Should Julian Assange be punished??

[Bobby_2021]

https://youtu.be/P6bVl47kdNk

https://youtu.be/3fq83qbjPCM

Essentially what Julian Assange did is to publish documents someone else handed to him on his website. Isn't that accounts for normal journalism?

What he did should fall under freedom of speech. Instead he is subject to inhumane psychological torture in prison for doing what you consider as normal journalism.

Why is the US govt so afraid about whistle blowing if they didn't do illegal shady stuff in parts of the world with no strict laws or government? 

Transparency is supposed to be good for everyone.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[BadHippie]

Because the US Government actually did do illegal shady stuff

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, BadHippie said:

Because the US Government actually did do illegal shady stuff

Who will punish the government?

[Vrubel]

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Essentially what Julian Assange did is to publish documents someone else handed to him on his website. Isn't that accounts for normal journalism?

That makes him complicit. In the eyes of the US government that's revealing classified information. That's what wikileaks is about. 

Johny steals an embarrassing photo from you and gives it to Becky who shows it to the entire class. How are you going to feel about Becky?

 

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

he is subject to inhumane psychological torture in prison for doing what you consider as normal journalism.

That's awful but also shows how serious this kind of shit is. The leaks had serious consequences on the US government, defense, diplomacy, homeland etc. 

 

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Transparency is supposed to be good for everyone.

It's a function of state to keep security, defense and diplomatically sensitive/harmful/scrutinizing information classified. 

What Assange did is indeed a function of journalism, which is transparency, noble and brave as this is this doesn't clear him for the offense of leaking classified information. It's a clash of forces between governmental/organizational classification and journalistic transparency. 

The question is of course what is for the current situation/context the proper balance.

I think Assange is brave for what he did (and I am grateful to him for revealing some truths) but he did set himself up against the US government.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Vrubel

[Rokazulu]

1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

What Assange did is indeed a function of journalism, which is transparency, noble and brave as this is this doesn't clear him for the offense of leaking classified information.

As far as I can tell, that information is only classified because it shows clear examples of criminal activity.

Julian Assange is clear of any offense. If the government doesn't see that, it is only to protect themselves from the consequences.

[Bobby_2021]

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

That makes him complicit. In the eyes of the US government that's revealing classified information. That's what wikileaks is about.

That's true, but he merely published a few pdfs givens to him.

I can understand if they go against the one who leaked it.

US trying to make it look like he aided in the stealing of documents. 

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

Johny steals an embarrassing photo from you and gives it to Becky who shows it to the entire class. How are you going to feel about Becky?

In this context Becky is exposing criminal activity, not nudes. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

the less transperancy, the more the delivery.

The ego loves to keep things secret.

 

 

[Vrubel]

3 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

As far as I can tell, that information is only classified because it shows clear examples of criminal activity.

Julian Assange is clear of any offense. If the government doesn't see that, it is only to protect themselves from the consequences.

The very exposing of that information had and still has considerable implications on the US government touching America's very standing in the world. If you're a state, you take this shit very seriously. 

 

59 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's true, but he merely published a few pdfs givens to him.

I can understand if they go against the one who leaked it.

US trying to make it look like he aided in the stealing of documents. 

He knowingly and willfully published it, so this makes him complicit. It's really kindergarten logic.
 

59 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

In this context Becky is exposing criminal activity, not nudes. 

Exposing criminal/nefarious activity makes it a hundred times more momentous than some nudes(;

 

54 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

the less transperancy, the more the delivery.

The ego loves to keep things secret.

Sure, but "devilry" is what is required to be a state and especially doing defense. no devilry = no life.
Obviously, I don't want to justify things like killing civilians but I hope you can see why the army or CIA can't be an open book.

Again I am grateful for the revealing of the information, and hopefully, this will lead to some positive change in conduct by the government. But then again I am not burdened with the responsibility of protecting US citizens. 
 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Vrubel

[Rokazulu]

6 hours ago, Vrubel said:

The very exposing of that information had and still has considerable implications on the US government touching America's very standing in the world. If you're a state, you take this shit very seriously.

Yes, but why do they focus on Julian Assange instead of their own criminal activity? Their real standing means nothing to them. The knowledge is out there, and no one has been held accountable, except someone who had no involvement in the activity— Julian Assange. They aren't taking this seriously at all. They are protecting no one and upholding nothing in their reputation.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Rokazulu

[Vrubel]

4 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

Yes, but why do they focus on Julian Assange instead of their own criminal activity? Their real standing means nothing to them. The knowledge is out there, and no one has been held accountable, except someone who had no involvement in the activity— Julian Assange. They aren't taking this seriously at all. They are protecting no one and upholding nothing in their reputation.

The US government is not obliged to reform or keep itself accountable based on leaked information. That's wishful thinking.

Legally speaking: obtained evidence material is null and void when illegally obtained. 
 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Vrubel

[Rokazulu]

7 hours ago, Vrubel said:

The US government is not obliged to reform or keep itself accountable based on leaked information. That's wishful thinking.

Legally speaking: obtained evidence material is null and void when illegally obtained. 
 

They are morally and legally obliged to, they just choose not to.
Julian Assange only published the information, he was not the one who obtained it.
Journalism is not a crime. The case should have been dismissed a long time ago.

However, I do see your point that this is all wishful thinking.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Rokazulu

[BlueOak]

On 5/11/2022 at 8:26 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

the less transperancy, the more the delivery.

The ego loves to keep things secret.

 

It can like to keep things that might make it look bad quiet, stuff it values it often likes seen. Depends what your ego is, if its formed to be as honest and open as possible, then that becomes the ego you are dealing with. If it's formed as a revealer of hidden facts, then that's what it's going to want to see done for example.

Never trick yourself into thinking the ego isn't at play on some level, in all actions.

[LordFall]

Its the responsibility of the public to stand up for and protect this man, clearly the government won't do it. Any proponent of free speech and freedom of information should keep his name public so he can't he treated criminally.

[Hatfort]

According to the US legislation its first amendment? No.