Wikileaks - your thoughts - no politics

[haha]

Evertime I see the thread title I laugh-"Wikileaks-Your Thoughts-No Politics."

Hello? That is like "write a 50 word paragraph- no words". What could thoughts about this possibly be other than politics

 

[Westernskies]

What could thoughts about this possibly be other than politics

Opinions...?

 

[kumquat]

It does not surprise me that sitting in your chair in Canada or Mexico you can not see real harm in what has been done. However, if you were in Afghanistan, trying to negotiate with a local war lord, you might have a different view.

You might want to check who has done [-]most[/-] a lot of the fighting in Afghanistan? Hint: it isn't Mexico.

 

[RonBoyd]

Opinions...?

That's what he said.

 

[Surfdaddy]

He's a journalist. He's committed no crimes in releasing classified information given to him.

New York Times Co. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That the US is ignoring a Supreme Court decision is not really a surprise; I assume it expects a 40 year precedent will be overturned with the current court.

As for those who want to throw him in prison or execute him posthaste, Freedom of Speech (and Freedom of the Press) is not for those who agree with you.

Agreed. Let's see, he obtained the info from a leaker in the military, he tried to talk to the US government about what was safe to release (they wouldn't work with him), he worked with the NY Times for months, redacting names. Sounds like a fair amount of due diligence to me. Now it's a witch hunt for him. I think it's just his cocky attitude. If this had been NBC news nobody would be hunting down the head of NBC to put him in jail.

 

[samclem]

. If this had been NBC news nobody would be hunting down the head of NBC to put him in jail.

If a Swedish court had issued an arrest warrant for the head of NBC News because he was suspected of committing rape, then I think he'd be arrested, too. Just like Assange.

 

[jacob]

I'm trying not to have an opinion on this and reserve judgment. It is interesting how the various reactions reflect various stages of moral development on the nation-scale. (This development may not necessarily be reflective on its development on the personal scale, e.g. a person may think himself equal to other citizens but his nation different from other nations.)

Here's an overview of the Kohlberg stages.

I think the main reason I try not to get involved in this case is that it's practically impossible to argue a point across differing stages.

For this case, I think it would help a lot to identify a) your own stage and b) the stage of whoever you're discussing it with.

 

[samclem]

For this case, I think it would help a lot to identify a) your own stage and b) the stage of whoever you're discussing it with.

I'm at level 7--looking down my nose at Kohlberg for not recognizing my most superior development in his silly little construct.

 

[haha]

I'm at level 7--looking down my nose at Kohlberg for not recognizing my most superior development in his silly little construct.

This hardly seems a silly little theory. An eminent psychologist like Kohlberg might have something useful to say, although this is clearly closer to philosopy than experimental psychology. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Interesting that stage 6 in some ways corresponds to Kant's Categorical Imperitive.

Ha

 

[samclem]

All of us at level 7 ("Heptites") believe the construct to be silly. Others at lower levels may consider Kohlberg important.

It's an exclusive club. But not judgemental.

 

[M Paquette]

All of us at level 7 ("Heptites") believe the construct to be silly. Others at lower levels may consider Kohlberg important.

It's an exclusive club. But not judgemental.

Hrmph. The Master Elect of the Nine might not be in agreement with that. Best check with the Knight of the East.

 

[FUEGO]

I'm a six, but I think everyone else is a 2. So I'm really a 2. But I really really want to be a six.

 

[Rustic23]

Most amazing thing ever! The pioneers crossed the U.S., but that's not it, their children did it with out the aid of a psychologist or a psychiatrist!

 

[Tigger]

Scott Adams rides again:
"But things didn't turn out as Assange hoped. The unintended consequence of his actions is that he managed to make Sweden look like a country that's governed by congenital idiots and populated with nothing but crazy sluts and lawyers. And don't get me started about the quality of their condoms. To be fair, I don't know if Assange's alleged broken condom is because the product was defective. We have good evidence that Assange has the world's biggest set of nuts, so assuming some degree of proportionality, he'd put a strain on any brand of condom that didn't have rebar ribs. (...) If you haven't read any background about the so-called rape charges against Assange, you really should. Apparently Swedish laws are unique. If you have a penis, you're half a rapist before you even get through customs. And if your condom breaks, that's jail time. What I'm saying is that the Club Med in Sweden is a nervous place."

He then tries to make up his mind about Assange and ends his post with a prediction.

 

[dex]

Scott Adams rides again:

Even Glenn Beck thinks the charges are suspicious.

Look for the video.

 

[Westernskies]

The wikens are showing their true colors; this isn't about freedom of the press, it's about promoting civil unrest and economic anarchy.

Visa becomes next target for WikiLeaks backers - Yahoo! Finance

I say bag 'em and tag 'em. YMMV.

 

[kcowan]

The wikens are showing their true colors; this isn't about freedom of the press, it's about promoting civil unrest and economic anarchy.
Visa becomes next target for WikiLeaks backers - Yahoo! Finance
I say bag 'em and tag 'em. YMMV.

The counter attacks certainly seemed to indicate that the Wikileaks backers are anarchists.

 

[eridanus]

The wikens are showing their true colors; this isn't about freedom of the press, it's about promoting civil unrest and economic anarchy.

Visa becomes next target for WikiLeaks backers - Yahoo! Finance

I say bag 'em and tag 'em. YMMV.

The anti-wikens are showing their true colors. This isn't about Freedom of Press; it's about promoting fascism and suspending the Bill of Rights.

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure | Media | The Guardian

I say they should move to somewhere more amenable to their views such as, say, Myanmar. YMMV.

 

[ERD50]

The anti-wikens are showing their true colors. This isn't about Freedom of Press; it's about promoting fascism and suspending the Bill of Rights.

