I don't want to go round and round poking holes in things, but I'm still not convinced on the connection here. The articles you linked shows that Birgitta helped with the helicopter attack vid, but does not show where she was part of the organization. Everything that I've found is that she was a volunteer for the organization for the helicopter vid... including her Wikipedia page. Conclusive? no, not at all. But given what I've been able to find, I don't think there's some kind of nefarious plot afoot where she’s akin to the former Monsanto execs now heading up the environmental protection groups in the US government.
Now, I'll admit it does feel a bit tabloid-ish, but from the quotes they have, it looks like Birgitta cares more about Wikileaks' mission over Assange himself. Sounds like she's calling him out for some of the same things you are.
"This is true, but they may be onto something"
It's going to take a lot, given our past actions, to convince me that the US government is after anything other than retribution against someone that gave them a black eye.
"It is always important to ask the question "why benefits from the release of information"? When you answer that question, you get a better idea of why it is done."
I know you meant 'who benefits'... but I think the 'who' in this is the American people... Wikileaks have very publicly shown proof that our government is doing some things that we don't agree with. Distasteful things they need to answer for.
You say that we need to look at who benefits from these actions... how does Assange or Wikileaks benefit from exposing the helicopter footage, the child-prostitution thing, et al? Wikileaks was already 'famous'... they had already been given awards for similar actions. So what's their motive in this?
Finally, back to my original point... I still don't see how the US government pursuing Assange over Wikileaks' actions of leaking the evidence against Assange is him suffering something 'he deserves' for the actions he took. The rest of this conversation has been very informative and interesting, but it didn't really address the main point... the US going after Assange smells of vindictiveness, not justice.
PS.. thanks for expounding on the points... Now that I know what you mean, you definitely don't look like a troll, you look like someone with points to make :) I appreciate it.
I do get what you're saying... and I agree with some of it. But let me advocate the devil here.
Without all the information, how do you know the thinking behind the release of some of the information over others. Should they have used information as a "don't push us bro" tactic? Probably not. Would they have released the information at some point once the more "important" information was done? Who knows.
I don't know about the connection to the Icelandic government, so i can't really argue against it... some sources would be nice, but I'll let this one slide. If there is a connection between the Icelandic government and Wikileaks, and that connection is used to favor Wikileaks, then yes it's bad. But if a particular government has 'bunkered' a website that the US publicly went gunning for, why would it be a surprise that they did it again for another of our 'enemies'? But that's pure speculation on my part.
For the 'indications that people supporting WL are political activists... ummm... in what sense? I would consider myself a political activist in that I advocate certain ideas and movements, and I support Wikileaks. And where's the citation for those 'indications'?
And I'm not sure what you're on about for the money angle... are they losing it or making it?
Yes, the transparency is woefully lacking for a company that purports openness... but I would argue that the context of openness is important here... a government has a duty to be open to the people who support and fund it. A private company has a duty to the people who invest in it and who are impacted by their presence. I think there should be more transparency to defuse the "But you're not open!!" attack, but I think comparing it to the need for open government is like comparing grapes to watermelons.
And back to my original point... Assange may be underhanded or secretive, but the US is attacking Assange for Wikileak's activities. When those activities were exposing some pretty startling things that the US was doing... and the US still stands on an anti-censorship soap-box, it really doesn't look good. It makes us look like we feel that everyone should be free to express whatever they want... as long as it's not about us.
Sorry if that's a bit rambling... it's been a long day.
Whether that was TAM or not, whether a Troll or not... the comment wasn't. If his reaction leads back into troll-dom, I'll call that out, but my first reaction was unnecessary, so I retract for now.
Earned it by doing what? The same thing he (well, Wikileaks, really) did that earned him an Amnesty International Award for the information Wikileaks published for Kenya?
Or are you going to say that his nefarious conspiracy with Manning to undermine the USA is what netted him this little whirlwind?
The rape thing, maybe?
Do tell, which of his evil deeds it the reason for this current life of woe?
So... does that make it an invalid business model or argument? I hardly think that an incompatibility to your (or any one person's) musical tastes is a 'fatal flaw' in a business model.
RD, that was uncalled for in this thread... yes, Joe has been guilty of attacking in the past and was not guilty of doing so in the past. It would impress me to see an apology, but that's between you and Joe.
Cowardly Anon... no need to pile on man. Not cool.
Now that I'm done playing Comment Police, let's get back to you...
