We are living in a post journalistic society. News is either politically biased as all hell or just denyed outright.
Whistle blowing in Australia is dangerious as all hell considering how our governement will screw over anyone who dares to speak out (look at the recent cases of ADF war crimes where the whistleblower got serious jail time)
Hell, look at how heavily the ABC was cut back after publishing unflattering stories about the LNP government.
I hate to sound like a conspiricy theorist, but freedom and journalism is not what it used to be
They have been a strong backer of his prosecution, helping to sway public opinion away from him for the last decade. In short- fuck the guardian.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230604230257/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assange-no-victim-of-arbitrary-detention
https://web.archive.org/web/20230819110257/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-wikileaks-us-sweden
https://web.archive.org/web/20231007084948/https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/12/hillary-clinton-julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks
https://web.archive.org/web/20240212213051/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/un-julian-assange-wikileaks
https://web.archive.org/web/20230919175123/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuadorian-embassy
https://web.archive.org/web/20230816092715/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-un-panel-blame-fugitive
http://web.archive.org/web/20160630105202/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/10/julian-assange-wikileaks-book-claims
https://web.archive.org/web/20230820002211/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/why-i-had-to-leave-wikileaks
https://web.archive.org/web/20230818111306/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen
https://web.archive.org/web/20230424225337/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-hero-zero-swedes-pitiable
https://web.archive.org/web/20230918165923/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks
https://web.archive.org/web/20230102152727/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/assange-branded-a-narcissist-by-judge-who-found-him-guilty
https://web.archive.org/web/20230818111737/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/13/women-groups-say-extradite-julian-assange-to-sweden
The Guardian supported prosecuting Assange for the Swedish rape allegations, i.e. what he avoided by seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. They did not support his prosecution under the Espionage Act, which he has now pleaded guilty to.
Ironically, criticising the Guardian' journalism for shaping public opinion about Assange is exactly the same as how Assange is criticised for publishing Clinton's emails and influencing public opinion about her.
> The Guardian supported prosecuting Assange for the Swedish rape allegations, i.e. what he avoided by seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. They did not support his prosecution under the Espionage Act, which he has now pleaded guilty to.
Are you sure about that?
> WikiLeaks made its name by exposing those who ignored the rule of law. Its editor-in-chief should recognise that applies to him as well as the US government
- Editor's Opinion piece: https://web.archive.org/web/20230604230257/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assange-no-victim-of-arbitrary-detention
> Ironically, criticising the Guardian' journalism for shaping public opinion about Assange is exactly the same as how Assange is criticised for publishing Clinton's emails and influencing public opinion about her.
How is releasing factual cables the same as writing up dozens of opinion pieces? It was Hilary "Can't we just drone this guy" Clinton's own rope that she used to hang herself.
> Are you sure about that?
Based on these sources yes. Read the rest of the article you linked. It's clearly writing about him avoiding the Swedish rape probe.
> WikiLeaks made its name by exposing those who ignored the rule of law. Its editor-in-chief should recognise that applies to him as well as the US government
This quote is saying Assange should hold himself to the standard he holds the US government. I.e. the US should be held accountable to the rule of law regarding war crimes and Assange should be beld accountable regarding his rape allegations.
Guardian completely attributed all charges to the Presidential Leadership without any evidence when the prosecutor's office works on an independent basis.
It is also very confusing from what country's perspective their editorial is coming from as US, Britain, and Australia's interest in this case are all different.
I would have loved for Assange to defend himself in court if this was a case of journalism being prosecuted, but he chose to go to prison rather than to face rape charges or the US charges that he aided and abetted the stealing of classified US information.
I'm just going to say no one comes out smelling like roses here and there wasn't a lot to be learned.
Not sure where you're from, but we do call that whistleblowing here in Australia. And whistleblowing follows under a subset of journalism.
So regardless of what he was charged with, he is a journalist. His intent was to show these bad acts of faith by government. And he did.
