who writes how-to rape women in a way that you can get away with outs others as being anti-women, the messenger matters. Whatever you think of the net good Assange's work has done, to me it is at least partially tainted by it seeming to be selective and targeted based on his own biases.

The issue of the legality of how he obtained his information is less concerning to me than his indiscriminate releasing/data dumping of said information, including personal information of people that were just caught up in the data he got his hands on. I know that is a debatable stance, but to me, if someone obtains evidence of horrible crimes, I think it is wrong to ignore those crimes and focus on how it isn't fair that we now know about them. The footage of the helicopter pilots gleefully murdering people is particularly disturbing. I understand that for soldiers to engage in the horrors of war it is arguably a requirement for them to be conditioned to dehumanize the enemy, but seeing it in action, and then seeing no consequences for those actions, well, that is pulling back the curtain on humanity in ways that probably need to be done. And I understand that in a lot of ways, for a lot of things, that is what Assange did. But for the reasons above, I think the unadulterated admiration he receives by some is unwarranted. He seems like a self-righteous, self-aggrandizing guy with personal grudges to me.

[DMT]

Yea don't confuse my criticism of the US government going after him as a statement of support. He seems like a total asshole. But the precedent that could be set if the government successfully prosecutes him for soliciting tips from national security sources is what could be the most damaging result.

[Judge Jude]

well, that's just it - if he just solicits tips I think he'll be okay.

the conservatives on the Court aren't always voting the 'right' way.

30 years ago, Scalia was part of a famous Opinion upholding a protester's right to burn the American flag. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion, and Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Scalia concurred.

who opposed? Chief Justice William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Byron White.

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag,” Scalia said at a November 2015 event in Philadelphia. “But I am not king.”

so he voted based on the Constitution.

[Steve 2.0]

well, that's just it - if he just solicits tips I think he'll be okay.
.

Just the tips?