Wikileaks Denied A Speaking Opportunity At UN Conference About Wikileaks?

from the perhaps-someone-will-leak-a-pass? dept

Thu, Feb 16th 2012 1:08pm — Mike Masnick

UNESCO, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, is hosting a conference about The Media World after Wikileaks and News of the World. Sounds like it could be an interesting event, but one organization not happy about it... is Wikileaks. Seeing as it was a conference that touched on Wikileaks' interests directly, Wikileaks asked to take part, and was instead denied a chance to speak at the event. When asked about this, UNESCO actually claimed that choosing to not allow Wikileaks attendees was an exercise in "freedom of expression," which seems like a poor choice of words.

Of course, Wikileaks doesn't come out of this looking very good either. In unfortunately typical overstatement from Wikileaks, it tries to paint this as some big censorship issue, but that seems like an exaggeration. UNESCO noted that Julian Assange's legal advisor is taking part, as are numerous news organizations that partnered with Wikileaks. Wikileaks complains that even if Assange's legal counsel will be on one panel, there's no Wikileaks representation on other panels. Now, if I were organizing the event, I might use that as an opportunity to invite direct representatives of the site... if only for the fact that it would draw more interest to many of the discussions. However, beyond the irony of telling Wikileaks it can't speak at an event about Wikileaks, it really seems like the site is trying to make a bigger deal out of this than is justified.

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: conference journalism, speaking, un, unesco
Companies: wikileaks

57 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:12pm

Freedom of expression...freedom from expression...close enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:13pm

but... but... censorship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
al, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:19pm

A SPECIAL THANKS to Mike, If I relied upon mainstream media for information about the internet, I would not know anything thats going on. I might have been as misled as politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:20pm

I have no respect for UNESCO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:25pm

TrollHard I - The Thickening!
Well, it's not like we let Al Qaeda show up and speak at conferences about Al Qaeda, now do we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: TrollHard I - The Thickening!
  Yes, bombs/guns/beheadings = wikileaks. Duffus
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:44pm
    
    Re: Re: TrollHard I - The Thickening!
    (do you mind? I'm trying to do some trolling here...)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: TrollHard I - The Thickening!
      Just doing my counter part.
      
      If a Troll calls on the Internet and no one is around to respond, does it make a sound?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: TrollHard I - The Thickening!
        "If a Troll calls on the Internet and no one is around to respond, does it make a sound?"
        Yes it makes a sound; it sobs quietly to itself in the corner; whingeing occasionally about how nobody loves it....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:46pm
    
    Re: Re: TrollHard I - The Thickening!
    WOOSH!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 2:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: TrollHard I - The Thickening!
      over the head it goes
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wowsers, 18 Feb 2012 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: TrollHard I - The Thickening!
  Yes
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:29pm

i assume that the conference will be used to bash Wikileaks, just as certain people use every opportunity to bash Google. why should they not get chance to speak, especially if the bashing does happen? i doubt if you, Mike, would be particularly happy if Techdirt was to be discussed and possibly bashed, without having the chance to speak!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Catherine, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:58am
  
  Re:
  Well you assumed wrong. I attended the conference (part of it, only yesterday), and i've only heard speakers defending the protection of sources and how journalists' and other news providers' issues are being modified, especially since cases such as WikiLeaks and News of the world occurred, which was the primary purpose. And all this, I should state, in front of a half empty room, when anybody was free to attend and participate in the debate. Representatives of WikiLeaks have not been banned, they have not been requested.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 17 Feb 2012 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Was there anyone from news corp participating?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:32pm

A very poor way of handling things, but I have a feeling the conference is looking at it like this is a conference about the state of security post-9-11, and the head of the world's largest terrorist organization is asking to speak there. Sure, it would add something, but not what the conference wants added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:47pm
  
  Re:
  define "world's largest terrorist organization"..is that the one with the most kills or the most threats? USA #1 USA #1 USA #1 etc..../sigh
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 4:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    The world's largest terrorist organisation with the most kills is the same as the one with the most threats ==> 'good ole' United States of America with its scumbag Congress and its presidents that don't change a thing.
    
    Or would anyone say that still having a prison at Guantanamo Bay is according to the Geneva Convention? Let's not forget about the so-called Patriot Act? And that country's leaders even terrorise their own citizens, with the threat that anyone could be detained without a charge brought forth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 5:08am
  
  Re:
  I think that if the 'largest terrorist organisation' was only considered that by one government/organisation and a beacon of liberty by everyone else, it would be incredibly valuable to let them have their 15 minutes, at least.
  