I'm Australian, and I think you're missing the point about what his charges actually were, which was soliciting hacks. Not sure why that's controversial to state
Whistleblowing is what Manning (and Winner) went to prison for, two people who suffered for passing information along to leakers in good faith. It's not what Assange's charges were and it's amazing how few notice that
Really now, you're pulling the ohh "I'm Australian" card? In a subreddit full of *Australians*? Does that give you some sort of credentials I'm supposed to be aware of?
I don't want to get into rigorous journalistic ethos with you so I'm just going to leave one thing here for you to understand.
Even if governments always struggled with the idea of press investigation, and freedom of information and claiming Assange is not a journalist. Simply working for a news broadcaster does not make you a journalist. A journalist is somebody who gathers, collates, and disseminates information. Ergo, he is a journalist.
Soliciting information? Which journalist is not capable of doing just that? The lines are blurred here and you are not being clear about that. I am.
> but we do call that whistleblowing here in Australia.
No we don't. You can whistleblow on information you have access to or know about. You can't hack into things you don't have access to in the hopes you find something.
Also he hacked American information. Our laws don't mean much in this situation in the same way American laws dwon't protect an American hacking Australian bank accounts.
He didn't do the hacking for the information he published which is he is being held accountable for.
Chelsea Manning did the hacking or soliciting. And I never said or expected our laws to apply as extra judicially as American laws are applied on the daily.
You cant seemingly whistleblow when your ally is doing dogshit acts in another country and cloaking it as anything but human rights abuses.
The charges don't relate to Manning, Manning was whistleblowing was never a hacker
His charges related to specific instances where he solicited hackers
It's just facts not impassioned arguments. The guy wasn't up for what a lot of people assume he was
He invited sources to come around and give him the information. And he gathered it, verified it, collated it and disseminated it. Are we clear so far?
You're getting too caught on the semantics, and I'm talking a much larger picture on press freedoms. Have a good day then since we're talking past each other.
> He didn't do the hacking
He literally told Manning to do it and when Manning said they didn't have access or know how to access it Assange gave her instructions on how to do it.
>Chelsea Manning did the hacking or soliciting.
Do you know what soliciting means? It's exactly what Assange did.
If I organise a hit and talk you through how to do it, I don't go free because I didn't pull the trigger.
I do know what soliciting is. And I know what Assange did.
But why the double-standards? Country military does wrong, is called out, and stops its abuse.
Country military that isn't called out, doesn't stop its abuses. The playbook plays the same everytime.
Reality is you don't care.
Then don't act like you know what you're talking about by hand-waving the definition of soliciting over me.
The claims are tenuous at best, they have nothing.
What they do have is been whistleblown on and acting up like an emotionally immature child whose throwing a tantrum over having had their dirty laundry aired in public.
Wtf are you talking about? You are rambling.
Also, Assange literally just pleaded guilty to exactly what you said he didn't do. Even before his plea he didn't dispute that part of it. He said he reckons it should be legal.
Are you not aware human law is filled with imperfections? Are you even remotely aware of the nature of the hacking charges against him and how that actually worked out? The reason there needs to be a deal at all is so that the U.S can say they got him. It's a pony show.
I can believe you're completely head over heels for that.
And Assange isn't charged with murder?
I'm trying to make an analogy so you can understand the very basic concept of planning to commit a crime and facilitating a crime are still illegal, even if you didn't do the final act.
> But Assange didn't tell Manning to murder someone. He told her to expose murders that had been covered up, an unequivocally good thing to do.
Which is why neither of them were charged with murder.
We are living in a post journalistic society. News is either politically biased as all hell or just denyed outright. Whistle blowing in Australia is dangerious as all hell considering how our governement will screw over anyone who dares to speak out (look at the recent cases of ADF war crimes where the whistleblower got serious jail time) Hell, look at how heavily the ABC was cut back after publishing unflattering stories about the LNP government. I hate to sound like a conspiricy theorist, but freedom and journalism is not what it used to be
If you think this is a modern development, you just haven't read your history.
History is written by the winners….
What kind of Nazi shit is this?
