DNC attacks Press Freedom

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Ninjamedic:

Adam Jensen:
Which indicates a hidden agenda, which indicates that they're not journalists but rather an intel operation.

Just like the majority of current news media then?

To have an agenda is one thing. Every media organization has an agenda. But to break the law in pursuit of that agenda is another thing entirely. And that's what Wikileaks did. Don't get me wrong, I am still in favor of them releasing everything that they get their hands on, even if it's illegal. I'm just not under any illusion that they're doing it because they want transparency or that they aren't breaking any laws.

Seanchaidh:
Literally cited two precedents directly refuting in two different ways the legal interpretations people are offering in favor of suing Wikileaks before they offered them. Unless I didn't notice, those precedents were not seriously engaged even once.

1)It's irrelevant whether Wikileaks is a press organization because freedom of the press is an individual right.
2)Wikileaks disclosures meet the standard of conveying information and opinion, thus they qualify as 'press' anyway.

Stop talking nonsense with your "facts" and your "paying attention". We've no place for that in a world where the DNC has been slighted!

Fox12:

Lil devils x:

CM156:

That has to be proven by the plaintiff.

But not anyone who took information from the car (not something physical) and disseminated it. Nor anyone who repeated that information.

Explicitally encouraging theft is already illegal and would not provide protection.

It doesn't matter if anything illegal was happening, the inner workings of the DNC are a matter of public interest. Matters not of public interest are narrowly drawn.

To be clear, I'm responding to your claim that:

Which as has been established with caselaw, is a grievous violation of the first amendment.

Information would not have to be taken from the car to be comparable as the information itself could be considered intellectual property. Intellectual property should be considered no different than any other physical property.

It is not within ones first amendment right to profit from use of stolen property, intellectual or otherwise. Courts can very well order gag orders in cases of intellectual property and that is not a violation of the first amendment either.

That opens a rather ugly can of worms. Who would be considered the "owners" of said information? I sort of get that you don't like people exposing the activities of the DNC, but you do realise that if we made information Intellectual Property, that other organizations could use that to their advantage? The church? Large corporations? Lets look at the catholic church paedophile scandal in Boston. There were several sources that acted as whistleblowers, and corroborated the stories of the journalist who exposed what happened. But under your law, those individuals wouldn't be considered the owners of the "IP." That would make their support illegal, and the church could sue to prevent information from being released. Your essentially asking for an end to whistleblowers, and the death of true journalism. Large institutions and corporations would cease to be scrutinized at all, and would threaten anyone who dared oppose them with their army of lawyers. We don't need a state where information is kept under a tight leash. We need an open and transparent society where information can be shared freely. Even by groups like wikileaks.

Apparently you don't " get" it at all. I feel the same if the GOP was hacked. The person's who was hacked is the said owner of that information, just as if you went into their home and took letters from their desk drawer. Stealing is stealing plain and simple. I do not see that as opening a can of worms at all. Does it open a can of worms to claim that your property is your property and no one has a right to come in and take it from you without your permission and if they do, the law would still see it as being your property, not that of the thiefs? Should it only be considered illegal search and seizure as long as the government does it but anyone else should be able to come and steal from you anytime they like? That is the precedent being set here if you do not hold those profiting from said stolen property accountable under law.

"Whistle blowers" are people who actually have been granted access to that information, they are not actually stealing, all they are doing is breaking a confidentiality agreement and are legally able to do so if they are exposing criminal activity that can endanger the public. They are not actually " stealing" as they were granted access. No one is granting access to someone who hacked in and stole it. That is the difference between an actual leak and hacking. They are not the same nor should they ever be treated the same.

People are also entitled to their property and privacy. The public is no more entitled to "information" such as your diary kept in a drawer in your home as they are to your panties. Your property is your property.

EDIT:Regardless of how I feel about the actual information that was exposed ( I am a Bernie supporter FYI) I still do not think that individuals or organizations should be able to profit from ANY hacked information period. Talk about opening a can of worms.. Tabloids should be able to have Anonymous sources hack in to whoever they like and publish personal details about their love life? Employers should be able to use information about their employees health because someone hacked them and sold it to them? What about a news paper who published employee health information and then uses that to sell papers to employers? No, regardless of what the information is, hacking is a crime. The fact that it was hacked by people who were not granted access is no different than if someone broke into their homes and should be treated as such.

Seanchaidh:
Literally cited two precedents directly refuting in two different ways the legal interpretations people are offering in favor of suing Wikileaks before they offered them. Unless I didn't notice, those precedents were not seriously engaged even once.

1)It's irrelevant whether Wikileaks is a press organization because freedom of the press is an individual right.
2)Wikileaks disclosures meet the standard of conveying information and opinion, thus they qualify as 'press' anyway.

