358
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
358 points (98.1% liked)
World News
32323 readers
842 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
And what does that have to do with the fact that he faces over 100 years in prison?
His moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism.
The fuck does this mean? The core thing he did to be noticed is also the thing that's getting him persecuted.
I feel like you’re not allowing two statements to be true.
Assange is being doggedly pursued by the US for leaking state secrets. No I do not think he deserves to be punished for information he released like with Afghanistan. I think we are better for it and clearly this is the US making an example of him. Obviously we all knew he would be pursued, but again, I think that was the morally right thing to do, and I believe in protecting whistleblowers
I also take umbrage with any attempts to make him out to be a good person or in any way virtuous, which is what the comment I responded to did. He isn’t. He had my support when he was standing for transparency, and he lost it when it became clear he saw leaks as a tool for his political preferences and friends.
We can hold these two ideas at the same time.
As for the sexual assault allegations against him, I have no clue what to think the waters are too muddy there. So I just don’t engage that generally.
Did we read the same comment? They literally called him a scumbag. 🙄
“A bit of a scumbag” dilutes the fact that he failed at the very mission people praise him for. I am happy to admit that I am was somewhat off in my initial reading of their comment. I do not want to get bogged down in that.
The point is that Assange was a useful tool for a certain brand of politics and certain parties. We all need to recognize that. “He’s a bit of a scum bag” isn’t even close to the reality of how nefarious his actions were.
Do we need to recognize that while he's fighting for his freedom? Maybe that can wait?
The truth is important. Isn’t that the whole point of Wikileaks?
Journalistic freedom is also important, and also the point of Wikileaks.
Unfortunately, what we actually learned is that WikiLeaks existed for him to help those he politically agrees with. There is a reason every self-respecting journalist who worked with WikiLeaks has since walked away and no, it is not because of the US government going after him. It’s because WikiLeaks wasn’t engaging in transparency and quality journalism.
Interesting assertion. Also irrelevant, because journalism doesn't have to be neutral. Plenty of journalists have an agenda, in fact I'd argue most of them do and the idea of impartial journalism is something some journalists made up to promote their own agendas.
I didn’t say journalists had to be neutral. I never used the word neutral. Objectivity is a myth and impossible to obtain.
I’m saying these journalists didn’t want to work for a flagrantly partisan organization
that lied about its commitment to transparency.
If you want to be a mouthpiece for Putin and conservative talking points, then you need to not pretend you’re evenhanded and egalitarian with your leaks and publication.
The only people who don't pretend to be evenhanded and egalitarian are, like, indie communist zines. This is just a problem with the industry as a whole - everyone pretends to be neutral, even though literally no one is. That's not something unique to Assange, so kinda irrelevant imo
So you don’t agree that the entire (claimed) raison d’être of wikileaks was that they were a haven for whistleblowers to bring their information to be vetted by quality journalists and released to the broader public, regardless of the political leanings of the information or people involved?
I agree with you that we should not be thrusting that mandate on outlets. But that’s not what happened. WikiLeaks claimed to be a beacon of transparency. That is a bar they set for themselves. I don’t care if they are “biased“ or whatever, I care that their job is to release information (their own mandate) and then they withhold it when it isn’t convenient for Assange’s politics.
Again, all media outlets claim to be beacons of transparency. They all set this bar for themselves. Everyone claims they are fair and balanced. That's just the industry and everyone in it.
Why, exactly, do you care that information was withheld? Are you just mad about false advertising?
Oh come on are you seriously going to play dumb now? WikiLeaks had a very specific purpose and goal. You cannot possibly compare it to a standard news outlet. You are really stretching things here. This has become a total waste of time.
Journalism is journalism. Trying to frame WikiLeaks as somehow different from journalism is just US propaganda and it's the basis for Assange facing over 100 years in prison.
I think the question is, when does the line between journalist and espionage intersect?
Does his state sponsored participation in election interference count as journalism? Did his misinformation campaign during the Catalan independence movement count as journalism? How about the attempt to bribe the Trump administration for the ambassador seat to Australia?
There's a reason every serious journalist that Assange utilized to launch wikileaks has not only abandoned the project, but has accused Assange of financial fraud, miss handling information, and endangering their sources.
I don't think Julian Assange is a journalist, I think he just likes being famous, and at one point journalism was a way to do that. I don't think he should be in jail for the rest of his life, but I also don't think he deserves Carte Blanche for everything he's done based on his prior "journalistic integrity".
