Julian Assange free

[revelarts]

What if the press is lying or is using unreliable sources/information and the story ends up being completely false?

Like, Biden's Laptop is Fake. Classic Russian disinfo tactic, the vaccine is safe and effective, Saddam has WMDs & mobile Anthrax units, yellow cake from Africa, Hidden Mountain fortresses in Afghanistan, Pat Tilman Jessica Lynch, Assad gassed his own people, “THE GHOST OF KIEV”, Incubator babies left on the floor to die, Ivermectin is horse medicine don't use it, MASK WORK!, Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning!, "J6 is the worst attack since the civil war!". "Covid came from a wet market!" ...
We can do this all day.

And most of that false info came FROM the gov't.
But I can't think of ONE news source that hasn't presented "Fake News" at one time or another.
But some news sources are definitely more consistent and generous with their fakery.

Which is why we need a free press so there's at least a chance that the reality will come out somewhere sometime.
unless we want to trust the gov't to tell us the truth.

BTW Alex Jones was more correct on the list above than all of the MSM.
And has been in general.

BTW the record shows historically that Most often the gov'ts go after journalist because they are telling the TRUTH. not because they've told lies.

[Black Diamond]

@revelarts. I can't get the quote function to work on this tiny phone. Does unlimited freedom of the press include the right of the press to lie?

[revelarts]

@revelarts. I can't get the quote function to work on this tiny phone. Does unlimited freedom of the press include the right of the press to lie?

[Black Diamond]

[fj1200]

That should apply to cnn other msm sources. It should set a precedent.

I shall point you to Richard Jewell, Nicholas Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse maybe, etc.

[Black Diamond]

I shall point you to Richard Jewell, Nicholas Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse maybe, etc.

May it continue and may they succeed

[revelarts]

even the NYT has managed to see the problem to a degree
Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse
The deal brings an ambiguous end to a legal saga that has jeopardized the ability of journalists to report on military, intelligence or diplomatic information that officials deem secret.
https://archive.is/R7pj3

[Gunny]

even the NYT has managed to see the problem to a degree
Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse
The deal brings an ambiguous end to a legal saga that has jeopardized the ability of journalists to report on military, intelligence or diplomatic information that officials deem secret.
https://archive.is/R7pj3

I don't see the problem. Classified information is classified information for a reason. You are not entitled to it just because you think you are.

[Black Diamond]

I don't see the problem. Classified information is classified information for a reason. You are not entitled to it just because you think you are.

Okay but how did Julian force the tranny to obtain the information?

[Gunny]

Okay but how did Julian force the tranny to obtain the information?

Don't know.

What I DO know is mishandling/disclosing classified information is against the law. Doesn't matter how you got it. Speaking naive, I'm not so naive as to believe Assange didn't know what he had and dumped it out there willingly and purposefully. He is a perfect example of why the government has secrets to begin with. Some self-righteous idiot thinking he has a gotcha that "the people have a right to know" can endanger this entire nation.

What's more important? His ego? Or the nation? Rhetorical. I know what the answer is for people who support this kind of crap and it's wrong. Without the Nation, there is no "you" or your "rights" and vice versa. It's a codependency that should be based on trust. Neither seems very worthy from my porch.

[Black Diamond]

Don't know.

What I DO know is mishandling/disclosing classified information is against the law. Doesn't matter how you got it. Speaking naive, I'm not so naive as to believe Assange didn't know what he had and dumped it out there willingly and purposefully. He is a perfect example of why the government has secrets to begin with. Some self-righteous idiot thinking he has a gotcha that "the people have a right to know" can endanger this entire nation.

What's more important? His ego? Or the nation? Rhetorical. I know what the answer is for people who support this kind of crap and it's wrong. Without the Nation, there is no "you" or your "rights" and vice versa. It's a codependency that should be based on trust. Neither seems very worthy from my porch.

It really bothers me that manning was commuted and that.. It wasn't strung up to be honest. Lot more betrayal on its part than Julian's imo.

[revelarts]

I don't see the problem. Classified information is classified information for a reason. You are not entitled to it just because you think you are.

(1) Who says? "my" gov't?

(2) when criminal acts are "classified" do they have the same legal cover in your view?

I'm sure they have "reasons". And that's fine.
But once it's in the wind ANYONE can publish it. And should be able to without fear of the gov't retribution.
As an American citizen somehow i do have this crazy thought that I'm entitled to see the work and documents that MY gov't produces on OUR behalf. Especially if a gov't employee thinks it's so important that they'd risk stealing & breaking oaths to give to us.
No one is handing out classified docs willy nilly.
Most of that stuff shouldn't be "classified" in the 1st place. this has LONG been an issue.

Plus, "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear". right?
Gov't's spying up are arses daily but somehow the gov't's "houses, papers, and effects" ARE protected "against unreasonable searches and seizures" but ours aren't?
that is 100% BASS AKWARD

[Black Diamond]

(1) Who says? "my" gov't?

(2) when criminal acts are "classified" do they have the same legal cover in your view?

Certainly if one's in the military one should keep it quiet

[Black Diamond]

(1) Who says? "my" gov't?

(2) when criminal acts are "classified" do they have the same legal cover in your view?

I'm sure they have "reasons". And that's fine.
But once it's in the wind ANYONE can publish it. And should be able to without fear of the gov't retribution.
As an American citizen somehow i do have this crazy thought that I'm entitled to see the work and documents that MY gov't produces on OUR behalf. Especially if a gov't employee thinks it's so important that they'd risk stealing & breaking oaths to give to us.
No one is handing out classified docs willy nilly.

If Julian had been given nuclear codes, he should have the green light to release them?
Where would we draw the line? What constitutes "willy nilly" in the future?

[revelarts]

If Julian had been given nuclear codes, he should have the green light to release them?
Where would we draw the line? What constitutes "willy nilly" in the future?

1st Practically speaking, i dont know but, wouldn't the nuke codes be changed? I hope they are changed regularly.

But lets say it was a list of deep cover DEA in a South American Cartel... or CIA moles working in the Chinese Gov't.
Personally I'd say make a special law that craves out exposing the names of spies.
and let that law be tested in court.
rather than using the broad brush idea that because something "classified" was released & printed that it's means the gov't can swoop in claiming "espionage" or "conspiracy" with threats of prison.