The U.S.'s Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, December 18, 2010 06:08
VIEWED: 3822
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:Of course it is.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Ah, but isn't all legislation 'force' even legislation that prevents someone from having non consensual sex with another person
sorry, couldn't resist
Didn't I say not all force/violence is wrong? (In fact, I think I said it way too many times.)
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
You think anyone who makes such laws gives a damn about the rights of the people? Sweden is a world pioneer of eugenics abuses, which is where these laws come from. They are designed to keep commoners from reproducing. Our laws come from the same place.
I'm with Magon on this one: it's an extrajudicial abuse of international justice through manipualtions by americans of other govts. to silence free speech of Australians in a blatant act of tyranny and imperialism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah. I agree! I think that much is clear to most people with brains.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm with Magon on this one: it's an extrajudicial abuse of international justice through manipualtions by americans of other govts. to silence free speech of Australians in a blatant act of tyranny and imperialism.
It doesn't mean though, that Assange doesn't happen to be an asshole who did force himself on a couple of Swedish women, as well as be a wronged activist for govt transparency.
I mean to say, I don't know if he is innocent or guilty of the sexual crime accusations. I just think I shouldn't rule anything out, just because people are really out to get him.
And even if he IS a rapist, it doesn't mean what he is doing with Wikileaks is wrong, simply by association.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cts
It seems equally obvious to me that a law enabling someone to retroactively declare a sex act rape, especially as in this case, long after the couple has broken up, is open to widespread abuse.
The details of the relationship are widely known, as was his ex-gfs name, which was printed in an article I read some time ago. Its also obvious that someone, probably the US DoD paid her to rat him out. Of course, they only knew who she was because some vacuous dork printed it.
Assanges only crime here was stupidity: he agreed to be interviewed by the media, who disclosed in this article any piece of info they could gain, including how his mirror servers worked. I remember thinking that if the reporter had been writing on the atom bomb, he would have printed the blueprint of how to make one, had he had it.
You couldn't force someone to do so much as Vote for a candidate without breaking another law. Laws like this one serve one purpose, and were created by their masters to do so: to criminalize consensual sexuality. The original goal, to stop commoners from breeding. Now, they serve to make everyone a criminal, the same reason drug laws exist.
A year from now someone can put a man in jail for consensual sex they have today? Only men who have no sex are not criminals then.
Isn't such a legal system inordinately dangerous? What is the incentive for the masses to follow any law at all?
Assange appears to be guilty of being male, and in Sweden. A place where it at least was, and perhaps still is, legal to forcibly sterilize someone who had not committed a crime simply on e assertion that they were genetically inferior.
This is just a mechanism for TPTB to declare someone an enemy of the state, as Margaret Atwood said it would be. At least the commies are open about it. (and very random about it, actually, lost some relatives to that one too.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe we should clarify exactly which laws we're talking about. Cause the laws I support are against non-consentual sex, not consentual ones. Then of course, we need to be on the same page on what "consent" means.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Laws like this one serve one purpose, and were created by their masters to do so: to criminalize consensual sexuality.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The way I see it, any law (regardless of how well intentioned it may be) has to potential to be severely twisted and abused. How exactly do you prove consent was withdrawn or even given? With rape, there is probably evidence, bruising and the like that can show it wasn't consensual, but changing your mind after you've started? I'm not sure you'd have much more to go on then what each partner said.
Also, I'm not about to invite the government into our bedchambers anymore than they have already forced themselves in. Anti-sodomy laws might very well have been well meaning (or maybe not, I know next to nothing concerning that) attempts to protect folks from rapists, but now they can and are used to make criminals of homosexuals who've harmed no one. When I think about a new law, rule or the like in government, my fraternity, or wherever, I think about how it could be beneficial and how it can be abused before deciding if it's a good idea.
A quick example, I was in a social music fraternity in college. We had trouble getting brothers to go to fundraisers so we voted in a fine to those who didn't show up to help with fund raising, figuring the fine will compensate a mite. Well, the next year, somehow the entire executive board was comprised of non-music majors who worked at the university tech shop and weren't so great at keeping up with the goings on in the Fine Arts building, so we would have fundraisers scheduled when some of us were in rehearsals or performing with the orchestra or something and the gorram treasurer could never be found when you needed him so it lead a lot of us Music Majors to be like "F@$# it! I don't have time or money for this anymore," and... well... you start to get a music fraternity with no real musicians and that just doesn't make sense does it? Also looks kinda bad. I guess what I'm saying is that even well meaning laws meant to protect freedoms, can in practice take more freedoms from us.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
The US government has no case against Wikileaks.
Thats because it has not been filed yet. There is a law against espionage, he broke it. And the fella that gave him the info committed treason.
But you raise a valid defense:
Quote:
See generally New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U. S. 713 (upholding the press' right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party); Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) 532 U.S. 514 (finding no liability for a media defendant who broadcasted information stolen by a third party but was not involved in the theft).
Its an affirmative defense. He admits to the facts and claims press protections. This raises the questions, is he the press or just some fella with a website, and if so, does the press have a blanket protection to publish anything?
I think these are valid questions for the Supreme Court to decide.
Is he press? In today's world anyone can report information, so how can we define the press as 'anyone'?
As for a blanket protection...suppose a reporter gave the size, strength, weapons, and exact location of a patrol and it got ambushed? Is there a blanket right?
My answer is simple...yes they can report anything and everything, but they face criminal liability for the forseeable consequences of their actions. So he is free to publish secret material, but if doing so results in that information going to to our enemies, then he should be prosecuted for espionage. That way his rights are respected and protected and so are the govt's rights to have secrets.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
The US government has no case against Wikileaks.
Thats because it has not been filed yet. There is a law against espionage, he broke it. And the fella that gave him the info committed treason.
But you raise a valid defense:Quote:
See generally New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U. S. 713 (upholding the press' right to publish information of great public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party); Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) 532 U.S. 514 (finding no liability for a media defendant who broadcasted information stolen by a third party but was not involved in the theft).
Its an affirmative defense. He admits to the facts and claims press protections. This raises the questions, is he the press or just some fella with a website, and if so, does the press have a blanket protection to publish anything?
I think these are valid questions for the Supreme Court to decide.
Is he press? In today's world anyone can report information, so how can we define the press as 'anyone'?
As for a blanket protection...suppose a reporter gave the size, strength, weapons, and exact location of a patrol and it got ambushed? Is there a blanket right?
My answer is simple...yes they can report anything and everything, but they face criminal liability for the forseeable consequences of their actions. So he is free to publish secret material, but if doing so results in that information going to to our enemies, then he should be prosecuted for espionage. That way his rights are respected and protected and so are the govt's rights to have secrets.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.
Well thought out, reasonable, yet still inherently despicable. You must be a prosecutor.
Perhaps I ought to have amended my hasty declaration that the government has no case. See generally later, shittier posts about the dubious Espionage Act.
I don't question the government's right to have secrets--this is probably necessary to governance--but rather the government's power to punish a media outlet for publishing secrets that it obtained through no wrongdoing of its own.
I'm not decided on the scope of the right. Do you envision something cheesy like the "clear and present danger" language used in incitement cases? For example, posting information that creates an imminent risk of harm (as in your example), as opposed to posting information that is merely embarassing?
I'm really intereted in the evolution of the FA and media protections as the "old media" is replaced by something fuzzier, so I'll follow this case with some interest.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since when has 'embarressing and making US officials look like dicks' constituted clear and present danger.
It appears that there has been little published in wikileaks that hasn't already been known.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bob Woodward finds this hilarious...
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME