Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship

from the not-how-it's-done dept

Tue, Dec 7th 2010 12:52pm — Mike Masnick

We've discussed how the Obama administration has spoken out in the past against online censorship. Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton famously gave a speech about the importance of internet freedom, where she stated:

For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. It really comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their own personal information. Firms that earn that confidence of those countries and basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the global marketplace. I really believe that those who lose that confidence of their customers will eventually lose customers. No matter where you live, people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be used against them.

And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I�m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.

Others in the administration have been saying similar things. Just this week, the US has been putting pressure on Kuwait for jailing a writer for criticizing the government there.

And yet when it comes to Wikileaks, suddenly, the federal government doesn't seem so interested in supporting such things any more? Hillary Clinton says that companies should stand up for their principles or lose customers... and yet we've seen Amazon, Paypal, Visa and MasterCard do the exact opposite -- with clear pressure from government officials in doing so. Clinton herself claimed that Wikileaks' release "was an attack on the international community." Apparently she doesn't believe in internet freedoms when it exposes questionable activity on her part. Less than a year ago, she was telling private companies to have a backbone and stand up for internet freedoms on the basis of principle... and today she's a part of the federal government's pressure campaign to get them to shut down Wikileaks.

Does anyone in the federal government realize how they've just lost any leverage at all in pushing other countries to avoid internet censorship?

So far, the only national politicians I've seen who have stood up for Wikileaks are Ron Paul and Connie Mack, who pointed out that the response to Wikileaks has been much more damaging than anything in the documents themselves:

"The people are not really understanding what's happening here. The fear should be: What will our federal government do to try to punish American citizens and corporations if those citizens or corporations do something that the government doesn't like? It doesn't make sense,"

It's a really sad statement that there are so few politicians actually willing to stand up for a free internet and a free press in the wake of this story.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, hillary clinton, internet freedoms, obama administration, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

61 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 12:59pm

"The people are not really understanding what's happening here. The fear should be: What will our federal government do to try to punish American citizens and corporations if those citizens or corporations do something that the government doesn't like? It doesn't make sense,"

Stock up for the coming revolution, I expect. ~shrug~
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:23pm

it isn't about what the government doesn't like, it's about documents that are secret and could have significant negative effects on national security.

This is a very typical piece written to create a frame around someone to make them look bad, but only works when you ignore the very basics of the situation. Nobody is trying to stop Assange from his free speech rights. They are trying to stop him from violating national security.

Free speech isn't an absolute. Fire, anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:30pm

Re:
"This is a very typical piece written to create a frame around someone to make them look bad"

No its about showing that the Hillary believe in internet freedom when it suits and follows her agenda.

"They are trying to stop him from violating national security."

He is not a US citizen and not bound by our rules. As has been pointed out many times in the comments and the articles.

"Free speech isn't an absolute. Fire, anyone?"

Could we ban this Yelling fire in a theater crap its getting old.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:30pm

Re:
Just like how ACTA is a secret because of "national security"?

Just because you call something a threat to national security doesn't mean that it is...and as proven by the leaks, and the lack of a national breakdown (save for the totalitarian crackdowns), it's quite obvious that secrecy is NOT the only thing saving the world from a collapse.

Oh, and by the way...screaming "Fire" has nothing to do with Free Speech. In fact, I can make a million blog posts that are nothing but "FIIIIIIIIIREEEEE!!!!!!!!" and I won't be arrested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:35pm

Re:
it isn't about what the government doesn't like, it's about documents that are secret and could have significant negative effects on national security.

No, it's about the government getting its dirty laundry aired and not liking the fact that everyone can see it pisses the bed at night.

Nobody is trying to stop Assange from his free speech rights.

Then why are American companies are cutting WikiLeaks off left and right and several government officials are expressing the hope of hearing about Assange having been killed in his hotel room?

Free speech isn't an absolute. Fire, anyone?

Yes, free speech has limits. Guess what? So does intelligence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:39pm

Re:
"it isn't about what the government doesn't like, it's about documents that are secret and could have significant negative effects on national security.

What would have the negative effect on national security: the documents or the actions of our government that the documents detail?

This is a very typical piece written to create a frame around someone to make them look bad, but only works when you ignore the very basics of the situation. Nobody is trying to stop Assange from his free speech rights. They are trying to stop him from violating national security.

