http://news.yahoo.com/assange-financial-woes-may-close-wikileaks-130124068.html
QuoteWikiLeaks — whose spectacular publication of classified data shook world capitals and exposed the inner workings of international diplomacy — may be weeks away from collapse, the organization's leader warned Monday.
Although its attention-grabbing leaks spread outrage and embarrassment across military and diplomatic circles, WikiLeaks' inability to overturn the block on donations imposed by American financial companies may prove its undoing.
"If WikiLeaks does not find a way to remove this blockade we will simply not be able to continue by the turn of the new year," founder Julian Assange told journalists at London's Frontline Club. "If we don't knock down the blockade we simply will not be able to continue."
As an emergency measure, Assange said his group would cease what he called "publication operations" to focus its energy on fundraising. He added that WikiLeaks — which he said had about 20 employees — needs an additional $3.5 million to keep it going into 2013.
WikiLeaks, launched as an online repository for confidential information, shot to notoriety with the April 2010 disclosure of footage of two Reuters journalists killed by a U.S. military strike in Baghdad.
The Pentagon had claimed that the journalists were likely "intermixed among the insurgents," but the helicopter footage, which captured U.S. airmen firing on prone figures and joking about "dead bastards," unsettled many across the world.
The video was just a foretaste. In the following months, WikiLeaks published nearly half a million secret military documents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a whole the documents provided an unprecedented level of detail into the grueling, bloody conflicts. Individually, many raised concerns about the actions of the U.S. and its local allies — for example by detailing evidence of abuse, torture and worse by Iraqi security forces.
Although U.S. officials railed against the disclosures, claiming that they were putting lives at risk, it wasn't until WikiLeaks began publishing a massive trove of 250,000 U.S. State Department cables late last year that the financial screws began to tighten.
One after the other, MasterCard Inc., Visa Europe Ltd., Bank of America Corp. Western Union Co. and Ebay Inc.'s PayPal stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks, starving the organization of cash as it was coming under intense political, financial and legal pressure.
Assange said Monday that the restrictions — imposed in early December — had cut off some 95 percent of the money he believes his organization could have received.
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson defended the estimate as "conservative," noting that in 2010 the average monthly donation to WikiLeaks had been more than 100,000 euros ($140,000), while in 2011 the amount had fallen to between 6,000 and 7,000 euros.
Each company has given its own explanation for the blockade, expressing some level of concern over the nature of the secret-spilling site. WikiLeaks supporters often point out that MasterCard and Visa still process payments for fringe groups such as the American KKK or the far-right British National Party and that neither WikiLeaks nor any of its staff have been charged with any crime.
Assange said his group was being subjected to corporate censorship.
"A few companies cannot be allowed to decide how the whole world votes with its wallet," he said.
WikiLeaks recently organized a series of auctions aimed at shoring up its finances. Assange said Monday that generally his group had relied on small-time donations averaging about $25 to keep it afloat, but would now turn its attention to a "constellation of wealthy individuals."
He didn't elaborate, but Assange has several wealthy backers, including Frontline Club founder Vaughan Smith, whose manor house in eastern England has been put at Assange's disposal while he fights extradition to Sweden on sex crime allegations.
A decision on whether to extradite him is expected in the next few weeks. Speaking to journalists after Monday's appearance, Assange put his chances of being extradited without the possibility of appeal at "30 percent."
Also looming in the background is a U.S. grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks' disclosures. Earlier this month a small California-based Internet provider became the second company to confirm it was fighting a court order demanding customer account information as part of the American WikiLeaks inquiry.
WikiLeaks' suspected source, U.S. Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, remains in custody at Fort Leavenworth prison in Kansas.
:cool:
I like the blockade language, very evocative.
Don't Euroweenie America haters know how to write checks?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2011, 03:40:39 PM
I like the blockade language, very evocative.
Don't Euroweenie America haters know how to write checks?
Yes but they have no ability to write a cheque
I still regret donating $10 to them very early on, before the Manning thing and back when I naively assumed it was more for people in dictatorships/corrupt countries to leak things than to get Assange's hate America boner on.
Seems like capitalism at work. :)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 24, 2011, 03:46:08 PM
I still regret donating $10 to them very early on, before the Manning thing and back when I naively assumed it was more for people in dictatorships/corrupt countries to leak things than to get Assange's hate America boner on.
Yeah, it seems like such a waste. WikiLeaks could've been a groundbreaking site that changed the world for the better, but Assange just had to lose his marbles.
Martinus is going to go apeshit.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 24, 2011, 03:46:08 PM
I still regret donating $10 to them very early on, before the Manning thing and back when I naively assumed it was more for people in dictatorships/corrupt countries to leak things than to get Assange's hate America boner on.
Yeah, it seems like such a waste. WikiLeaks could've been a groundbreaking site that changed the world for the better, but Assange just had to lose his marbles.
I do wonder how much of their revenue's been going to his legal fees fighting the Swedish rape charges.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 24, 2011, 03:46:08 PM
I still regret donating $10 to them very early on, before the Manning thing and back when I naively assumed it was more for people in dictatorships/corrupt countries to leak things than to get Assange's hate America boner on.
Yeah, it seems like such a waste. WikiLeaks could've been a groundbreaking site that changed the world for the better, but Assange just had to lose his marbles.
If he wasn't such a vindictive attention whore, he'd be probably be doing okay. He seemed to use this mostly for his own celebrity. His hamfisted editorializing didn't impress me either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 24, 2011, 07:12:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 24, 2011, 03:46:08 PM
I still regret donating $10 to them very early on, before the Manning thing and back when I naively assumed it was more for people in dictatorships/corrupt countries to leak things than to get Assange's hate America boner on.
Yeah, it seems like such a waste. WikiLeaks could've been a groundbreaking site that changed the world for the better, but Assange just had to lose his marbles.
I do wonder how much of their revenue's been going to his legal fees fighting the Swedish rape charges.
Or his globetrotting, and very conspicuous "hiding" from the US.
While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.
What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
How very odd, private censoring.
V
How can a company put someone on trial?
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.
What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
How very odd, private censoring.
V
I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
So?
Anyone can still donate to WikiLeaks. Just use the state system: cash. Not the private systems.
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2011, 07:14:17 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
So?
Anyone can still donate to WikiLeaks. Just use the state system: cash. Not the private systems.
What state system would that be exactly?
V
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:16:10 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2011, 07:14:17 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
So?
Anyone can still donate to WikiLeaks. Just use the state system: cash. Not the private systems.
What state system would that be exactly?
V
:unsure: Cash?
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2011, 07:13:11 AM
I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.
Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.
I didn't really ask it for you to answer it :)
However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?
Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.
This is completely voluntary ;) with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.
V
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2011, 07:18:29 AM
:unsure: Cash?
International cash transfers? As in bank transfers? or as in handing in the cash in person, after flying half the globe?
