Press Against True Free Speach?

Depends on what ends up being held responsible by law enforcement.
In your example, I would have unknowingly purchased a hot item.
Would I be held accountable for being an accessory to theft?

In relation to the topic: Would the person handing down the hot information be held accountable, or the one who passed down information given to him by said source?

If you KNEW it was stolen you would be guilty. If you did not then I guess you ran into some bad luck. You'd lose the car and you'd lose your money.

I have a hard time believing Assange didn't know.

scratch that.
i'm going to bug you until you reply, if you wonld arte, don't reply to excel.
i'm hankering to know what your answer to what i'm going to repost will be.


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?

Gotcha. Well it comes down to risque journalism. Press has freedom and obligation to find credible information and present it forward through their medium. But rather than letting reliable information get passed through the telephone game, he put it right on the table knowingly, and (to save face for those slighted) illegally. But why should he be the only one to face consequences for others equally responsible higher up? You know someone who had access or responsibility to keep a lid on said info is sweating bullets right now, but they'll probably continue their career without even so much as a slap on the wrist thanks to Assange.

In your car theft example, the thief should be as responsible as the fence.

all major media outlets have received and released this said "stolen" property, but have not been prosecuted for this said criminal offense, what do you say to this?

or my previous post, answering my previous post would be way better.

I wasn't trying to ignore you, I didn't know you even replied to me. (I look for the quote trains lol)

It all comes down to intent man. That's what all law is about; the criminal intent.

Regardless of what Assange's goals may have been when he obtained the information he KNOWS it is classified now. Not only does he KNOW but he is willing to *** over the government and our citizens with the information. He is knowingly causing damage to the United States with actions. That is terrorism in my opinion, not only that he is trying to *** blackmail.

blackmail [ˈblækˌmeɪl]
n
1. (Law) the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information
2. the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions

Terrorism is a stretch I suppose. Hmm, I'll use some logic here to make it a prosecutable act:

Assange has information that compromises our security;
releasing this information will cause additional casualties at war;
Assange caused casualties.

Assange has information he is threatening to release;
threats against the united states constitutes intimidation;
Assange is attempting to intimidate.

Assange has political documents.

ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Yep, I think he's a terrorist.

so you went with the rant approach?
i prefer the point by point approach.
i still see no real reply to what I said, just a rant and some copy/pasting.
care to give me a little more effort than that?
i know you have it in you man.
when you set it like this it isn't a discussion it's just us both telling each other the same things.
i made my argument against what you said in a more point to point manner, can you?
and blackmail?
are you *** serious?
i guess you'll just keep on going along with what ever you think without considering it from a different angle.

Firstly, I hate you. <3

Secondly, I'll do what you ask because I am bored.

He talks about some of the points you're debating in the video I posted on page 2.

Let's assume and grant several things:
Let's say he is a criminal, and willingly/knowingly passed down classified information illegally.
I still fail to see how terror or terrorist even remotely fits into that scenario. From a govt point of view, malicious perhaps, but not fear inducing.

If you're talking about that "release more info if I'm killed or imprisoned", that's more of an ultimatum than a terrorist act.

Wait where are any of Vinvv's points? I am *** lost.

video was pretty interesting, i've paid attention to the whole wikileaks things more now but i've been aware without the negative light to what he does since before the whole US wikileaks scandal.
it becomes a big scandal and a manhunt once they start leaking stuff about america, anywhere else is okay in the US governments eyes lol

Cut and paste your points in PM; I am going to bed. I'll reply to whatever you send me if you're interested. If not then have a good holiday and I'll see you over the weekend!

ITT publishing leaked documents is un-american.

Freedom has its risks.. quit being a pussy

I agree with everything you wrote. However, when you have leaks giving out the names of informants and other information that cost the lives of people I have an issue. I don't give a *** about obama or any government leader. I care about the soldiers and other civilian contractors who will be put in harms way if certain information is leaked.

Ehh. It's a difficult issue. On one hand these people acknowledge the risk when they apply for the job. On the other adding additional risk that isn't require is a bit stupid. I noticed however, that the documents leaked this time around were far less damaging in regards to safety. However, even without names listed it hurts us. Let me give you an example:

Within one of the wikileaks it reveiled that many of the arab nations support israel and america invading Iran. Even though this revelation was not expresskly outting someone it does undermine a key piece of international relations; diplomacy. These leaks undermined our diplomacy in every single nation that ***came out about. What happens when diplomacy fails? War. Even though the damage may not be visible it has a real impact on our relationships. It's kind of like your girlfriend finding a letter calling her fat. She might not break up with you but she isn't going to forget it.

