Irony Alert: Wikileaks Sends Reporters A List Of 140 Things Not To Say About Julian Assange; Tells Them Not To Publish
from the i-mean,-come-on dept
Either Julian Assange is the least self-aware person in the British Isles (currently), or Wikileaks is playing some sort of weird joke on the press. The organization, whose entire reason for being is publishing documents whose authors don't wish them to be published has bizarrely sent a list of 140 things reporters are not supposed to say about Assange (if this is a troll by Assange, you have to wonder if the 140 -- Twitter's original character limit -- is somehow on purpose). We'll get to the list in a moment, but first, the list included this hilarious statement:
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
Ha, ha. Good one, Julian. Very funny. First of all, you don't send "confidential legal communications" to the media. That's not how it works. Second, unless there's already a pre-agreed upon deal not to publish certain materials, you don't get to email reporters willy nilly and insist that they can't report on it. That is also not how it works. Finally, this is Wikileaks we're talking about. I mean, come on.
Incredibly, Reuters, who first wrote about the existence of this list did not publish the list. Instead, that was initially left to FOIA/transparency/national security guru Emma Best who published the full list on her site. A few other publications followed later.
It is entirely possible that this is some sort of reverse Streisand Effect attempt, in which Assange purposefully put the idiotic "not for publication" line atop the email knowing that would make it more likely that the document would get attention, but no matter where you sit, for reporters, this now seems like a list of 140 things that Julian Assange is now calling for everyone to investigate. Of course, some of them are really just silly. For example:
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever tortured a cat or dog.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not use cutlery or does not wash his hands.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange lives, or has ever lived, in a basement, cupboard or under the stairs.
Um... what? Why even bring up any of these? Of course, much of the list involves some of the more serious claims that people have made against Assange over the years, especially regarding any connection with Russian Intelligence and or any attempt to influence the US election. And, while these don't necessarily break new ground, for investigative reporters, it seems like there could be some interesting breadcrumbs in the list of things Julian Assange really, really doesn't want the press to say about him.
Also, it appears that in a later version of the list that was posted to Pastebin, Wikileaks removed the line about Assange stinking and living in a cupboard under the stairs (that was Harry Potter, you see...). Emma Best set up a comparison of the two "leaked" copies of the list, if you're interested in delving into the details of what I guess is now up for discussion (does Assange have a scar in the shape of lightening bolt?).
Separately, each of the items on the list begin "it is false and defamatory to...." At the very least, this suggests that Assange has a fairly limited understanding of what "defamatory" actually means. Defamation requires a bit more than saying that Julian Assange stinks. Others may be false, but would hardly be "defamatory." For example:
It is false and defamatory to deny that Julian Assange co-founded the Freedom of the Press Foundation with John Perry Barlow.
I mean, it is a false statement since Assange did not co-found the Freedom of the Press Foundation with JPB (he was just one of their first beneficiaries). But, what is possibly "defamatory" about that sentence?
Either this is all an elaborate troll by Assange, or he's so freaking full of himself that he doesn't realize how petty and immature this whole thing looks (oops, is that on the list of things we can't say?).
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: defamation, emma best, julian assange, leaks, secrecy, streisand effect, transparency
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Transparency, right?
I wonder if this is available on Wikileaks...
Ps, found this gem on the list:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do you know facts????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Do you know facts????
Indeed: facts please... (Or at least sources, please)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Which Court would laugh loudest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Do you know facts????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Do you know facts????
Are you saying this article shouldn't be published unless TD has had the opportunity to run a forensic check on this somehow?
Julian may be cut off from the internet, but he still can use the postal service to mail actual letters to Wikileaks. Saying that he couldn't possible have written this is... False and Defamatory! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Do you know facts????
Not entirely true
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-ecuador-assange/ecuador-partly-restores-internet-acce ss-for-wikileaks-founder-assange-idUSKCN1MO0WM
He had his connectivity "partially restored" in October last year. Also, I'm rather sure that Assange has other ways to communicate documents and ideas that can be performed offline if it were indeed him providing the list.
"Facts please otherwise it just looks really stupid."
More importantly - COMPLETE facts, else you look really, really stupid when your "corrections" are proven to be at best incomplete.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bonus points: if you go to the defence page on Wikileaks, it says "defend the right to publish." So either their next action has to be to take no action against those publishing (and be unable to control the narrative now the list has been published, but remain true to the stance they claim to hold), contradict themselves (take some measure to pull down the list and prevent republishing) and thus show themselves as hypocritical, or deny this outright as a third actor attempting to cause problems for Wikileaks as a whole.
And that is just if it was a real document and not instead someone attempting to cause a stir; in which case mission accomplished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hamsters, gerbils and hedgehogs live in fear of Julian Assange.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
citation needed
This list has been circulating for a while, but I haven't seen any denials from wikileaks claiming someone else sent it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Wow, Ted Koppel is a robot!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did Julian Assange torture a dog when he was 15? I’m just asking questions, bro!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
Do we have a lawyer in the comments group?
This appears are a request not to publish which Reuters deigns to ignore. Fair enough, information (well verified by Emma Best) about how wikileaks are attempting to defend themselves against dubious claims in media articles is news enough.
