5 ms·

The idea that Wikileaks and Assange are members of the "free media" is a joke.

deogeo 7y ago
Yeah, if the free media is told something is classified, they will do the responsible thing and not pursue the matter any further. They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good.
- rjplatte 7y ago
  > They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good. I really hope you're being facetious
  - deogeo 7y ago
    I think I laid it on pretty thick.
    - msla 7y ago
      Poe's Law. It's impossible to lay it on so thick that someone doesn't already believe that version.
  - fxbl0i 7y ago
    I really hope you're being facetious when you say you wonder whether the other guy was being facetious ;P
- threeseed 7y ago
  This is the real world here. It's not just black/white. So you can still ensure that illegal acts are made known to the public without revealing intelligence sources and methods.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The thing is that if it can be decided who does and doesn't qualify it is pretty goddamn abusable to silence critics.
- threeseed 7y ago
  We regulate most professions e.g. builders, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists etc. Why can't we regulate journalists ? If you did a college/university degree, if you are a member of some association, if you follow some code of practice and abide by some definition of ethics and values then you are a journalist and a protected entity.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Because they are a check on the powers of the state is an obvious reason why not. It would be like saying wolves should have the power to regulate sheepdog usage and pasture fencing.
- krapp 7y ago
  Then why bother with the term at all? What does the "free" in "free press" mean? The First Amendment of the US constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. Although the term "free press" isn't specifically mentioned, if one cannot decide what does and does not qualify as "the press" then everything from espionage to outright falsehood can equally be considered an expression of "the press." As this is not the case, then "the press" and "the free press" must have some established definition, which means some qualifiers must have been decided upon. And yet it doesn't seem as if the US has fallen prey to wholesale government silencing of critics or censorship of criticism either in the mainstream or alternative press, as a result of such definition. So while it may be possible that defining "the press" could result in abusing that definition to silence critics, it doesn't appear to be inevitable. Therefore, it can safely be argued whether or not Wikileaks qualifies as the "free press" without fear of a slippery slope to press censorship in general.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago

Yeah, if the free media is told something is classified, they will do the responsible thing and not pursue the matter any further. They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good.

rjplatte 7y ago
> They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good. I really hope you're being facetious
- deogeo 7y ago
  I think I laid it on pretty thick.
  - msla 7y ago
    Poe's Law. It's impossible to lay it on so thick that someone doesn't already believe that version.
- fxbl0i 7y ago
  I really hope you're being facetious when you say you wonder whether the other guy was being facetious ;P
threeseed 7y ago
This is the real world here. It's not just black/white. So you can still ensure that illegal acts are made known to the public without revealing intelligence sources and methods.

Nasrudith 7y ago

The thing is that if it can be decided who does and doesn't qualify it is pretty goddamn abusable to silence critics.

threeseed 7y ago
We regulate most professions e.g. builders, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists etc. Why can't we regulate journalists ? If you did a college/university degree, if you are a member of some association, if you follow some code of practice and abide by some definition of ethics and values then you are a journalist and a protected entity.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Because they are a check on the powers of the state is an obvious reason why not. It would be like saying wolves should have the power to regulate sheepdog usage and pasture fencing.
krapp 7y ago
Then why bother with the term at all? What does the "free" in "free press" mean? The First Amendment of the US constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. Although the term "free press" isn't specifically mentioned, if one cannot decide what does and does not qualify as "the press" then everything from espionage to outright falsehood can equally be considered an expression of "the press." As this is not the case, then "the press" and "the free press" must have some established definition, which means some qualifiers must have been decided upon. And yet it doesn't seem as if the US has fallen prey to wholesale government silencing of critics or censorship of criticism either in the mainstream or alternative press, as a result of such definition. So while it may be possible that defining "the press" could result in abusing that definition to silence critics, it doesn't appear to be inevitable. Therefore, it can safely be argued whether or not Wikileaks qualifies as the "free press" without fear of a slippery slope to press censorship in general.
- Nasrudith 7y ago