  However, Wikileaks isn't considered a terrorist organisation by any anyone outside of the US State Department.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:36pm

Well, it's not like we let Women show up and speak at conferences about Women's birth control, now do we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  Congress Calls Birth-Control Hearing for Men
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 8:46pm
  
  Re:
  Well, it's not like we let Women show up and speak at conferences about Women's birth control, now do we?
  
  Not if we're Sean Hannity.
  
  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues---sean-hann ity-s-holy-sausage-fest
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 17 Feb 2012 @ 5:13am
  
  Re:
  LOL - good one
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam J, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:37pm

This article is for all the asshats that think that Mike is too "one sided" or has a "hidden agenda". Look, he disagrees with Wikileaks claiming censorship. Take that, anonymous RIMDOJ cowards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:40pm
  
  Re:
  It's just too bad that Mike can't apply the same standards to his own hyperbole.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yawn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - adamj (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If that were true, I don't think techdirt would be as popular as it is with this many registered users and readers who visit this site. Even if he does exaggerate from time to time, is that not his right to free speech? The legacy industries certainly exercise that right, daily. Plus, you're assuming that people don't have common sense and therefore just believe whatever Mike puts in front of us.
    You might believe that Mike uses hyperbole as a tool for deception and to dupe the weak minded, but alas, here you are posting on his site. lol
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Even if he does exaggerate from time to time,
      
      That would be from the TIME he first typed a word, to the present TIME...
      
      it's also more 'fabricate' and exaggerate... but you are right..
      
      Not all registered people on TD support TD, many are hear to readwhat wild claims mansick will come up with next..
      
      He wants to be the untimate spin artist, but just does not have to talent for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Many are hear, but I am over their
        
        Mike came in first in the regional Top tournament, thats talent
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 17 Feb 2012 @ 5:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me guess, fox is fair and balanced - amirite?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bratwurzt (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 6:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sad. Just sad trolling. Maybe, if you had any sources of this defamation (spin artist? like spinning on his chair, when AC posts an uneducated comment on his blog? Then he is one hellofa spin-master-artist!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and there's a reason why you're posting as AC - you don't want your name to be actually assosiated with your posts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re:
  the very fact you have commented on one of the rare times that masnick has ever made these types of comments, that you have to comment on it, is proof that you too believe masnick is one sided, and biased, and clearly has a hidden agenda..
  
  Fact is he still believes that wikileaks is important, and was a 'game changer' that is actually not the case, wikileaks had and is having virtually zero effect, it has not caused anyone to do anything differently, or anyone fired or punished..
  
  Wikileaks was a flop, that is why they are not invited to talk..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 8:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What world do you live in, Trollsylvania?
    
    Where the mantra is "I really, really, really, want to believe it, so it must be true."
    
    I wish I could live there too, life would be so less complicated, but I'd probably just wind up shooting myself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bratwurzt (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 7:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Fact is he still believes that wikileaks is important, and was a 'game changer' that is actually not the case, wikileaks had and is having virtually zero effect, it has not caused anyone to do anything differently, or anyone fired or punished.. "
    
    Wikileaks was a flop? In what way? Like Internet is a flop until these pesky google engineers implement gimme-money-many-times-for-the-same-horrible-service techy thingy on the internet, that will save the content industry (?) and with that the world!! It seems your bubble does not include news from... I don't know, the world? Middle east? Green revolution? Wikileaks ofcourse had nothing to do with that - it was all twitters fault that these strange men with strange beards are making your fuel more expensive!
    
    Hidden agenda? Clearly. His agenda is truth. I know - it is horrible - this truth thingy. You can't change it, it's stuck in its ways and that has to be changed. It would be so much easier to manipulate truth if only we would have a tool that would give power to select people for replacement of these pesky facts with something nicer. Hmmm, maybe Jacob Appelbaum could help - he has so much experience in these things and he looooves USA!
    