We have precedents set that prevent farmers from growing extra food for their own consumption, that does not mean those precedents are right. It is okay to disagree with the position they have taken and try to have the laws changed over time. Not only is it okay, it is expected to happen over the course of time.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
Literally cited two precedents directly refuting in two different ways the legal interpretations people are offering in favor of suing Wikileaks before they offered them. Unless I didn't notice, those precedents were not seriously engaged even once.

1)It's irrelevant whether Wikileaks is a press organization because freedom of the press is an individual right.
2)Wikileaks disclosures meet the standard of conveying information and opinion, thus they qualify as 'press' anyway.

We have precedents set that prevent farmers from growing extra food for their own consumption, that does not mean those precedents are right. It is okay to disagree with the position they have taken and try to have the laws changed over time. Not only is it okay, it is expected to happen over the course of time.

I don't understand what your point is.

By all accounts Wikileaks is in the clear as it's protected twice over.

It meets the criteria to be considered a press outlet.
Even if it didn't, individuals are under the same protections as a press outlet.

Lil devils x:

CM156:

Lil devils x:
Manning claims Wikileaks pays for information, but Wikileaks of course is tight lipped about it. How are we going to find out if they were paid or not as long as their sources remain anonymous? If they are paying for the information as Manning claims, then they very well could be claimed to have been partially responsible for the theft.

That has to be proven by the plaintiff.

I see possessing stolen mail as no different than possessing a stolen car. Using that car or profiting from that cars use is also considered illegal if you even suspect that the car was illegally obtained. When the police get involved, they return the stolen car to the owner and very well may prosecute the person who bought the stolen car from the thief.

But not anyone who took information from the car (not something physical) and disseminated it. Nor anyone who repeated that information.

I see the laws changing as technology changes and if hacking increases in order to provide the press with stories, I see the laws changing to address the issue as it is encouraging the theft in the first place if they know they can profit from it.

Explicitally encouraging theft is already illegal and would not provide protection.

Were any actual illegal activities even revealed in the Hack? war crimes are a very serious issue that is a matter of life and death. I was not even aware of anything that was an actual crime that was revealed by the emails. Sure it showed that Debbie was jerk, but the reality is that no matter how much I love Bernie, we was an outsider, not even a Democrat running on the democrat ticket. I was surprised they even allowed him to get as far as he did. I for one welcome his takeover of the DNC, I do however, understand why the actual democrats there were going to put up a fight for it of course. I would expect nothing less from an active takeover in progress.

It doesn't matter if anything illegal was happening, the inner workings of the DNC are a matter of public interest. Matters not of public interest are narrowly drawn.

To be clear, I'm responding to your claim that:

it is a matter of it should be illegal to publicly release illegally obtained materials at all.

Which as has been established with caselaw, is a grievous violation of the first amendment.

Information would not have to be taken from the car to be comparable as the information itself could be considered intellectual property. Intellectual property should be considered no different than any other physical property.

It is not within ones first amendment right to profit from use of stolen property, intellectual or otherwise. Courts can very well order gag orders in cases of intellectual property and that is not a violation of the first amendment either.

Emails detailing the inner workings of a political organization are not and have never been considered intellectual property. It's already been explained why that's a bad idea.

I still do not think that individuals or organizations should be able to profit from ANY hacked information period. Talk about opening a can of worms.. Tabloids should be able to have Anonymous sources hack in to whoever they like and publish personal details about their love life? Employers should be able to use information about their employees health because someone hacked them and sold it to them? What about a news paper who published employee health information and then uses that to sell papers to employers? No, regardless of what the information is, hacking is a crime. The fact that it was hacked by people who were not granted access is no different than if someone broke into their homes and should be treated as such.

The test we use is public interest. Are your medical records, sex life, etc, public interest? No. Are the inner workings of a major political party public interest? Yes. It doesn't matter if nothing criminal is going on

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Gordon_4:

We should take our own advice on that one. Though in fairness those filing cabinets were locked up pretty tight as they were sold for $10 a shot to Joe Public.

Fuck that whole thing was both tragic and hilarious.

Clerical errors happen. And if I remember correctly, weren't they just thinktank reports about various people?

The stuff they ended up reporting, laregely yes. The stuff they gave back in special safes provided by ASIO, not so much based on the inferences in the special report I read in the paper.

Abomination:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
Literally cited two precedents directly refuting in two different ways the legal interpretations people are offering in favor of suing Wikileaks before they offered them. Unless I didn't notice, those precedents were not seriously engaged even once.

1)It's irrelevant whether Wikileaks is a press organization because freedom of the press is an individual right.
2)Wikileaks disclosures meet the standard of conveying information and opinion, thus they qualify as 'press' anyway.

We have precedents set that prevent farmers from growing extra food for their own consumption, that does not mean those precedents are right. It is okay to disagree with the position they have taken and try to have the laws changed over time. Not only is it okay, it is expected to happen over the course of time.

I don't understand what your point is.

By all accounts Wikileaks is in the clear as it's protected twice over.

It meets the criteria to be considered a press outlet.
Even if it didn't, individuals are under the same protections as a press outlet.

Since when was Wikileaks considered a press outlet? I was under the impression the US had an indictment out for Assange and he is afraid to leave the embassy. I thought he said he would not leave the embassy because the US has a sealed indictment for him even though Sweden dropped the other charges.

I honestly do not think that even if it was a press outlet ( though it is not) that them paying and profiting from stolen property should be a crime regardless.

CM156:

Lil devils x:

CM156:

That has to be proven by the plaintiff.

But not anyone who took information from the car (not something physical) and disseminated it. Nor anyone who repeated that information.

Explicitally encouraging theft is already illegal and would not provide protection.

It doesn't matter if anything illegal was happening, the inner workings of the DNC are a matter of public interest. Matters not of public interest are narrowly drawn.

To be clear, I'm responding to your claim that:

Which as has been established with caselaw, is a grievous violation of the first amendment.

Information would not have to be taken from the car to be comparable as the information itself could be considered intellectual property. Intellectual property should be considered no different than any other physical property.

It is not within ones first amendment right to profit from use of stolen property, intellectual or otherwise. Courts can very well order gag orders in cases of intellectual property and that is not a violation of the first amendment either.

Emails detailing the inner workings of a political organization are not and have never been considered intellectual property. It's already been explained why that's a bad idea.

I still do not think that individuals or organizations should be able to profit from ANY hacked information period. Talk about opening a can of worms.. Tabloids should be able to have Anonymous sources hack in to whoever they like and publish personal details about their love life? Employers should be able to use information about their employees health because someone hacked them and sold it to them? What about a news paper who published employee health information and then uses that to sell papers to employers? No, regardless of what the information is, hacking is a crime. The fact that it was hacked by people who were not granted access is no different than if someone broke into their homes and should be treated as such.

The test we use is public interest. Are your medical records, sex life, etc, public interest? No. Are the inner workings of a major political party public interest? Yes. It doesn't matter if nothing criminal is going on

The vast majority of what was published had no public interest. If they had only released information that was in public interest that might be relevant, but they released far more than that. I still think that it sets a terrible precedent by allowing stolen property to be exploited to the benefit of the parties involved.

First of all, how are we to know that the Russian Hacker was not paid to hack? Or that the person who paid them to hack/release the information would not benefit financially from it's release? Russia being sanctioned, that is likely the motive for this release in the first place. The whole "Russians trying to give Trump campaign dirt on Clinton" mess, The "entirely too many people making money from Russia directly involved in the Trump campaigns decision making and national security" issue, the Trump asking for Russia to hack Clinton and give him emails issue.. there is just way too much going on with this for it to be coincidental.

What Precedent this sets is that it is okay to illegally hack and release selective information on your opponents for financial gain and to influence US elections while covering up your own wrongdoing in the process. This is a terrible precedent to set for any side. If we want this to get worse for both sides, setting a precedent like that is the way to go.

Gordon_4:

The stuff they ended up reporting, laregely yes. The stuff they gave back in special safes provided by ASIO, not so much based on the inferences in the special report I read in the paper.

If it was ASIO then it was domestic targets within the country, or ambassadorial staff, I would imagine. Which, yeah ... if you're getting investigated by ASIO it typically means out of the frying pan ...

Lil devils x:

The vast majority of what was published had no public interest. If they had only released information that was in public interest that might be relevant, but they released far more than that. I still think that it sets a terrible precedent by allowing stolen property to be exploited to the benefit of the parties involved.

It's already been explained that the press is allowed to report on information so long as they weren't the ones who illegally acquired it. The question is, did Wikileaks illegally acquire it?

First of all, how are we to know that the Russian Hacker was not paid to hack? Or that the person who paid them to hack/release the information would not benefit financially from it's release? Russia being sanctioned, that is likely the motive for this release in the first place. The whole "Russians trying to give Trump campaign dirt on Clinton" mess, The "entirely too many people making money from Russia directly involved in the Trump campaigns decision making and national security" issue, the Trump asking for Russia to hack Clinton and give him emails issue.. there is just way too much going on with this for it to be coincidental.

How are we to know? Well, if the plaintiffs make that claim, it's on them to prove it.

What Precedent this sets is that it is okay to illegally hack and release selective information on your opponents for financial gain and to influence US elections while covering up your own wrongdoing in the process. This is a terrible precedent to set for any side. If we want this to get worse for both sides, setting a precedent like that is the way to go.

Wikileaks is only part of this. Under Supreme Court precedent, if some hacker unaffiliated with anyone were to hack the RNC's email server and publish everything, nothing the RNC could do would prevent the press from covering the information and the content of the emails. So even if Wikileaks goes down the tubes, which may happen, it won't matter all that much.

Lil devils x:
Since when was Wikileaks considered a press outlet? I was under the impression the US had an indictment out for Assange and he is afraid to leave the embassy. I thought he said he would not leave the embassy because the US has a sealed indictment for him even though Sweden dropped the other charges.

I honestly do not think that even if it was a press outlet ( though it is not) that them paying and profiting from stolen property should be a crime regardless.

All I can say is that I'm struggling to find a shred of sympathy for any US political party crying about people exposing their wrong doings.

When it becomes illegal to reveal the actions of the government, that in doing so do not threaten the lives of that government's citizens, you're living in a tyranny.

Abomination:

Lil devils x:
Since when was Wikileaks considered a press outlet? I was under the impression the US had an indictment out for Assange and he is afraid to leave the embassy. I thought he said he would not leave the embassy because the US has a sealed indictment for him even though Sweden dropped the other charges.

I honestly do not think that even if it was a press outlet ( though it is not) that them paying and profiting from stolen property should be a crime regardless.

All I can say is that I'm struggling to find a shred of sympathy for any US political party crying about people exposing their wrong doings.

When it becomes illegal to reveal the actions of the government, that in doing so do not threaten the lives of that government's citizens, you're living in a tyranny.

That is the thing though, this isn't just about revealing "wrong doings" of the government. The vast majority that wiki leaks published was not even about "wrong doings" most was pretty "meh". When you look at the whole picture of the context of the situation from the viewpoint of those involved, the DNC at the time was facing an issue of a party takeover from non democrats and were fighting for their "party" rather than it being a case of "not being fair to all democrats within the party". As much as I want Bernie to takeover the DNC, it is pretty well known that he is an independent and that was not even his party. He actively let people know he wanted to take it over and change everything, which I think is a great thing but I can understand why those that were already there do not and I would not expect them to take it lying down, you expect them to put up a fight. They were dealing with a hostile takeover and fighting for their existence as a party. Bernie knew this going in and expected a fight. I do not think exposing their personal frustration with that situation that most everyone was already aware of as it was really outweighs the harm it does by setting a precedent that people should go around stealing others property for profit and to manipulate the masses while keeping their own much worse misdealings private.

Again, I'm struggling to see the issue with keeping any part of the government as transparent as possible - especially in a two-party system.

If the DNC needs to get its nose bloodied or have its dirty laundry hung out for all to see in order for it to get its collective shit together and start genuinely representing its voter base rather than its lobbyists, I'm all for it.

Enough shit gets swept under the rug in DC, any inroad to revealing at least some of it should be praised - because god damn the United States needs to learn about transparency and accountability in its politics.

Abomination:
Again, I'm struggling to see the issue with keeping any part of the government as transparent as possible - especially in a two-party system.

If the DNC needs to get its nose bloodied or have its dirty laundry hung out for all to see in order for it to get its collective shit together and start genuinely representing its voter base rather than its lobbyists, I'm all for it.

Enough shit gets swept under the rug in DC, any inroad to revealing at least some of it should be praised - because god damn the United States needs to learn about transparency and accountability in its politics.

That is not what this accomplishes though. What this does is ensure that there will no longer be any evidence available for actual crimes that they receive an actual warrant for because they will just change their protocol due to this nonsense happening for less serious issues for so this can never happen again. It solves nothing beneficial to allow people to profit from illegal hacking to manipulate the public, but instead it will make it more difficult to find evidence of actual crimes because they will make sure none of that exists to prevent these sort of things from happening in the future.

The parties themselves are not the actual government, many of these involved with the GOP and DNC do not hold any government position, but are instead private citizens. I consider them to be more like giant lobbying groups trying to get their interests elected. If you really want to see some actual bad " wrong doings" that make the DNC look like Saints, you would want to look at Oil, coal, Pharma, pesticide manufacturers, and of course the elephant in the room, the GOP's communications. The thing is you have to actually BE a bad guy to hack someone in the first place, so you are not going to have the "good guys" hacking anyone so you never get to see what the real bad guys are doing.

Lil devils x:
The parties themselves are not the actual government

HA!

Sure.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here