US To Host World Press Freedom Day 614
rekrowyalp writes "From the press release: 'The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information.' Oh the irony."
wikileaks (Score:5, Funny)
Is it safe to assume that Wikileaks isn't invited?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh no, they're invited. All of them. In fact, it's an invitation they can't refuse...
Irony (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's oversimplified, but still part of the whole madness:
They are in business with some Saudi businessmen who support and donate to terrorists on the other side. Therefore US money is used to buy weapons which in turn are used against US soldiers. In other words: They're basically fighting themselves.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Worse still - back when the IRA were active, a lot of their funding and support came from within the US, and the US government didn't really clamp down on it for political reasons. Even now, the US has refused to ratify their latest extradition treaty with the UK for fear it'll allow terrorists to be extradited.
For those of you in the US who got the expurgated version, the IRA were and are a thoroughly nasty bunch. Truck bombs in shopping malls and hotels, murdering civilians for being the wrong kind of Christian, demanding protection money from businesses "to fund Northern Irish independence" and kneecapping anyone who didn't pay up, that kind of thing. We're only just starting to find the corpses of people kidnapped from their homes on suspicion of snitching or other offences and never heard from again - and these were people who were on the same side as the IRA!
You may have heard that they gave warnings in advance of their bombs, but that wasn't from the kindness of their hearts. They actually did it to claim credit - if they didn't call in before the bomb detonated with enough information to identify it, some other group could claim responsibility.
(They also taught al-Qaeda and similar groups a lot of their skills. Apparently, many of the roadside IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on IRA designs that they used against British troops during the Troubles.)
Re: (Score:3)
the US has refused to ratify their latest extradition treaty with the UK for fear it'll allow terrorists to be extradited.
If you're talking about the Extradition Act 2003 [wikipedia.org], then the U.S. ratified it in 2006.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly when did Julian Assange or anyone from WikiLeaks "... tak[e] classified documents from your government offices and reproduc[e] them online"?
They published documents they were given by someone else (the actual leaker, who is suspected to be Manning) - much like every news organisation has done with the cables as they've been released. Except the news organisations have been picking and choosing for greatest dramatic effect/"reader interest" i.e. publishing the cables that are most likely to have a destablising effect on world politics.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
So arrest the people who took the documents. We have a law in this country specifically protecting the right to publish documents even if they were obtained illegally. Remember the Pentagon Papers? If it was legal to publish those, it is legal for Assange to publish the documents he received.
Uh, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here. You do realize that Assange did not take any documents from government offices, right?
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
There is simply no way we can legally arrest him.
FTFY. Unfortunately the US has a bit of a slapdash reputation when it comes to interpreting international laws. Or their own Constitution, for that matter.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US oligarchy were really interested in democracy, US news companies wouldn't have betrayed US citizens during GW Bush's presidency and would have instead shown the courage of Wikileaks.
Another generation of US journalists had more courage:
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release [ellsberg.net]
In any case, the US's covert war against Wikileaks is its only alternative:
http://www.rferl.org/content/wikileaks_assange_secrecy_access_laws/2242761.html [rferl.org]
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:5, Insightful)
He's already in custody; he turned himself in in the UK.
I guess that's what happens when you get INTERPOL set upon you for the crime of having consensual sex with groupies without a condom [dailymail.co.uk]. Groupies who remained supportive after their sexual trysts until they found out that he was sleeping around. Because that's the sort of stuff INTERPOL is there for, right? Certainly politics didn't play a role in THAT warrant...
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare and contrast:
Obama does nothing and gets a Nobel Peace Prize
Assange champions truth and gets an arrest warrant.
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:5, Funny)
Well, compared to the many somethings the previous President accomplished, a President doing nothing DESERVES a peace prize!
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobel Peace Prize (Score:4)
Obama does nothing and gets a Nobel Peace Prize Assange champions truth and gets an arrest warrant.
Not to worry, this time next year the US will call for a boycott of the Nobel Peace Prize, because it "goes to a convicted criminal" </cynicism>
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
actually, he seems to be right if you believe Bild Zeitung [www.bild.de] (which is at the best of times slightly hazardous, as it's not exactly the most serious newspaper in Germany)
From the article, one of the women didn't want to press charges, and the second only went to the police because Assange was being a asshole (he didn't want to be tested for STDs after having have unprotected sex with both women) but both were apparently pressurized by their lawyer, Claes Borgström, into pressing charges for rape. Still
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Read the news. The prosecutor in the district where the "rape" happened declined to bring charges, because it was obvious these were just angry groupies trying to use the legal system to get revenge.
The new charges are being brought by a different prosecutor, in a totally different district that has absolutely nothing to do with the crime (it's in another part of the country), who acted after being told to by a Swedish politician who probably wants to cozy up to the US.
If I allegedly rape a woman in Califo
Re: (Score:3)
Where? You could link to the tweets, if they exist. From what I understand, the second woman did behave a bit like a groupie, but the first woman did not.
Re: (Score:3)
I heard the same story on the radio yesterday and it is the papers. Check out the Google search. [lmgtfy.com] Here's some articles on it:
Here's The Guardian's [guardian.co.uk] article on it, from today. Here's another from The Independent [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Did this happen or are you guessing?
I'm asking because you answered in the form of a question and I don't know if you were suggesting it might have happened or it might be because that happened. I was never any good at Jeopardy [jeopardy.com] anyways.