Yeah, because they'd be hunted down by the US government right alongside Assange.
Most of the early members of wikileaks left before the first leaks pertaining to the US. Wikileaks original focus was to expose authoritarian governments in the Middle East, ex Soviet block, and primarily China's actions in Tibet. John Young, one of the founders actually left the group after accusing Assange of being a CIA plant after Assange wanted to do a multimillion fund raising drive.
The largest group to leave was before the 2010 Iraq leak, when the actual journalist at wikileaks warned Assange that the batches had not been properly redacted, and he published them anyway.
Fear for their source's safety actually led wikileak's security team to steal data from wikileaks and keep the data encrypted until Assange agreed to improve opsec. Assange ended up kicking them off the team, and they ended up having to delete the data.
I would really suggest reading what his early colleagues thought about his work, it really gives a lot of perspective about how poorly wikileaks was actually run, and how shady of a character Assange is.
Again, I'm not condoning life in prison. I just don't think he's the titan of ethics and moral integrity that people make him out to be. And he shouldn't be immune to prosecution for the unethical and illegal activities he committed outside the scope of legitimate journalism.
It sounds like you are, in fact, saying he should be persecuted for the 2010 Iraq leak.
Why do you keep replying to everyone with the exact same straw man argument?
Because no one is addressing my point and it's pissing me off. They just drag things off topic because Assange bad.
It's one of the uglier sides of human nature - thinking that human rights should only apply to those humans they like/agree with.
You're not making any point by simply putting words in other people's mouths then ending your comment there.
My point is that tearing down his character is only doing the work of the US prosecution.
Meaning these Lemmy comments going to be entered as evidence in his trial?
Meaning random Americans reading the commentary are going to be influenced to support his prosecution, rather than resist it. The American public has been carefully massaged for years to make this possible without mass unrest.
Lol, I think you like to make assumptions that fulfill your biases. My response was simply an example of how his public image and his personal actions differ. Even if the release was sloppy and he may have potentially compromised his sources, it was still an act of journalism.
The acts that I believe to be outside the credible scope of journalism consist of misinformation campaigns in Spain, the election interference, and the bribe offered to the trump administration for the ambassador seat to Australia.
I can't really see how any of those actions are defensible for someone who considers themselves a journalist.
Sorry, I assumed we were still talking about his extradition. I didn't realize we had gone off topic.
I wouldn't say we were off topic, I was just specifically responding to "His moral righteousness is irrelevant to the fact that he is being persecuted for journalism."
The State is for sure requesting extradition in response to his prior journalistic work (and I do consider the 2010 leak as journalism), and that is of course wrong. However, I think it's still important to point out that he did engage in subversive actions that cannot be excused as journalism.
Doing so set a dangerous precedent for future journalist who look up to the man. The ironic thing is he wouldn't likely be in the situation he is in now if he has stuck to his stated principles, or listened to his colleagues. He would still be hounded by the US gov, but he would have still had countries that would safeguard him. Wikileaks would still be operational, and most importantly less sources would have faced federal prosecution.
I honestly don't see how it helps anyone but the US prosecution to point out that he was a subversive. Whether he's good or bad is irrelevant to whether the journalism he did should be made illegal.
And being subversive shouldn't be a crime either tbh
Lol, I doubt my opinions on Lemmy will be influencing any federal prosecutors. I already stated that it's important for future generations to learn from both the success and mistakes of Assange. I don't really see how white washing his past really helps anyone.
Again, with the strawman? I've explicitly stated I don't agree with the prosecution of any legitimate journalistic endeavor. My point was that if there was any justification for prosecution it would be for his activities that do not fit within the scope of journalism. Since they are not charging him based on those actions, there is no legitimate justification for his current prosecution.
I dont really see the point in trying to deify a person as some sinless martyr. People are perfectly capable of doing both good and bad things, and I don't think we should shy from that fact. Your beliefs are being limited to a false dichotomy of Saint or sinner, when reality is rarely that simple.
They influence the public, and the public can exert pressure on the government. Why do you think US propaganda has been so insistent that Assange is a Putin asset and enemy of democracy and danger to Americans? These propaganda points are coming straight from the top and you're parroting them for no reason.
