HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Wikileaks

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 08:25 PM

 

Wikileaks

Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I noticed the Assange's lawyer is using the 1st Amendment defense.
As if Wikileaks is part of the free press and threat to them is a threat to all journalists.

Correct me if I'm but I don't recall the legitimate press dumping stolen data on to the public.

What else makes this claim that they are a legitimate journalistic publication bogus in your opinion?

14 replies, 1020 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 08:28 PM

1. Assange's idea of a free press is one that is free to print Russian propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 08:58 PM

2. Woodward and Bernstein printed leaked information.

Crucial to answering your question is: how exactly does one define what a legitimate journalistic publication is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:03 PM

3. Did they give the information to an enemy of the US in order to influence an election??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:05 PM

4. No, but the question posed remains unanswered.

There is little doubt, I think, that Assange is, like Trump himself, an agent of Putin.

But the second question as to being a legitimate news organization remains open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:12 PM

5. Not in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 11:09 PM

13. Woodward and Bernstein were informing the public, not practicing espionage.

The issue with Wikileaks is when did the former stop and the latter begin. The disclosures from Manning, informing the public. Everything since then, espionage, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:11 AM

14. Difficult to escape that conclusion.

But by your measure, FOX is not a media outlet either. And I would agree with that politically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:19 PM

6. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blogslut (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:37 PM

8. Got it thanks

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:27 PM

7. Not sure if Wikileaks is registered as a news agency here. They would probably be a "foreign agent."

.

I believe that if they are classified as a foreign agent, press freedoms would not apply.

Besides that, the US is globally ranked down in the mid-40s as to press freedoms anyway.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 09:41 PM

9. Pentagon Papers? Ellsworth walked them out of the Rand Corp?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irisblue (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 10:03 PM

10. And NYT and WaPo both published excerpts.

Their freedom to publish was tested up to the Supreme Court, and affirmed in New York Times Co. v. United States 403, US 713.

However, Assange may not be a member of the "press" on the same footing as NYT and WP. That would have to be tested in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 10:15 PM

11. The 1st is not limited to "The Press". Besides, the press (or anyone else) does not have...

the unlimited right to publish just anything it obtained through any means.

Methinks this defense is more "hail Mary" than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2018, 10:32 PM

12. He's not an American citizen

How can he use our Constitution and Bill of Rights to defend himself? His "publication" intentionally tried to harm our government. And then he flipped and became an agent of Vladimir Putin and FSB. He can't have it both ways, and he's already picked whose side he wants to be on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread