Assange talking about Wikileaks
-
@unknownuser said:
This is not freedom of speech,
No, your wrong. This is exactly what it is, freedom of speech. But it isn't journalism either, it's voyeurism. If you like, Julian Assange is nothing more than a respectable version of David Icke (remember him? The BBC TV sports personality/ presenter who went on a crusade to stop what Icke called 'lizards', or "The Illuminanti"??).
What the really scary thing about all this, and yes, there probably will be blood spilt- somewhere (and being arrested is probably the best thing for Assange right now), the scary thing are the US and other worldwide governments, who feel "something needs to be done about this traitor".
-
@tfdesign said:
@unknownuser said:
This is not freedom of speech,
No, your wrong. This is exactly what it is, freedom of speech. But it isn't journalism either, it's voyeurism. If you like, Julian Assange is nothing more than a respectable version of David Icke (remember him? The BBC TV sports personality/ presenter who went on a crusade to stop what Icke called 'lizards', or "The Illuminanti"??).
What the really scary thing about all this, and yes, there probably will be blood spilt- somewhere (and being arrested is probably the best thing for Assange right now), the scary thing are the US and other worldwide governments, who feel "something needs to be done about this traitor".
I must agree, that the published "CLASSIFIED
informations" are much more gossip than important info..
But who knows, what kind of serious problems will be discovered between those 200.000 cables ..The traitor was probably Manning - not Assange..
-
Gossip? Yes. I agree with you.
-
-
Ron Paul:
[flash=640,480:67xjkpuc]http://www.youtube.com/v/ywoInPNXZJk?fs=1&hl=en_US[/flash:67xjkpuc] -
They granted Julian bail today.
-
@tfdesign said:
No, your wrong. This is exactly what it is, freedom of speech. But it isn't journalism either, it's voyeurism.
So what's the difference between this and breaking an NDA? stealing industrial plans and revealed it? Getting info about the identity of undercover cops and point them? By this logic (steal non-public info and share) all of this is "freedom of speech", and shouldn't be a crime or condemned. Where does this "freedom" ends and starts the "privacy"?
I don't really have a problem in most of the stuff wikileaks is showing, most are gossips or completely pointless info (I certainly didn't need classified info to know Berlusconi likes women a lot...lol), but things that can start jeopardising others people's life (like the stuff on drugs I mentioned above) i'm completly against, and if he didn't even reveal half the documents who's evaluating what should not be revealed?
Raising other question: why is Assange a judge of what should or should not be public?I think is astonishing a thing like could these happen in the US. For the people in the USA, is these the buzz of the moment too there? or more of "these is bad but not too bad, more of joke on the government"
This new era of "freedom" can be scary sometimes...
-
@unknownuser said:
So what's the difference between this and breaking an NDA? stealing industrial plans and revealed it? Getting info about the identity of undercover cops and point them? By this logic (steal non-public info and share) all of this is "freedom of speech", and shouldn't be a crime or condemned. Where does this "freedom" ends and starts the "privacy"?
i dunno, what's the difference between this and, say, lying to an entire country and/or world in order to start a full fledged war?
seems super tweaked to me that the u.s. gov't has the blood of a million or so people on their hands this decade then have the nerve to try to paint assange as some sort of criminal because someone might die if he puts these documents on the internet..
-
@unknownuser said:
i dunno, what's the difference between this and, say, lying to an entire country and/or world in order to start a full fledged war?
That's a great point Jeff, but for me that's a crime too and the problem is: it wasn't condemned. But now 2 bads make a right? what's the difference between him and the others now, where does this freedom stops and start privacy, and who judges what it's public interest or not?
@unknownuser said:
seems super tweaked to me that the u.s. gov't has the blood of a million or so people on their hands this decade then have the nerve to try to paint assange as some sort of criminal because someone might die if he puts these documents on the internet..
I don't think they have the moral to say that too. but keep in mind I was the one saying that these can put at risk other lives (my concern) not the government (I don't know if the US use that argument or not...).