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:5, Informative)
What tweets?
These tweets for example:
http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml [radsoft.net]
'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'
'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'
These were made the days immediately after she was "raped".
Is that how you act after a rape? Call it hanging out with the coolest people in the world?
To make matters even worse, she tried to remove them after the fact...
It's amazing what people take for proof and sources to base their snap judge and jury judgement on in this case.
Yes, that is scary. I agree with you there.
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:4, Informative)
In most places, including the States, if a person gives consent and then withdraws it, there is no longer consent. As far as I know there is no "blue balls" clause letting you finish even if she says no halfway through.
Lots of states in fact. Like North Carolina [charlotteobserver.com] and Maryland. [state.md.us] I'm not saying that such laws are morally right, but I do personally think that the level of protest required during coitus needs to be significantly higher than, "no means no" because the participants can't be expected to be fully in control of their faculties. Everything I've read about the two incidents indicates that neither women claim to have made any physical attempt to stop the act. Plus Assange is completely deaf in one ear and ~50% deaf in the other.
I'm far more interested in the charges leveled by John Young of Cryptome, that he is a mercenary selling access to unredacted source documents to the highest bidder on the black market.
Interesting but it sounds like an exaggeration, apparently this is what Young said [theregister.co.uk]:
"Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year.
That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were
actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that,
I know that they were a criminal organisation."
To me, that sounds like wikileaks people were brainstorming at its inception and Young has extrapolated the worst possible result from it. Remember at the start wikileaks wasn't redacting anything - they even published their own list of donors. So the implication that they would publicly release redacted documents but privately sell them doesn't fit the circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that was the article I read. I'm glad you link to it, so hat people can read it and see that Young's accusations are a bit more than what you make them out to be. Also from the article:
In a posting to the nettime mailing list, Young added:
"The free stuff is meant [to] lure volunteers and promote high-profile public service, lipsticked with risk, with the enterprise funded by selling costly material sold on the black market of worldwide spying in the tradition of public benefit ops, ID, spies and ever more spies. No better customers for illicit information that [sic] those with depthless pockets.
"Soros and the Kochs have their lesser-known Internet promoters backing Wikileaks generously. And they expect good return on their investment, not just the freebies used to attract attention."
Writing last month, Young shared his disgust at Wikileaks' similar tactics to advertising-supported or state-supported media - which Young claims cannot be trusted by definition.
"Wikileaks lies as much as the media, indeed, exactly in the advertising format of the media. Its consumers like it for that very reason. It rides the wave of imaginary disgust with MSM and governments, but it has not modified the formula of braggardy and drama essential to capture eyeballs and through eyeballs, minds and hearts."
I'm exaggerating, am I?
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't mean that you were exaggerating, I meant the Young's own words suggested that he was exaggerating.
His continuation about Soros and Koch sounded like pure conspiracy theory speculation based on his extrapolation of that original discussion.
The rest of what you quoted sounded like the same old complaints people have been making about wikileaks hyping the leaks. The thing is that over a year ago Assange explicitly said in an interview [businessinsider.com] that just dumping a zip file of all leaks wasn't effective at draw
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:4)
If this had happened in America, you might have a point. But this happened in Sweden, which recently enacted some fairly strict and harsh anti-rape laws. Commentators quipped that when the laws passed, men would need to get specific consent in writing before having sex. Mr. Assange is not being treated any differently than anyone else in Sweden.
Here is a link to John Young's allegations (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/ [theregister.co.uk]
He claims he was asked to head wikileaks, but turned them down when he heard their fund-raising plans included pimping out the information to the highest bidder.
Re:Assange is the guest of honor (Score:4, Funny)
I think we'd have to agree we all have a bit of hero and a bit of villain in us.
And apparently when visiting Sweden it's best to keep your villain in your pants.
Re: (Score:3)
That was pretty much the general critique of Sweden's new anti-rape laws, yes.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Revealing the corruption in publicly owned businesses and in the government and seeing which politicians are bought and paid for by whom is responsible journalism. Want to keep people out of danger? Stop using war as a means to line your own pockets. It pleases me to no end that Wikileaks is delivering on the government transparency campaign promise Obama made and failed to keep.
Maybe future leaders will re-think their actions when they not only realize that future generations will consider them to be scumbags and tyrants, but there can be a very real and immediate danger to their own lives in the here and now.
Corruption is widespread and it needs to be revealed - names and all. It will serve as excellent deterrent in the future.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Needs to be revealed? Totally, where it exists. Deterrent? Hardly.
You seem to forget the invisible line of power and privilege that protects the elite from being sent to prison. GWB committed known felonies during his presidency. The CEO of Massey Energy negligently murdered a number of his employees. Madoff might have gotten caught, but neither his wife nor sons were convicted, and meanwhile Goldman Sachs is doing some incredibly unethical stuff that may or may not have helped to wreck our economy, and that whole institution gets off scott free for the price of some kabuki theatre in DC. Oh, but hey censure Charlie Rangel if it makes you feel better.
We have a good deal of press freedom here in the States, but unfortunately the mainstream media reports on the wrong news, everything now has to be yellow journalism (the wars of left vs. right, Fox vs. MSNBC, etc.) and people in our society are way too uneducated to be mad at the real injustices in the world, like the power our plutocratic overlords now wield. I doubt 10% of our nation knows what the Citizens United verdict was, but you know they're damn mad at the world about the fact that they have to pay taxes for art, because let's rag on a few billion and completely sidestep the trillions that is going to pay for blowing up brown people in the middle east.