V
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:24:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2011, 07:13:11 AM
I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.
Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.
I didn't really ask it for you to answer it :)
However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?
Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.
This is completely voluntary ;) with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.
V
It sounds like companies are doing what companies should do - protecting their financial interests as they see fit.
I don't understand why a company would need to wait until someone is proven guilty to take action.
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2011, 07:29:57 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:24:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2011, 07:13:11 AM
I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.
Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.
I didn't really ask it for you to answer it :)
However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?
Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.
This is completely voluntary ;) with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.
V
It sounds like companies are doing what companies should do - protecting their financial interests as they see fit.
I don't understand why a company would need to wait until someone is proven guilty to take action.
I agree they are only excersising their rights not to deal with a customer. I just find it a tad discriminating that they do so with out any, even slim, justification or reasoning. If they decide to censor payments, then other payments should be censored as well, or the guideline for this censoring should be announced.
Besides, they would make money on these transactions as well, why the difference?
V
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.
What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
How very odd, private censoring.
V
It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.
I am guessing that the reason companies are refusing to take transactions is that some state agency has gone to them and made the argument that facilitating someone who is known to be breaking the law and harming the state as as result could be held as criminally liable. They may not be able to get to Assange, but they can certainly get to PayPal and Visa.
The difference between Wikileaks and the American Society of the Nazi Party or the KKK is that the latter nutbars are not breaking the law, and Wikileaks is.
I don't think this has much to do with censorship, and everything to do with the State using its power to curtail a hostile entity that is refusing to play by the rules.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.
What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
How very odd, private censoring.
V
It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.
Exactly. See what happened to Washington Post.
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:24:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2011, 07:13:11 AM
I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.
Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.
I didn't really ask it for you to answer it :)
However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?
Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.
This is completely voluntary ;) with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.
V
Wikileaks is not legal. How in the world could you get the idea that stealing government secrets and publishing them is legal?
And a company cannot hide behind the claim that an actor has not been convicted of a crime as a defense for their complicity in that crime. If I walk into a bank and say "Hey, I made $5 million selling crack, and I need you to launder it, but don't worry, I haven't been convicted!" do you think that will cover the banks criminal liability if they go ahead and launder my cash for me?
Of course not.
Moral taint has nothing to do with this, I suspect. And for that matter, I would bet dollars to donuts that the government has in fact used this kind of tactic to combat other organizations as well.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.
What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
How very odd, private censoring.
V
It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.
I am guessing that the reason companies are refusing to take transactions is that some state agency has gone to them and made the argument that facilitating someone who is known to be breaking the law and harming the state as as result could be held as criminally liable. They may not be able to get to Assange, but they can certainly get to PayPal and Visa.
The difference between Wikileaks and the American Society of the Nazi Party or the KKK is that the latter nutbars are not breaking the law, and Wikileaks is.
I don't think this has much to do with censorship, and everything to do with the State using its power to curtail a hostile entity that is refusing to play by the rules.
I agree fully that that is likely the real reason, but why not go about saying so?
It still stands that they are using double standards. If DEA went to the same companies wihtout a court order and said "This and that mexican is likely a criminal, or a front for a criminal organsation, do not transfer money to that IBAN number" would they then do it?
V
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:46:55 AM
Wikileaks is not legal. How in the world could you get the idea that stealing government secrets and publishing them is legal?
And a company cannot hide behind the claim that an actor has not been convicted of a crime as a defense for their complicity in that crime. If I walk into a bank and say "Hey, I made $5 million selling crack, and I need you to launder it, but don't worry, I haven't been convicted!" do you think that will cover the banks criminal liability if they go ahead and launder my cash for me?
Of course not.
Moral taint has nothing to do with this, I suspect. And for that matter, I would bet dollars to donuts that the government has in fact used this kind of tactic to combat other organizations as well.
But they haven't been convicted of anything, innocent until proven... and all that ;)
V
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:47:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 05:43:26 AM
While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.
What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?
OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.
How very odd, private censoring.
V
It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.
I am guessing that the reason companies are refusing to take transactions is that some state agency has gone to them and made the argument that facilitating someone who is known to be breaking the law and harming the state as as result could be held as criminally liable. They may not be able to get to Assange, but they can certainly get to PayPal and Visa.
The difference between Wikileaks and the American Society of the Nazi Party or the KKK is that the latter nutbars are not breaking the law, and Wikileaks is.
I don't think this has much to do with censorship, and everything to do with the State using its power to curtail a hostile entity that is refusing to play by the rules.
I agree fully that that is likely the real reason, but why not go about saying so?
What is the upside for PayPal or Visa to get into that argument in the press? None for them, so they do the obvious "no comment". Paypal stated however that they closed them down for violating their Terms of Service, which include not using funds transferred for illegal activities.
Quote
It still stands that they are using double standards. If DEA went to the same companies wihtout a court order and said "This and that mexican is likely a criminal, or a front for a criminal organsation, do not transfer money to that IBAN number" would they then do it?
V
I bet if I told Paypal that I was using my account to launder drug money, they would close it as well, even if I had not been charged, much less convicted.
Hell, if you were standing on the street, and someone ran up to you and said "Hey, I just robbed a bank! I need to get away from those cops chasing me, can you give me a ride in exchange for $25,000?" and you help him, do you think you could then argue "Buy your honor, he had never been convicted of robbing the bank at that time! Hell, he had not even been charged! How can you possibly hold me responsible! I give people rides all the time, and some of those people are assholes! This guy, other than the occasional rape of Swedes, was actually a pretty nice guy, and we all know the banks are blood sucking parasites anyway!"
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:49:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:46:55 AM
Wikileaks is not legal. How in the world could you get the idea that stealing government secrets and publishing them is legal?
And a company cannot hide behind the claim that an actor has not been convicted of a crime as a defense for their complicity in that crime. If I walk into a bank and say "Hey, I made $5 million selling crack, and I need you to launder it, but don't worry, I haven't been convicted!" do you think that will cover the banks criminal liability if they go ahead and launder my cash for me?
Of course not.
Moral taint has nothing to do with this, I suspect. And for that matter, I would bet dollars to donuts that the government has in fact used this kind of tactic to combat other organizations as well.
But they haven't been convicted of anything, innocent until proven... and all that ;)
V
Uhhh, no. They've come right out and admitted that they were engaged in illegal activity. As I stated, the fact that someone has not been convicted of a crime does not absolve an accomplice of their liability in abetting that crime.
I don't know the legality of what they are doing. Publishing secret material is not illegal in the US, (as far as I know). Stealing it is, but publishing isn't. If they put someone up to it I think it's illegal. Other countries are different in this respect.
What these companies are doing is boycotting Wikilinks. The idea that someone should have a conviction before they can be boycotted is kind of silly. If someone doesn't like the actions of Netflix, they can discontinue that service. There is no need to ascertain guilty or innocence of actual crime before hand.