I've read back through the rest, and they're all calling you out for crying victim. And they're right to do so. You have, on more than one occasion (but not many, granted) gone completely off the deep end and just straight-out attacked people... doing nothing to forward the discussion, just to make attacks. To do that then, and now cry victim when someone does it to you is hypocrisy. And that's what you're being called out for.
Don't want to be called out on it? Two choices: either A) avoid being a dick and actually have moral high-ground to yell from, or B) if someone is a dick to you, ignore it. Or be a dick back... just be consistent.
And I'll clarify, you can't say "unprovoked" just because you've behaved in this thread or this post or on this day.
You'll notice that few of us give Anonymous much leeway anymore for his assholitry... not because we don't like him or because we're all mean... it's because we tried... repeatedly and he still keeps at it.
All I'm saying is that if you want people to stop reacting to you that way, stop giving them reasons to do so... anywhere.
If you want people to treat you fairly, then you need to play fair... not just in this article, but all of them. Until then, saying "But I didn't do anything today to deserve ill treatment" is just 5 year old sibling-fighting logic.
I agree with not marking it for Report... that should only be done on spam, people.
Joe, I hardly think it's "techdirt sponsored" anything... someone didn't like the analogy and marked it for report because they found it offensive.
And insightful or not (in my opinion "not"), this should be filed right next to making references to Nazi and Hitler... a ridiculous extreme made to incite people based on the horribleness of the item used (rape in this case). It's not a valid, insightful reference, it's inciteful trolling.
Who's the rabid one around here? Mike reports stories as he finds them or are sent to him... sometimes he misses points, sometimes he doesn't...
But every time it's about copyright or the lawsuits there-of, you're the one who comes in flinging wildly accusation posts about things you have never backed up with actual fact.
You're a troll. You have brought no value to conversation. You have nothing worthwhile to say. You do nothing but insult anyone who disagrees with you. Why are you here? Are you bored? Lonely? Did a pirate board your ship and make you walk the plank in a past life? I think I can safely elevate you above Jack Thompson on the list of ridiculously-personal crusades.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: First Amendment scrutiny
"Only my interpretation is right, so go back and read it again... then you'll see why I'm right and you're wrong".
Don't assume that you're the only one who can be right and then condescendingly dismiss their views with things like "Snore".
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, I did find this: http://www.mediaite.com/online/jonsdottir-assange-wikileaks/
Now, I'll admit it does feel a bit tabloid-ish, but from the quotes they have, it looks like Birgitta cares more about Wikileaks' mission over Assange himself. Sounds like she's calling him out for some of the same things you are.
It's going to take a lot, given our past actions, to convince me that the US government is after anything other than retribution against someone that gave them a black eye.
I know you meant 'who benefits'... but I think the 'who' in this is the American people... Wikileaks have very publicly shown proof that our government is doing some things that we don't agree with. Distasteful things they need to answer for.
You say that we need to look at who benefits from these actions... how does Assange or Wikileaks benefit from exposing the helicopter footage, the child-prostitution thing, et al? Wikileaks was already 'famous'... they had already been given awards for similar actions. So what's their motive in this?
Finally, back to my original point... I still don't see how the US government pursuing Assange over Wikileaks' actions of leaking the evidence against Assange is him suffering something 'he deserves' for the actions he took. The rest of this conversation has been very informative and interesting, but it didn't really address the main point... the US going after Assange smells of vindictiveness, not justice.
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re:
The US is trying to vindicate itself against the release of it's dirty laundry and the prevent anything else being waved around.
Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn't think it's a 'danger to troops or personnel'
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/pentagon-boss-is-not-sweating-wikileaks/
http://www.t echeye.net/security/wikileaks-leak-not-dangerous
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without all the information, how do you know the thinking behind the release of some of the information over others. Should they have used information as a "don't push us bro" tactic? Probably not. Would they have released the information at some point once the more "important" information was done? Who knows.
I don't know about the connection to the Icelandic government, so i can't really argue against it... some sources would be nice, but I'll let this one slide. If there is a connection between the Icelandic government and Wikileaks, and that connection is used to favor Wikileaks, then yes it's bad. But if a particular government has 'bunkered' a website that the US publicly went gunning for, why would it be a surprise that they did it again for another of our 'enemies'? But that's pure speculation on my part.
For the 'indications that people supporting WL are political activists... ummm... in what sense? I would consider myself a political activist in that I advocate certain ideas and movements, and I support Wikileaks. And where's the citation for those 'indications'?