Besides, IANAL, but some Internet-distributed leaked classified document probably doesn't hold up in any legal courtroom, so how is anyone going to be punished, exactly? No.
Deterrents don't exist in this country, because in order to deter someone from doing something illegal, you have to actually convict them. And you can't do that in our society anymore.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Completely agreed.
See, this is where I and probably others, have some issues with what Wikileaks is doing. Unlike many in the anti-US crowd, I've seen what a totalitarian government can do. A REAL totalitarian government, not the mostly-democratic but just-corrupt-enough-to-upset-the-idealists government the US has. Are you upset someone who publicly humiliated the U.S. government to the entire world is being jailed on trumped-up charges? How about being executed and your entire family sent to a labor camp because you talked to a neighbor wondering if your country's style of government could be improved.
Unfortunately, a good portion of the world still lives under such such governments. When you do something whose main purpose seems to be to embarrass the U.S. rather than actually expose corruption, what happens? The U.S. loses influence in the world. But who do you think gains influence? Sure some of the less-corrupt democracies do, except their openness means they're vulnerable to the same blind-eye type releases of secrets Wikileaks is conducting. No, the real winners here are totalitarian states which keep a tight lid on their secrets. They gain the most from a system which predominantly exposes the secrets of open societies. You seem to think exposing slight-to-moderate levels of corruption means it'll automatically be replaced by less corruption. It doesn't - it can be replaced by even worse corruption.
We're still fighting a war here. Not the war on terrorism, not a war against corruption. A war to free the remaining peoples of the world who live under totalitarianism (real totalitarianism). On that front, the U.S., the EU, Wikileaks, and people like you and me are on the same side. Yes rooting out corruption is good. And as your opening sentence says, journalism revealing such corruption is necessary. It allows the open society to excise the corruption, resulting in a stronger society. That's what makes an open society work better than a closed (totalitarian) society.
But to accomplish that requires a proper and controlled release of information pertaining to true corruption. The Wikileaks-style widescale release of everything an open government is keeping secret doesn't do that. In fact it does the opposite, by diminishing US influence and allowing the influence of totalitarian states to fill the void created. Yes a lot of things the US does is bad. But try to keep some perspective. Sometimes you have to make deals with a party you don't entirely agree with in order to combat a greater evil. Roosevelt and Churchill did that during WWII, allying with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Did that mean they supported Stalin and his system of government? No. But they kept things in perspective and did what needed to be done to insure the greater threat was wiped out first. Then they set about opposing Stalin.
Going through the leaked documents, finding instances of corruption or wrong-doing, and releasing them would be responsible journalism. Making a cursory review to filter out ones which might put lives at risk, then saying you don't have the resources to deal with the rest in more detail and releasing them en masse to the world is irresponsible journalism. If you don't have the resources to conduct such a review, give the docs to a news organization which does.
Re:wikileaks (Score:4, Interesting)
What is driving your assumption that if the US looses influence, totalitarian governments will gain influence? To me, that isn't at all obvious.
Also, exactly how much corruption should we tolerate in order to keep working towards the greater good? Isn't it possible to oppose the creep of corruption in the more democratic societies while still striving to remove the totalitarian ones?
Let me also ask you this question - how many people in the world think that a society like, for example, North Korea represents a goal? (And I'm not talking about *other* dictators, I'm talking about the general population.)
Maybe I have a naive view of the world here, but it seems to me that you're giving corruption a free pass as long as worse places exist, which is a tough pill to swallow.
Re:wikileaks (Score:4, Informative)
With the posting of 400,000 classified documents from the Iraq war, WikiLeaks has shown a much heavier hand redacting compared to its previous publication of documents.
(...)
"In this case we have taken an even more vigorous approach than we took in relation of the Afghan material, not because we believe that approach was particularly lacking [but] rather just to prevent those sort of distractions from the serious content by people who would like to try and distract from the message," Assange said.
An initial comparison of a few documents redacted by WikiLeaks to the same documents released by the Department of Defense shows that WikiLeaks removed more information from the documents than the Pentagon.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-22/us/wikileaks.editing_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-redacted-documents?_s=PM:US [cnn.com]
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy. You don't. What part of "Congress shall pass no law... abridging... freedom of the press" is unclear? Besides, professional, responsible journalists went through this material and redacted anything they thought would put people at risk. This isn't about putting people at risk. It's about politicians and corporations getting embarrassed by having their dirty laundry aired for all to see. It falls very squarely on the legally acceptable side of the line. If you think you can show some piece of information that puts people at risk after dozens of journalists said that it doesn't, go for it. Otherwise, please stop believing everything that government mouthpieces tell you. They were lying before when they covered this stuff up. Why should we expect anything different from them now?
Doublethink (Score:5, Insightful)
"Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them" - 1984
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doublethink (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Assange turned himself in, for suspicion of crimes which have nothing to do with Wikileaks or the Press.
US is guilty of doublespeak because they're hold a "Press Freedom Day" while at the same time trying to find a way to convict him for doing what a Free Press is supposed to do.
Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.) urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to designate WikiLeaks a "foreign terrorist organization," saying it "posed a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States," and to prosecute founder Julian Assange for espionage.
"Free" indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Ron Paul is one rogue Congressman out of around 500, with very, very little power of his own, and is constantly voting in opposition to 99.9% of Congress.