By "dubious claims" I mean that at least The Guardian has been publishing very unreliable information trying to connect Wikileaks/Assange with the Russian government.
https://ia801500.us.archive.org/2/items/ComplaintByFidelNarvaezToTheGuardian/Complaint%20by%20Fidel% 20Narvaez%20to%20The%20Guardian%20STAGE%20ONE.pdf
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort -scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If he were "dishing it out on both sides", then he would have published the Republican e-mails in his possession, not just the Democratic ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
Y'all send me an email & tell me not to tell anyone...
You aren't the FISA court so my response is GFY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There was a period where Assange was something of a darling of the left because he released Chelsea Manning's leaks which, among other things, revealed US abuses during the Iraq War.
But I think most of his liberal supporters abandoned him around the time he was hit with rape allegations, well before the 2016 election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is surrounded by a team of incompetents & idiots.
It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange that a majority of these things have actually been said.
It is true and famatory to suggest that Julian Assange did this to stroke his own ego & chase the spotlight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
I call for evidence. I was asking for a lawyer from the comments community to comment. Are you one?
I have provided you with evidence of a deliberate disinformation campaign by The Guardian against Wikileaks/Assange and this is not at all surprising when the director of the CIA called them a "hostile non-state intelligence agency". This is, of course, absolute horse shit. The CIA publishes disinformation through media lackeys whilst Wikileaks publishes vetted primary source documents.
For more on idiotic regurgitation of spurious claims by intelligence agencies, you can read another of Greenwald's pieces:
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/07/nbc-and-msnbc-blamed-russia-for-using-sophisticated-micro waves-to-cause-brain-injuries-in-u-s-diplomats-in-cuba-the-culprits-were-likely-crickets/
I am making a credible claim about Wikileaks trying to counter an obvious disinformation campaign, and asking whether the ALL CAPS title may be standard legal procedure. It may not be. I don't know, but I can see why Wikileaks are doing this.
MM had a field day describing the poor optics of this for Wikileaks, and fair enough there too; it does look rather poor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not that both sides crap again. As if such claims alter the public perception(s). Action speaks louder than words and words are cheap.
True journalists actively attempt to avoid bullshit, report verified data and annotate editorial comments as such - among other things. They have no responsibility to report what both sides say regardless of its veracity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION
There are exceptions, such as most discussions with a mental health professional, or discussions with a lawyer. When a civilian talks about a confidential communication, they mean that type of privileged communication, often combined with professional ethical duties.
None of this applies to this kind of unsolicited communication to the press.
While the EU has stricter privacy laws, they also tend to not apply to unsolicited communications to third parties from my admittedly lacking understanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's probably related to
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where did that come from?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Assange fell out of favour with the left when, cut off from Western funding sources by US control of payment processors like Visa/MC/Amex, he was left dependent on Russia - who used him to release the product of a break-in of the DNC (or its computers) worthy of a certain infamous third-rate burglary of the Watergate era.
At some point, there are no good guys in this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
You're inverting burden of proof. You're asking someone else to prove that putting "not for publication" at the top of an e-mail doesn't make it illegal to publish it. That's not how it works. If you don't know of any evidence that a restraint on speech is legally binding, you should assume that it isn't, not that it is.
But, since you asked for a lawyer's opinion, here's an excerpt from a letter by Actual Lawyer Ken White of Popehat:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I remember seeing online commenters use this exact line of reasoning in defense of Bill Cosby, as recently as two years ago. They were mistaken.
Perhaps you're right and European courts work differently than American ones do. But Assange sure isn't acting like a man who's confident that the accusations against him wouldn't hold up in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
I think this was more to set a foundation so that when various parties attempt smear campaigns, Assange and WIkileaks' position is already in place.
That said, I've seen all of those statements in blog posts and articles over the past week; I'm not sure why the sudden interest in Assange again, but it's definitely out there, even if it's stupid.
WikiLeaks lost its credibility when it stopped being transparent adn started supporting particular agendas; Assange I think of as a bit of an egotistic nutter with his heart (sometimes) in the right place who offended the wrong people. He really shouldn't be news anymore, other than as part of the fallout from the current newsworthy events he's been part of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But, it is rather weird that Wikileaks would expect this to not blow up in their face.
As another noted, perhaps they are just trying to pre-establish their legal position against this bullshit coming out of the Guardian. Buy, why do the ALL CAPS legal threat? Seems a bit mad, unless they were wanting to create the discussion. I've no idea why, but that may be the case.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ26tSUmFHM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I doubt Wikileaks as an entity much cares unless someone presses them for a comment.
Otherwise it's just a vaguely amusing joke as I would doubt either Mr. Assange or Wikileaks ever released this (the provenance is dubious).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
They have been pressed for comment. The Reuters article linked in the second sentence says,
What, you were thinking the papers published this list and none of them asked Wikileaks for a comment on it? None? Not one of them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've read through the comments and am flabbergasted that almost everyone here, including the author, are taking it seriously.
Are you all robots? I don't get it. My mind is blown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Transparency, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's not irony if it was such an obvious troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
How does being a troll make it not irony?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What's the joke?
They wrote a list of unflattering things about Assange, said "don't publish this", and then people published it?
I guess that's...sort of a kind of practical joke?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm really sad for society that something this easy to understand is going right over so many people's heads. People who complain about the lack of critical thinking are not as chicken little as I thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]