Amazingly I think a thing like this would be better if it had happen during the invasion of Afghanistan and revealing all the papers that said there's no WMDs. For me that would be "public interest" and justifiable.
-
@unknownuser said:
That's a great point Jeff, but for me that's a crime too and the problem is: it wasn't condemned. But now 2 bads make a right? what's the difference between him and the others now, where does this freedom stops and start privacy, and who judges what it's public interest or not?
i don't really know what to think to be honest.. of course wrong+wrong doesn't equal right but seriously, i don't trust my own government one bit.. if this is how i have to get info (or at least confirmation) on their actions then so be it.
it's sad to say but the united states of america is going down and i think the bush administration will be seen as the beginning of the end.
we truly had/have so much potential to make the world a better place for everybody but that potential is being shot down by a bunch of crooks..@unknownuser said:
Amazingly I think a thing like this would be better if it had happen during the invasion of Afghanistan and revealing all the papers that said there's no WMDs. For me that would be "public interest" and justifiable.
meh, we (the u.s) shouldn't have ever been there in the first place.
[but hey, i'm going way off topic and i don't have the energy and/or desire to continue talking about this crap]
-
@unknownuser said:
it's sad to say but the united states of america is going down and i think the bush administration will be seen as the beginning of the end.
we truly had/have so much potential to make the world a better place for everybody but that potential is being shot down by a bunch of crooks..Nah, cut this "humans/ and or Americans are all bad" crap. The USA is a great place, which many of us in the world look up to. Just think of all the humanitarian things that America have achieved? What about medicine and science, literature and philosophy, the arts, engineering, R&D, etc etc? It's good! Just because you have had a bad experience with a xenophobic dingbat for a president!
I don't think I know of one decent, current politician. They are all idiots! -
Apparently, even some of his stanches supporters are beginning to questioning Assage's motives. Didn't some of his workers just break away and put up a competing site.
-
I still can't understand what all the fuss is about? All these so called "leaks" are news items that have been floating around for months. To me it's a sign that most people rely on current newspapers to give them the news, or the TV. I really don't understand why Assange is such a hero (or anti-hero)?
-
Maybe only as long as the media can generate sales by publicising any fabrication they stir up. Still, some of it is News.
-
The bettom line is that it sells- printing stuff which isn't really of any substance. It's not a good situation to be in, but then they have thousands of people who work in those industries, and they mustn't be made redundant. Even once quite respected newspapers such as the Guardian in the UK, now prints sensationalist attention grabbing headlines, to sell itself. Every day on BBC Radio 4, it's Wiki this and that. It's pathetic. Can these people be arsed to get out of their seats and do proper journalism?
It's worth watching the series of films by Adam Curtis. He doesn't always get it totally right (ie he misses a couple of important points- like what we have done that has been positive), but he does make some very good points- especially this one on "Oh Dear'ism";
[flash=425,344:1hq72wux]http://www.youtube.com/v/zuHrJBrkAlA?fs=1&hl=en_GB&fs=1&&[/flash:1hq72wux]
-
@unknownuser said:
@tfdesign said:
No, your wrong. This is exactly what it is, freedom of speech. But it isn't journalism either, it's voyeurism.
So what's the difference between this and breaking an NDA? stealing industrial plans and revealed it?
Releasing a copy of some corporate documents may fall under IP laws. As far as I know, governmental documents are not copyrighted nor protected by IP laws. Only protection what governmental documents have is by they security classification, but that only affect on people working for the government. Any outsider (specially foreigner) can publish any governmental documents without restrictions, even it may feel unjust or hard to understand for some. Change the law if this is a problem (and say goodbye for the little freedom you still have).
-
@notareal said:
Change the law if this is a problem (and say goodbye for the little freedom you still have).
Which is exactly what Labour did last year. All because a few got carried away with their emotions (and because Labour lacked any kind of leadership- which I think is true with all current politicians/ party's)
Advertisement