Eric Holder, however, is the Attorney General with the full backing of the President, and from the other comments from various politicians including Huckabee and others, we can assume most of the US government.
Anything Holder says has far more weight than anything Paul says. Which is too bad, since Holder is obviously on the side of ignoring the Constitut
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There are well known exceptions to the Free Speech rules - "Fire in a theater" is one of them, and universally accepted as punishable due to the mayhem that will no doubt ensue.
Stop splitting hairs. Nobody is stopping you from saying "Obama kills puppies", but if you can't back that statement up with fact then the defamation laws kick in, not the freedom of speech laws.
HA HA HA (Score:2, Insightful)
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Oh, that's funny. Let's see how much celebration of WikiLeaks there is.
("Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING." Well, sometimes it fits.)
The comedians are gonna have a field day (Score:4, Insightful)
I SO have to watch the next Daily Show. Just to see if they have the balls to use this.
Re:The comedians are gonna have a field day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The comedians are gonna have a field day (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I know what he won't say about it:
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, or tits.
Thank you for protecting us from those horrible words, FCC! Despite the fact that as a cable channel, the decency regulations don't actually apply, so the only reason Comedy Central censors themselves is, well, momentum, I guess. Since they'll occasionally run stuff uncensored late at night.
Yay freedom of the press! The freedom to censor itself, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny but that fact that you wonder if someone will use this show just how odd the crabbing is.
This is the freedom of speech version of first world angst.
If Assage was in a nation without freedom of the press like Iran, North Korea, China, Russia.... He wouldn't have been arrested at all.
He would just be dead.
Re:The comedians are gonna have a field day (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The comedians are gonna have a field day (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, he calls himself a "rodeo clown". I assume because he tries to be funny and entertaining while doing something he considers dead serious and quite boring. Much like a rodeo clown's job is to entertain while being responsible for the safety of riders.
And... he has done what he called a "comedy tour". From Huffpo: [huffingtonpost.com]
NEW YORK — Glenn Beck, Fox News Channel's latest sensation, is taking a comedy show on the road for six live performances over six days during the first week of June.
Beck calls his act a "poor man's Seinfeld" and intends to mix topical humor with his modern-day reimagining of Thomas Paine's 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense."
So, yeah, I guess he is also a comedian.
Also, Beck is not on the "crazy part of the right." I'd peg him as more on the "sane part of the Libertarians" (which does not negate your "crazy", BTW). I'd put him as far to the right as I'd put Penn Jillette to the left. Other than religious views, the two pretty much agree on everything. Beck's attitude toward political parties is the same as South Park's co-creator Matt Stone, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."
Of course, YMMV as where people rate right-left depends on where they stand on the political spectrum. Everyone thinks they are middle of the road. Everyone more conservative than themselves is viewed as being "right-wing" and inverse for everyone on the left of them.
I know it's off topic. Just trying to educate. I'm certain you don't spend a whole lot time watching Beck on TV or listening to him on the radio. Granted, I don't much either, but I did spend a few years listening to his radio show when it was on while I sat in traffic.
Re:At first I was disappointed with Jon... (Score:5, Interesting)
One factual correction:
The Canadian who called for the execution of Assange is named Tom Flanagan. He was a top aide to Canada's prime minister Steven Harper many years ago, long before Harper became the prime minister. Currently he works as a political science professor at the University of Calgary. He often gives interviews to news agencies about his opinion, because he usually speaks his mind very freely without needing to think about who he upsets, because he hasn't had any political masters for quite some time. It's like calling a retired former aide to Obama while he was governor a "high ranking USA bureaucrat". No sane politician or bureaucrat in Canada would ever make such statements and still keep their job.
As a side note, the police now investigating Tom Flanagan for uttering death threats.
Irony (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, apart from doing things like pressuring private companies like Amazon and PayPal to "voluntarily" kick Wikileaks off their systems, and making public statements musing that Mr Assange should be assassinated (all reprehensible, to be sure), has the US government actually done anything concrete to censor Wikileaks? Have they arrested or imprisoned anyone who downloaded the torrent? Have they issued ISPs with warrants to find out why downloaded the torrent? Have they forced any media organizations publishing information on the leaks into silence, or arrested or prosecuted any media organization that has published anything about the leaks? Have they made any format attempts to extradite Mr Assange? Has the US government done anything to forcibly silence discussion among the public on the leaks -- for example, shutting down blogs, or arresting blog owners? Have they forced media organizations to toe the official state position only? I'm curious, apart from vague allusions to "censoring websites from the entire world", what are you referring to exactly?
The types of activities I've mentioned, are the types of things that DO actually go on in the many countries outside the US that do practice censorship and control of speech, and I must say, I don't really see the US doing those things. Or perhaps you want to suggest that they are doing those things but that we don't know about them because the US has silenced anyone who talks about it. But I'm afraid I don't even see the climate of fear around discussion that that type of control usually generates in such countries that suppress freedom of speech; as far as I can tell, Americans seem to enjoy the liberty of being able to do and say whatever they want about their government very, very openly.
Re: (Score:3)
As for censoring websites from the entire world, I meant by it seizing websites that reside in the
Re: (Score:3)
It happens eventually, step by step. What I'm talking about in terms of WikiLeaks censorship is the US gov't preventing US Army as well as US gov't employees from accessing WikiLeaks.