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure | Media | The Guardian

I say they should move to somewhere more amenable to their views such as, say, Myanmar. YMMV.

Isn't Amazon expressing their right to Free Speech? They don't have the right to say what does and does not go on their site? Could I put up political posters on your front lawn, and then claim you are violating my "Free Speech" if you take them down?

The wikileaks guy can put his stuff up on his own site until it is found to be illegal (like screaming "FIRE" in a theater).

-ERD50

 

[eridanus]

Isn't Amazon expressing their right to Free Speech? They don't have the right to say what does and does not go on their site? Could I put up political posters on your front lawn, and then claim you are violating my "Free Speech" if you take them down?

The wikileaks guy can put his stuff up on his own site until it is found to be illegal (like screaming "FIRE" in a theater).

-ERD50

Seriously?

Perhaps you missed the part where a sitting Senator, who also happens to chair the Homeland Security committee, made a call to Amazon? I'm sure he was only calling as a concerned citizen and didn't even tell Amazon who he was ("Hello, this is Senator Joe Lieb...er, I'm a concerned citizen calling about your hosting of Wikileaks.")

Maybe you didn't hear that the government, which IS constricted by the Bill of Rights, is now censoring Wikileaks at the Library of Congress?

Library of Congress Blocks WikiLeaks Site Access

To answer your question, of course Amazon can do what they want. It's when the government gets involved that it becomes a Constitutional problem.

Believing that the government isn't involved is an act of willing blindness.

 

[clifp]

Seriously?

Perhaps you missed the part where a sitting Senator, who also happens to chair the Homeland Security committee, made a call to Amazon? I'm sure he was only calling as a concerned citizen and didn't even tell Amazon who he was ("Hello, this is Senator Joe Lieb...er, I'm a concerned citizen calling about your hosting of Wikileaks.")

Maybe you didn't hear that the government, which IS constricted by the Bill of Rights, is now censoring Wikileaks at the Library of Congress?

Library of Congress Blocks WikiLeaks Site Access

To answer your question, of course Amazon can do what they want. It's when the government gets involved that it becomes a Constitutional problem.

Believing that the government isn't involved is an act of willing blindness.

I thought the 1st Amendment prohibit Congress from passing laws infringing on free of speech and press. I wasn't aware that it prevented Senators either a private citizen or chairman of committee from expressing their views and preferences. Does Lieberman give up his 1st amendment rights because he is a Senator?


More importantly why shouldn't the government be involved in this? A fair number of people on both sides of the aisle believe that WikiLeaks is a threat to our national security. I'd argue that "the common defense" is one of the most important government functions.

 

[ERD50]

Seriously? ...

To answer your question, of course Amazon can do what they want. It's when the government gets involved that it becomes a Constitutional problem.

Believing that the government isn't involved is an act of willing blindness.

I haven't read the details of the govt involvement in Amazon's decision, so not willing blindness but I will plead ignorance (and/or just laziness as so much journalism doesn't give me the data I need). It could definitely be a problem, depending on the details.

I was assuming Amazon did this freely, based on info they received from the govt, and that assumption could be wrong. If the govt alerted me to a potential problem that was under my control, and I decided to take action, that isn't censorship. That may or may not be the case here, I dunno.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

erdianus - OK, I got unlazy enough to read far enough to get this:

The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off yesterday only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security.

....

Although there are echoes of the censorship row between Google and China earlier this year, constitutional lawyers insisted it was not a first amendment issue because Amazon is a private company, free to make its own decisions.

....

Lieberman said: "[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. ....

The department of homeland security confirmed Amazon's move, referring journalists to Lieberman's statement.

Seems reasonable to me. This stuff is stolen material. If Amazon was alerted that one of their merchants was peddling stolen material, I think they would shut them down. What's the problem?

-ERD50

 

[eridanus]

I thought the 1st Amendment prohibit Congress from passing laws infringing on free of speech and press. I wasn't aware that it prevented Senators either a private citizen or chairman of committee from expressing their views and preferences. Does Lieberman give up his 1st amendment rights because he is a Senator?


More importantly why shouldn't the government be involved in this? A fair number of people on both sides of the aisle believe that WikiLeaks is a threat to our national security. I'd argue that "the common defense" is one of the most important government functions.

It applies to the government and not solely to Congress. As for Senators calling private businesses, we'll never know if it was a violation of the Bill of Rights without a leak.

It could've been,
"This is Senator Lieberman's office and we think it violates laws."
Amazon: Oh, we didn't realize. We'll check on that.

Or it could've been,
"This is Senator Lieberman's office. We'd like you to take it down. Oh, by the way, the Senator is still undecided on the internet sales tax issue."
Amazon:...

Or it could've been,
"This is Senator Lieberman's office. Take it down or DOJ lawyers will be all over your offices within an hour."
Amazon: Wikileaks down! STAT!


Of course, we all know that Senators are upstanding politicians and would never use their positions of power illegally but aren't you a little bit concerned?

A simple threat to "national security" isn't a reason to censor Wikileaks. That was decided in NYT v. US (1971).

 

[eridanus]

Seems reasonable to me. This stuff is stolen material. If Amazon was alerted that one of their merchants was peddling stolen material, I think they would shut them down. What's the problem?

-ERD50

First, the good Senator doesn't decide what can be published or not. That's for a court to decide.

Second, the Pentagon Papers were stolen too. We know how that ended.

I'm sure Amazon didn't want to face an expensive lawsuit brought by the feds. It was a wise business decision on their part. That's not what this is about though.


Edit: Obviously the cables were stolen originally. They're now in the hands of a media organization however.