21 Dec 10
Some say Assange is not a journalist. Since journalists have more free speech protection from prosecution the Sate Dept. has decided to argue Assange is not a journalist so they can throw him in prison like Bradley Manning, the guy that leaked the information.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/10/state-dept-decides-julian-assange-not-a-
journalist/
I have not heard a good debate on this, so is he or isn't he?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by Metal Brainof course he is a journalist, and a very good one at that.
Some say Assange is not a journalist. Since journalists have more free speech protection from prosecution the Sate Dept. has decided to argue Assange is not a journalist so they can throw him in prison like Bradley Manning, the guy that leaked the information.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/10/state-dept-decides-julian-assange-not-a-
journalist/
I have not heard a good debate on this, so is he or isn't he?
21 Dec 10
6 edits
Webster says a journalist is a writer that aims at a mass audience.
I have trouble seeing why he wouldn't qualify.
I don't buy at all the argument that journalists can't have a viewpoint. That sounds to me like a state that doesn't understand the concept of freedom of the press. Should we have a list of state approved journalists with an "independent" viewpoint? Of course not.
I suppose you're going to tell me that Fox news is unbiased too. NPR too, right?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by Metal BrainOf course he's a journalist.
Some say Assange is not a journalist. Since journalists have more free speech protection from prosecution the Sate Dept. has decided to argue Assange is not a journalist so they can throw him in prison like Bradley Manning, the guy that leaked the information.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/10/state-dept-decides-julian-assange-not-a-
journalist/
I have not heard a good debate on this, so is he or isn't he?
Furthermore, he needs no free speech protection as no American charges have been brought against him. If and when that happens, this issue becomes much more relevant.
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
21 Dec 10
The claim, which was announced by US Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley came with the justification that Assange has an “agenda” behind his activities, which in this case appears to be the goal of seeing the truth revealed to the public, which is wholly incompatible with being a “journalist.”
Read that bolded part a few times and reflect.
Revealing the truth is incompatible with being a journalist......
And on the question at hand, some psychos want to require licensing to be considered a journalist.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/03/meet-the-man-and-the-mustache
Patterson, reports FishBowl NY, wants to pass a law that ould require license applicants to possess, among other things:
1) "Good moral character";
2) a degree in journalism;
3) three writing samples.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by joneschrI wish I could say that I would be extremely shocked if they found an excuse to do that and there will be people here cheer leading and spouting apologetics for it.
As soon as he's extradited to the U.S.
They'll extradite him to the US and then they'll argue that he doesn't deserve due process or a defense because he's not a citizen.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76A few questions:
He's probably not subject to US law. In theory he could be if he, for example, used a computer to hack into American databases to steal information. But, of course, there's no suggestion that this occurred.
Do journalists have higher protection in free speech cases in the US? (Elsewhere?)
If yes, how does the law define a journalist?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Give it time... someone will suggest it 😉
He's probably not subject to US law. In theory he could be if he, for example, used a computer to hack into American databases to steal information. But, of course, there's no suggestion that this occurred.
21 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnExactly. Well, he doesn't deserve due process because he's not a citizen. And he doesn't deserve freedom of the press because he's a "political actor". Don't worry, they'll find a way to make him fall under the other new invention... "enemy combatant". The great thing about U.S. law seems to be that we can make it up as we go along.
They'll extradite him to the US and then they'll argue that he doesn't deserve due process or a defense because he's not a citizen.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by tmetzler
The claim, which was announced by US Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley came with the justification that [b]Assange has an “agenda” behind his activities, which in this case appears to be the goal of seeing the truth revealed to the public, which is wholly incompatible with being a “journalist.”
Read that bolded part a few t ...[text shortened]...
1) "Good moral character";
2) a degree in journalism;
3) three writing samples.
[/quote][/b]This is laughable at best, these days its very hard to find someone in the media who doesn't have an agenda, and yet they're all considered journalists.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by joneschrMaybe you can whine about evil US conduct after it happens rather than before it happens.
Exactly. Well, he doesn't deserve due process because he's not a citizen. And he doesn't deserve freedom of the press because he's a "political actor". Don't worry, they'll find a way to make him fall under the other new invention... "enemy combatant". The great thing about U.S. law seems to be that we can make it up as we go along.