Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The indictment of Assange is a blueprint for making journalists into felons
The First Amendment is meaningless if it only protects people the government recognizes as journalists.

By Glenn Greenwald



The argument offered by both the Trump administration and by some members of the self-styled “resistance” to Trump is, ironically, the same: that Assange isn’t a journalist at all and thus deserves no free press protections. But this claim overlooks the indictment’s real danger and, worse, displays a wholesale ignorance of the First Amendment. Press freedoms belong to everyone, not to a select, privileged group of citizens called “journalists.” Empowering prosecutors to decide who does or doesn’t deserve press protections would restrict “freedom of the press” to a small, cloistered priesthood of privileged citizens designated by the government as “journalists.” The First Amendment was written to avoid precisely that danger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... c6c8246978

So everybody's a journalist then?

And Trump does nothing. Worst Putin Puppet ever.

This whole thing is barking up the wrong tree.

Assange shouldn’t be answerable to our government anyway. The crime that was committed was done by Bradley Manning and he should be in prison for the rest of his natural life. Assange should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the USG

Next thing you know, you’ll be saying “Free Snowden.”

Ivytalk wrote:Next thing you know, you’ll be saying “Free Snowden.”

It's amazing how trustworthy government becomes for conservatives when it's supporting their politics.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Next thing you know, you’ll be saying “Free Snowden.”

It's amazing how trustworthy government becomes for conservatives when it's supporting their politics.

So you actually think Snowden is a patriot. No accounting for some people. Carry on.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
It's amazing how trustworthy government becomes for conservatives when it's supporting their politics.

So you actually think Snowden is a patriot. No accounting for some people. Carry on.

I didn't say that and I don't know. I do know our government does some secretive and illegal shit and that transparency and whistle blowing can be necessary and good things. People shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people.

Unlike you apparently. Carry on.

GannonFan wrote:So everybody's a journalist then?

maybe in the same sense that everyone's a militia member?

catbooster wrote:

GannonFan wrote:So everybody's a journalist then?

maybe in the same sense that everyone's a militia member?

Or everyone is their own religion. No taxes for anyone!

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: So you actually think Snowden is a patriot. No accounting for some people. Carry on.

I didn't say that and I don't know. I do know our government does some secretive and illegal shit and that transparency and whistle blowing can be necessary and good things. People shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people.

Unlike you apparently. Carry on.

2nd Amendment Bro!

GannonFan wrote:

catbooster wrote: maybe in the same sense that everyone's a militia member?

Or everyone is their own religion. No taxes for anyone!

He's a hacker. Kill him.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
It's amazing how trustworthy government becomes for conservatives when it's supporting their politics.

So you actually think Snowden is a patriot. No accounting for some people. Carry on.

It’s too bad klam’s heroes are 99.9% traitor and 0.01% whistleblower

Manning isn’t even that .... nothing he exposed was of of any “whistleblower” value

This subject is klam’s JSO moment - you just have to continually remind him that his heroes had other options that didn’t involve exposing sources and methods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:He's a hacker. Kill him.

CID1990 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: So you actually think Snowden is a patriot. No accounting for some people. Carry on.

It’s too bad klam’s heroes are 99.9% traitor and 0.01% whistleblower

Manning isn’t even that .... nothing he exposed was of of any “whistleblower” value

This subject is klam’s JSO moment - you just have to continually remind him that his heroes had other options that didn’t involve exposing sources and methods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got more JSO moments than Picasso got paint....statist.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
It’s too bad klam’s heroes are 99.9% traitor and 0.01% whistleblower

Manning isn’t even that .... nothing he exposed was of of any “whistleblower” value

This subject is klam’s JSO moment - you just have to continually remind him that his heroes had other options that didn’t involve exposing sources and methods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got more JSO moments than Picasso got paint....statist.

Nope.

Take it to your Congresscritter. We've been through this before in agonizing detail, John

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I got more JSO moments than Picasso got paint....statist.

Nope.

Take it to your Congresscritter. We've been through this before in agonizing detail, John

Take what to my congresscritter? I really don’t care all that much and I’m certainly not interested enough to write my rep. Good god, man, it’s just a political discussion. It’s not as if we’re talking the failures of Reaganomics here.

Besides, she’s just a convenient statist conk like you.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Nope.

Take it to your Congresscritter. We've been through this before in agonizing detail, John

Take what to my congresscritter? I really don’t care all that much and I’m certainly not interested enough to write my rep. Good god, man, it’s just a political discussion. It’s not as if we’re talking the failures of Reaganomics here.

Besides, she’s just a convenient statist conk like you.

Yeah look at who’s suddenly using labels.

I’m all for whistleblowing on government shenanigans

Show me a whistleblower and I’ll agree with you




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Take what to my congresscritter? I really don’t care all that much and I’m certainly not interested enough to write my rep. Good god, man, it’s just a political discussion. It’s not as if we’re talking the failures of Reaganomics here.

Besides, she’s just a convenient statist conk like you.

Yeah look at who’s suddenly using labels.

I’m all for whistleblowing on government shenanigans

Show me a whistleblower and I’ll agree with you




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And look who suddenly takes issue with hyperbolic name calling and has stooped to emojis.

