By suing WikiLeaks, DNC could endanger principles of press freedom

[Hayabusa Rider]

https://cpj.org/blog/2018/05/by-suing-wikileaks-dnc-could-endanger-principles-o.php


Do you agree or no? Why?

Edit- Assuming some action ought to be taken, what and again why?

 

[zinfamous]

Without yet reading, is Wikileaks considered "press"?

I thought the US officially recognized them as an "antagonist agent" or something like that. The press usually carries a delicate procedure, governed by ethics and security concerns, when it comes to leaking information. The history of leaking is usually one of mutual understanding--the information is leaked to the press because the office/leaker want it to be leaked, and it goes through the proper channels and some weird, sorta dubious system of checks to insure that it is "properly leaked."

Even with the Pentagon Papers, that dude was a high level analyst that made certain that what needed to be exposed was exposed, but was not a threat to security and, likewise, trusted the press to understand how to properly disseminate that information, and they did. The Press is expected to abide by their own ethics and are constantly checked by the public to maintain that integrity.

Wikileaks is none of this. Their mission has long been perverted into one of self-aggrandizement of their founder, and has more or less been co-opted by one state to act as a proxy information weapon against their rivals.

 

[senseamp]

Not any more than Thiel vs Gawker destroyed those principles of press freedom already. If freedom of press depends not on judges protecting it, but on someone not filing a lawsuit, then we don't have it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Without yet reading, is Wikileaks considered "press"?

I thought the US officially recognized them as an "antagonist agent" or something like that. The press usually carries a delicate procedure, governed by ethics and security concerns, when it comes to leaking information. The history of leaking is usually one of mutual understanding--the information is leaked to the press because they want it to be leaked, and it goes through the proper channels and some weird, sorta dubious system of checks to insure that it is "properly leaked."

Even with the Pentagon Papers, that dude was a high level analyst that made certain that what needed to be exposed was exposed, but was not a threat to security and, likewise, trusted the press to understand how to properly disseminate that information, and they did. The Press is expected to abide by their own ethics and are constantly checked by the public to maintain that integrity.

Wikileaks is none of this. Their mission has long been perverted into one of self-aggrandizement of their founder, and has more or less been co-opted by one state to act as a proxy information weapon against their rivals.

I'll give an established definition. According to Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Press is "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." For our times I would hold electronic submissions equivalent to paper publications.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not any more than Thiel vs Gawker destroyed those principles of press freedom already. If freedom of press depends not on judges protecting it, but on someone not filing a lawsuit, then we don't have it.

Then what in this instance?

 

[UNCjigga]

I pretty much agree with Zin on this...also the DNC lawsuit has some merit if Wikileaks knowingly accepted and disseminated information that was illegally obtained. Yes, that is modus operandi for Wikileaks, but at this point, there's no reason to believe they were protecting some internal whistleblower trying to expose a crime with DNC hacks. They aided and abetted a crime for political purposes.

 

[senseamp]

Then what in this instance?

What about it? It's going to be up to for a judge to decide what is or isn't protected speech and what is likely a conspiracy and WikiLeaks acting as a Russian agent. DNC has a position that it's going to present, and a judge will decide.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What about it? It's going to be up to for a judge to decide what is or isn't protected speech and what is likely a conspiracy and WikiLeaks acting as a Russian agent. DNC has a position that it's going to present, and a judge will decide.

I think it a foolish approach. As the definition for "journalism" has been given, any outlet would be equally liable. I would much rather use established legal methods in place for wrongful action by "journalism". "Theft and "wiretapping" which would be information gained by confidential sources. Much of what we read about, those "unnamed sources" are just that because they broke the law by their actions in releasing classified information, perhaps by illegal means even if not classified.

Trump is handed a victory. Why? Because he doesn't have to launch a diatribe against the NYT, the DOJ can properly prosecute it into extinction, again by precedent.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I pretty much agree with Zin on this...also the DNC lawsuit has some merit if Wikileaks knowingly accepted and disseminated information that was illegally obtained. Yes, that is modus operandi for Wikileaks, but at this point, there's no reason to believe they were protecting some internal whistleblower trying to expose a crime with DNC hacks. They aided and abetted a crime for political purposes.

Well said and well said @zinfamous

 

[senseamp]

I think it a foolish approach. As the definition for "journalism" has been given, any outlet would be equally liable. I would much rather use established legal methods in place for wrongful action by "journalism". "Theft and "wiretapping" which would be information gained by confidential sources. Much of what we read about, those "unnamed sources" are just that because they broke the law by their actions in releasing classified information, perhaps by illegal means even if not classified.
Trump is handed a victory. Why? Because he doesn't have to launch a diatribe against the NYT, the DOJ can properly prosecute it into extinction, again by precedent.

Trump can already do that by asking one of his supporters to secretly fund lawsuits against media he dislikes, as Peter Thiel has done. That genie is out of the bottle.
We don't know what arrangement Assange had with Russia and Trump. You are assuming he was acting as a journalist and not as an agent, but that is not a given, and is subject to discovery. You seem to have high confidence in the courts when it comes to them being right to force tens of millions of workers into arbitration, but you don't seem to have any confidence in them to protect freedom of the press.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Trump can already do that by asking one of his supporters to secretly fund lawsuits against media he dislikes, as Peter Thiel has done. That genie is out of the bottle.
We don't know what arrangement Assange had with Russia and Trump. You are assuming he was acting as a journalist and not as an agent, but that is not a given, and is subject to discovery. You seem to have high confidence in the courts when it comes to them being right to force tens of millions of workers into arbitration, but you don't seem to have any confidence in them to protect freedom of the press.

I think you may be missing the salient point, not lawsuits, but criminal prosecution on the basis of "theft" and "wiretapping" of news or journalistic bodies and individuals becomes a possibility. If you think things can't get worse I'd have to disagree.

 

[senseamp]

I think you may be missing the salient point, not lawsuits, but criminal prosecution on the basis of "theft" and "wiretapping" of news or journalistic bodies and individuals becomes a possibility. If you think things can't get worse I'd have to disagree.

They can get worse regardless of DNC suing or not. Ultimately it's SCOTUS clerics that are going to decide, not the DNC.

 

[Bitek]

I'll give an established definition. According to Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Press is "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." For our times I would hold electronic submissions equivalent to paper publications.

Even when they are acting as a propaganda front for a hostile foreign country?

Think we may have bigger freedoms in danger