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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:54AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:54AM (#674899)

    The US system is designed this way.

    We have first past the goal post winner takes all elections. This system has been shown to lead to a two party system (Duverger's law).

    Some states like California have completely disenfranchised 3rd party and independent voters. Proposed by a Republican senator, and backed by the, then Republican governor (and undoubtedly equally loved by the Dems), the law eliminates any but the two highest vote recipients in the primaries from appearing on the general election ballot. They even eliminated the ability to write in a candidate. Yup, complete disenfranchisement for those who refuse to vote for either of the corrupt major parties.

    At the presidential election level, we have an organization founded and controlled by the two major parties controlling who participates, the format, number, location, and rules of the debates. They once changed the rules for participating in debates the night before a debate to keep out a candidate that was apparently threatening to the establishment candidates.

    Jerrymandered districts mean that the outcome of many elections is preordained-- of course, never going to a third party / independent.

    There are also policies to prevent folks from organizing and unifying against the rich elites (who control both major parties). Race has been used for this for nearly the history of the nation-- keep the plebs fighting among themselves, and they won't notice the masters holding the whips. Suppression of the left has been part of this (both the brutal kind including executions, and more mundane like renaming International Workers Day aka May Day. May Day came about after the Haymarket labor leader executions in the US (one of the executed was not even present during the demonstration that led to the executions, and there was no evidence that any of the executed were linked to the attack on the cops they were convicted of). It is still observed nearly everywhere in the world, except in the US. To prevent US labor from having something to rally around, it was renamed to Loyalty Day, then to Law Day (both of the latter promoting obedience). Also, we have laws that prevent solidarity among workers like Taft Hartley. By keeping plebs from organizing together, they've kept us from reaching a critical mass where a non-elite controlled political organization had enough people behind it to challenge the two rich elite friendly/run establishment parties.

    Trump is a complete moron with the intellect of a tin can, and policies hostile to all but himself (and the rest of the rich). But, at least the "fuck you [to the establishment]" votes that folks threw his way may mean that it is possible to overcome these obstacles (hopefully in a positive direction next time).

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=3, Underrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:22AM (4 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:22AM (#674915) Journal

    Trump and Sanders were independent candidates working within the two-party system. In both cases, they faced obstacles within the party. Trump took advantage of the crowd of Republican candidates with very little support individually and manipulated the media into giving himself all the free airtime he wanted. Sanders on the other hand put up a pretty good fight but was opposed by the Clinton taint within the DNC and not given the airtime he needed.

    Trump has set an example for future "third-party" candidates. Don't run as a Green, Independent, Libertarian, write-in, whatever. Run as a Democrat or Republican. Make as much noise as possible. Never apologize for anything; always double down. If you can win in the primary, then you become one of the big 2 instead of the outsider who'd be swell to vote for but is considered a "wasted vote".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_tent [wikipedia.org]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:55PM (3 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:55PM (#675048)

      Sanders was just too ethical and decent; that was his problem. If he had said all kinds of outrageous and inflammatory stuff, and then refused to apologize and doubled-down, he would have gotten lots of free media coverage, and could have won the primary vote. Basically, that's what Trump did. Making up nasty pet names for his Dem opponents (esp. Hillary, but also the others earlier on) would have helped too.

      I think we all owe Trump a debt of gratitude for the 2016 election, for showing us as a nation what a farce our elections really are, and how easy they are to game if you play it right.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:32PM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:32PM (#675077) Journal

        I'm not sure that adopting that persona and going after Hillary strongly would have helped Sanders as much. The supporters are different, etc. But there's one thing I can point to. "[The] American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" Sanders essentially tossed the issue to the curb with that one line, earning him some applause and praise but not much else. Trump focused on it throughout the year and got an email-related October surprise from his biggest (unintentional?) supporter, FBI Director Comey.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:32PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:32PM (#675210)

          Yeah, you're probably right. The supporters are so different that acting like Trump probably wouldn't have helped. But I do wonder if trying to focus more on her negatives and tearing her down would have helped him win the primaries. He tried to run a principled campaign focused on the issues, which is laudable, but as we've seen over and over, it just doesn't work that well in the real world.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:21PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:21PM (#675255) Journal

        Yeah, my reaction to his loss when I was talking to a friend was "Figures. We all know what happened to the *last* socialist Jew who said to be good to the poor, don't we?" To which he said "Yeah, and they don't listen to him either."

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...