Financial woes may close WikiLeaks

[grumbler]

What's more fascinating is that I happen to know CC had a recent case that touched on these very issues... 

The issue isn't the specifics of any law, the issue is whether any mention of "responsible journalism" is restricted to its strictly legal meaining in Canada, or whether it has a meaning in everyday English.  I submit that the latter is true, while CC insists only the former is true (and thus that I cannot use the term except as what he calls "a legal term of art").  A simple google search of the term should settle the matter, but apparently not.

As an aside, I would also note that, in 2009, the SCC held of the term "responsible journalism" that "the title of the defence was too narrow and should encompass communications made by Internet bloggers and others who are not journalists," according to the Ottowa Citizen.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Supreme+Court+establishes+libel+defence/2368569/story.html

It is a mystery as to why this sidetrack continues to have legs. 

[crazy canuck]

Yes Grumbler words have many possible meanings.  But in the posts to which you responded it was pretty clear we were speaking about the legal context.  Indeed I cited three legal cases - one from the UK which Sheilbh was referring, one from Canada which adopted the UK case and rejected the US line of authority and the US authority which both the UK and Canada had rejected.

You then went on at length to argue that you were still correct and even tried to engage in a debate about the "legal reasons" you were correct.  When you saw that argument had no legs you then switched to the argument that you were trying to use the term in its common usage all along.

Meh, like I said, par for the languish course.

[crazy canuck]

It's seems a little strange that Grumbler is arguing as if he knows more about the law then lawyers.  I mean, we don't claim to know more about Rum, Buggery and the Lash then he does.

What's more fascinating is that I happen to know CC had a recent case that touched on these very issues... 

I dont recall there being any Rum involved.

[grumbler]

Yes Grumbler words have many possible meanings.  But in the posts to which you responded it was pretty clear we were speaking about the legal context.

Dunno why you are beating this dead horse.  In the post to which I responded, it was not clear the Shelf was referring only to one court decision.  I repeatedly made it clear that this wasn't what I was talking about, either.

You then went on at length to argue that you were still correct and even tried to engage in a debate about the "legal reasons" you were correct.

This is a fabrication.  My argument was, and is, that the US, like Britain (and, I presume, Canada), define protected journalism via the common law and not the statute law.  You have given no evidence that this is untrue, and have instead argued that the only meaning of "responsible journalism" is that contained in a "legal term of art."  Actual evidence to the contrary has no dented your position; indeed, you cannot concede my evidenced point without conceding that your entire objection to my point is based on a faux misunderstanding of the language.

In fact, here http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers07/papers/378.pdf is a pair of Australian professors (one a  law professor, one a media professor) using the term in exactly the way I did:
RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM:
DEFAMATION LAW AND NEWS PRODUCTION IN AUSTRALIA, THE US AND THE UK

When you saw that argument had no legs you then switched to the argument that you were trying to use the term in its common usage all along.

This is what we call a strawman argument.  You are vainly attempting to re-write my argument so that you can defeat it.  Your attempt is a FAIL.

Can we get back to the point, now?  I believe the point was that the law somehow distinguished between Wikileaks and the NYT.  I disagree, not least because the Wikileaks case does not involve defamation.

Meh, like I said, par for the languish course.

I'd argue it is more "par for the crazy canuck course."

[crazy canuck]

Dunno why you are beating this dead horse.  In the post to which I responded, it was not clear the Shelf was referring only to one court decision.  I repeatedly made it clear that this wasn't what I was talking about, either.

I am probably beating the dead horse which is your argument because you feel the need to interject false statements into the discussion.

Here is some helpful advise.  The next time you say "same here" and someone points out you are wrong and things are actually different and not the "same" you should try supress your natural tendancy toward arguing for arguments sake  - especially in an area you have limited knowledge.

And now I will take your advice and stop beating you up about this.

[grumbler]

Here is some helpful advise.  The next time you say "same here" and someone points out you are wrong and things are actually different and not the "same" you should try supress your natural tendancy toward arguing for arguments sake  - especially in an area you have limited knowledge. 

And here is some helpful advice: when someone carefully clarifies their statement which you misunderstood to the effect that "I believe that journalists can defend themselves from charges of slander, libel, invasion of privacy, or other challenges to publications/broadcasts by asserting that the journalists actions were within the scope of actions protected by freedom of the press (i.e. that they were acting as responsible journalists).  This is a common-law concept" read carefully and you won't make the mistake of thinking your interlocutor is making some absurd argument you want him or her to be making.

