Three news outlets were recently leaked confidential material from inside the Trump campaign, but have chosen not to reveal any of the details about what they received.
I mean, I guess the difference is that Hillary’s emails were made public by wiki leaks, so media are like “who cares, it’s already public” but this time, it’s not public
That’s one difference, but the timing is another difference. Hillary’s emails were reported on quickly and extensively, yet these leaks were suppressed for 3 weeks. It’s not like those news outlets reported that they had information, and didn’t provide details, but rather they reported nothing at all.
But the whole thing is bizarre. If someone actually wanted to get information out there, they wouldn’t have gone to those news outlets. There are other newspapers that would have actually published stories. So I’m not sure what to make of the thing.
Another key difference is that the Trump administration charged Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents. In the past it was the leakers that would be prosecuted, but publishers weren’t because of the chilling effect on free press that would cause. Now we’re seeing that chilling effect in action.
Julian Assange had other things going on too. Like editing the stuff to make it as harmful as possible to the US. It would be very hard to make that case against the NYT.
No it wouldn’t with the new precedent and the espionage act. The espionage act only has to show that they did the action of publishing the leak. They don’t have to prove any sort of intent.
The thing is Assange’s charges were very much in the grey area. Him running around the world and going straight Russian mouthpiece covered any discussion of intent. As did his handling of the actual documents.
Intent clearly still plays a part. Because NYT, Guardian, and Der Speigel all published documents from Chelsea Manning as well. And yet only the guy who was working with the Russians got charged with espionage.
In fact there’s been several modern cases of leaking to the press, and the press have yet to be charged. Even when they refuse to name their source under subpoena. The fact is they are protected by first amendment protections. Assange breached those protections by clearly working for hostile foreign actors.
I mean, I guess the difference is that Hillary’s emails were made public by wiki leaks, so media are like “who cares, it’s already public” but this time, it’s not public
That’s one difference, but the timing is another difference. Hillary’s emails were reported on quickly and extensively, yet these leaks were suppressed for 3 weeks. It’s not like those news outlets reported that they had information, and didn’t provide details, but rather they reported nothing at all.
But the whole thing is bizarre. If someone actually wanted to get information out there, they wouldn’t have gone to those news outlets. There are other newspapers that would have actually published stories. So I’m not sure what to make of the thing.
Let’s not forget that both the DNC and RNC were hacked in 2016, but only DNC material was leaked.
Totally a coincidence that trump campaign gets hacked and that data is not released again.
Another key difference is that the Trump administration charged Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents. In the past it was the leakers that would be prosecuted, but publishers weren’t because of the chilling effect on free press that would cause. Now we’re seeing that chilling effect in action.
Julian Assange had other things going on too. Like editing the stuff to make it as harmful as possible to the US. It would be very hard to make that case against the NYT.
No it wouldn’t with the new precedent and the espionage act. The espionage act only has to show that they did the action of publishing the leak. They don’t have to prove any sort of intent.
The thing is Assange’s charges were very much in the grey area. Him running around the world and going straight Russian mouthpiece covered any discussion of intent. As did his handling of the actual documents.
Intent clearly still plays a part. Because NYT, Guardian, and Der Speigel all published documents from Chelsea Manning as well. And yet only the guy who was working with the Russians got charged with espionage.
In fact there’s been several modern cases of leaking to the press, and the press have yet to be charged. Even when they refuse to name their source under subpoena. The fact is they are protected by first amendment protections. Assange breached those protections by clearly working for hostile foreign actors.
Intent can play a part in the attorneys discretion to bring forth the case. But the espionage act does not require intent.
Right so you clearly didn’t read a damn thing. You’re just going to stick to that in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Exactly