Now to be fair, the US government has asked many of these companies to refuse to do business with Wikilinks, but it hasn't forced anyone.
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:47:15 AM
I agree fully that that is likely the real reason, but why not go about saying so?
It still stands that they are using double standards. If DEA went to the same companies wihtout a court order and said "This and that mexican is likely a criminal, or a front for a criminal organsation, do not transfer money to that IBAN number" would they then do it?
V
They did it with Gaddafi and he didn't violate any law where his money was.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:53:22 AM
Uhhh, no. They've come right out and admitted that they were engaged in illegal activity. As I stated, the fact that someone has not been convicted of a crime does not absolve an accomplice of their liability in abetting that crime.
Really? I thought they were just publishing stuff they got from leakers. Which is not illegal. I was not aware they were actually engaging in espionage. That sounds expensive no wonder they are going broke.
Anyway hopefully another wikileaks-esque group will come out of this that is less about the ego of its founder and any particular grudge against a specific country. Besides attracting attention to yourself, like Assange, seems like a bad idea in this line of work.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2011, 08:12:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:53:22 AM
Uhhh, no. They've come right out and admitted that they were engaged in illegal activity. As I stated, the fact that someone has not been convicted of a crime does not absolve an accomplice of their liability in abetting that crime.
Really? I thought they were just publishing stuff they got from leakers. Which is not illegal. I was not aware they were actually engaging in espionage. That sounds expensive no wonder they are going broke.
Well, that is the million dollar question, isn't it?
There is no doubt that stealing classified material is illegal, but what about publishing it? In theory it can be illegal (in the US under the Espionage Act), if the state can prove that publishing that material does something like "irreperable and immediate harm" or something like that. Probably a very difficult bar to cross though, when placed up against the Freedom of the Press.
That is a bit harder, but realize that the government does not need to (in this case) actually convict Visa of abetting a crime (which would in all likelihood be almost impossible) they just have to make it clear to Visa that they are better off just not taking on that fight.
I actually doubt that the US could get a conviction of Assange even if they had him. But they don't need to actually convict him to convince Visa that they are better off exercising their own right not to do business with Wikileaks.
Quote
Anyway hopefully another wikileaks-esque group will come out of this that is less about the ego of its founder and any particular grudge against a specific country. Besides attracting attention to yourself, like Assange, seems like a bad idea in this line of work.
I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:21:45 AM
I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.
The traditional press can be bullied for access and other advantages. Small outfits like wikileaks doesn't have to worry about its relations with the powers that be. Plus if you are publishing material from China or whatever it makes it harder for them to lash out than if you are a huge media corporation with interests around the world to worry about.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2011, 08:31:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:21:45 AM
I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.
The traditional press can be bullied for access and other advantages. Small outfits like wikileaks doesn't have to worry about its relations with the powers that be. Plus if you are publishing material from China or whatever it makes it harder for them to lash out.
Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.
Meaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.
If the US hadn't put Alfred E. Neuman in uniform this whole thing would have been avoided.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:34:07 AM
Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.
I have no doubt could but I do not have anywhere near the time to research this, I waste far too much time here as it is. So I guess I will just have to concede your point. But I find it hard to believe if the leakers had leaked this stuff to Fox News instead of Wikileaks it would have been published.
QuoteMeaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.
Well yes that was my point. I like the idea of wikileaks but focussing on one country, the one most likely to allow the guy running the thing to attention whore, was ridiculous.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:34:07 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2011, 08:31:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:21:45 AM
I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.
The traditional press can be bullied for access and other advantages. Small outfits like wikileaks doesn't have to worry about its relations with the powers that be. Plus if you are publishing material from China or whatever it makes it harder for them to lash out.
Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.
Meaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.
Sure. Happened all the time in the Cold War. Example: the Coup in Guatemala. Truth be told, publication of classified material happens on a daily basis in the US.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2011, 08:39:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:34:07 AM
Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.
I have no doubt could but I do not have anywhere near the time to research this, I waste far too much time here as it is. So I guess I will just have to concede your point. But I find it hard to believe if the leakers had leaked this stuff to Fox News instead of Wikileaks it would have been published.
You think Fox News would not publish it because of pressure from the government?
Or more importantly, do you think the New York Times would not publish it? That seems like an odd position, since the New York Times DID in fact publish some of it.
Fundamentally though, I don't agree with the basic idea that this stuff NEEDED to be published, and it NOT being published would be some kind of travesty. Traditional news organizations, while I might disagree with them, at least understand the concept of discretion. Not based on a threat from the State, but simply based on
A) If they publish stuff that the public ends up thinking was not worth of publishing given its negative impact, they may harm themselves financially, and
B) There is the concept of prefessional journalistic integrity where there is an expectation that publishing something as sensitive as state secrets should have some kind of actual benefit that outweighs the damage done.
Wikileaks fails on both counts. They aren't in the business of journalism really, they are in the business of being tabloid hacks, where their entire schtick is simply to publish stuff because they can, not because they actually give a shit about informing the public of things it needs to know its government is doing.
The traditional media is a grossly imperfect system of course, but at least there is *some* kind of restraint, someone asking "Hey, I know we CAN publish this, but SHOULD we???"
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2011, 08:39:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:34:07 AM
Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.
I have no doubt could but I do not have anywhere near the time to research this, I waste far too much time here as it is. So I guess I will just have to concede your point. But I find it hard to believe if the leakers had leaked this stuff to Fox News instead of Wikileaks it would have been published.
QuoteMeaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.
Well yes that was my point. I like the idea of wikileaks but focussing on one country, the one most likely to allow the guy running the thing to attention whore, was ridiculous.
Technically Fox News did publish it. After Wikilinks did. They did reports on it, and showed that video of the chopper pilots which was classified.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:47:47 AM
You think Fox News would not publish it because of pressure from the government?
I think they would publish based on what their interests are and to protect their brand name and relationships with their sources. A smaller outfit would not have those considerations.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2011, 08:50:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 08:47:47 AM
You think Fox News would not publish it because of pressure from the government?
I think they would publish based on what their interests are and to protect their brand name and relationships with their sources. A smaller outfit would not have those considerations.
And you think that is a good thing?
Here is a better question:
Do you think that overall it was a positive thing that Wikileaks published all those documents they got?
I think there is a basic disconnect here - I think that Wikileaks did great harm to many people, and very little actual benefit for anyone by publishing what they did in regards to the US documents. So I don't think that the existence of a group with that kind of access but no restraint is a net positive.
Restraint is not a bad thing.
Quote from: Valdemar on October 25, 2011, 07:33:44 AM
I agree they are only excersising their rights not to deal with a customer. I just find it a tad discriminating that they do so with out any, even slim, justification or reasoning. If they decide to censor payments, then other payments should be censored as well, or the guideline for this censoring should be announced.
