Saturday, December 04, 2010

It's A Good Thang...Part 3

Dec. 12's issue of Time casts Wikileaks in a positive light, echoing a classic image of American censorship and pointing out that harm is not yet evident in the candor forced upon an unwilling government. Imagine how sad it would be for Fareed Zakaria's lovely smile to be covered thus! America's mainstream media often seems resentful of Wikileaks' beating it, bullying it and spoon-feeding it, but has perhaps rediscovered something it loathes far more: Joementum. Here's the cover story, by Massimo Calabresi
In further developments:
 PayPal's blog:
PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We've notified the account holder of this action.
The rationale seems more convincing (at least from PayPal's perspective) than Amazon's wheedling about rights and redaction. But the timing, at 11:29 p.m. EST on Friday evening, suggests they do know the decision is something to be buried, not boasted of.
 In a tweet, Wikileaks says it was the result of government pressure.
In response to the "killing" of Wikileaks.org by the US, countless mirror sites are springing up all over the world. It's impossible to authoritatively catalog them all—too many mirrors, and too fluid of a situation. But here are some active indexes, which appear to be dynamically updating as new mirrors pop up.

8 comments:

Laci the Chinese Crested said...

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/12/01/wikileaks-hasnt-leaked-anything/

Actually, Julian Assange didn't leak anything--he can't, because he didn't have access to classified documents. Someone (or someones) who did have such access leaked those documents to Assange's WikiLeaks, which, as a journalistic organization, made them available to the world, both directly and through other media partners.

This distinction, which is widely ignored in commentary on WikiLeaks, is actually quite important, because the ethical obligations of a government official with a security clearance are quite different from those of a media outlet. An official makes a promise to protect classified information, and should break that promise only when the duty to keep one's promises is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing wrongdoing. Journalists, on the other hand, are not in the business of protecting secrets, and should have a general presumption in favor of informing the public unless disclosure would cause specific foreseeable harms. The two ethical situations are pretty much opposite.

To treat Assange as a leaker when he is, in fact, a journalist is not only morally confusing, it's quite dangerous to journalists in general. If the government can declare Assange to be spy or a terrorist because he's published classified documents he's received, every investigative journalist who does the same thing is in deep trouble.

microdot said...

Laci, for some reason, I received your comment but it did not post here, It was a very interesting and pertinent piece and here it is:Laci the Chinese Crested has left a new comment on your post "It's A Good Thang...Part 3":

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/12/01/wikileaks-hasnt-leaked-anything/

Actually, Julian Assange didn't leak anything--he can't, because he didn't have access to classified documents. Someone (or someones) who did have such access leaked those documents to Assange's WikiLeaks, which, as a journalistic organization, made them available to the world, both directly and through other media partners.

This distinction, which is widely ignored in commentary on WikiLeaks, is actually quite important, because the ethical obligations of a government official with a security clearance are quite different from those of a media outlet. An official makes a promise to protect classified information, and should break that promise only when the duty to keep one's promises is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing wrongdoing. Journalists, on the other hand, are not in the business of protecting secrets, and should have a general presumption in favor of informing the public unless disclosure would cause specific foreseeable harms. The two ethical situations are pretty much opposite.

To treat Assange as a leaker when he is, in fact, a journalist is not only morally confusing, it's quite dangerous to journalists in general. If the government can declare Assange to be spy or a terrorist because he's published classified documents he's received, every investigative journalist who does the same thing is in deep trouble.



Posted by Laci the Chinese Crested to the brain police at 2:48 PM

-Sepp said...

Personally, I see Julian Assange as a journalist...PFC Manning on the other hand is a spy and should be treated as such.

I love how the white house came out and said Julian Assange was no big deal to them...and then set forth the skullduggery squads on him.
I think what we're seeing is the first steps in killing off the 1st amendment as we know it.

When the government puts it's full effort into destroying a journalist for reporting the news and creates an atmosphere for every other journalist to possibly fear reporting news...we've allowed the government to sink to an all new low.

microdot said...

I can only imagine the invasion of Sweden that would have occurred if McCain was president....
Of course, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Stockholm doesn't have the same poetry that Bomb Iran did, but...

The dust will settle. We all have to futurists. The rules have forever changed. It's too late to stop information.
It's after the end of the world, don't you know that?

-Sepp said...

Who really knows or, cares what McLame "would have done"? The point IS we have a president running a government who IS "doing something". That "something" is the overt abolition of the 1st amendment IN AMERICA!

Sure we could go on for hours as to what McCain, Bush or, whoever else might have done...but We're witnessing what the sitting president IS doing and frankly it's much worse than I'd have imagined the others doing.

Should we all allow this to go unchallenged, we're allowing the government to raise it's own floor of what "the norm" is defined as and ANY journalist in the future will be held to the same rules (until they change again) where reporting is concerned. We will hear nothing that isn't somehow sanctioned by the government due to reporters fearing for their lives should they report it.
And when all we ever get is the news they want us to get, we're screwed as a free society.

Just by looking at the American media right now and how it's used to manipulate public thoughts and oppinions is Orwellian enough. When our journalists not only fear telling the truth but, also fear the penalties involved in doing so, we'll be at the mercy of whoever is steering the government and only as wise or, as ignorant as they deem necessary for us to be.
The press at one time was a counterbalance to government. Now it's becomming an accessory to government.

microdot said...

Well, I certainly agree with you on most of your points here. And may I say, your spelling has improved considerably.

-Sepp said...

Maybe we're having a breakthrough MD? :-)
Even Gene Simmons gets it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHvYM7S2KFY&feature=player_embedded#!

microdot said...

Gene Simmons? I watched your clip.
And you had the rancidity to criticize John Lennon based on your view that he came to the USA to avoid British Taxes, so that negates his ideas and beliefs...

Breakthrough? I think your having a breakdown!
Gene Fuckin Simmons?
Get a life!