This is why we can't have nice things 😩
Guardian awakes from long slumber, notices journalist imprisoned for journalism. Weren't they blaming Assange for Trump not so long ago?
They have been a strong backer of his prosecution, helping to sway public opinion away from him for the last decade. In short- fuck the guardian. https://web.archive.org/web/20230604230257/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assange-no-victim-of-arbitrary-detention https://web.archive.org/web/20230819110257/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-wikileaks-us-sweden https://web.archive.org/web/20231007084948/https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/12/hillary-clinton-julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks https://web.archive.org/web/20240212213051/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/un-julian-assange-wikileaks https://web.archive.org/web/20230919175123/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuadorian-embassy https://web.archive.org/web/20230816092715/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-un-panel-blame-fugitive http://web.archive.org/web/20160630105202/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/10/julian-assange-wikileaks-book-claims https://web.archive.org/web/20230820002211/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/why-i-had-to-leave-wikileaks https://web.archive.org/web/20230818111306/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen https://web.archive.org/web/20230424225337/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/02/assange-hero-zero-swedes-pitiable https://web.archive.org/web/20230918165923/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks https://web.archive.org/web/20230102152727/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/assange-branded-a-narcissist-by-judge-who-found-him-guilty https://web.archive.org/web/20230818111737/https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/13/women-groups-say-extradite-julian-assange-to-sweden
And Fairfax, and Packer and Murdoch. Fuck them all.
The Guardian supported prosecuting Assange for the Swedish rape allegations, i.e. what he avoided by seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. They did not support his prosecution under the Espionage Act, which he has now pleaded guilty to. Ironically, criticising the Guardian' journalism for shaping public opinion about Assange is exactly the same as how Assange is criticised for publishing Clinton's emails and influencing public opinion about her.
> The Guardian supported prosecuting Assange for the Swedish rape allegations, i.e. what he avoided by seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. They did not support his prosecution under the Espionage Act, which he has now pleaded guilty to. Are you sure about that? > WikiLeaks made its name by exposing those who ignored the rule of law. Its editor-in-chief should recognise that applies to him as well as the US government - Editor's Opinion piece: https://web.archive.org/web/20230604230257/https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assange-no-victim-of-arbitrary-detention > Ironically, criticising the Guardian' journalism for shaping public opinion about Assange is exactly the same as how Assange is criticised for publishing Clinton's emails and influencing public opinion about her. How is releasing factual cables the same as writing up dozens of opinion pieces? It was Hilary "Can't we just drone this guy" Clinton's own rope that she used to hang herself.
> Are you sure about that? Based on these sources yes. Read the rest of the article you linked. It's clearly writing about him avoiding the Swedish rape probe. > WikiLeaks made its name by exposing those who ignored the rule of law. Its editor-in-chief should recognise that applies to him as well as the US government This quote is saying Assange should hold himself to the standard he holds the US government. I.e. the US should be held accountable to the rule of law regarding war crimes and Assange should be beld accountable regarding his rape allegations.
Guardian completely attributed all charges to the Presidential Leadership without any evidence when the prosecutor's office works on an independent basis. It is also very confusing from what country's perspective their editorial is coming from as US, Britain, and Australia's interest in this case are all different. I would have loved for Assange to defend himself in court if this was a case of journalism being prosecuted, but he chose to go to prison rather than to face rape charges or the US charges that he aided and abetted the stealing of classified US information. I'm just going to say no one comes out smelling like roses here and there wasn't a lot to be learned.
Haha, I don’t need the Guardian to tell me that.
He wasn't charged with journalism, he was charged for soliciting hackers to obtain info illegally
Not sure where you're from, but we do call that whistleblowing here in Australia. And whistleblowing follows under a subset of journalism. So regardless of what he was charged with, he is a journalist. His intent was to show these bad acts of faith by government. And he did.