Besides, they would make money on these transactions as well, why the difference?
V
Just because you dont agree with or understand the reason they might not want to deal with WikiLeaks does not mean they made their decision without any justification. I think Berkut's answer as to why they did it is a likely factor.
But putting that very good reason aside, a private business has their own reputational risk to think of. I doubt very much Visa or Paypal would want to take the reputational hit of being the conduit through which wikileaks was able to fund its continuing disclosure of State secrets. For everyone one of you who might applaud such a move there would be a lot of others that might think twice about continuing to deal with them - now that is a grassroots movement that deserves some notice. ;)
I can sort of see Valdemar's point. If the publishing entity were the New York Times and the government had pressured payment companies (which I assume was the prinicple motivation) to not process payments to the NYT, we would all be screaming about freedom of the press.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 12:29:43 PM
I can sort of see Valdemar's point. If the publishing entity were the New York Times and the government had pressured payment companies (which I assume was the prinicple motivation) to not process payments to the NYT, we would all be screaming about freedom of the press.
If it was the NYT then one assumes in that hypothetical that the NYT would be following recognized established journalistic ethics and thus the reputational and legal risks of helping to fund it would be significantly different.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2011, 12:44:01 PM
If it was the NYT then one assumes in that hypothetical that the NYT would be following recognized established journalistic ethics and thus the reputational and legal risks of helping to fund it would be significantly different.
What statutes define journalistic ethics?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2011, 12:44:01 PM
If it was the NYT then one assumes in that hypothetical that the NYT would be following recognized established journalistic ethics and thus the reputational and legal risks of helping to fund it would be significantly different.
What statutes define journalistic ethics?
What makes you think there are any statutes that define such ethics?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2011, 01:17:42 PM
What makes you think there are any statutes that define such ethics?
The fact that there are legal risks to doing business with an organization that does not follow them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2011, 01:17:42 PM
What makes you think there are any statutes that define such ethics?
The fact that there are legal risks to doing business with an organization that does not follow them.
Ah, the Yi treatment. Berkut set out a scenario there could be legal risk. Such a risk would be diminished if the information was disseminated in a manner protected by the US Constutition. As I understand it WikiLeaks does not attract such protection.
My point was the reputational risk. I am not sure why you think the same reputational risk applies to dealing with WikiLeaks and the NYT.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 25, 2011, 01:23:53 PM
Ah, the Yi treatment. Berkut set out a scenario there could be legal risk. Such a risk would be diminished if the information was disseminated in a manner protected by the US Constutition. As I understand it WikiLeaks does not attract such protection.
My point was the reputational risk. I am not sure why you think the same reputational risk applies to dealing with WikiLeaks and the NYT.
Right, the Yi treatment of thinking that what a person posts is what he posts. Damn that Yi. If you don't mean legal risk don't type it.
I think the same argument applies to reputational risk. If Huffington Post were to publish something that made them very unpopular to the majority of Americans and Visa and Paypal suspended payments to it we would probably scream bloody murder.
Yi raises an interesting point, and I think it comes down to whether or not you consider Wikileaks to be "the press". I do not.
They are just some guys willing to publish classified material on the web.
But it does raise some interesting questions about what constitutes the press in the internet age.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 01:28:07 PM
we would probably scream bloody murder.
I'd be gleeful. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 25, 2011, 01:32:18 PM
I'd be gleeful. :D
You don't count. You don't have any principles.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 01:31:40 PM
Yi raises an interesting point, and I think it comes down to whether or not you consider Wikileaks to be "the press". I do not.
They are just some guys willing to publish classified material on the web.
But it does raise some interesting questions about what constitutes the press in the internet age.
I would defer to the Americans knowledgeable about the application of their constitution but I find it difficult to understand how dealing with a recognized media outlet that is certainly protected by the US constitution is in any way similar to dealing with an offshore internet site run by someone who is avoiding US law - even if that internet site could in some loose way be considered the "press".
The Espionage Act gives the government the power to punish persons responsible for obtaining certain kinds of confidential information, as well as persons conspiring to achieve that end, where there is an intent or reason to believe the information may be used to harm the United States. In the event someone happens to get a hold of confidential information, whether in violation of the Act or not, and passes that on to a media outlet, which then published the information, it is settled law in the United States that the government cannot restrain publication. Assuming the media outlet in question was the passive recipient of information, there also is no basis I am aware of under US law for criminal or civil sanction.
The potential problem that Assange may face under US law is the argument that he was not the passive recipient of information by rather an active participant in a conspiracy to obtain such information, or even in some cases a primary actor himself. If that is so, he could face exposure under the Espionage Act.
More generally, I agree with the thrust of Berkut's comments that regardless of the legal framework, there is a difference between placing trust in a traditional media organization to make responsible choices and placing the same degree of trust in a offshore website run by a single idiosyncratic gadfly. A cynic might point to the vulnerability of the former to undue government pressure; US history since WW2 suggests otherwise, however. What is true is that a traditional newspaper or media outlet is more likely to have the resources and editorial structures in place to take basic steps like excerpting personal information and other particularly sensitive matters without compromising the informational value to the public.
To the extent that US law is permissive towards publication, it is important to recognize the lack of clear rooting of that permissiveness in the Constitution. The principal Supreme Court case on the question - US v. NYT -- had 3 dissenting justices. The swing votes were provided by 2 justices who wrote a concurring opinion stating that the Executive could not enjoin publication where Congress had not authorized it, but left open the question of whether Congress could authorize it under the Constitution. There is a real risk that if more wikileaks type events occur that Congress will be pushed into enacting more far reaching restrictions on the press, which could be upheld by a conservative Supreme Court.
:yeahright: Citizens United case shows that freedom of speech is safe with the conservative justices.
Quote from: DGuller on October 25, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
:yeahright: Citizens United case shows that freedom of speech is safe with the conservative justices.
:lol:
Seems the definition of "the press" is pretty arbitrary. What makes wikileaks not "the press" but NYT is? Given that "the press" is specifically given protection by the constitution it would seem important to clearly define what it consists of.
Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 01:31:40 PM
Yi raises an interesting point, and I think it comes down to whether or not you consider Wikileaks to be "the press". I do not.
I think this is where we primarily disagree. I just see wikileaks as a smaller part of the media and thus part of "the press". The possibility that they were not "the press" had never occured to me.
Sorry for not answering your previous post. I will get to it.
Quote from: Valmy on October 25, 2011, 03:28:48 PMI think this is where we primarily disagree. I just see wikileaks as a smaller part of the media and thus part of "the press". The possibility that they were not "the press" had never occured to me.
Sorry for not answering your previous post. I will get to it.
Agreed.
I have no problem with an official secrets act that would make publication of certain documents or state secrets illegal. That should be accompanied by a robust freedom of information system. I find that less troublesome than protecting speech but not for everyone. Which would seem to be the consequence of saying the NYT and WikiLeaks should be treated differently.