There's zero benefit in participating in the smear campaign against Assange. This helps no one but the US prosecution. That doesn't mean we deify him, that just means we don't force threads to go off topic just to air grievances against him. You brought this up for no reason and forced this whole derail despite all my attempts to keep it on topic.
Sus.
Again, with the strawman?
And my point is that he is only being prosecuted for journalism. All these other """concerns""" you have are literally irrelevant and off topic, and they're being pushed by the US to make people less sympathetic to Assange so that they allow him to be prosecuted.
Maybe you don't agree with his prosecution, but you're pushing talking points that make it easier. This helps no one but the prosecution.
And it's sus.
Maybe if we lived in a functional democracy? Right now it's pretty clear that public pressure has little to no effect on those with their hands on the reigns.
Again, they wouldn't have that ammunition if Assange was the boy scout of truth you attempt to make him out to be. His involvement with Russia and their interference election campaign, and his workings with Trump Jr gave fuel to that particular fire.
Lol, yes me saying that his leaks about the Iraq and afghan war were legitimate acts of journalism that need to be protected, is exactly what Washington is parroting..... This is the false dichotomy I was talking about.
Ahh, so I'm not allowed to have any nuances opinions about an individual? There is no benefit in providing context? Sounds like you care more about your biases than the truth, which is ironic considering that the whole point of wikileaks was to bring transparency to complex issues.
Lol, I think you have an overvalued sense of self importance . Nothing we do or say is going to influence a federal prosecutor, to think so is incredibly narcissistic.
And the whole point of engaging in discourse is to provide context and gain perspective that you haven't accounted for. If your only rebuttal to criticism or context is telling someone to shut up, I don't think you really have a complete grasp of your own beliefs.
You don't get to dictate what is and what isn't on topic. If I was talking about jelly beans, yeah I'd be off topic. Me discussing the surrounding context of assanges arrest, and why he's lost public support over the years is not rejecting the topic at hand.
It's not a straw man if that is the thing you are expressly trying to prevent. You have been aggressively campaigning to stop any criticism of a person, even if they are valid.
And my point is that the reason they felt comfortable with actually pulling the trigger on his prosecution is directly related to the actions you say are off topic. If he has stuck with his principals and actually stuck to the journalism he's always claimed to value, he'd still have friends in high places who would stick their necks out to protect him.
But in the last 5-10 years he's consistently burned every bridge offered to him. Just look at his experience in the embassy. The Ecuadorian government spent real political capital and money safeguarding him, and how does he repay them? By being a complete ass to people and eventually spying on them.
My point is that it is irresponsible to portray his current situation as a scenario where his prior actions were inconsequential to his current predicament. That it was inevitable that the government would eventually imprison him no matter what. That portrays the government as some all powerful all knowing organization that operates outside the rules of power. Taking away Assanges responsibility/agency in his mess will just lead others to believe that no matter what you do you are never outside the reach of the US gov, and that is just untrue.
So now it's my fault that he abandoned his journalistic integrity, or should we just not be talking about it? This is the inherent flaw with not being transparent. The dark spot in the room no one is talking about injects a vacuum into the discourse that can be filled with anything. In my opinion, when we shine a light on to the dark it robs the vacuum reactionaries utilize to control the discourse.
Truth is our only weapon, unlike the government we don't have the ability to control the narrative with an infrastructure of colluding media. Our only tool is to point out the internal contradictions that they utilize to keep people in the dark. However, this weapon can be easily countered if they can point out a wisp of hypocrisy.
You being so insistent on preserving the vacuum of opaqueness for reactionaries to rally around is in my eyes, very "sus" as you say.
The first thing @seSvxR3ull7LHaEZFIjM said was: "Assange is a bit of a scumbag" ...
The closest thing to "righteousness" said was: "his efforts for freedom of information should not land him in US torture prisons like many others."
Which, being true, it's absolutely not challenged or contradicted by anything you said in response.
Note that "freedom of information" is totally compatible with "picking and choosing" the manner in which you exercise that freedom. In fact, I'd argue that the freedom of "picking and choosing" what's published without external pressure is fundamentally what the freedom of press is about.
Assagne (like any other journalist) should have the freedom of "picking and choosing" what facts he wants to expose, as long as they are not fabrications. If they are shown to be intentionally fabricated then that's when things would be different... but if he's just informing, a mouthpiece, even if the information is filtered based on an editorial, then that's just journalism. That's a freedom that should be protected, instead of attacking him because he's publishing (or not publishing) this or that.