You can prove this?

I guess that depends on your definition of an average person. From what I understand Mr. Assange doesn't view himself as average by any means. But yea, what do you consider an average person?

This is what I don't like, the man is treated as some hero of free speech by some but he didn't post all the information he had. He kept the "poison pill" for his own reasons as he states to keep himself alive or out of prison. Either way he didn't release all the information.

Having an insurance policy that would permit him to keep leaking information is a bad thing? He'll leak more information about his next target than is in all of that insurance file combined.

This, now while I do believe government officials keep too many things a secret and there does need to be more transparency in some areas, I also believe there are things that don't need to be made public. The question I often ponder is how to decide what should be given out and what should be kept a secret.

I believe that some things do need to be kept secret because believe it or not we do have enemies. I know some of you may come back at me and say don't live your life in fear or call me a pussy but its the truth we have enemies and some information should not be made easily accessible to them. On the other hand I believe some government officials become lost in their own power and abuse the word top secret for their own personal agendas or issues. Others I believe get caught up in the politics of it all hoping to advance or even keep their jobs.

This world is not simply black and white. We can not make a statement and claim it to be so. I believe something does need to be done about government transparency in this country but I do not believe that full disclosure of all information is the answer.

Whats the difference between him and anyone else that withholds information then? I mean different reasons, same thing? Or is he exempt because you think he did something good and the government is evil? either way they both withhold information for their own benefit or ideals. If he was truly about transparency he would release it all.

Maybe what he did was right maybe it was wrong. Personally I don't know enough about the guy. I can tell you this though. People who spark change the revolutionaries of our past were not afraid to stand up and speak out this is true. It was also not a grand welcome they received when they did it. In the years to come we will see what kind of man Assange is by the choices that he makes and the path that he follows. Is he a revolutionary for free press and global government transparency or is he just doing this because he can or what is his reason? I'm waiting to see what happens with all of this before I find out where my decision lands.

You can respect anyone who stands up and fights what they believe in but you must also understand that not everyone believes in the same thing and there will always be opposition even among the people you may be fighting for. But to think that if you take action that there would be no consequences and that you would not be pursued would be a foolish misjudgment.

Personally as I said before I'm waiting to see how this plays out to see what kind of man Mr. Assange turns out to be. Time will reveal this or maybe it will cover it up well we will see I guess.

If he was truly about transparency he wouldn't keep an insurance policy to be able to continue his work? You can't spin someone's insurance policy against a government acting against them as the same thing that a government does with diplomatic secrets. They're not remotely similar.

So what your saying then is that there are cases that it is right and good to keep information from the public then?

I'm saying diplomatic secrets are in the interest of foreign policy. The insurance policy is in the interest of Assange's freedom/life. If the insurance policy allows Assange to leak more information than he would have been able to without, then it served its purpose. Not every "revolutionary" wants to be a martyr. Not every martyr fulfilled his wishes during the course of his lifetime.

MLK (I'll get flamed for using him as an example) died before his dreams were realized. I think if he had a choice between his legacy continuing the pursuit of his dream and being alive to pursue it personally, he would have chose life.

What if a government secret keeps someone alive? Is that one worth keeping secret? Where do we draw the line between what is right to keep tucked away and what should be given a chance to shine in the light of day? What I don't like is that there seem to be snap judgments made on both sides. Some went completely with Assange and others went completely against him. Some seem to think this is freedom of speech at its highest others think its a threat to our way of life. I'm not one that sees this world in such black and white.

As for being a martyr I'm sorry if it ever comes to that and I truly hope it doesn't. It might be as you say with MLK, I'm sure he would have loved to live and continue his cause but I would also assume that he believed in his cause and was ready to die for it as well. MLK never stopped speaking never stopped fighting for freedom for equal rights. Its very admirable. In MLK's case we know a lot more about where he is coming from, what he is fighting for. As for Mr. Assange I don't particularly know what hes fighting for, what he stands for.

Most people don't want to die, its human nature. When it comes to issues like this sometimes we have to sacrifice more than what we would like to make a difference. Like I said I hope it never comes to that but it is a sad truth about our world. To move people to change their hearts something tragic usually has to happen. Maybe in some instances it doesn't have to and this could inspire change as is. But you have to admit its not very inspiring when someone comes out and basically says I'm going to release this whether you like it or not but if you come after me I'm going to release even more. To me at least, and it won't be for others, this makes him incomparable to MLK.