Quote from: Maximus on October 25, 2011, 03:25:56 PM
Seems the definition of "the press" is pretty arbitrary. What makes wikileaks not "the press" but NYT is? Given that "the press" is specifically given protection by the constitution it would seem important to clearly define what it consists of.
The distinction between "press" and "not press" is not critical here. Assange's potential exposure stems not from the fact that he isn't operating a printing press, but from the fact that he is accused of actively conspiring to steal national security secrets.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 25, 2011, 04:17:26 PM
The distinction between "press" and "not press" is not critical here. Assange's potential exposure stems not from the fact that he isn't operating a printing press, but from the fact that he is accused of actively conspiring to steal national security secrets.
This post seems to contradict some of your earlier (and repeated) references to WikiLeaks lack of editorial responsbility, ethics blah blah blah.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 04:24:33 PM
This post seems to contradict some of your earlier (and repeated) references to WikiLeaks lack of editorial responsbility, ethics blah blah blah.
How so?
I think you may be confusing a descriptive statement about what the US law framework is and the specific case against Assange with presciptive statements about why wikileaks is a malign development.
Quote from: Maximus on October 25, 2011, 03:25:56 PM
Seems the definition of "the press" is pretty arbitrary. What makes wikileaks not "the press" but NYT is? Given that "the press" is specifically given protection by the constitution it would seem important to clearly define what it consists of.
A very important question which is the subject of substantial debate in Scandinavia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
What statutes define journalistic ethics?
Are ethics defined only by statute?
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2011, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
What statutes define journalistic ethics?
Are ethics defined only by statute?
Ethics are defined by a number of things. Statute does not appear to be one of them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 09:20:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2011, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 25, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
What statutes define journalistic ethics?
Are ethics defined only by statute?
Ethics are defined by a number of things. Statute does not appear to be one of them.
Then you start to understand why your question was meaningless, I hope.
Keep hope alive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 09:20:09 AMEthics are defined by a number of things. Statute does not appear to be one of them.
It isn't statutory but we've got a common law definition of 'responsible journalism' that can be used as a libel defence. The government are trying to put that into statute.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2011, 12:47:16 PM
It isn't statutory but we've got a common law definition of 'responsible journalism' that can be used as a libel defence. The government are trying to put that into statute.
Same here.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2011, 02:35:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2011, 12:47:16 PM
It isn't statutory but we've got a common law definition of 'responsible journalism' that can be used as a libel defence. The government are trying to put that into statute.
Same here.
As I understand it the US has nothing similar to the responsible journalism defence. In the US claims of Libel are much easier to defend because the Plaintiff must prove malice. See the USSC decision in Sullivan.
The law in the UK and Canada is quite different. The Defendant had to prove truth or a qualified priviledge. The defence of qualified priviledge could be defeated by malice on the part of the Defendant.
That changed in both the UK - in Reynolds and in Canada in Grant v. Torstar when the Courts developed a new common law defense of Responsible Journalism which takes into account a number of factors but the upshot of the test is whether the media outlet used reasonable efforts to check out the story before running it. In the course of establishing the Responsible Jounalism defence the Sullivan approach was expressly rejected.
There may be US decisions that have adopted a Responsible Journalism test since Reynolds and Torstar. If there is such a decision I would appreciate it if someone could link it. It would be a rare case of the USSC rejecting their own test in favour of a Commonwealth test.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2011, 03:53:13 PM
If there is such a decision I would appreciate it if someone could link it. It would be a rare case of the USSC rejecting their own test in favour of a Commonwealth test.
Not so in this area, and in fact the legislatures (state and federal) have acted to insulate the US from foreign libel judgments.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2011, 03:53:13 PM
As I understand it the US has nothing similar to the responsible journalism defence. In the US claims of Libel are much easier to defend because the Plaintiff must prove malice. See the USSC decision in Sullivan.
I don't believe that this is correct. 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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2011, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2011, 03:53:13 PM
As I understand it the US has nothing similar to the responsible journalism defence. In the US claims of Libel are much easier to defend because the Plaintiff must prove malice. See the USSC decision in Sullivan.
I don't believe that this is correct. 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.
The Sullivan case engaged both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The USSC held that actual malice must be proven in order to protect both those constitutional rights. In Canada the Constitutional rights of the media are protected by the application of the Responsible Journalism test which, as I said, is something quite different.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2011, 05:50:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2011, 03:53:13 PM
If there is such a decision I would appreciate it if someone could link it. It would be a rare case of the USSC rejecting their own test in favour of a Commonwealth test.
Not so in this area, and in fact the legislatures (state and federal) have acted to insulate the US from foreign libel judgments.
The question is whether the US has at any level of Court adopted the Responsible Journalism test.
If Murdoch-owned media with its clear policy of illegal activity can make use of the "press" fig leaf then surely Wikileaks can do the same.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2011, 08:49:37 PM
The Sullivan case engaged both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The USSC held that actual malice must be proven in order to protect both those constitutional rights.
The Sullivan case, however, involved only cases regarding reporting on public officials. It was an important case, but didn't change the standards for the overwhelming majority of defamation cases.
Freedom of speech and press are not "constitutional rights," btw. They are constitutionally-protected rights. Even the courts get this wrong sometimes, so I don't blame you for getting it wrong, but the distinction is important semantically. The Bill of Rights protects rights that predated the US Constitution, and will exist after it.
QuoteIn Canada the Constitutional rights of the media are protected by the application of the Responsible Journalism test which, as I said, is something quite different.
In Canada, constitutional rights are a different animal than the US's constitutionally-protected rights. Most of its laws are different from equivalent laws in the US, both in wording and intent. The common law regarding behavior protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press are also different; it is important to remember that the common law of the US is, in fact,
not the common law of Canada. Canadian laws, common as well as statute, do not ally in the US, and vice-versa.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2011, 08:51:26 PM
The question is whether the US has at any level of Court adopted the Responsible Journalism test.
Is this really your question? Why would you think it has?
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2011, 06:24:32 AM
The Sullivan case, however, involved only cases regarding reporting on public officials. It was an important case, but didn't change the standards for the overwhelming majority of defamation cases.
This is a correct characterization of Sullivan.
However, after Sullivan the Court expanded the malice requirement to any case involving a "public figure", which is a much broader formulation, particularly given that as interpreted by the Court, an otherwise ordinary person can be deemed a "limited purpose public figure" if that person inserts himself or is drawn into a matter of public controversy. For example, before 2008 Joe Wurzelbacher was just a private person. After he drew attention because of his comments to Obama, he became a limited purpose public figure. And now that he is flirting with running for Congress on a national stage, he is a public figure.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 27, 2011, 09:08:05 AM
This is a correct characterization of Sullivan.