No, they are trying to block his free speech. Although, if he's not an american citizen, I'm not really sure how much protection he has... but if america is supposed to be the paragon of freedom and democracy, then they should damned well afford him protection under our rights since we hold them to be granted to all men equally.

As it stands, with the goverment pressuring companys to stop hosting him and helping process his funding (mastercard, et al), it looks more like they know they don't have action to take so they want others to do it for them.

"Free speech isn't an absolute. Fire, anyone?"

Wow... certainly didn't take long for that tired argument to come in. Have we published a Godwins Law on fire yet? Anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:40pm

Re:
"Nobody is trying to stop Assange from his free speech rights."

No, their trying to keep a foreign journalist from disseminating his works within US territory. According to Chief Justice Hughes in Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), the press is defined as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

Note that there is nothing in there about the press needing to be domestic. Therefore, what the govt. is doing violates the 1st amendment.

"They are trying to stop him from violating national security."

Ugh. Enough of this. Assange/Wikileaks have NO ALLEGIANCE to the United States. They are foreign. You can't charge him with treason, "violating" nat'l security, or any of that crap. I've also previously explained why a charge of spying under the Espionage Act of 1917 won't work either. There is no crime to charge him with, for God's sake....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:41pm

Dude ...
... it's simple, how can you NOT have figured it out yet?

"Censorship" is defined as governments OTHER than the US Government blocking people's access to information that it DOES NOT bother the US government for people to have access to.

The US Government blocking access to information it finds undesirable to be available to the public is called "Homeland Security", and considered necessary in every way in order to prevent an immediate attack from a scrabbling horde of slavering-at-the-jowls-white-american-woman-raping-terrorists-with-hummus-stuck-in-their-allah-worsh ipping-beards from setting up shoe-and-underwear-bombing operations in every single American basement ...

Duh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:43pm

Re: Holmes on Fire
Free speech isn't an absolute. Fire, anyone?
Have you ever actually read the case where Holmes came up with that? Schenck v United States:

...

The document in question, upon its first printed side, recited the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment, said that the idea embodied in it was violated by the Conscription Act, and that a conscript is little better than a convict. In impassioned language, it intimated that conscription was despotism in its worst form, and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street's chosen few. It said "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed "Assert Your Rights." It stated reasons for alleging that anyone violated the Constitution when he refused to recognize "your right to assert your opposition to the draft," and went on

"If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."

It described the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy. It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves, &c., &c., winding up, "You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country." Of course, the document would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out. The defendants do not deny that the jury might find against them on this point.

...

For the �crime� of printing those 15,000 pamphlets, Charles Schenck was thrown in prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:52pm

Re: Fire! Fire!
It's not actually illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. However, you are legally obliged to accept the consequences of your actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
athe, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:53pm

Re:
This is a very typical piece written to create a frame around someone to make them look bad

You mean just like what the US govt does when they want to discredit someone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:55pm

Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
That's actually a self-defeating argument... if it weren't illegal, there'd be no consequences (aside from being trampled) to accept.

Now, can we PLEASE put the fire out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:57pm

This might be a bit off topic, but on Twitter right now "Press Freedom" is trending, but "Wikileaks" isn't even though what's being retweeted mostly is a variation of: "U.S. Celebrates Wikileaks Arrest by Announcing Press Freedom Day."

So while in the majority of instances where Press Freedom is mentioned, Wikileaks is mentioned as well, and there are certainly many, many more instances where Wikileaks is mentioned without any reference to Press Freedom Day, still "Wikileaks" is not trending on Twitter.

I say all that to say this: Twitter is censoring what trends and their denial of this fact is pure bullshit.

I'm sure Mike will be doing a post on the irony of the State Dept. announcing that they'll be hosting Press Freedom Day the same day they gloat over Assange being arrested, but I just want to call attention to the fact that Twitter isn't as free a forum as they'd like us to think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
*sigh* No no, it's illegal to cause a panic--especially one in which people are injured. Also, there are numerous "public nuisance" laws which would cover it. The act itself, while not illegal, could bring down upon you certain legal consequences.

(Your QED was missing.)

; P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:58pm

Re:
"This is a very typical piece written to create a frame around someone to make them look bad, but only works when you ignore the very basics of the situation. Nobody is trying to stop Assange from his free speech rights. They are trying to stop him from violating national security."

