Press Against True Free Speach?

i honestly think you are just building him up to be more than what he actually is.

Aye. Too bad he's a pedophile.

I wouldn't say that much...lol
Assange is just a man, he would tell you the same.
wikileaks is a cooperative effort.
the same as when a president is blamed for so many things in the country.
it's a group effort!

edit: reposted this cuz it got paged and i felt it was a decent point to illustrate.

What do you think your average person with access to said information would have done?

accused pedophile*
accusations make the world go round!

what do you think that "your average person" is?
i'd imagine he was in the right time and place, nothing more nothing less.
identifying him as some super-figure is just childish :/
it's the same as sensationalizing him as a terrorist.
or calling him a racist without proper recourse of a trial and so on so forth.
calling our judgments without knowing the facts(mind you the facts touted by the media might not be what the facts really are in entirety :P) is not a great thing to do(this last part was in regards to the rapist stuff)

Ah yes, I just say his name since he's in the limelight. But I guess what I'm saying is there are too few people with the courage to get information where it belongs rather than have it mucked up by corporate owned media.

I guess they wouldn't be so average if they had access to first hand information. Since everything we get is like a really bad, biased, covered up mess of a telephone game.

who says he(and wikileaks) didn't have to wade through that to get where he is today:P

i'm going to reserve my judgement on the impact of what they have done for when more information is released though.

Well ***.
Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop; the world may never know :<

i think they figured that one out.

i think by nature(maybe it's due to social constructs or just our general psychology. psychology makes more sense. we keep what is good or what is bad and make an assumption of how a person is based on what we remember and that pretty much creates our own mental image of the person, the less we know about the person the easier it'd be to idolize i'd imagine) we have the tendency to idolize(demonize as well) those who are in the limelight...not always the best thing to do.

There's still the question of whether or not this stuff ought to be publice. I would bet that some yes, some no. So that leads to the question does the reward of having the good known outweigh the cost of having what ought to be secret be exposed?

Ideally, that's one of the reasons why we select people to decide these kinds of things.

Weird that 90+% of elected officials, I wouldn't trust to water my houseplants.

I don't trust my moogle to take care of my plants ;/

even if all the names got redacted to the nth degree?
weirdly enough only reason i know it is that i was stoned and flipped it on cspan one day and actually sat and watched the roundtable of conjecture overwhelmed with opinion.

what do you suppose we should do if they aren't doing their jobs correctly?
leak information perhaps?
we already know they aren't doing their job correctly since the leak happened in the first place among other things.
that's how it happened in the first place though.
security of information was lax as hell enough for an army major to leak these documents in the first place.
i agree with you to an extent about the elected officials though.
but i'd imagine they wouldn't really cause harm to a houseplant though :D

I don't see how it's even a debate on this guy's character. The information was classified and it was obtained illegally. How is that journalism? That is criminal conduct. As far as I know the REAL media opperates within the constraint of the law. Regardless of who he got the info from it was not theirs to give out. I think people are heralding a scum bag as a hero.

criminal conduct?
what exactly did wikileaks do that is "criminal"?
mind you this is an organization that is not based in america.
wikileaks has released the LEAST amount of information in comparison to any other large media group.
they were released this information and RELEASED it.
why are we not prosecuting them?
because they piggiebacked the release with the government even after being advised to not do so?
one news outlet was definetly going to release it, so the other two had to man up and release it as well to keep up essentially.

so it seems kind of silly to tout this organization as something criminal when they provided the documents for conventional news to handle(and they redacted and held back a lot of information, but not as much as wikileaks)

or at least that's what the people who did the reporting for each of the organizations were saying on cspan :/

but don't feel bad, they have assange placed as a patsy christ just so they could get an excuse to release the information unencumbered in the case of his demise or imprisonment.

Real media isn't even registered as a business purpose of news. Many change their modus operandi to "entrainment" as to ditch the red tape and investigations/repercussions of essentially feeding ***.

Well being full of ***is LEGAL. I hope it is at least.. or I am ***. Gleen Beck doesn't actually steal federal documents when he lies about ***.


The person who gave assange the documents broke the law. Assange possess property of the federal government of the united states illegally. The guy who gave assange the documents SHOULD be charge with treason, but he won't be. Assange himself is an enemy of the United States. He should be in G-bay with other terrorists. There is no logical, or friendly interpretation of what he did. He ATTACKED the US government through espionage.

This "attack" is only considered one because of the stupidity of those exploited need some form to save face after *** up and getting fragile information in the open.

In most cases, someone up above would have been asked to retire.
But instead they have a lovely scapegoat, especially thanks to several attorneys that convinced several ladies to press rape charges at such a convenient time.

the guy who gave assange the documents is in prison.
assange himself is as figurehead of an organization.
i'm pretty sure he is there because most people want a figurehead they can root for or hate.
how exactly is he a terrorist when the other media organizations did the same as him?
can you make a logical argument to this or are you going to ignore it and go on another rant?

in case you didn't read my previous post(doing this since you ignored it in your reply):

say something to that rather than more ranting and maybe we can have a discussion again?

On a side note: I don't see the need or purpose of rate downs here.
If you disagree, feel free to open up and discuss your point of view on why you agree/disagree. Cowardice is counter-productive and unintellectual.

I don't care how he got them. He has them illegally, and not for positive reasons. The guy is an enemy of the US. I also don't see how you can defend him. Do you hate your country? I mean regardless of who *** up it compromises the lives of innocent men and women.

i don't see the purpose of making a post about rating down, but i do see a purpose of questioning your purpose to make this post^
amusement.

i'll be waiting on a response excel, if i dont' reply that's probably due to me doing something else and continuing to enjoy my night :D
you have fun too if we don't chat more!

The thing is, he obtained information in the same manner regular media outlets do. The only difference is this one happened to be factual and quite sensitive instead of mucked up by "elected officials" to give out their interpretation on information.
Second-third-fourth-fifth etc. hand information doesn't really do anyone good, especially if it comes from sources we already know are lying or just unreliable in general.

A minor pet peeve of mine. We're in open debate; if one takes the effort to down-rate (which I would assume is a disagreement to said post), then at least live up to your claim by explaining why in an intellectual and productive manner.

why interrupt the discussion with something irrelevant to the conversation at hand if you are so immersed in it?

if it bothers ya, rate it up and go on :D

you are just letting them get to you by bitching about it in the first place :/

Hence, side note.
After all, we're waiting on Exc's reply.

Well then by logic if your friend steals a car and you buy it from him you aren't driving a stolen vehicle. Did Assange NOT KNOW it was real information?