Do you really seriously not see the distinction here? It’s a massive and fully obvious one, so I’m not sure whether you’re ignoring it for the sake of argument or simply choosing not to see it.
Again, Assange isn’t in trouble for handing off his information to reporters. Those reporters aren’t in trouble for reporting on the information given to them. The wholesale release of classified documents is the problem here. It wasn’t journalism and it sure as hell wasn't ethical.
They should have sent a poet.I see the massive issue that the Espionage Act being used is a massive fucking problem and that the people who would use it are bad faith actors. Assange being extradited to the USA is a horrific blow to the free press and the people doing it are enemies of freedom in the world.
Can you explain who determines what to release?
Except for all the journalists who agree he shouldn't be prosecuted.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 4:58:03 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.And again you keep dancing around the issue and evading the discussion. You’re just talking yourself in circles.
Releasing classified documents wholesale is not journalism. That’s what Assange did.
Again, you’ll notice that no news outlets are being prosecuted for reporting on the information Assange gave them. That’s because they did just that, report on them. Reporting on classified information is protected. Publishing classified documents in their entirety is not.
You’ve already admitted Assange is not a journalist and what he did was not journalism, so it’s clear you’re aware of this. At this point you’re just repeating a propaganda line.
And really? “Some journalists agree with me”? Come on.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 5:07:03 AM
They should have sent a poet.Well, you have two examples of journalists (high ranking ones, sure) saying he shouldn't be prosecuted, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the majority.
@Archonspeaks: To play devil's advocate, if we argue that Assange is not a journalist, I could see an argument that there's a slippery slope here. Plus, one could argue "repeating verbatim" is technically reporting. Not necessarily a good argument, but one nonetheless.
Personally, I would argue journalists in general might have some degree of bias here. Illegally obtained information going public gives them stuff to talk about.
Leviticus 19:34Okay, just so you’re clear counting the number of editorials in your corner isn’t going to magically make your argument a winner. I can count editorials too. That’s not an argument, that’s not anything.
Protagonist: the question here is where journalism ends and recklessness begins. I’d argue Assange crossed that line a very long time ago.
When news outlets receive classified information they handle it very carefully. Just look at the way the Times reported on the information Assange gave them, for example. Simply republishing documents isn’t acceptable with documents that sensitive.
I’d also argue that as the purpose of journalism is to inform the public, you have to be able to articulate some kind of public interest. The names of vulnerable people in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan aren’t really something that informs the public.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 5:28:48 AM
They should have sent a poet.No, I just want to know.
:)
Edit: I have taken these as a sample of news organizations and their opinions on the subject to give a sense of what at least a decent sized-sample of experts (journalists) think of the matter and what their companies think of the subject enough to print their opinion. Given the names involved, I think it should at least give a hint of what mainstream publications think of the Assange prosecution.
====
1. LA Times: "The indictment of Assange is an attack on freedom"
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-assange-espionage-20190525-story.html
2. Washington Post (by a different journalist) "The indictment of Assange is a blueprint for attacking journalists"
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/28/indictment-assange-is-blueprint-making-journalists-into-felons/
3. The Guardian "Send him to Sweden instead."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/24/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assange-send-him-to-sweden
4. The New Yorker: "The Indictment of Assange is a threat to journalism."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment-of-julian-assange-is-a-threat-to-journalism
5. Columbia University First Amendment Institution, " “The U.S.’s indictment of Assange should be understood as an assault on press freedom, because the theory of the indictment is that routine practices of investigative journalism are criminal,” he said. “Cultivating sources, communicating with sources confidentially, protecting sources’ identities, and publishing government secrets — this is what good national security journalists do every day.”
https://time.com/5607364/julian-assange-extradition-espionage-act/
6. The Atlantic, "Why the Assange Prosecution is a threat to free speech."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/why-julian-assange-prosecution-threat-free-speech/590254/
7. The Chicago Sun Times, "Beware of an Attack on the Press in Prosecuting Assange."
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/4/11/18423713/editorial-beware-of-an-attack-on-the-press-in-the-indictment-of-julian-assange
8. The Wrap, "Top Newspaper Editors condemn Assange Prosecution." Admittedly, this may be cheating as they're reporting on other reporters.
https://www.thewrap.com/top-newspaper-editors-condemn-assange-indictments-say-journalists-could-be-stifled-if-hes-convicted/
9. The Intercept, "As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom"
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/
10. The Nation, "Since 1917, the US government has used the Espionage Act to restrict freedom of speech, to imprison activists and whistle-blowers, and to dismantle progressive organizations."
https://www.thenation.com/article/julian-assange-wikileaks-1917-espionage-act/
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 5:35:55 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.I wouldn’t exactly call journalists unbiased experts on the subject of journalism, just saying.
And again, the argument “10 journalists agree with me so I must be right” is nonsensical. It’s not even an argument, it’s just more running in circles. This is like asking 10 doctors whether they think medicine is the most important profession.
The central argument in all of those pieces is that if Assange is prosecuted it might dissuade others from sharing classified information with the press. The central issue there, of course, is that Assange is in trouble for the information he republished on his own, not what he shared with the press. Several of those columns even note that. The general feeling seems to be more that we don’t trust the Trump admin to do anything good ever than the prosecution being a specific threat to journalists, which is valid but essentially tangential to the issue here.
Charles, you’ve been entirely unable to articulate why you’re defending Assange here. You agree he’s not a journalist, that his release of documents wasn’t journalism and that it was irresponsible and hurt vulnerable people. Why die on this hill? Like many of these reporters, and like Assange, I’m sensing you value an attack on the US more than any malfeasance here.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 5:44:47 AM
They should have sent a poet.I've explicitly said he's an ex-journalist and the publishing of documents without commentary still qualifies as journalism if they're in the public interest. I'm confused as to what is unclear about that.
But if you want a point, it's because the Obama Administration already ruled on this issue that what he did should not be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. That to do so was a violation of free speech. That to prosecute under Espionage was an act of a police state. That it would be immoral. That all of this is being ignored because the current government wishes to strike at its critics and is evil.
That Assange is a piece of shit being betrayed by the man he helped put in power makes none of the above less true.
Edit:
Here's what Obama's people determined.
That Trump isn't now doesn't mean that he won't later.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 5:59:38 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The problem with finding 10 journalists who agree with you is that I'm sure I could find 10 who don't. The question's more about percentages, here. Have any polls been taken?
Leviticus 19:34![]()
See, now you’re just lying.
While the Obama admin did cite a free speech issue, which I don’t agree with, but that’s beside the point, their contention was that they didn’t think an Espionage Act charge would stand up to scrutiny from a court.
The “distinction between journalists and non-journalists” part is where I disagree there. The Obama admin specifically stated that they did not consider Assange a journalist, and they never sought charges against outlets that reported on his information. They claimed they would have to if they sought charges against Assange, but they specifically distinguished the two classes when bringing the charges. Reporting on classified information no matter how it’s obtained is still protected speech, which they left out.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 6:08:50 AM
They should have sent a poet.You're correct but about those 10 journalists. Have you happen to note that they're from the largest news agencies in the United States? They're also from the editors. So that I think makes it more than just an issue of popularity but that the representation of these organizations as a whole have expressed their opinion on the subject.
LA, Washington, Chicago, New York, London
These aren't me citing blogs on the subject.
Because it's heinously evil.
Which they did not bring.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 6:08:37 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@Charles Phipps Yes, but you have to keep in mind those organizations have a lot of journalists.
Leviticus 19:34Just so I’m clear.
My argument is more that it would be immoral, against the law, and destroy liberty to use the Espionage Act in this way. It would be forced through by a corrupt regime that has no regard for civil liberties. That it would be one more nail in the coffin of the United States as a free society.
That Assange as a human waste of space has absolutely nothing to do with the legal precedent.
I further argue the only reason to prosecute him under the Espionage Act is to support going after journalists because there's plenty of charges that Assange should ask for utterly unrelated to reporting on classified documents. Charging him for rape or his role in the 2016 election. Hell, non-life sentence and torture charges like the hacking issue, or receiving stolen property.
The only purpose here is to intimidate future leakers and journalists.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 6:16:14 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Legal precedent actually allows journalists to publish any information they’d like regardless of the source. Here, I’ll quote from the 1971 Supreme Court case New York Times v. United States:
Now, as you’ve already agreed that Assange is not in fact a journalist, and what he did was not in fact journalism, how do you think that charging him would lead to going after journalists? Are you in agreement with the articles you quoted in that you think it would merely hurt journalism by discouraging future leakers?
Also, what exactly do you think he’s being charged with? Because now you’re saying you think he should be charged with hacking and receiving stolen property, and that is what he’s currently being charged with.
You don’t know how these charges would hurt journalists, you’re not even clear on what the charges are, you’re just repeating Assange’s propaganda verbatim.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 6:26:44 AM
They should have sent a poet.You remember I said he's an ex-journalist right and thus fully protected for all the actions he did as a journalist including all of the business with Chelsea Manning, right?
Do you understand what the Espionage Act is and does?
And receiving stolen property carries up to six months in jail and 3000 dollar fine. Do you find that likely as a punishment?
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 7:25:04 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
See, this is where you’re getting into bullshit territory again.
Are you really claiming that his wholesale release of the documents Manning provided him was journalism? The Obama admin didn’t feel he was a journalist, those reporters you were hanging on above admitted he wasn’t a journalist in several of those articles too.
What he did was not journalism under any definition of the word. You’d have to stretch the definition of journalism so far to accommodate him that it wouldn’t mean anything any more.
And I’m thinking you might be confused about the charges here. He’s being charged with conspiracy to receive national defense information, disclosure of national defense information, and conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. Those first two charges originate under the Espionage Act and include language stating that it’s done with intent to interfere with the business of the government or promote the business of its enemies. This is easy enough to prove, given that he was literally a Russian asset at the time. The Espionage Act is just the name of a group of laws passed at the same time, it isn’t some special super-law or something.
At this point it seems like you’ve bought Assange’s lies hook line and sinker. It’s pretty clear you don’t care a bit for the truth.
Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 14th 2019 at 8:02:21 AM
They should have sent a poet.To put it another way, what stops a literal spy sent by another country different from a journalist by your definition, Charles? Couldn't they just claim freedom of speech by speaking to the nation employing them?
Leviticus 19:34If you're asking me if the KGB hands a CNN reporter, say, Trump killing a man and that reporter uses it—should the CNN reporter be protected?
Yes, absolutely.
Because the story is true and the public should know.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 14th 2019 at 8:34:35 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

> Say Dave Walters from the WP accidentally outs a US operative from a posted work later. Is he a spy?
No he's just a careless idiot, Julian Assange was a useful idiot to Russia and nothing more,implying he's a journalist is insulting to actual journalists
have a listen and have a link to my discord server