That is excactly what the Chinese say they are doing when they block websites and censor the internet. They are protecting their national security. It is as much bullshit when they do it as when we do it. You cannot complain about China doing the same thing that the US is currently doing and not be a hipocrit.

I also agree that our government classifies way to much information these days and usually they do it to cover up what they do not want the public to know, not because it would harm national security, but rather that it would make us look bad, or make the government look corrupt, incompetent, etc. The whole thing is rediculus and we shouldn't be going after a legitimate news orginazation like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
But if there was no consequences, then there is nothing to be charged with.

If I walked into an open field and screamed "FIIIIREEE!" as loudly as a could, and nothing happened except a few random passersby staring, then I have done nothing illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
are you making the difference between 'illegal' and 'unlawful'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
Sophistry, eh? Fine, I can do sophistry.

illegal
�adjective
1.
forbidden by law or statute.

unlawful
�adjective
1.
not lawful; contrary to law; illegal.
[source: dictionary.com]

I'm going to go with NO, I am not making a difference between unlawful and illegal, as they are clearly synonyms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:08pm

>> Clinton herself claimed that Wikileaks' release "was an attack on the international community."

Which is why as a victim, she apologized, to the international community for what she said, And the international community, being angry, will want Hillary to take away American's freedoms and she'll agree. This is called Hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
Oh shi...

What the hell did I miss to make illegal and unlawful synonyms?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
:eye-roll:
The definitions of both can be boiled down to "against the law."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:16pm

"The people are not really understanding what's happening here."

I'd say the people understand perfectly well what's happening here. Politicians everywhere are revealing their true natures. The few standing up for Wikileaks are the only ones that value the people's First Amendment rights over trying (in vain) to keep their skeletons hidden in their closets.
I wonder what Lieberman has to hide...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:17pm

Re:
I wonder if what twitter tracks is not the level of activity, but its first derivative. So, if the Wikileaks topic has a constantly high level of activity, it will not show as trending; something with a low but very fast rising level of activity will show as trending. This would even reflect better the meaning of the word "trending" (something which is increasing, not something which is already high).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
urza9814, 7 Dec 2010 @ 2:46pm

Meh, par for the course for Hillary
I don't have any doubts that her earlier speech about internet freedom was pushed by others in the administration. Hillary has _always_ supported censorship of media, under the guise of "protecting the children". So it's not really at all surprising that she's back to that crap again...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
You know... I really did mean that as a legit question. I know they're synonyms grammatically, but there is a difference legally. For instance, it's not illegal to speed in a car... but it is unlawful. Which is why I can't pull you over and make a citizen's arrest when I see you speeding.

Since that's not the distinction you were making, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a legal action having legal consequences... if you blend illegal and unlawful together, then anything that would have legal consequences would be an illegal action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johnny canada, 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:20pm

This is not the first time the U.S. has blocked sites through private companies.

Remember the Russian website 'All of MP3'which was and is a legal site in Russia.

The blocked the site, put pressure on Visa & Master Card to stop payments etc.

So this wikileaks is not the first time they have gone through this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Press Statement, 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:24pm

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011
U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

Press Statement
Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
December 7, 2010

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO�s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The theme for next year�s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. 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. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

[...more...]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 3:51pm

Re: U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011
The theme for next year�s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: [Scary] New Frontiers, [Artificial] New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world [such as Julian Assange] 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 [as long as they don't mind enduring concerted attacks by western governments]. 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. [Specifically, we're concerned about whether we'll be able to make that work. Censorship is hard these days.] We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom [when it suits us] and the free flow of information in this digital age [as long as we can control it].
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 4:24pm

Re: Re:
Yelling fire in a theater crap getting old? Well maybe you need to recognize that freedoms are not absolute. The freedoms granted to people in the US are limited by other laws and by the notion that the expression of our freedom shoujld not harm others.

I can't speak for Hilary Clinton, but I'm guessing she still believes just as strongly as she once did about the importance of openness on the internet, in government and in business. This isn't about suiting her agenda, it's about the release of classified documents. There is nothing we can do about Assange, but the guy who stole the released cables will be punished.