    Actual facts about your statement:
    1. You are not taken seriously because your english is worse than mine (and my native language is not english).
    2. You could have been taken more seriously if you had an account here.
    3. Stating your opinion on actual affairs does not make your statement the truth. If you do know that - then you're just seeking attention and an emotional response to further devaluate the debate (troll)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:42pm

As necessary as I believe Wikileaks is, they sure are quick to play the martyr card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re:
  it is a UN conference, not a door stop press conference. if as you say wikileaks is a journilist, then they should report the news, not be the news.. do you think they have asked any other news journilists to speak ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nastybutler77 (profile), 20 Feb 2012 @ 8:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Um... Where did I say Wikileaks was a journalist?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:43pm

Should have called it "Post-Digital Propoganda"
"News Journalism in a Digital World" should include Wikileaks, because Wikileaks is digital journalism. Excluding Wikileaks is a political attempt to redefine journalism to be the restricted, government-approved dispersion of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PlagueSD (profile), 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re: Should have called it "Post-Digital Propoganda"
  So if journalism is to be defined as the restricted, government-approved dispersion of information. and propoganda is defined as follows:
  
  prop�a�gan�da/ˌpr�pəˈgandə/
  Noun:
  1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
  2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
  
  So journalism = propaganda...I was wondering when this was going to happen!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:55pm

I hope someone at the UN Conference does that headbob thing and fingersnapping, like a gangsta girl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 16 Feb 2012 @ 1:57pm

Idiocy at work
This must be most stupid thing I've heard about all week. How can the people of the UN be so stupid? Or is it a prerequisite in order to get there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 2:12pm
  
  Re: Idiocy at work
  This is the future of "world govt" - at odds with the world. Orwell was no momma's boy...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 2:55pm

"When asked about this, UNESCO actually claimed that choosing to not allow Wikileaks attendees was an exercise in "freedom of expression," which seems like a poor choice of words."

Any trolls about?
We apparantly have the "freedom of expression" to tell you to jog on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:12pm

Fuck it, if they're going out of their way to be fucktards, then we should out-fucktard them, someone should record the fucking meeting and release it on the internet for everyone to see/hear

It'll serve them right, afterwards, we can say something stupid and unrelated like it was "freedom of expression,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:44pm
  
  Re:
  "someone should record the fucking meeting and release it on the internet for everyone to see/hear"
  
  oh yea, that will "GET EM"...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 4:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    no what will "GET EM" is the burning buildings and physical violence for those who continue to spit and ignore peacefull attempts to be heard
    
    As history has shown us
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 6:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's all Greek to me
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Catherine, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:35am
  
  Re:
  A live webcast of the conference is available and has been for its whole duration
  http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/events/calendar-of-events/event s-websites/the-media-world-after-wikileaks-and-news-of-the-world/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:26pm

so "freedom of expression," only applies to those few,

What a stupid attempt to try and use our words against us, at least our trolls here put some effort into it

You're talking about wikileaks, but wikileaks cant attend, because you have the right to express through freedom that you dont want wikileaks there to exercise their right to speak on the subject of wikileaks.........Yeah. OK. Sure! I buy that! Uh-huh!

The more this happens the more aggro i feel, and i surely doubt im the only one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:42pm

Lets Face facts
Wikileaks, was a comprehensive failure, ask yourself what has it really achieved ?

Political damage was virtually zero, (pollies can do more damage to themselves that others can).

Thousands of documents were leaks, is there any indication that this release really changed anything ?

Did it provide anything information in it's leaked information that most people did not allready know, or have a strong suspician that would be occuring.

Wikileaks got it's 15 minutes of fame, (at a high price), and really achieved nothing..

Why would you want wikileaks to come and talk, when you know they dont really have anything to say!

Wikileaks is old history,,,,,, next..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 5:28pm
  
  Re: Lets Face facts
  If it's such a comprehensive failure then why even bother to discuss it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 5:33pm
  
  Re: Lets Face facts
  Wikileaks is old history,,,,,, next..
  
  The government strikes back
  
  ending with
  
  Return of the Wikileaks
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bratwurzt (profile), 17 Feb 2012 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: Lets Face facts
  darryl, the only troll that works today. We had better - try harder!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Raphae1, 18 Feb 2012 @ 7:05am
  
  Re: Lets Face facts
  Sorry, but it seems, that you are very badly informed. It might be, that you don't like reading too much and believe the shit coming from the MSM esp. FOX networks.
  Did Wikileaks provide any information that most people did not already know? You betcha!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:58pm

"Did it provide anything information in it's leaked information that most people did not allready know, or have a strong suspician that would be occuring."

Since your asking, yes, it actually did, and with that one lie, you've compromised you're entire comment, just like a good old, bad politician
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lola Heavey, 17 Feb 2012 @ 3:56am

How come am I not surprised? What we are seeing is how deeply compromised all these global organizations really are. I really hope Julian Assange will keep going. He is one of the very few people that can stand up against some of the most powerful and shadowy government agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]