As far as I know, they just "asked" them not to. Voluntarily. Have they prosecuted or arrested anyone for doing so?
As for censoring websites from the entire world, I meant by it seizing websites that reside in the .com domain and preventing access to it not just for US citizens
Which .com domain have they seized and blocked access to? Sorry if I've missed something here.
The ongoing trend does not bode well for the freedom of the internet, and the US gov't, unfortunately, has been showing us worrying signs of intentions to control the cyberspace.
Yes, governments can, have always, and always will try to control anything and everything and suppress citizen rights. What I am saying is that in the case of Wikileaks, I don't think they have succeeded yet, whereas the statement "censoring websites from the entire world" suggests they have.
The problem with saying "We are still able to do this and this" is that soon you may not be able to, and as a non US-citizen, I care about this because it will affect the entire internet, not just, say, US newspapers.
That I agr
Re:Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I know, they just "asked" them not to. Voluntarily. Have they prosecuted or arrested anyone for doing so?
Whether or not somebody has been prosecuted for it is as far as I know unknown as of yet, but a google search will show you many of the news about the military censor of WikiLeaks, amongst which is this [huffingtonpost.com].
A memo from the US Marines says this:USMC Personnel (Marines/Civilians/Contractors) are hereby cautioned and directed to NOT access the WIKILEAKS website from a personally owned, publically owned or US Government computer system. By willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material - these actions constitute the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information. Meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.
Obviously committing a security violation as an employee of the US Marines is, well, not a laughing matter.
Which .com domain have they seized and blocked access to? Sorry if I've missed something here.
You might find more info here [slashdot.org].
Yes, governments can, have always, and always will try to control anything and everything and suppress citizen rights. What I am saying is that in the case of Wikileaks, I don't think they have succeeded yet, whereas the statement "censoring websites from the entire world" suggests they have.
In fact I have, as a non-US citizen living outside of the US, have seen one of the results of this censor when trying to access one of the censored sites, getting a warning page with a FBI DVD-like warning. The problem with censoring the domain name itself is that the website can be hosted outside of the US, and yet they'd have power to censor it.
Just a plot (Score:2, Funny)
It is just a plot to get Assange to the US, probably. "Yeah, we got a nice room booked for you. All meals covered!"
Re:Just a plot (Score:5, Funny)
I imagine (Score:2)
A "terrorist" attack on the event. All free press destroyed at once. Sadly.
Re: (Score:3)
Who needs terrorists for that? We're the US of A, dammit, we need no help from nobody!
Freedom of press...but watch what you say! (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom is what we let you have until you piss us off. Then we'll trump up some charges and call you a rapist.
No Hypocrisy... (Score:2)
Of course... (Score:2)
... this way the frontier police will have a good time patting down all these pinko communists flying to the US from all over the world.
It'll be like a lottery draw and the winner gets "invited for questioning" by Agent Smith wearing a blood stained butcher apron...
I don't feel like adding a smiley here...
They really outdid The Onion this time (Score:5, Insightful)
but I don't think they're aware of that.
You don't understand!!! (Score:3)
They are aware that comedians are the last one telling the truth to the US public, and plan to bankrupt them all by a thread of elaborated government decisions that will take their public's atention away!!!!!
P.S. Gee, all that text and I couldn't get ride of that last comma... When reading it, don't take a breath, that would not reflect the intented message.
Didn't China host this event last year? (Score:2)
WPFD on Facebook (Score:5, Interesting)
World Press Freedom Day "moved" (deleted and reposted) the original posting on Facebook and with it deleted all of the comments on it claiming: "We have temporarily stopped wall posts simply because the traffic we've received far exceeded what are able to see and respond to right now! We simply had the structure wrong and weren't ready for a wall with that much traffic, and once we have the logistics worked out, we look forward to continuing a robust discussion around press freedom ahead of World Press Freedom Day 2011!"
The logistics being a situation where they moderate (read: delete) posts,
regulating speech != free speech, disappointing behavior for an organization who celebrates (and very existence relies on) free speech
Let them have it here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/WPFD2011?v=app_2373072738 [facebook.com]
or join "World Press Freedom Day, what a joke" here: http://www.connect.connect.facebook.com/WPFD2011#!/pages/World-Press-Freedom-Day-2011-What-a-Joke/164635873577540?v=wall [facebook.com]
or "Protest World Press Freedom Day-3 May" here: http://www.connect.connect.facebook.com/WPFD2011#!/pages/Protest-World-Press-Freedom-Day-3-May/128796330513944?v=wall [facebook.com]
Re: (Score:3)
World Press Freedom Day: Only possible if we have the resources to delete the free expression of people's opinion about it.
Ya know, if this wasn't so serious I would lie on the floor, panting and wheezing 'cause I couldn't stop laughing. Is it me or does this sound like something that fell out of Bizarro-World?
Freeeedom, oh, wait, did that one (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be happy if the local media here in California would ask a follow up question once in a while.
All I want is this:
STATE POLITICIAN: This bill will fix global warming, solve hunger and make tasty donuts fall from the skies like kisses from kittens!
REPORTER: How, exactly?
STATE POLITICIAN: Thanks and good nigh- eh, what?
REPORTER: How does the bill do that? What sequence of events did you and the other legislators envision after the bill is enacted?
STATE POLITICIAN: (deer in headlights gaze) Uh, well, blah blah blah bullcrap blah symbolism blah feelgood blah TheChildren blah, er, 9/11.
REPORTER: Isn't that a pile of bullshit?
STATE POLITICIAN: Hey, what happened to impartiality?
REPORTER: It wasn't working out very well.
What I want is Spider Jerusalem going after some of these scumbags. Wikileaks is all well and good, but I want these people confronted in their speeches by someone other than media insiders who just sit their dumbly nodding their heads at any crap a politician says. Fuck, every reporter is just a softball Larry King type these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_Jerusalem [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Most reporters don't deserve that name anymore. They're cue-card holders for politicians, mostly. But essentially, we're to blame.
As long as we listen to cue-card reporters, they will be the ones who get the interviews. Why? Because politicians prefer to be interviewed by cue-cards than by investigative reporters. Duh. And in turn, reporters will be what they have to be to get interview partners. If you're known as a badass inquisitor that kills kittens with his follow-up questions, no politician will come
In Other News.... (Score:5, Funny)
Nominate Assange to the World Press Freedom Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should nominate Assange to UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize 2011 [unesco.org]
Imagine if he would have to get parol from a US prison to attend?
Make it happen! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, we know who most fits that description by far.
We'll need Assange's full/proper name, date/place of birth, nationality, address, and suitable brief biography (yes, most of that is known, but for formalities let's make sure proper, not popular, information is used) to fill in this form [unesco.org]. I suggest lots of people submit the form [mailto], with "Candidate presented by" filled as "populous at large"; should not a large number of individuals all acting as interested-for-the-same-reason parties have their unanimous selection recognized as much as any formal organization, given the nature of the prize?
Re:The ironing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you use some starch, the ironing will be crisp!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There. Fixed it for you.
Re:Is our government even paying attention to itse (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, this is hilarious. But somehow I doubt they meant it to be so funny.
Concern over some governments' determination to restrict the free flow of information. That's rich.
To be fair, governments need secrets. Not everything should be public. Now I know that you may say that if a government doesn't want an action to be made public then they shouldn't do it. But sometimes, there is a legitimate need for secrecy. For example, when a diplomat sends a wire back to Washington saying that he does not believe the diplomat from N. Korea is being entirely truthful concerning the welfare of the N. Korean citizens, that information should not be made public. It could irreparably harm negotiations that could prove beneficial to the peoples of both countries. The path that a convoy full of medical supplies and food for refuges against a warlords wishes would be another example. This is a bit different than a diplomat calling the leader of Esbonia a stinky-fart fat-head.
Some things are legitimately kept secret for a reason. Others, not so much. Wikileaks doesn't concern itself with the difference.
Re:Is our government even paying attention to itse (Score:5, Insightful)
There are times a government needs to keep secrets, however the US government has gone way overboard. Obama has done nothing to change that despite promises of a more open government, so I for one welcome the new openness that has come from wikileaks and will support efforts for it to continue. It has been a welcome breath of fresh air to see how OUR (the people's) government operates and to see the lies it has been shoveling back in the homeland.
I think it's much better to be too open than too secretive.... but then again, I believe it's better to keep our freedoms and be attacked by terrorists than become a police state and be "safe". I must be the crazy one.
Long live wikileaks.
d
Re:Is our government even paying attention to itse (Score:4, Insightful)
Some things are legitimately kept secret for a reason. Others, not so much. Wikileaks doesn't concern itself with the difference.
Which is why Wikileaks offered to negotiate with the US government over redactions? To which the US government responded that they shouldn't have to negotiate that they wanted all of it to remain secret.
Keep in mind that it takes at least two to negotiate, and if one party flat out refuses you've got limited options. You can give in, release everything or do your best to handle it responsibly. The third case seems most closely related to what they've done.
rediff. [rediff.com] There are probably better sources, but this is what I've seen elsewhere. Note the passage starting at the fourth paragraph.
"You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour," Assange said.
We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained US government classified materials, Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, State Department said in a letter to Jennifer Robinson, Attorney for Julian Assange, WikiLeaks.
This was in response to the communication from WikiLeaks a day earlier in which the whistle blower website informed the US about its intentions to publish classified US government documents.
Re:Is our government even paying attention to itse (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not silly at all. The natural endgame of any system of government is absolute tyranny. The only things standing between this country and tyranny are the constitution and the citizens' willingness to rebel. If the government had its way, it would keep everything it does secret. That's why freedom-loving members of government had to force through sunshine laws, FOIA, E-FOIA, and so on. Without such laws, the public would be kept in the dark on nearly everything. That's just the way government works. In particular, the military, were it possible to do so, would allow no information disclosure whatsoever. The same goes for law enforcement, which is why we have public records laws that mandate journalist access to police blotters. Indeed, it is the very nature of any group in a position of power to conceal information to the maximum degree possible. Some might even call it basic human nature.
Such total secrecy, however, is contrary to the proper functioning of a free society, and as such, a government mandate to keep everything secret must be looked upon with suspicion and disdain. Anything less is a complete abrogation of the public's right to know what the government is doing, a complete abrogation of the right to a free press, and thus a complete abrogation of basic democratic principles. Such obscenity has no place in a free society.
Re:Is our government even paying attention to itse (Score:4, Insightful)
Where have I heard that logic before? Oh, yeah. Those ridiculous MPAA commercials that say "You wouldn't steal a DVD. You wouldn't steal a car." Repeat after me: stealing a copy of information is not the same thing as stealing property.
No, a better analogy is that they saw your car parked, broke into the trunk, and discovered the three bodies you had hidden there. They contact you and ask which of those murders you don't want them to report to the police. Sure, you might tell them where to go, but you are hardly on the moral high ground. And that's the point.
Re: (Score:3)
Some things are legitimately kept secret for a reason. Others, not so much. Wikileaks doesn't concern itself with the difference.
Why should they? Things they get are not secret, by any sensible definition of the word. The cables, for example, were legally accessible to some 2.8 million people, and certainly have been leaked many times and long before Wikileaks got its copy.
Re: (Score:3)
And even if they were actual secrets, the government was given the opportunity to defend the secrecy of that information by participating in the redaction process. They chose not to do so.
If you don't appear in court, the court typically grants summary judgment for the other party. I see no reason our government should not be held to the same standards.
Sure sure (Score:3, Insightful)
And if the government has a reason to have someone locked up, that should be a secret to. After all, if you knew, it might endanger the state. Therefor I declare now that ArcherB is now an enemy of the state, the reason is secret but you can trust me, so kill him at the first opportunity. ArcherB, fully believing that others do not have to explain their actions agrees fully with this. If he does not allow himself to be killed he just proves he is an enemy of the state.
That government needs secrets is a bul
Re: (Score:3)
Secrets in international relationships had always been something the United States was against
Which is probably why those types of secrets have not been kept from the public; save only those which affect the military and intelligence. Case in point, most everything which has been released, has already been widely known (well, widely reported - the lack of knowing underscores the stupidity of the average American) and for a very long time. The parts which were not previously known are the details which should not be made public. The later only serve intelligence and if released, to damage relationshi
Re:Is our government even paying attention to itse (Score:5, Insightful)
Your mistaking being for transparency when it comes to alliances pact and treaties, with transparency when it comes to everything a diplomat says to his boss. I don't think the US has ever been in favor of having diplomats and their diplomatic cases being searched and read by anyone and everyone so that everything they write has to be made for public consumption so as to not damage foreign relationships instead of quick and honest truth.
Re:Is our government even paying attention to itse (Score:5, Informative)
A diplomatic case or bag is different than what Manning got ahold of.
Really, a diplomatic case carrying documents containing communications between ambassadors and their bosses not meant to be read by others is different than secure diplomatic cables of documents containing communication between ambassadors and their bosses not being meant to be read by others? How do you think this stuff was transferred before faster secure communications became available?
If the United States was really trying to keep this crap secret, why were hundreds of thousands of files accessible to a Private First Class assigned to an infantry division stationed in Iraq?
This argument is entirely off topic from the issue at hand which is whether all diplomatic communications SHOULD be transparent or not. It's like saying if you think getting robbed is wrong why did you trust the cleaning service that went through an extensive background check and swore an oath? Besides which, no one knows for sure if the diplomatic cable leak was related to Manning anyways.
Look at 1990, right before Iraq attacked Kuwait, Saddam hinted very heavily to the US Ambassador that they were going to attack and they might even keep going into Saudi Arabia and Saddam took an American lack of reaction as a tact "OK". Had that interaction been in the open and a public US government reaction been made, well then hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and hundreds of billions of dollars would have not been wastes.
If true, this was a mistake by the ambassador not to pick up on it and react accordingly. In the world you imagine though, Saddam would know that regardless of our reaction any hint of war plans would be given to the public at large and therefore Kuwait and Saudi Arabia who would prepare defenses or possibly strike first. In such a case he'd be less likely to even mention it to our ambassador and we would have lost the chance to avert the war at all.
Re:Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
And compared to stoning beheading is pretty painless. Your point being?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually when it comes to press freedom, the US still looks better than most countries. In fact, even after 230 years of the US example, I don't know of any other governments whose core founding and/or legal principles include the explicit recognition of the citizenry's inalienable right to freedom of speech, it seems to genuinely be something exceptional. Oh sure, many governments have begrudgingly given a nod to what they see as "granting" of similar rights (and in fact even that much is due to the positi
Re:Actually (Score:5, Informative)
Actually when it comes to press freedom, the US still looks better than most countries. In fact, even after 230 years of the US example, I don't know of any other governments whose core founding and/or legal principles include the explicit recognition of the citizenry's inalienable right to freedom of speech, it seems to genuinely be something exceptional. Oh sure, many governments have begrudgingly given a nod to what they see as "granting" of similar rights (and in fact even that much is due to the positive influence of the US historically) - but saying "OK, we grant you freedom of speech" is actually fundamentally vastly different to inalienable rights, which are not considered granted, but exist independent of government and cannot morally be taken away. Sure, in practice lawmakers pee on the constitution with abandon, as lawmakers will do, but I'll take the US any day. Trying to block citizens' practice of liberties such as free speech is something all governments do anyway, but only one government in the world at least formally recognizes this as wrong (and gives the citizens other rights, such as the 2nd amendment, in order to enforce the 1st amendment).
I'm definitely not saying it's perfect, or that we shouldn't strive for better. On the contrary, we should continually strive for better. We have to.
Press Freedom Index 2010 [rsf.org]: US at #20. With the Nordic countries, Netherlands and Switzerland at the top.
Re:Actually (Score:4, Informative)
"Press Freedom Index 2010 [rsf.org]: US at #20. With the Nordic countries, Netherlands and Switzerland at the top."
