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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:21PM (2 children)

    by bobthecimmerian (6834) on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:21PM (#675066)

    I don't think abolishing political parties is practical, so I would go the route that the UK and Germany have. In elections you don't vote for the candidate, you vote for the party. And then the party gets seats in Congress based on the vote percentages and party leaders choose the people to fill the seats.

    The current US system is plurality-takes-all, and in 99% of cases a Democrat wins or a Republican wins. The Green Party candidate, Libertarian Party candidate, Reform Party candidate, Constitution Party candidate, Patriot Party candidate, and Communist party candidate can get 0.5%, 1%, 8% of the vote and it doesn't matter because the Republican or Democrat is going to get 40%+ and win. Most of the voters hate the two parties but won't vote for a third party candidate because they know the end result on public policy is nil. But with the vote-for-party system, if the Democrats get 38% of the votes they get 38% of the seats, if the Republicans get 45% of the votes they get 45% of the seats, and if the Libertarians get 10% they get 10%.... so the people voting away from the Big Two still get a voice in the legislature unless their party is especially unpopular.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:34PM (1 child)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:34PM (#675213)

    The problem with voting for candidates and not parties is that, while people can certainly inspect the Presidential candidates in the run-up, and maybe some of the Congressional ones, voters just don't have the time, energy, or will to carefully examine all the various candidates at all levels on their ballot. That's why we have parties; it's like a "brand".

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 04 2018, @12:34PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday May 04 2018, @12:34PM (#675616) Journal

      The other question is why spend any time learning about their platform, as though what they say on a campaign has any predictive power whatsoever over what they would do in office? Everytime somebody says that i laugh ruefully.

      The only useful exercise, if you're gonna insist on wasting time researching the motivations of the psychopaths our political system cultivates, is to follow the money. Look up who their donors and bundlers are. Look at who their campaign managers and handlers are. Those people are the strings that make the puppet dance for the masters.

      Me, i think we need to reset the dial for democracy entirely, but let's at least see what we have now with clear eyes.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.