However, after Sullivan the Court expanded the malice requirement to any case involving a "public figure", which is a much broader formulation, particularly given that as interpreted by the Court, an otherwise ordinary person can be deemed a "limited purpose public figure" if that person inserts himself or is drawn into a matter of public controversy. For example, before 2008 Joe Wurzelbacher was just a private person. After he drew attention because of his comments to Obama, he became a limited purpose public figure. And now that he is flirting with running for Congress on a national stage, he is a public figure.
True, but even including limited purpose public figure, I would be surprised if more than a minority of cases of defamation were resolved using the Sullivan rules. Unless I misunderstand Sullivan's applicability completely.
This would make Sulivan non-equivalent to the Responsible Journalism Test even if it were similar in application.
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2011, 06:24:32 AM
In Canada, constitutional rights are a different animal than the US's constitutionally-protected rights. Most of its laws are different from equivalent laws in the US, both in wording and intent. The common law regarding behavior protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press are also different; it is important to remember that the common law of the US is, in fact, not the common law of Canada. Canadian laws, common as well as statute, do not ally in the US, and vice-versa.
A couple points here.
First, Sheilbh said that in the UK there was a common law media defence of Responsible Journalism which the government was considering putting into legislation. You said "same here". From that I understood you to mean that the US also has a common law media defence of Responsible Journalism which the US government was considering putting into legislation.
To my knowledge the US does not have a common law media defence of Responsible Journalism. You are quite right the Sullivan involved a public figure but subsequent US cases have broadened the circumstances in which the malice test will apply so that it has become very difficult for media in the US to be successfully sued because of the malice threshold. That is why I asked the question of whether any US Court has adopted the Responsible Journalism test since it really isnt needed in your country. ie why swap a weaker protection for a stronger protection.
I am also wondering why you consider Canadian Charter Rights to be a "different animal" from US Constitutional rights.
I dont understand why you are making the point about Canadian law not applying in the US. That of course is so but I dont know how if furthers the discussion.
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2011, 09:23:45 AM
I would be surprised if more than a minority of cases of defamation were resolved using the Sullivan rules. Unless I misunderstand Sullivan's applicability completely.
I think that is where you are going wrong. The malice test is the main protection for media outlets in the US. That is what allows your media to say some outrageous things without being successfully sued. Even if there is no truth to the allegations made by the media, so long as the defamation is uttered without actual malice there is no cause of action and actual malice is a very hard thing to prove.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2011, 11:02:16 AM
First, Sheilbh said that in the UK there was a common law media defence of Responsible Journalism which the government was considering putting into legislation. You said "same here". From that I understood you to mean that the US also has a common law media defence of Responsible Journalism which the US government was considering putting into legislation.
That's not what he said, and I responded to. He said that the concept of responsible journalism was a common-law concept in the UK, and I said that it was the same in the US.
QuoteTo my knowledge the US does not have a common law media defence of Responsible Journalism.
The US has a common-law defenses against defamation suits that include the idea that the journalists were acting responsibly, not maliciously or recklesslly. It has no statute that determines what that that responsible (hence protected) behavior must be.
"Responsible Journalism" is not the same as "responsible journalism." The former is a proper name, the latter a term.
QuoteI am also wondering why you consider Canadian Charter Rights to be a "different animal" from US Constitutional rights.
Because the Canadian Charter lists the rights of Canadians, whereas there are no US "Constitutional Rights" (except, where intoduced in the Fourteenth Amendment, and even then depending on how you interpret the status of those issues before the 14th was ratified); there are Constitutionally-protected rights, but these are not explicitly listed like Canadian Charter rights. Some are listed, some are not. The ones not listed have equal standing with those that are listed. In the US, rights exist outside the Constitution, which is a set of rules for the government, not a listing of rights of the people.
QuoteI dont understand why you are making the point about Canadian law not applying in the US. That of course is so but I dont know how if furthers the discussion.
I noted that to make sure that you understood that the Responsible Journalism Test, as a matter of British law, didn't apply to the US, as you had repeatedly questioned.
It now appears that you simply misread what I said about responsible journalism being defined by US common law as somehow having to do with the English common law Responsible Journalism Test.
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2011, 02:56:40 PM
The US has a common-law defenses against defamation suits that include the idea that the journalists were acting responsibly, not maliciously or recklesslly.
You are mixing things up. The test of not acting maliciously derives from the Sullivan test which is a different test from the Responsible Journalism concepts found in the common law of both Canada and the UK. Again I ask if you can link any American decision which applies a common law defence of Responsible Journalism whether you wish to capitalize the words or not.
QuoteBecause the Canadian Charter lists the rights of Canadians, whereas there are no US "Constitutional Rights" (except, where intoduced in the Fourteenth Amendment, and even then depending on how you interpret the status of those issues before the 14th was ratified); there are Constitutionally-protected rights, but these are not explicitly listed like Canadian Charter rights. Some are listed, some are not. The ones not listed have equal standing with those that are listed. In the US, rights exist outside the Constitution, which is a set of rules for the government, not a listing of rights of the people.
You have taken us significantly off track here. How does this have anything to do with Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press being different under the Charter?
QuoteIt now appears that you simply misread what I said about responsible journalism being defined by US common law as somehow having to do with the English common law Responsible Journalism Test.
Again, where is the case law in the US that says anything about a responsible journalism test. If there is such a thing I would like to see it as it would helpful for me to understand that development in US law. I dont think I misread anything. You said the US has such a test. To my knowledge there is no such thing in the US. I would be most appreciative if you could point me to the case or cases you say set out such a test in the US.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2011, 03:15:18 PM
You are mixing things up. The test of not acting maliciously derives from the Sullivan test which is a different test from the Responsible Journalism concepts found in the common law of both Canada and the UK. Again I ask if you can link any American decision which applies a common law defence of Responsible Journalism whether you wish to capitalize the words or not.
Why would I even look for such links? Do you suspect that they exist? If so, why?
The test of the press not acting maliciously doesn't derive from Sullivan; Sullivan clarified what that test would look like, in the case of public figures.
QuoteYou have taken us significantly off track here.
If so, it was your question that drew us off-track. I was responding to your question.
QuoteAgain, where is the case law in the US that says anything about a responsible journalism test.
Responsible journalists and publishers do not act with "actual malice." If they do so, they are not protected by the Constitutional guarantees of the freedom of the press. I don't think you can argue that journalism that publishes an assertion of fact "with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false" is "responsible journalism."
QuoteIf there is such a thing I would like to see it as it would helpful for me to understand that development in US law. I dont think I misread anything. You said the US has such a test. To my knowledge there is no such thing in the US. I would be most appreciative if you could point me to the case or cases you say set out such a test in the US.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), quoted above.
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2011, 05:06:42 PM
Why would I even look for such links? Do you suspect that they exist? If so, why?
