21 Dec 10
Originally posted by PalynkaThe distinction, if at all, would be more applicable to civil lawsuits, where media outlets cannot successfully be sued for defamation by public figures in the absence of being able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
A few questions:
Do journalists have higher protection in free speech cases in the US? (Elsewhere?)
If yes, how does the law define a journalist?
I don't know if such a distinction exists for criminal law contexts.
I don't know of many cases in US history where someone has been found criminally liable for telling the truth. Ever since the John Peter Zenger trial in 1735, that sort of thing has been frowned upon in the US. Sarah Palin's diatribes aside, Assange is not going to be criminally prosecuted by US authorities for Wikileaks.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Well, we've already had politicians argue that inmates in Gitmo don't deserve due process since they aren't citizens so it's not as if there is no precedent.
Maybe you can whine about evil US conduct after it happens rather than before it happens.
Politicians have also argued that people like the underpants bomber shouldn't have been mirandized and given any kind of rights based on the type of crime he was accused of.
The state department has already said he's not a journalist because he's a "political actor" and he has been called a terrorist by our own vice president.
Hopefully none of that will happen to Assange, but I wouldn't be shocked. I also wouldn't come near to the US if I were Assange even though he hasn't been charged with a crime here.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by joneschrDid the assistant secretary of state say anything about extraditing him and putting him on trial for some sort of crime?
So we should stick our heads in the sand until he's in jail? You don't think that comments from the assistant secretary of state "are relevant"?
- Joined
- 03 Sep 03
- Moves
- 87628
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by generalissimoWell it doesn't seem the "having an agenda" part is what they have a problem with. It is that his "agenda" is putting out the truth to the public. That viewpoint is far from laughable....
This is laughable at best, these days its very hard to find someone in the media who doesn't have an agenda, and yet they're all considered journalists.
21 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Eric Holder said he's pursuing criminal charges against Assange. Pete King has requested that WikiLeaks be labelled a foreign terrorist organization. The state department is arguing that Assange isn't eligible for freedom of the press.
Did the assistant secretary of state say anything about extraditing him and putting him on trial for some sort of crime?
Are you having trouble putting it all together?
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by tmetzlerSomebody's been taking lessons from Robert Mugabe.
And on the question at hand, some psychos want to require licensing to be considered a journalist.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/03/meet-the-man-and-the-mustache
Patterson, reports FishBowl NY, wants to pass a law that ould require license applicants to possess, among other things:
1) "Good moral character";
2) a degree in journalism;
3) three writing samples.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76I agree that any American charges would be flimsy, perhaps that is why the sexual misconduct (I can't even call them "charges" since there are none) thing is being used as a reason to take away his freedom and punish him.
Of course he's a journalist.
Furthermore, he needs no free speech protection as no American charges have been brought against him. If and when that happens, this issue becomes much more relevant.
They can't get him conventionally so they stick him with some other allegation.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo you have any evidence that one thing has to do with the other or is it merely baseless speculation?
I agree that any American charges would be flimsy, perhaps that is why the sexual misconduct (I can't even call them "charges" since there are none) thing is being used as a reason to take away his freedom and punish him.
They can't get him conventionally so they stick him with some other allegation.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76I'll admit it is speculation. Not baseless though.
Do you have any evidence that one thing has to do with the other or is it merely baseless speculation?
Too many things look funny about this whole thing. Even one of the two women who made the allegations said she regretted making the charge and refuses to be involved with the prosecutor's case.
21 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainHe is what CIA says he is - in order to prosecute him.
Some say Assange is not a journalist. Since journalists have more free speech protection from prosecution the Sate Dept. has decided to argue Assange is not a journalist so they can throw him in prison like Bradley Manning, the guy that leaked the information.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/10/state-dept-decides-julian-assange-not-a-
journalist/
I have not heard a good debate on this, so is he or isn't he?
I'm sure that CIA says (and the Swedish prosecutor agrees, not surprisingly) that he is a rapist, and therefore he is a rapist - in order to prosecute him.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhat's the matter? No confidence in your own justice system to sort this one out?
He is what CIA says he is - in order to prosecute him.
I'm sure that CIA says (and the Swedish prosecutor agrees, not surprisingly) that he is a rapist, and therefore he is a rapist - in order to prosecute him.
21 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasCIA doesn't have anything to do with the rape charge
He is what CIA says he is - in order to prosecute him.
I'm sure that CIA says (and the Swedish prosecutor agrees, not surprisingly) that he is a rapist, and therefore he is a rapist - in order to prosecute him.