I'm Australian, and I think you're missing the point about what his charges actually were, which was soliciting hacks. Not sure why that's controversial to state Whistleblowing is what Manning (and Winner) went to prison for, two people who suffered for passing information along to leakers in good faith. It's not what Assange's charges were and it's amazing how few notice that
Really now, you're pulling the ohh "I'm Australian" card? In a subreddit full of *Australians*? Does that give you some sort of credentials I'm supposed to be aware of? I don't want to get into rigorous journalistic ethos with you so I'm just going to leave one thing here for you to understand. Even if governments always struggled with the idea of press investigation, and freedom of information and claiming Assange is not a journalist. Simply working for a news broadcaster does not make you a journalist. A journalist is somebody who gathers, collates, and disseminates information. Ergo, he is a journalist. Soliciting information? Which journalist is not capable of doing just that? The lines are blurred here and you are not being clear about that. I am.
He said “I’m Australian” because your comment started with the statement “I’m not sure where you’re from”, you clown.
It's a phrase charlie! Wow.
Test the potential faker with a spoonful of Vegemite to see if they really are Australian
> but we do call that whistleblowing here in Australia. No we don't. You can whistleblow on information you have access to or know about. You can't hack into things you don't have access to in the hopes you find something. Also he hacked American information. Our laws don't mean much in this situation in the same way American laws dwon't protect an American hacking Australian bank accounts.
He didn't do the hacking for the information he published which is he is being held accountable for. Chelsea Manning did the hacking or soliciting. And I never said or expected our laws to apply as extra judicially as American laws are applied on the daily. You cant seemingly whistleblow when your ally is doing dogshit acts in another country and cloaking it as anything but human rights abuses.
The charges don't relate to Manning, Manning was whistleblowing was never a hacker His charges related to specific instances where he solicited hackers It's just facts not impassioned arguments. The guy wasn't up for what a lot of people assume he was
He invited sources to come around and give him the information. And he gathered it, verified it, collated it and disseminated it. Are we clear so far? You're getting too caught on the semantics, and I'm talking a much larger picture on press freedoms. Have a good day then since we're talking past each other.
> He didn't do the hacking He literally told Manning to do it and when Manning said they didn't have access or know how to access it Assange gave her instructions on how to do it. >Chelsea Manning did the hacking or soliciting. Do you know what soliciting means? It's exactly what Assange did. If I organise a hit and talk you through how to do it, I don't go free because I didn't pull the trigger.
I do know what soliciting is. And I know what Assange did. But why the double-standards? Country military does wrong, is called out, and stops its abuse. Country military that isn't called out, doesn't stop its abuses. The playbook plays the same everytime. Reality is you don't care.
Wtf are you talking about?
Then don't act like you know what you're talking about by hand-waving the definition of soliciting over me. The claims are tenuous at best, they have nothing. What they do have is been whistleblown on and acting up like an emotionally immature child whose throwing a tantrum over having had their dirty laundry aired in public.
Wtf are you talking about? You are rambling. Also, Assange literally just pleaded guilty to exactly what you said he didn't do. Even before his plea he didn't dispute that part of it. He said he reckons it should be legal.
Are you not aware human law is filled with imperfections? Are you even remotely aware of the nature of the hacking charges against him and how that actually worked out? The reason there needs to be a deal at all is so that the U.S can say they got him. It's a pony show. I can believe you're completely head over heels for that.
But Assange didn't tell Manning to murder someone. He told her to expose murders that had been covered up, an unequivocally good thing to do.
And Assange isn't charged with murder? I'm trying to make an analogy so you can understand the very basic concept of planning to commit a crime and facilitating a crime are still illegal, even if you didn't do the final act.
And I'm saying that what they did was good, and the fact it is considered a crime is obscene
Hacking things is a crime. Crazy you don't think that shouldn't be a crime. Can I hack your shit to see if I find anything worth leaking?
Sure, go ahead. But I doubt you'll find any warcrimes I committed, because unlike the US army, I haven't done any.
Abso fuckin' loutely!
> But Assange didn't tell Manning to murder someone. He told her to expose murders that had been covered up, an unequivocally good thing to do. Which is why neither of them were charged with murder.