SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The DNC's Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks Is an Attack on the Freedom of the Press
It's a large world, filled with felonies big and misdemeanors small. And so I prefer to write long columns. But sometimes a short, sharp word is necessary. The Democratic Party is suing WikiLeaks and they shouldn't. As Glenn Greenwald wrote last week in The Intercept:
The Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit this afternoon in a Manhattan federal court against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and various individuals it alleges participated in the plot to hack its email servers and disseminate the contents as part of the 2016 election. The DNC also sued WikiLeaks for its role in publishing the hacked materials, though it does not allege that WikiLeaks participated in the hacking or even knew in advance about it; its sole role, according to the DNC's lawsuit, was publishing the hacked emails.
As Greenwald points out, the Dems' claim that "WikiLeaks is liable for damages it caused when it 'willfully and intentionally disclosed' the DNC's communications ... would mean that any media outlet that publishes misappropriated documents or emails (exactly what media outlets quite often do) could be sued by the entity or person about which they are reporting."
After the Manning releases in 2010, the Obama Justice Department wanted to sue WikiLeaks. However, they couldn't prove that anyone from WikiLeaks had actually stolen documents. They knew that suing WikiLeaks would have infringed on press freedom. Sue WikiLeaks, and you have to sue the Washington Post as well.
The DNC has no such qualms now.
Also at Al Jazeera.
See also: Why the DNC Is Fighting WikiLeaks and Not Wall Street
(Score: 1, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:32PM (9 children)
Illegally penetrating an email server is not an expression of free speech.
(Score: 5, Touché) by insanumingenium on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:41PM (2 children)
Airing that illegally exposed dirty laundry is, however.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday May 03 2018, @05:59AM (1 child)
I'm going to try to be consistent here. I opposed all of the leaks when the NYT would splash secrets on the front page, when Wikileaks was trying its damndest to get American fighting men killed to score political points against Bush. So I should oppose this one as well. And I would except:
1. This leak really did expose rampant criminal activity, arguably even treason.
2. All those other leaks that the people screaming loudest now were handing each other major awards for participating in.
I support some sane method for leaking when it is really important that doesn't involve the front page of the NYT, say some channel to directly leak to the Chief Justice and he could call for a special investigation or something. Once something like that existed, leaking classified to the media could and should be more easy to justify punishing both the leaker AND the media for. An American media outlet knowingly publishing information it knows to be classified should be treason and a foreign one a formal act of aggression against the U.S. Meaning Julian should get a visit from a C.I.A. microdrone in the middle of the night. The current situation is unsustainable and insane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:36AM
Yes, the current situation of a violently imposed monopoly withholding secrets from the people they have enslaved is unsustainable and insane.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bug1 on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:36PM (4 children)
If they did something illegal they would have been charged with a crime.
This is a civil suit alleging wikileaks exposed their "trade secrets", how they got the information is not relevant to that AFAIK.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:56PM
Are those 'literally quotes' or 'metaphora quotes'?
(e.g. did they literally alleged 'trade secret theft' in Wikileaks case?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:56PM (2 children)
The media reports what they know - that's what they do. Over the years, the media has exposed petty thieves, burglars, robbers, rapists, murderers, corporate misconduct, political misconduct, wars, peace, scientific achievements, genocides, births, deaths, and so much more.
The DNC thinks that it should be immune to the media? Tough shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:50AM (1 child)
You say that. But so does Trump. Any negative is always fake news. Any positive real news. But even you aren’t that naive. So why do you think Trump clean as a whistle? Is it just your inability to admit you are wrong? And don’t give me some johnny come lately BS as to why you are able to spot a shyster. Just admit you love Koolaid too.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:55PM
Dafuq? When, and where, have you ever read ANYTHING that I've posted, suggesting that Trump is "clean"?
Oh, I think I get it. I believe that Hillary is a god-damned conniving, murderous, thieving, two-faced bitch - so therefore, I must like Trump? FFS, this isn't kindergarden, where you have to pick sides. More than forty years ago, when I registered to vote, I rejected BOTH SIDES, and reserved my right to hate all the crooked sons of bitches.
Grow up, child. You don't have to drink either the orange Kool-Aid, or the red Kool-Aid. Anytime I want, I pour a cup of coffee, or crack open a soda, or maybe crack open a beer. Or, I just open the whiskey bottle, and pour a couple fingers. To hell with Kool-Aid.
You suck, Hillary sucks, Trump sucks, and I'm not joining any or your teams.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:32PM
Google or wikipedia up the Pentagon Papers.
Its basically the same story with newer technology and different players. Hopefully it'll have the same legal outcome.
There are other more direct analogies WRT the Pentagon Papers revolving around wikileaks and some famous people.