And now I will take your advice and stop beating you up about this.

Excellent.  It is an absurd diversion.

Any thoughts on Wikileaks being legally distinguishable from a conventional newspaper for reasons that have nothing to do with defamation?

[crazy canuck]

Any thoughts on Wikileaks being legally distinguishable from a conventional newspaper for reasons that have nothing to do with defamation?

I am not sure that matters.  The point I was making before we went on our detour was about reputation risk of VISA and PayPal dealing with Wikileaks.  Someone, I think Yi, tossed out the hypothetical of what would happen if the NYT published the same material.  I think dealing with a credible media outlet is entirely different but the hypothetical assumes that the material published by Wikileaks could or would be published by a credible media outlet.  I am not sure of the answer to that question but it certainly raises the issues Berkut already set out.

[Maximus]

What makes a media outlet credible? Or not credible as the case may be.

[The Minsky Moment]

What makes a media outlet credible? Or not credible as the case may be.

What they report and how they report it.

[crazy canuck]

What makes a media outlet credible? Or not credible as the case may be.

For one thing assets.  The NYT has something to lose if they screw up and therefore have greater motivation to make sure they do not. WikiLeaks allegedly broke US laws in part because it had nothing to lose by doing so.  Or so they thought....

Also, we are talking about reputation risk here.  Who would put WikiLeaks as more credible then the NYT?

[Maximus]

What they report and how they report it.

And here I thought it would be the quality of their fries.

[grumbler]

I am not sure that matters.  The point I was making before we went on our detour was about reputation risk of VISA and PayPal dealing with Wikileaks.  Someone, I think Yi, tossed out the hypothetical of what would happen if the NYT published the same material.  I think dealing with a credible media outlet is entirely different but the hypothetical assumes that the material published by Wikileaks could or would be published by a credible media outlet.  I am not sure of the answer to that question but it certainly raises the issues Berkut already set out.

The New York Times could, of course, publish the information published by Wikileaks - they did do so, after all. http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131884250/nyt-reporter-defends-publishing-wikileaks-cables

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/nyt-worked-several-weeks-leaked-cables-wikileaks-wasn.html

I don't understand why dealing with Wikileaks would be any different from dealing with the NYT; the reason why VISA and PayPal could boycott Wikileaks is because they could afford to do so. 

The hypothetical, in other words, wasn't hypothetical at all.

[grumbler]

What makes a media outlet credible? Or not credible as the case may be.

What they report and how they report it.

Or, how much effort they put into verification and consideration of consequences before they publish If those were not what you meant).  I don't think "credible" is the standard here, though.  I think we are back to "responsible," or perhaps "professional" in its broader meaning.

[crazy canuck]

The New York Times could, of course, publish the information published by Wikileaks - they did do so, after all. http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131884250/nyt-reporter-defends-publishing-wikileaks-cables

Republication is of course a different matter than allegedly obtaining the information illegally and publishing the material in the first instance.  Having already danced with you in one area of media publications you turned out to know little about I do not wish to take the next dance and explain this to you as well.

[grumbler]

The New York Times could, of course, publish the information published by Wikileaks - they did do so, after all. http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131884250/nyt-reporter-defends-publishing-wikileaks-cables

Republication is of course a different matter than allegedly obtaining the information illegally and publishing the material in the first instance.  Having already danced with you in one area of media publications you turned out to know little about I do not wish to take the next dance and explain this to you as well.

Didn't read the links, did you? 

From the second: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/nyt-worked-several-weeks-leaked-cables-wikileaks-wasn.html

the Times didn't get the State Department documents directly from WikiLeaks, even though the paper published contents from the cache simultaneously with the four other newspapers, presumably under the same embargo.

The NYT was publishing original material that had not appeared anywhere else first.  You do know what "republication" means in plain English, do you not?  Please don't go off on some "legal term of art" bullshit where you claim you were referring to wills.

That's pretty typical; you didn't read anything in the last debate, either.

And, btw, there have been no allegations that Wikileaks obtained anything illegally.  It would be liable, of course, if anyone there conspired with manning to obtain the information, but if he stole it and subsequently gave it to them, there appears to be no legal action that can be taken against him.  Or the NY Times.