he's no journalist. He looked for and received stolen materials to interfere with an election. So, F you too.

enshrined in our 1st Amendment.

(something that I and many others believe deeply in, and are at pains to defend) is degraded and contorted to cover the actions of a scurrilous scumbag such as Assange.

(and Joe Stalin was a freedom fighter .. )

------ ------------- -- -- ----

Assange's popularity or politics (or press pass) that have landed him in this spot. But criminal action.

was never the motivation for the 1st Amendment either.

That is the 4th estate’s job.

criminal activity (and that criminal activity is actively encouraged in the pursuit ..) Tends to throw a little different light. But never fear, Mr. Assange will have the opportunity to bring that argument when he appears before a judge.

Also begs the (fairly large) question of whether any government has a right to secrets - or the protection thereof. I think any rational examination and weighing of circumstances - would say clearly they do. If you feel differently on that score ... Well, you are welcome to your opinion.

Focus on messenger, and away from the information brought to light, works all the time. When our leaders decide to hide from us information about our own spies questionable behavior in the War On Terror, what should we do?

When it’s exposed that helicopter pilots treat live targets like a game, I want to know. When our spies obtain technology to invade much of the technology we use in our daily lives, I want to know.

After all, I helped pay for all their killing machines and snooping gizmos, as well as pay for their implementation, have I no right to know how they are used and misused?

The point is, are you capable of separating that from your 'right' to know? And therein we have such things as laws, and people charged with making those decisions.

You can disagree - but taking action contravening ... That brings you to criminal.

or illegal governmental actions in the first place? That’s why good police departments have community oversight boards which quite often find said departments hiding embarrassing or illegal actions.

And there is also civil disobedience, if you feel that you absolutely cannot abide by ... But then - be prepared to enter the land of breaking the law - and prepared to suffer the penalty. (which is precisely where Assange, and cohorts, stand)

What I find completely untenable - and in fact a little bit silly - is the proposition that you - by your own little self, and with absolutely no sanction - have the 'right' to decide what should and should not be disclosed. Or, even more dumbfounding - that ALL should be disclosed ... Dear lord ...
------ ------

transparency is still mostly a myth, and popular legislation attending to the will of the majority is rare in our present political interpretation of representative government. Peace

The issue isn’t ‘Do we approve of what Assange did?’ It’s ‘Did he break the law?’

Assange most likely won’t be regarded as a member of the fourth estate for legal purposes.

We can't look away when someone breaks the law because we might like the intent or outcome. That's the beginning, middle, and end of this discussion.

You are a good person but I’ll will always disagree about bad faith actors and Putin propagandists like Assange.

....different states have different definitions of "journalist" for legal purposes. Most of them would most likely not include Assange.

Disseminating information, in and of itself, doesn't make one a journalist. I publish scientific papers in my line of work - that doesn't make me a journalist.

Otherwise, anyone who releases classified information can call themself a "journalist" and claim protection as such.

he won't go face his accusers. F him on that count.

It is not journalism to receiver stolen emails from an adversary and post5 them on the Internet to interfere in an election. F him on that count too.

Based on everything I know, Assange broke the law. Calling him a journalist (which is debatable) doesn't necessarily absolve him.

He should be extradited and tried in a court of law. If a judge decides his actions were protected, then so be it.

Why anyone would consider him a journalist or a hero is bewildering.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792.amp

Last edited Wed Sep 20, 2023, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

take on this if dear Julian had performed the same actions targeting their government and secrets.

(or maybe not - because there are softbrains dispersed around the world)

I say Assange should go home - - in maybe about another 30-35 years?

softbrain is a shallow thinker
as an example: the sort that solemnly instructs his pre-schooler that "We always tell the truth" - and then is somehow surprised when mayhem social ostracization shortly ensue.

the pre-schooler would be the innocent dupe. Unknowing and unheeding.

The soft brain would be the one that has reached maturity and adulthood - and still clings to such hoary notions as, "And the truth shall set them free." And is truly surprised when the result is -- chaotic - and unpleasant.

dangerous psychological manna, nourishing ignorance and gullibility, what remains?
Perhaps, a sort of gray wasteland of unknowing requiring wise-guides to help navigate?

of his own previous history when litigating extradition in the UK: Sweden had sought to question him on a sexual assault charge; he had posted bond so was free while contesting; then jumped bail and hid some years in an embassy, until the embassy finally ejected him and he was imprisoned for his bail jump

So our very dear Aussie friends should currently be chatting with the UK authorities

There's some reason to suspect Assange is a stooge of Putin. His own politics appear to be rightwing; and Wikileaks played some visible role in the 2020 election of Trump

Curiously, during Assange's most recent confinement, the Trump Justice Department suddenly produced an indictment and requested extradition. Perhaps this move was intended to insulate the Trump administration from being tied to Assange's Putinist activities?

The real question, of course, is exactly how Assange obtained some of his documents; and the credibility of his oft-repeated claim that he should just be regarded as a species of journalist turns on the exact answer to that question

I consider him an unprincipled opportunist and nasty little misogynist. But I mainly care whether or not the evidence shows him actually engaged in espionage activities: if not, I expect the courts will eventually set him free. Meanwhile, his legal problems are largely of his own making, and the continuing delays result from his own actions

.