Now that the information is out there, I think it's foolhardy to try to silence those venues that are re-publishing (because it's ineffective), but that's not to say the government shouldn't be doing what it can to protect its interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 4:25pm

Re: Re:
No, but if you make a million blog posts about how you want to see the POTUS killed you're sure to get a friendly visit from the secret service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 4:32pm

Re: Re:
Yes, that's called politics and diplomacy. Not everyone has a right to know everything that happens whether political, corporate, etc.)

The information is classified not because there are any national secrets that are going to cause World War III but because we don't hang our dirty laundry out for everyone to see. I'm sure you don't either. Or, wait, are you that one person in the entire world who has no secrets, never gossips to their friends, and doesn't care what others say about him/her?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 5:02pm

Re: Re:
I'm not sure which it is, but in this case it's a moot point as it never has been on the trending list. It's not that it was there and once the chatter stabilized it no longer showed up; it never showed up even as the issue gathered steam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Black Patriot (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 5:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
There's a slight problem with that logic, the government works for the people, they have a right to know how and why decisions are made, whereas a private individual does have the right to privacy, though there is some overlap when it comes to people that work for the public sector. In any case, the government only has the right to secrecy in matters of national security, however as the US government is full of corrupt and/or self serving politicians who generate all manner of potentially damaging paperwork, it has become standard practice to just classify everything as national security.

Take ACTA, for example, a major treaty with many governments around the world, and yet the whole thing has been classified under national security, why? The simplest, and most likely, explanation is that the people who drafted ACTA know that it would never pass public scrutiny, so they made it a secret so that it would never need to, and would be passed without serious public consultation. That is not how a democracy is supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 7 Dec 2010 @ 5:21pm

Re: Re:
"every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."
Does Wikileaks have opinions in addition to information? If not, maybe they don't qualify as a news source...
There is no crime to charge him with, for God's sake....
"Sex without condom" apparently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 5:25pm

Just pointing out hedgeing politics
Just to point out Mike she's hedging way way bad with this.

American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I�m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.

I actually laughed out loud at this. Sorry it wasn't "against" anything Mike. Principles according to whom?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 5:35pm

Re: Re: Re:
"The information is classified not because there are any national secrets that are going to cause World War III but because we don't hang our dirty laundry out for everyone to see."

Maybe the world would be a better place if we didn't have the dirty laundry in the first place.

Jesus Christ, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama did/do secret dirty laundry?

What happened with principals and moral ethics?
Maybe is because we lost sight of those things that we are in this mess, if people trusted their governments there wouldn't be so much anger to feed the radicals.

You can't win mind and hearts being dishonest it always comes back to haunt those who try, every single time and some people apparently don't learn ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2010 @ 5:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
Where the fire is right there my friend.

A system that allows anyone to make secrets without any form of accountability is a very fertile terrain for corruption and abuse.

Secrets too have limits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tessie90746 (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 6:05pm

Just a Friendly note
Hillary Clinton, is right about wikileaks. it is just not right, there are so many other companies need to be shut down too. not only this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Dec 2010 @ 6:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
Funny how rationalization of censorship is denigrated in one case and applauded in another. Is this hypocricy or irony - you decide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 6:25pm

Hillary Clinton: On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
She's just as TWO-FACED as the rest of the US political careerists' in Washington. Now I know why Bill cheated on her. Of course, her actions now prove that LYING and DECEPTION run in the familly. ;P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tessie90746 (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 6:45pm

How can they still be in business, now there are two ladies come out yell rape. without a condom. this is not over, it can go on days
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 11:22pm

Im just tired of it
I'm tired of the same old excuse. National Security/Terrorism. It's gotten to the point now that every politician in the US thinks that the ONLY way they can keep their job is to overreact to any mention of anything that "might" be considered or is labeled as terrorism.

Not to say that it isn't a valid fear as attested by one of the sheeple who posted earlier about Wikileaks being a threat to national security. The voters have forced the politicians to act this way. If they use common sense they will be voted out of office.

No one shut down the Chicago Sun Times when Valerie Plame was outed and after Scooter Libby took the fall for that, his sentence was commuted by the same President who swore he would punish that treason to the fullest. We know its legal to publish classified docs that have been released to the press.

So to all the "national security" fanatics, Wikileaks is not about national security, its about "job security" for Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 5:16am

Re: Re: Re:
"Does Wikileaks have opinions in addition to information? If not, maybe they don't qualify as a news source... "

What newspaper actually has opinions in the news coverage? They're all just rehashes of what person X said.