Because you have told me the US has such a common law defence. Given the rest of your post I see now that the US does not in fact have such a thing. so when you said "same here" earlier I was correct to question that response since what you really meant was "same here - although what I mean by same is that it is really quite different here"
QuoteResponsible journalists and publishers do not act with "actual malice." If they do so, they are not protected by the Constitutional guarantees of the freedom of the press. I don't think you can argue that journalism that publishes an assertion of fact "with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false" is "responsible journalism."
I understand now. You dont know the legal test - you are just applying a layman's understanding of what responsible journalism might mean. You didnt dont know that Reponsible Journalism is a legal term of art and that such a common law defence is not actually part of US law. The US law is quite different and provides a much more robust defence for media defendants which merely requires that the media does not act with actual malice.
You are quite right that a media outlet the publishes with malice is not acting responsibly but merely acting without malice is also no guarrantee that the media outlet is acting responsibly ie acting without malice is a necessary but not sufficient factor in the responsible journalism defence.
This is sad.
I'm not a huge wikileaks fan- though, it must be said, I think their going after the west is more a case of more good material from the west being presented to them rather than some sort of anti-US vendetta.
The way banks are cutting off their funding like that....yeah. That's really going after the freedom of the press.
Quote from: Tyr on October 27, 2011, 07:29:22 PM
This is sad.
I'm not a huge wikileaks fan- though, it must be said, I think their going after the west is more a case of more good material from the west being presented to them rather than some sort of anti-US vendetta.
The way banks are cutting off their funding like that....yeah. That's really going after the freedom of the press.
You shouldn't hit the bottle so hard.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2011, 07:20:13 PM
Because you have told me the US has such a common law defence.
No. Go back and re-read what I whot, and you may find the source of your confusion. The US laws on what constitutes constitutionally protected press activity is in the common law, not the statute law.
QuoteGiven the rest of your post I see now that the US does not in fact have such a thing. so when you said "same here" earlier I was correct to question that response since what you really meant was "same here - although what I mean by same is that it is really quite different here"
He said that what constitutes "responsible journalism" was from the common law (which it is) and I said that the same situation applies in the US, which it does. This is not rocket science.
QuoteI understand now. You dont know the legal test - you are just applying a layman's understanding of what responsible journalism might mean.
I was responding to what was written. The term "responsible journalism" has, in fact, an everyday meaning. Do the google search, and find http://www.google.com/search?q=%22responsible+journalism%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22responsible+journalism%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) None of the ones on the first page refer to any English common law.
QuoteYou didnt dont know that Reponsible Journalism is a legal term of art
And you didn't know that, when words are capitalized, they take on a different meaning than when they are not capitalized, and are in fact placed in quotation marks. Responsible Journalism is not the same as "responsible journalism." Perhaps capitalization doesn't carry the weight in your native language that it does in English. Check out http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/propernoun.htm (http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/propernoun.htm), and I think you will see the source of your confusion. Responsible Journalism names "a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item." Then go to http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/commonnoun.htm (http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/commonnoun.htm). There, you will discover common nouns. "The important thing to remember is that common nouns are general names. Thus, they are not capitalized unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title. Proper nouns, those that name specific things, do require capitalization."
English can be tricky. When you run across cases that look to differ from how your native tongue works, don't assume that something you read about "legal terms of art" completely address the situation. Ask. People here will help.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2011, 07:33:32 PM
You shouldn't hit the bottle so hard.
This is Tyr. He talks like this cold sober, scary as that thought is.
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2011, 07:56:02 PMHe said that what constitutes "responsible journalism" was from the common law (which it is) and I said that the same situation applies in the US, which it does. This is not rocket science.
...
I was responding to what was written. The term "responsible journalism" has, in fact, an everyday meaning. Do the google search, and find http://www.google.com/search?q=%22responsible+journalism%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22responsible+journalism%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) None of the ones on the first page refer to any English common law.
I think I've caused confusion here.
I meant that there is a specific 'responsible journalism' defence in English common law in defamation cases (incidentally in that case the newspaper tried to argue for Sullivan style protection and failed). The government's possibly going to put that into statute.
So though we've not got a statute of journalistic ethics (as any look at the British press would confirm) we do have some ideas around that area that could soon be statute. Your speech is more protected if you can demonstrate that what you were doing was 'responsible journalism' and that sort of framework could be used in splitting the NYT from WikiLeaks. Which was, I think, what Yi was point towards? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2011, 08:03:43 PM
I think I've caused confusion here.
I meant that there is a specific 'responsible journalism' defence in English common law in defamation cases (incidentally in that case the newspaper tried to argue for Sullivan style protection and failed). The government's possibly going to put that into statute.
So though we've not got a statute of journalistic ethics (as any look at the British press would confirm) we do have some ideas around that area that could soon be statute. Your speech is more protected if you can demonstrate that what you were doing was 'responsible journalism' and that sort of framework could be used in splitting the NYT from WikiLeaks. Which was, I think, what Yi was point towards? :mellow:
You are talking about the "Reynolds privilege" here, correct?
If so, the ten points listed as qualifying based on the story in The Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476714/Ten-point-test-of-responsible-journalism.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476714/Ten-point-test-of-responsible-journalism.html) appear to deal with cases of libel:
Quote• The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed if the allegation is not true.
• The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is of public concern.
• The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind or are being paid for their stories.
• The steps taken to verify the information.
• The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation that commands respect.
• The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
• Whether comment was sought from the claimant. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the claimant will not always be necessary.
• Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story.
• The tone of the article. A paper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
• The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
There doesn't seem to be anything there that draws a line between Wikileaks and the NYT.
It seems, as an aside, to be dreadful law, if this is an accurate summary of it. It draws no clear line that a journalist can examine to ensure that he/she is safe from libel. It simply lists a bunch of considerations, most of which are common sense. A journalist can believe he or she meets the criteria to qualify for privilege, but fail because a judge's evaluation of these vague criteria differs from the journalist's.
I find it also interesting that the nature of the newspaper allegations help determine whether or not a journalist is responsible, not just the nature of the journalist's action. The law seems to encourage journalists to under-report allegations, because two otherwise identical stories can enjoy different status under the law if the "seriousness of the allegations" is less in one.
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2011, 07:56:02 PM
English can be tricky.
Yeah, when someone says
same they can use all kinds of arguments to later claim they didnt actually mean same.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 27, 2011, 08:03:43 PM
I meant that there is a specific 'responsible journalism' defence in English common law in defamation cases (incidentally in that case the newspaper tried to argue for Sullivan style protection and failed). The government's possibly going to put that into statute.
There was no confusion. I knew that was exactly what you were talking about. I thought Grumbler did as well when he said "same here". But it turns out he didnt know. And of course Grumbler being Grumbler, rather than acknowledging that the concepts in the US and UK were different after being told of those differences the thread bogged down into semantics as Grumbler tried instead to justify the remark.
