Press Against True Free Speach?

You have to think of this as piracry,
You Copy CD it not agaist the law u can give it freely to someone and ur still within ur rights, but as soon as you sell it for money or trade it for something else you've broken the law, this is the same here the information was given freely there for he's in his rights to use the information, Now if the information was purchased, then he'd have a problem,
In short:
The information was a "copy" not Stolen, now the person who copied the information is guilty for conspiracy & w/e else but person the information was given as long as he didn't pay for it has not commited a crime!

So my next question then is who decides what information should be know and what information should be hidden and who has the rights to give that information out?

Also, would it have mattered who gave the information or would any source or outlet would have been ok? So, basically is there anyone that you wouldn't have accepted the information from or praised them if it is who you got it from or would any outlet be acceptable because it is the transfer of free information.

I think the line is when you voluntarily put yourself in a position to be harmed. If you're in Iraq for any reason, and you're not an Iraqi, you're a target. You chose to go there. You may not have chose for someone to tell the world you are there and are cooperating with or are part of America's coalition, but it was a risk that should have been factored in your decision to go to a country that does not want us there.

Assange has not opted to put himself in harm's way and this is some insurance to help protect himself. I don't see the line of government power to be able to silence someone like Assange as being when he does something non-violent and for the purpose of enlightenment of the people who the government is supposed to serve.

I do have to note that they supposedly asked for monetary compensation for information provided from one of the major news outlets.
I can't remember which one, but "supposedly" they did when they were first releasing the information to the general press prior to their release.

This is in regards to those that believe that the government should strictly divulge this information at this point.(this isn't worded out that well but I'm having trouble thinking of something to put here to transition into this post)
Since there have been many largely more important(in regards to the content) whistleblowers in the past as of yet...I just wonder this....
Are you confident in how the government manages our great country?
If not?
Why are you confident in their ability to do their job correctly?
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.

It just makes me wonder...
We start out as a group of rebellious whistleblowers so to speak, speaking out against what they saw as injustice.
Now years later on the flipside we are against anyone that tries to do the same thing?(regardless of the intentions or repercussions of what happened. people died when our country was founded a well I must note)
I honestly just can't understand it.

I don't know if what Wikileaks is doing will be good for the world :/
But I do know that outing him as a terrorist right away instantly isn't very American in my opinion.(there goes my patriotic plea lol)

Idk I personally think if you leak information about something that someone doesn't want others to know your putting yourself in harms way. Why else would they have programs developed to keep corporate whistle blowers safe when they go against their corporation? I'm assuming that he knew himself that he was going to go against some opposition and therefore created the "poison pill" before release. Whether its right or wrong that he is in harms way or if he is at all, it is however a truth in our world.

I can see putting an insurance policy up to protect yourself and I can understand that. But to me, it creates a blurriness between full disclosure of the truth and what is out there. To me, and maybe I'm wrong about this, people in our history have spoken up/stood up for what they believe in and have been crucified for it. Was it right? I don't believe it was. Did it happen? Yes, it did. when you do things like this you do put yourself in harms way. Most of the time at your own personal cost for little change in the immediate future. Sometimes it ends up changing things forever and people who were cursed and looked down upon at the time our heroes in our history books.

What he did may be an act of heroism or just self interest. It may be for the good of the people or for his own benefit. I honestly don't know what to believe at this time as it seems the information I have been exposed to is mostly biased on one side or the other.

They didn't start going after Assange officially until Wikileaks leaked information about the US.
it's not like he wasn't leaking information before about other countries.
I am also reserving my full opinion, not of Assange because I feel he's but a figurehead, but on the release of the documents by wikileaks in regards to this being a good/bad thing.

this is a good leak to look into for anyone who is a bit overwhelmed as to what has been released when and "who" wikileaks "targets", there was also a video posted a page back that i bet a good deal ignored just because when they hear assange talking they turn the off switch on their listening skills i'm thinking.

link

You can't really say this was for his personal benefit. There's nothing he gains other than notoriety. He can't even go home to Australia right now because of all of this. I don't think we should base our actions solely on the repercussions that may follow, or legitimize those repercussions.

Like the tax cut debates for people making over $250k+. Someone stated that doing so will cause negative effects for the people employed by those small business owners in that bracket. So what they are saying is that we shouldn't do something because the people that don't the initiative will punish those who rely on them for it instead of taking the impact themselves. Some would have hated the government for the repercussions of the tax cuts if they expired and not the people who are themselves laying off workers so they can live in more luxury.

Basing actions solely on repercussions is ridiculous to me.

i think he's a figurehead nothing more-nothing less.
we as humans tend to feel the need to have a figurehead.
he also very well could just be a patsy christ that will get crucified and become a martyr.
i bet they have that in mind too.
but there are always personal reason to an extent on the doings of any individual.
stating that assange is the sole individual that did this is incorrect.
this was released by the organization wikileaks..
i think we really need to stop thinking of it in a way that excludes the rest of his organization.
the same way we shouldn't blame the president for all the wrong things in the country without blaming the congress.

this has been along the lines of what i've been thinking with this whole wikileaks thing. (except you worded it much better =) )

yup.
I just wonder where these people that instantly think the leak is made by an evil tourist. But one thing is true, the media knows a lot of people aren't going to look to deep into this information since it's a lot to look at and well..the gov't is after all their sites.
so rather than illustrating what has happened in a neutral stance we get overwhelmed with their opinions on the matter.
which makes me sad.
non-partisan impartial reporting of news=hard to find anymore.

i agree, it irks me to death at how much of a joke newscasting is today, most of it is FAR LEFT/RIGHT IN YOUR FACE EXTREME OPINIONATION....IN HD!!!!

I was watching my local news.
and literally every *** 5 seconds i'd hear IN HD!
THE LOCAL WEATHER IN HD WITH THE DOPPLER CAST THIRTY-FOUR HUNDRED-BILLION IN HD!!!!
newscaster: now if you look at what i'm looking at on the doppler 3400bil in hd, you'll see a lot of precipitation somewhere, and yeah it looks like it's going a little bit to the north so watch out there, take it away mark!
Mark: our dopplercast 3400bil in hd is brought to you by China, thank you for all your many products you make for us.
Mark: in later news, all chinese products are poisonous, buy american, back to you jenna!
Jenna: I'm on sight here with a local man who got mauled by a bear and lives to tell about it! We'll let him have a few words with us as well as show a clip of it...in HD.
bear-guy: yeah. i saw that there bear and it was coming my way so i said *** it and i shot that damn dern thing with my shotgun! it fell over me and tried to maul me and a dern near died!
bear-experts: youth bears are known to locate food in any place possible, even in your shower, so be careful. if you aren't you may be like this man with a dead baby bear on your property.
jenna: that was a touching story mike, back to you Jim.
Jim: that's all for news tonight in HD, obama is a socialist and everyone needs to assasinate assange in HD, thank you and goodnight.

TL;DR this thread slowed down a bit so i figured i'd throw some humor in there.
or at least stuff i feel is humor.

You forgot those little pops up in the corner every min or so that say "Best when viewed in HD" or something like that.

hmmm oh well.
i don't even want to try to approach the overwhelming amount of images alluding to HD...covers the whole screen.

just wait til 3D becomes even more available, then itll all be.. IN 3D!!

they've already started to transition with some of the on-demand stuff for time warner cable lol.