Editorials are the only place you actually get opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 5:38am

Re: Re: Re:
I've never said that freedom of expression is universal... in fact, if you read some of my other threads in previous posts, you'd see that I believe we have a much more limited set of freedoms than are commonly decried.

But we�re not talking about a website posting fire warnings to be seen in theaters. We're talking about a foreign entity who is publishing something that has already leaked. Every time a conversation turns to free-speech, someone talks about yelling fire. It�s a pointless argument often taken out of context that rarely has anything to do with the conversation other than the words �expression� are usually found in both.

Yes, there are some times that expression is not �free�� but just because it harms someone does not give an automatic censorship pass. If it did, the Westboro Baptist Church would have been silenced LONG ago, the KKK and other hate groups would never have a website or publication and I could have Spongebob Squarepants removed from existence. So, just because it gives our government a black-eye does not mean that it should be illegal.

I feel sure that if these documents had our detailed plans of military campaigns that weren't morally questionable, Wikileaks wouldn't have bothered posting them. These guys aren't out to sink the US, or anyone... they just want to promote transparency. I'm not sure why anyone's really defending this "you better shut up about us or we'll beat you up" mentality. What's next, call out Wikileaks momma?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 5:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
What newspaper actually has opinions in the news coverage?
One owned by Rupert Murdoch....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 5:42am

Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
Whether it is legal to yell fire depends on whether it is true.

The stuff wikileaks is publishing is true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 5:43am

Re:
Because Julian Assange is not Wikileaks. He's just the editor-in-chief. So if he's arrested for rape or other sex crimes it doesn't mean that the site just goes up in a puff of smoke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 6:23am

GWB didn't pardon Libby Scooter, so get your facts straight. That was one of the things that Vader was pissed about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 6:24am

Re: Re:
"Wow... certainly didn't take long for that tired argument to come in. Have we published a Godwins Law on fire yet? Anyone?"

Is "Godwins Law on fire" the one about, Yelling Fire in a Nazi theater? ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 6:36am

Re: Re: Re:
Replace fire with corruption and theater with government.

Happy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
connolly, 8 Dec 2010 @ 6:36am

What was good then and now?
Remember when Woodward & Bernstein (W&B) revealed what was going on with Watergate? Under Hillary Clinton, they would be charged with a crime so that Nixon would not be seen for who/what he really was.

If W&B were treated as heroes why is Assage a Criminal? Because Clinton does not want anyone to know MORE of her polluted politics. Covertly accumulating confidential information is a crime which should be prosecuted in a world court.

Take her away...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 6:57am

Re: Re: Re:
Or maybe yelling "Hitler is on fire!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 7:13am

Re:
I assume you're responding to Josef Anvil (using the "reply to this" link helps with that)... who did not say that Libby was pardoned... GWB did commute his sentence of 30days in prison.

Are those the facts you wanted to be straight? Because they looked kinda straight to me in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 7:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That brought a freaky Image of Hitler to mind, doing a pole dance, with someone saying "Hitler is on fire tonite".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 8:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ROFL! Don't worry until Rule 34 comes into play. ~shudder~
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Re:
The freedoms granted to people in the US

Freedoms aren't "granted" to the people in the US. The freedoms we enjoy are inalienable. They are inherent rights due to every person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 9:22am

Re: Re: Re:
Though it's been shown that even that's not enough to get you arrested, unless there's a credible threat there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2010 @ 9:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm more afraid of Rule 63. O.o
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 8 Dec 2010 @ 9:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hmmm... Hotler?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 8 Dec 2010 @ 3:22pm

Re:
Seriously. If he were a decent man, he would've used a condom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RBS, 10 Dec 2010 @ 4:44pm

Re: Re: Re:
A) An individual citizen is not the government or a corporation for that matter. Citizens have a right to hold their government to a high standard, especially a so-called democratic government. This is why we give them our taxes, let them create rules to govern us. (By the people for the people remember?)
B) If I profess free speech and freedoms and also support people practicing their free speech rights via the internet as long as it doesn't impact me (eg: the people protesting the Iran elections on twitter), and then when it impacts me I turn around and start whining and complaining about how bad it all is, it makes me look extremely hypocritical. This is exactly what is happening here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]