Willravel

In what way is wikipedia not a part of the press?

filtherton

Just be sure to mention my stentorian voice and bold facial hair when you do.

loquitur

Define "authority" for this purpose. I have nothing against political activism (occasionally I do it myself), but there is a difference between advocating and taking the law into one's own hands. That's the distinction I'm making. I suppose you could argue that the Wikileaks people are similar to the blacks who sat down at whites-only lunch counters in the South in the 50s, but they were of course willing to go to jail for their actions and they hoped by their actions to get America to reform itself in accordance with its own aspirations. I'm not sure you can construct a similar argument for Wikileaks crew.

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

Will, wikipedia and wikileaks are not the same thing.
Plus, you and I have precisely the same free speech rights as they do.

Willravel

Oops, yes I meant wikileaks.

What I mean, though, is that you don't seem to be asking where the New York Times gets the authority to release classified documents. Or The Guardian. Or Reuters.

loquitur

They don't have the authority to publish it, and technically theyr'e in violation of a number of laws. There's a tradition of not going after media outlets, for a number of reasons, but that's a discretionary/prudential matter.

Also, there's a difference between receiving stolen goods and fencing them. The fence, even if he is not himself the thief, is doing wrong. More wrong than the person who gets the goods from the fence. Not as wrong as the actual thief. So PFC Manning is definitely a criminal -- we can agree on that, yes? Wikileaks then decided it is going to use the fruits of that crime (which it knew was fruits of a crime) to do as much damage as it can - their public statements pretty much say that that's their objective. Seems to me that that's wrong.

I'd have a huge problem if the NY Times (or the Guardian or Reuters) was breaking into computers to get scoops -- wouldn't you? I have much less of a problem with their using stuff that materializes on their doorstep, though I still would hope they'd act responsibly.

But you've taken us pretty far afield, Will. I was trying to get someone to explain to me why pursuing Wikileaks's mission of exposing stuff they think needs to be exposed is ok, but me taking it upon myself to do the same thing to people I might think need to be exposed (whoever they may be) would not be. l still haven't gotten even an attempt at an explanation.

Willravel

I'm not a lawyer, but you're making this seem a lot more black and white than it is according to other attorneys commenting on this. The Espionage Act was put in place towards the end of World War 1 long before the advent of internet activist journalism. And if you read the text of the act, it reads like the fever dream of Karl Rove. I suspect that's a big part of the reason the federal government doesn't just go around picking up journalists off the street whenever they get classified information that could embarrass the PTB.

The thing is, if prosecuting Assange is given the go-ahead, doesn't that strike you as a slippery slope of rather dangerous proportions? What happens when the next Pentagon Papers need leaking?
Are you under the impression that wikileaks paid Manning? They didn't. Manning took the information and leaked it to wikileaks, thus breaking the law I redly concede, the same as someone might leak information to any other member of the press. The Pentagon Papers were certainly stolen and leaked. Did you go after the NYT in 1971 for publishing the lies of the Johnson Administration?
I'd have a big problem if the NYT or Guardian were breaking into computer to get scoops. Fortunately, they don't do that. Neither does wikileaks. Bradley Manning did the breaking in and gave it anonymously to wikileaks. Wikileaks, an activist press organization given information they interpreted as needing to be disseminated, published some of it. Bringing up fencing and breaking in the way you have, I'm almost left with the impression you have a mistaken idea of what wikileaks is not in some broad philosophical sense, but in the literal objective sense.

Wikileaks is an internet media organization which accepts anonymous whistleblower information and then publishes that information after checking it to make sure what they publish is safe. They don't pay sources, they don't break into computers, and while they have an agenda, it's probably not what you think. Wikileaks exists as a balance to communication restriction, which Assange and other members of Wikileaks see as the modus operandi of conspiracy. The organization acts as a sort of restriction on restrictions, to reduce worldwide conspiratorial power regardless of the conspirators. It is about openness, but it's not about directing wikileaks at any one power for nationalistic or partisan political ends.
The problem is you're assuming this is about specific targets. It's not. As I started saying above, this is far more broad. Bradley Manning could have just as easily been Israeli or Russian or Chinese, all of whom abuse the idea of state secrets. Look back on what was leaked before wikileaks really became mainstream and you'll see Somalia (specifically Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of the Islamic Courts Union), Swiss banks, the British National Party, the Church of Scientology, Peruvian politicians and businessmen, and Icelandic banks, just to start. That's a rather diverse group. You can try to awkwardly make that fit into some seemingly petty political agenda if you'd like, but honestly it seems like an exercise in futility.

And, as always, wikileaks accepts anonymous documents. They don't solicit anything, ever. They take what they get, they make sure it's safe, and they publish it. If they started picking and choosing favorites, they would be in direct violation of their central philosophy.

Willravel

Relevant: