your argument applies to the entire field of investigate journalistics. i might agree with you that it's immoral. nonetheless, it's legal. "travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
Zhenka, it looks like you just replied with slogans ignoring my comment completely. I think each of your statements in the last comment is wrong.
>your argument applies to the entire field of investigate journalistics.
I tried to argue exactly the opposite in my prev comment. feel free to take it point by point. but the intuitive point is that an investigative journalism typically is attempting to display a crime of some sort (incl., moral). it makes an important point which it supports by documents, which sometimes are obtained illicitly (which often represents a problem - imho, it should not always be viewed as legitimate, because it is for a good cause, and it is certainly not always protected by "freedom of speech"; indeed the Pentagon papers journalists were never acquitted of espionage charges, though they were freed, so courts and public opinion need to decide whether the violation was justified). Assange published the docs in question just because they were labeled secret. no crime, no point.
> it's legal. it is far from clear. again, see PP
>"travlya" Assanga
I'd like to understand what you mean here exactly and specifically. his bank accounts are not made public - that would be a symmetric response, etc.
> "travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
some rhetoric that one hears is dumb, stupid and even disgusting, but it is protected by free speech, unlike disclosure of secret documents.
1. again, what attacks 2. I am not sure how law applies here, but I am not sure citizenship matters 3. excessive support of him also creates a bad precedent
I must admit, there are a number of issues here that I am uneasy about. so, if you will, consider my arguments from the point of view of devil's advocate ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 04:42 am (UTC)i might agree with you that it's immoral. nonetheless, it's legal.
"travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 04:45 pm (UTC)>your argument applies to the entire field of investigate journalistics.
I tried to argue exactly the opposite in my prev comment. feel free to take it point by point. but the intuitive point is that an investigative journalism typically is attempting to display a crime of some sort (incl., moral). it makes an important point which it supports by documents, which sometimes are obtained illicitly (which often represents a problem - imho, it should not always be viewed as legitimate, because it is for a good cause, and it is certainly not always protected by "freedom of speech"; indeed the Pentagon papers journalists were never acquitted of espionage charges, though they were freed, so courts and public opinion need to decide whether the violation was justified). Assange published the docs in question just because they were labeled secret. no crime, no point.
> it's legal.
it is far from clear. again, see PP
>"travlya" Assanga
I'd like to understand what you mean here exactly and specifically. his bank accounts are not made public - that would be a symmetric response, etc.
> "travlya" Assanga is both immoral and illegal (violates freedom of press).
some rhetoric that one hears is dumb, stupid and even disgusting, but it is protected by free speech, unlike disclosure of secret documents.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 05:57 pm (UTC)I think attacks on him create a bad precedent.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 06:26 pm (UTC)2. I am not sure how law applies here, but I am not sure citizenship matters
3. excessive support of him also creates a bad precedent
I must admit, there are a number of issues here that I am uneasy about. so, if you will, consider my arguments from the point of view of devil's advocate ;)