Par for the Languish course.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2011, 09:39:09 AM
There was no confusion. I knew that was exactly what you were talking about. I thought Grumbler did as well when he said "same here". But it turns out he didnt know. And of course Grumbler being Grumbler, rather than acknowledging that the concepts in the US and UK were different after being told of those differences the thread bogged down into semantics as Grumbler tried instead to justify the remark.
Par for the Languish course.
The confusion came from the use of the common noun form of the phrase "responsible journalism." As any quick google search will demonstrate, the term generates over 200,000 hits, and a scan of the first 40 hits only find it used in the common law defense sense in 2 of them. In fact, if one searches the Reynolds decision itself one finds the term used once. Googling "term of art" and "responsible journalism"
finds exactly one internet source arguing that "Responsible Journalism is a legal term of art," and that is your post above! :lol:
Even the BBC uses the term in the common noun form here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/analysis/7487525.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/analysis/7487525.stm)
The argument that the phrase must refer to some legal term of art is as preposterous as the claim that novels are factual. Yet you cling to that claim, as you did to the other, because you are cRaZy CaNuCk and cannot admit error.
My original point stands, unobscured by your attempts to focus the discussion on dubious claims about "terms of art" and confused attempts to argue that capitalization doesn't matter: in the US, the common law, and not statute law, defines the nature of the "responsible journalism" that is protected by the freedom of the press.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2011, 11:28:58 AM
The confusion came from the use of the common noun form of the phrase "responsible journalism."
Yes, I know you didnt realize the import of those particular words at first. What baffles me is that you continued arguing like you did.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2011, 07:22:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2011, 11:28:58 AM
The confusion came from the use of the common noun form of the phrase "responsible journalism."
Yes, I know you didnt realize the import of those particular words at first. What baffles me is that you continued arguing like you did.
You are addressing a grumbler of the perversiverse.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2011, 05:30:06 AM
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.
He teaches all three?
You guys need either grallon or Marti to make it a real dogpile. What you have going here is pretty pathetic. :bowler:
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 06:09:56 AM
You guys need either grallon or Marti to make it a real dogpile. What you have going here is pretty pathetic. :bowler:
Well it's no Line crossing ceremony orgy, but we do okay.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2011, 06:20:04 AM
Well it's no Line crossing ceremony orgy, but we do okay.
I
do not want to hear about your "Line crossing ceremony orgy." :x
I know what you sailors do.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2011, 05:30:06 AM
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... :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2011, 08:32:56 AM
What's more fascinating is that I happen to know CC had a recent case that touched on these very issues... :ph34r:
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 (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.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2011, 08:32:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 31, 2011, 05:30:06 AM
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... :ph34r:
I dont recall there being any Rum involved.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 12:31:39 PM
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.
QuoteYou 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 (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
QuoteWhen 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.
QuoteMeh, like I said, par for the languish course.
I'd argue it is more "par for the crazy canuck course."
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 01:02:11 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 01:25:21 PM
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.
QuoteAnd 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?
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 01:39:18 PM
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.
What makes a media outlet credible? Or not credible as the case may be.
Quote from: Maximus on October 31, 2011, 02:58:28 PM
What makes a media outlet credible? Or not credible as the case may be.
What they report and how they report it.
Quote from: Maximus on October 31, 2011, 02:58:28 PM
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2011, 03:00:25 PM
What they report and how they report it.
And here I thought it would be the quality of their fries.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 02:54:09 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2011, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 31, 2011, 02:58:28 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 03:34:01 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 03:40:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 03:34:01 PM
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? :lmfao:
From the second: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/nyt-worked-several-weeks-leaked-cables-wikileaks-wasn.html
Quotethe 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.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 04:04:16 PM
Didn't read the links, did you? :lmfao:
Changing your position so early on again...
I was responding to what you said which was...
The New York Times could, of course, publish the information published by Wikileaks - they did do so, after allNow you say they didnt publish information published by Wikileaks. That might be so but it has nothing to do with the point you made that I responded to. When you make up your mind what point you actualy want to make let me know.
In the meantime, yeah, I am not going to read through a bunch of links you put up to justify poor arguments.
Is anyone other than grumbler and CC still following this? :huh: If so, can you tell me who's losing less?
My stool is quite runny.
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
Is anyone other than grumbler and CC still following this? :huh: If so, can you tell me who's losing less?
More fool was I for trying to inform Grumbler about a basic misconception he was making. It should be like the Fate rule. Never attempt to teach Grumbles something. Not only can that old dog not learn something new but he becomes very irratated at the suggestion he doesnt know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 04:08:58 PM
Changing your position so early on again...
Reading, Motherfucker! Can you do it? I haven't changed my position in the slightest. You just can't understand it, because you
aren't reading what is actually being written. Just like last time.
Quote
I was responding to what you said which was...
The New York Times could, of course, publish the information published by Wikileaks - they did do so, after all
Now you say they didnt publish information published by Wikileaks.
Reading, Motherfucker! Can you do it?
The NYT published the same material Wikileaks did (only they did it
first, along with four other newspapers).
How can you be republishing
if you do it first? Are you going to argue that this is just another "legal term of art" to try to weasel your way out of a losing position?
Jesus, man! Read what I write, and stop claiming that I am saying things I never said!
QuoteIn the meantime, yeah, I am not going to read through a bunch of links you put up to justify poor arguments.
Okay, then. At least you now have conceded that mere evidence won't make you change your bogus position. We are done.
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2011, 04:13:56 PM
Is anyone other than grumbler and CC still following this? :huh: If so, can you tell me who's losing less?
:lol: Yeah, it is hard to have an interesting debate when someone keeps butting in with uniformed bullshit, and then announces that they are uninterested in the evidence.
My question remains: is there any way to distinguish between wikileaks and the NYT as "journalists," other than for defamation purposes?
I am not sure we should, but the question has been raised, and I think it is an interesting one.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 04:34:23 PM
The NYT published the same material Wikileaks did (only they did it first, along with four other newspapers).
Interesting. So now you contend that the NYT and four other newspapers obtained information independant of Wikileaks which Wikileaks had itself allegedly obtained unlawfully and then published it before Wikileaks. How did they do that Grumbles?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2011, 04:59:13 PM
Interesting. So now you contend that the NYT and four other newspapers obtained information independant of Wikileaks which Wikileaks had itself allegedly obtained unlawfully and then published it before Wikileaks. How did they do that Grumbles?
As you have noted, you are not going to read evidence. There is no basis, then, for further discussion on the matter. Learn to read, and then practice it by reading the links provided (or even Wikipedia, if the links use language too advanced for you). This isn't rocket science, though non-native-English-speakers may find the vocabulary in the news articles too advanced.
And who is alleging that Wikileaks obtained the cables illegally? You know what you are saying when you say that "Wikileaks had itself allegedly obtained unlawfully," do you not?