And remember, this was before the US response to the Wikileaks release. Guess they'll be dropping a few places...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the Nordic countries, Netherlands and Switzerland at the top.
You missed my point. It's subtle though. The word "inalienable" is the core point, it's not just a pretty word, it is central to the entire foundation of the US legal system. Re-read, digest, re-read. Yes, there are countries that currently ostensibly "happen to have" more press freedom. But that freedom is ephemeral and temporary; the Netherlands constitution for example explicitly allows formal law to limit the freedom of speech. This is in total contrast to the US which states "Congress shall make no law
Re:Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Blah blah blah. Yeah, you have an "inalienable" right to free speech, as long as you perform it in a designated "free speech zone", an atrocity no other western democracy have stomached so far. I guess the rest of us should take note.
theoretical vs practical points: why USA lower? (Score:3)
I think the poster highlighting USA as no.20 and other countries as higher was noting that in practical terms, rather than theoretical-legal terms, other countries have greater press freedoms (according to one organisation).
Why do you think that the USA, given it has apparently better legal grounding for greater press freedom, comes out with a worse record?
Re:Better record than the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Will Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland [rsf.org] do? Just for starters?
Sure... as soon as Reporters Without Borders is able to put up some information on how they score the countries. Oh, sure, they show what the questionnaire they sent out was, they say how many points each questions is worth, but they don't actually show how each Nation got the score it did. If you look at their "country files", they don't even offer any information on most of the top scorers (well, bottom scorers, I guess).
You'd think a group dedicated to a free and transparent press would at least give the
Re:Better record than the US? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, it's no problem to speak. As long as nobody listens. Once you manage to make too many people listen and you say things the powers that are don't like, well, take a look at wikileaks to see what happens.
"Dumb" governments restrict the freedom of speech, disallowing you to say what you want. This isn't necessary. Not by a longshot. Say what you want. In 99% of the cases, you won't say anything the governing body would like to keep covered. Why? Because you don't know it. Duh. If you know it, you will probably not have the broadcasting power to cause a problem. If you do have the broadcasting power (i.e. if you're part of "the media"), you are usually concerned with making money more than with spreading information the government does not want to be spread. Now, who do you think gets all that cool smart bomb footage and gets invited to those interesting and by your viewers so well received public speeches and press statements from politicians? Those that report what the government likes or those who report what they don't?
Think about it for a moment, then continue.
So you have sensitive information and you don't have an "automatic" audience because they listen to you anyway? Who cares? Broadcast it. You'll get turned off on some technicality and the info vanishes into nothingness before it can reach critical mass. If that fails, a three steps plan follows:
1. Remove your reputation
2. Remove your assets
3. Remove your freedom
If the data is out and can't be contained, discredit the source. Call it fabrication, call it a disgruntled ex-employee, make the one spreading the information appear like a lunatic or someone who wants to hurt Uncle Sam (or whoever is the target), under no circumstances even talk about the information leaked, just assassinate the character of the person spreading the information. Nobody will talk about it anymore, everyone will dismiss it as fabricated because the one spreading the information had some ulterior motivation to spread it, he's not interested in the "truth", he's interested in hurting $target.
If this fails because for some odd reason the source is credible (first reason why Wikileaks should have been attacked way earlier, at least from the government's POV, is that now they actually do have some rather solid reputation for being credible. Don't worry, the US gov won't make that mistake again and let someone gain that much cred unsupervised), cut their money. Spreading information costs money. Defending against litigation costs money. Denying them this money means they cannot continue to spread the information and cannot defend against litigation, thus they have to cave in. So cut their access to money and carpet bomb them with law suits. Whether they hold up in court doesn't really matter, what matters is that they are kept busy and that they have to raise and spend money, which they now cannot.
If this cannot curb the leaking, arrest them. Find some technicality, fire up the counter propaganda and paint them as the villain of the century, put them in the vicinity of other criminals and lock them up. If they are part of an organization, do what you can to outlaw that organization or, preferably, outlaw any organization dealing in the same area. This takes care of information spreaders that do not work alone but in a group. Usually the group should dissolve now. If not, rinse and repeat.
You see, you do not have to limit the freedom of speech. You only have to take care that nobody can hear anything and listen when someone should say anything that actually counts.
Re:wikileaks != press (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but WikiLeaks isn't "the press" is it?
It qualifies by any reasonable definition of press I've ever heard.
I don't know any government that has told the media that they can publish whatever government secrets they want.
If Fox News or CNN or the New York Times got a hold of a bunch of newsworthy diplomatic cables between Pakistan and Iran do you really think they'd keep them under wraps because the Pakistan and/or Iran government consider them secret? Of course not.
How is wikileaks any different, being a foreign organization releasing information about the states?
And at the end of the day, even Fox/CNN/NYT are reporting on the wikileaks leaks. How do you feel about that?
I'm attempting to say it's not fair to pretend that WikiLeaks does the same thing a given journalist does. Maybe they overlap at times, sure.
Please expand on this.
Re:wikileaks != press (Score:4, Informative)
Secrecy is necessary. There is no question of that. But then KEEP IT SECRET! After 9/11 when the government got slapped for not sharing intel, they responded by letting everybody and their uncle read this stuff. That's not the way to keep secrets.
Trying to wrap your head around what intel needs to be kept and who really needs to be able to see it is a huge task. One that has not been handled well.
For some other disucssions around this topic check out the Secrecy Blog ( http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ [fas.org] ).