I'll admit to questioning the sunlight on the fogs of war argument to a degree. Most of us at least have a cursory understanding that bad shit happens. In this case, it's complicated especially with the Iraq video because that was a war of choice.

And don't forget, the NYT and Der Spiegel were also conspirators.

Manning is a whistleblower whether you care to admit it or not. You just don't like the foul.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Yeah look at who’s suddenly using labels.

I’m all for whistleblowing on government shenanigans

Show me a whistleblower and I’ll agree with you




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And look who suddenly takes issue with hyperbolic name calling and has stooped to emojis.

I'll admit to questioning the sunlight on the fogs of war argument to a degree. Most of us at least have a cursory understanding that bad **** happens. In this case, it's complicated especially with the Iraq video because that was a war of choice.

And don't forget, the NYT and Der Spiegel were also conspirators.

Manning is a whistleblower whether you care to admit it or not. You just don't like the foul.

Who cares what Der Spiegel or the NYT do? They aren’t under any obligations to nit report leaks.

Manning didn’t expose wrongdoing. In fact, the airstrike videos weren’t even classified, and they are not what got Manning charged. So your one example of “whistleblowing” wasn’t even what he got in hot water for. You may share his odd thought processes and think he was a whistleblower but that’s is your opinion- one not shared by very many sane people.

The only person convicted of a crime as a result of Manning’s actions was Manning. Nobody involved in those airstrikes was brought under any kind of disciplinary or criminal process, because there was no criminal activity, no war crimes, nothing. I guess he was blowing a whistle that only you can hear.

He leaked classified cables from all over the world - literally from every Embassy we own. What whistles were being blown there, exactly?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
And look who suddenly takes issue with hyperbolic name calling and has stooped to emojis.

I'll admit to questioning the sunlight on the fogs of war argument to a degree. Most of us at least have a cursory understanding that bad **** happens. In this case, it's complicated especially with the Iraq video because that was a war of choice.

And don't forget, the NYT and Der Spiegel were also conspirators.

Manning is a whistleblower whether you care to admit it or not. You just don't like the foul.

Who cares what Der Spiegel or the NYT do? They aren’t under any obligations to nit report leaks.

Manning didn’t expose wrongdoing. In fact, the airstrike videos weren’t even classified, and they are not what got Manning charged. So your one example of “whistleblowing” wasn’t even what he got in hot water for. You may share his odd thought processes and think he was a whistleblower but that’s is your opinion- one not shared by very many sane people.

The only person convicted of a crime as a result of Manning’s actions was Manning. Nobody involved in those airstrikes was brought under any kind of disciplinary or criminal process, because there was no criminal activity, no war crimes, nothing. I guess he was blowing a whistle that only you can hear.

He leaked classified cables from all over the world - literally from every Embassy we own. What whistles were being blown there, exactly?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reason Magazine writers have referred to Manning as a whistleblower among many others. And then there’s the whole global view of shedding light on the secrets of wars of choice, propaganda, domestic spying, etc that governments do.

I don’t dismiss your views out of hand Cidney. I respect them deeply because of your experience and well-reasoned approach to things. But this one ain’t as cut and dry as you make it.

Still friends?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Who cares what Der Spiegel or the NYT do? They aren’t under any obligations to nit report leaks.

Manning didn’t expose wrongdoing. In fact, the airstrike videos weren’t even classified, and they are not what got Manning charged. So your one example of “whistleblowing” wasn’t even what he got in hot water for. You may share his odd thought processes and think he was a whistleblower but that’s is your opinion- one not shared by very many sane people.

The only person convicted of a crime as a result of Manning’s actions was Manning. Nobody involved in those airstrikes was brought under any kind of disciplinary or criminal process, because there was no criminal activity, no war crimes, nothing. I guess he was blowing a whistle that only you can hear.

He leaked classified cables from all over the world - literally from every Embassy we own. What whistles were being blown there, exactly?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reason Magazine writers have referred to Manning as a whistleblower among many others. And then there’s the whole global view of shedding light on the secrets of wars of choice, propaganda, domestic spying, etc that governments do.

I don’t dismiss your views out of hand Cidney. I respect them deeply because of your experience and well-reasoned approach to things. But this one ain’t as cut and dry as you make it.

Still friends?

I see

We needed Manning to tell us that elective wars of choice are a bad idea. Gosh, maybe if he’d have just given all his stuff to some Dem Senator on the SFRC he wouldn’t have been in hot water

Hell, if not for ol Bradley we might still be in Iraq and Afghanistan

But Reason said so so he must be a whistleblower

BTW this week we had a detrimental reminder of a contact in Thailand who was exposed for a certain crime that is particular only to Thailand ...... as a direct result of Bradley Manning releasing a quarter million State Dept cables. He exposed THOUSANDS of sources in some pretty nasty places. I understand why you punted on this one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We should eliminate anyone involved in hacking when we identify them.

JohnStOnge wrote:We should eliminate anyone involved in hacking when we identify them.

Starting with China? Or is that unwinnable and therefore we should just leave them alone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk