Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the sauce-for-the-goose dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:40PM (5 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:40PM (#674778) Journal

    And what illegal shit, exactly, did the emails expose?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:01PM (#674790)

    #CrookedHillary, unless you're implying that she was already exposed elsewhere.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:53PM (#674814)

    And what illegal shit, exactly, did the emails expose?

    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear [wired.com]

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:39AM (#674890)

    Actually I think you are correct. There was a whole lot of stupid exposed but I don't think they ever actually found anything illegal. Very similar to the Clinton email server, a whole mess of administrative regulation violations but nothing downright illegal. You know what they say sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you are stupid rather than open it and prove that fact.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:10PM (1 child)

    by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:10PM (#675057)

    Illegal, no. Stupid, yes. (And I voted for Hillary, for what it's worth.) The hacks revealed two foolish things:

    1. Hillary was getting verbatim copies of Democratic Primary debate questions in advance, and all other candidates were not. This infuriated anyone that didn't already support her, and fed into the conservative (and Russian) propaganda that she's corrupt.

    2. Campaign members used arrogant and insulting terms to refer to Republican supporters. We all know that in modern American politics both sides hate each other, but if you were a moderate on the fence or a Republican wrestling with your conscience over voting for Trump then seeing yourself referred to as worthless and stupid by Hillary's top advisers just might push you onto Trump's side.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:01PM (#675124)

      1. Hillary was getting verbatim copies of Democratic Primary debate questions in advance, and all other candidates were not. This infuriated anyone that didn't already support her, and fed into the conservative (and Russian) propaganda that she's corrupt.

      Well, to be fair, if that is not corruption then I don't know what is. And, yeah, I voted for her too.