And I'm not sure what you're on about for the money angle... are they losing it or making it?
Yes, the transparency is woefully lacking for a company that purports openness... but I would argue that the context of openness is important here... a government has a duty to be open to the people who support and fund it. A private company has a duty to the people who invest in it and who are impacted by their presence. I think there should be more transparency to defuse the "But you're not open!!" attack, but I think comparing it to the need for open government is like comparing grapes to watermelons.
And back to my original point... Assange may be underhanded or secretive, but the US is attacking Assange for Wikileak's activities. When those activities were exposing some pretty startling things that the US was doing... and the US still stands on an anti-censorship soap-box, it really doesn't look good. It makes us look like we feel that everyone should be free to express whatever they want... as long as it's not about us.
Sorry if that's a bit rambling... it's been a long day.
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Vor Dire
I know what you meant and I'm not picking on you... I just had to point out the irony of that slip. hehehe... made my afternoon. :)
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re:
The rest of the sarcasm, however, stands.
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re:
Earned it by doing what? The same thing he (well, Wikileaks, really) did that earned him an Amnesty International Award for the information Wikileaks published for Kenya?
Or are you going to say that his nefarious conspiracy with Manning to undermine the USA is what netted him this little whirlwind?
The rape thing, maybe?
Do tell, which of his evil deeds it the reason for this current life of woe?
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Who’s David Guetta?
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Hey Joe...
That should read:
"RD, that was uncalled for in this thread... yes, Joe has been guilty of attacking in the past and was not guilty of doing so here.
My bad.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Hey Joe...
RD, that was uncalled for in this thread... yes, Joe has been guilty of attacking in the past and was not guilty of doing so in the past. It would impress me to see an apology, but that's between you and Joe.
Cowardly Anon... no need to pile on man. Not cool.
Now that I'm done playing Comment Police, let's get back to you...
I've read back through the rest, and they're all calling you out for crying victim. And they're right to do so. You have, on more than one occasion (but not many, granted) gone completely off the deep end and just straight-out attacked people... doing nothing to forward the discussion, just to make attacks. To do that then, and now cry victim when someone does it to you is hypocrisy. And that's what you're being called out for.
Don't want to be called out on it? Two choices: either A) avoid being a dick and actually have moral high-ground to yell from, or B) if someone is a dick to you, ignore it. Or be a dick back... just be consistent.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/23291412974/judge-bans-handing-factual-pamphlets- to-jurors-raising-first-amendment-issues.shtml#c1092
And I'll clarify, you can't say "unprovoked" just because you've behaved in this thread or this post or on this day.
You'll notice that few of us give Anonymous much leeway anymore for his assholitry... not because we don't like him or because we're all mean... it's because we tried... repeatedly and he still keeps at it.
All I'm saying is that if you want people to stop reacting to you that way, stop giving them reasons to do so... anywhere.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Hey Joe...
You can't toss around insults and derision at other people and expect people to forget just because we're in the comment section of a different story.
Did you say anything here ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110204/23291412974/judge-bans-handing-factual-pamphlets-to-jurors -raising-first-amendment-issues.shtml#c117 ) to earn RD's ire? No. But elsewhere, you have been so night-and-day abusive that I've wondered if you had a kid brother that has your password or something. I don't condone RD's attack in that particular post because I think we should all rise above those who are abusive and set a good example (and, yes, I know I do this too... I'm trying...), but nor am I surprised.
If you want people to treat you fairly, then you need to play fair... not just in this article, but all of them. Until then, saying "But I didn't do anything today to deserve ill treatment" is just 5 year old sibling-fighting logic.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re:
Joe, I hardly think it's "techdirt sponsored" anything... someone didn't like the analogy and marked it for report because they found it offensive.
And insightful or not (in my opinion "not"), this should be filed right next to making references to Nazi and Hitler... a ridiculous extreme made to incite people based on the horribleness of the item used (rape in this case). It's not a valid, insightful reference, it's inciteful trolling.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But every time it's about copyright or the lawsuits there-of, you're the one who comes in flinging wildly accusation posts about things you have never backed up with actual fact.
You're a troll. You have brought no value to conversation. You have nothing worthwhile to say. You do nothing but insult anyone who disagrees with you. Why are you here? Are you bored? Lonely? Did a pirate board your ship and make you walk the plank in a past life? I think I can safely elevate you above Jack Thompson on the list of ridiculously-personal crusades.
And the sad part? The windmills are winning.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>