Why So Serious Assange?

The US Government has managed to scare just about every media source there is with regard to Wikileaks and Assange.  Many of the major media outlets have ceased publicizing the cables and have literally become silent.  There is an investigation against Julian Assange within the United States and several officials have claimed, “OFF WITH HIS HEAD.”  This is to say that they are wanting Assange dead even though he’s not been charged, convicted, nor given due process.  What an American Standard – THE DOUBLE STANDARD.  With that being said, it is clear why the US is not helping countries like Tunisia and Hungry.

The US has yet again managed to use fear tactics in order to silence people who disagree with them or who expose their truths.  With that being said – Newsweek stated:

In the face of such an assault on press freedom, you might expect the American media to respond assertively. But the pushback has been piecemeal and somewhat muted. The board of Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc., a nonprofit organization, urged the U.S. government to “exercise great restraint,” warning of “actions that could undermine American traditions of a free press and open government.”

Nonetheless – the American Public will not be muted.  The Press may fall into the US’s trap to silence Wikileaks and Assange but the American Public will not.  This is the information age.  We have the last free frontier at our fingertips: The Internet.  It’s time we crackdown on Authoritarian Governments who wish to silence the media and control what we know.  Information cannot be priced nor can it be oppressed.  Now that we have communication worldwide via the internet – there will be change and the public is demanding it.

Journalists and reporters across the globe are scared to write anything about The American Government.  Media outlets and organizations are scared as well.

Sites and Forums like this one are ran by citizens who are tired of being oppressed.  We will stand and fight against this “fear mongering” tactic being used by world governments and we will not be coerced or blackmailed.  That is illegal.  We do not support illegal activity.  We also do not support censorship.

Censorship is for the weak, the lazy, and the incompetent – namely, any Government that seeks to censor including the US Government.

Not only will the people of America suffer from all this hush hushing of the US government with regard to media and journalism – but the world will suffer.  There is an article that clarifies “why” the media shouldn’t be censored and neither should Assange and Wikileaks.  In the article, “admin” writes some of the following:

As Stone explains, the Supreme Court has recognized that government may overstate the harms of publication and underestimate the harms of secrecy.  The judiciary is not well equipped to second-guess this bias on a case-by-case basis.  So the Court struck this balance: government is allowed constitutionally to over-protect information and to secure it, while the press is perhaps over-protected to publish leaked information.  This is an obviously imperfect mechanism, but we live in an imperfect world, and other options are even more imperfect.

As a result, the burden of securing information falls on the government, not the press.  Jack Goldsmith reaches the same conclusion:

“It is also important to remember, to paraphrase Justice Stewart in the Pentagon Papers, that the responsibility for these disclosures lies firmly with the institution empowered to keep them secret: the Executive branch.”

So once again, the US is blaming Wikileaks (like so many other people doing the same) for things when it’s ultimately the US Government’s responsibility to secure their documents.  If the US had weak policies so as to allow someone access to those cables that were released, then the blame should be on themselves and nobody else – especially with the amount of “security” going on due to 9/11.

Administration officials and congressional staffs often leak information to the press for their own purposes—though they often leak to “friendly” reporters they hope to influence.  If the government could punish journalists for publishing classified information, Bob Woodward would be sitting in solitary confinement for the top-secret leaks in his last book alone.  Perhaps because of these realities, in 2000, President Clinton wiselyvetoed a bill that would have criminalized all unauthorized disclosures.

And why do you think that Clinton Veto’d that bill?  It couldn’t possibly be because he was afraid of the repercussions and consequences of enacting such a thing now could it?  Of course, there is political gain involved.  If he would have enacted that bill – then that would mean less political campaigning for politicians as well.

Wikileaks looks less like a hit man manual and more like the journalism of tomorrow (or yesterday). Dozens of traditional and new publications (and TV channels) have experimented with user-generated news content, including uploaded video and stories. Assange has recently been clothing his actions as journalism. Rather than engaging in a document dump, Assange has released less than 1% of the 250,000 cables, and is working with several newspapers (The Guardian, Der Speigel, El Pais, Le Monde, the New York Times) to vet and redactevery cable before publishing it.  His practices and those of journalists are converging. As online news models evolve and change, prosecuting Assange may set a precedent for limiting some beneficial experimentation with these new models.

If Assange is acting in such as way as to ensure that there is no “vital” information given in the cables through his own staff and other media outlets – then he is engaging in responsible journalism.  The over-classifying of documents is ridiculous.  Wikileaks and other media outlets are publishing the relevant material that never needed to be classified to begin with.

True authority can account for itself and it’s actions – and be questioned about it.  False authority cannot.

Apparently those governments trying to hide cables with “gossip” about other countries are “false authority” since they didn’t want to account for their own words and actions.

According to Justice Department leaks to the New York Times, the Justice Department is considering bringing a case based on Assange conspiring with his source.  As law professor Jack Balkin observes, if Assange conspired, many journalists “conspire” with their sources, sometimes over drinks at the Mayflower Hotel, sometimes by email. Even if the standard for conspiracy is higher than “doing drinks” at a hotel, it would sweep up at least some journalists, who no doubt worked with their sources as closely as Assange did with his source. Such conspiracy claims could burden freedom of association, including anonymous association, which receives constitutional protection.

What is this “silence” going to say about the media in the future?  What is it going to say about those who wish to publish news when they had to go and “conspire” with someone to get more information before reporting it in the media?  Will journalists then be made to create stories based on assumptions only rather than facts?  If that’s the case, I’m going into the tin foil hat industry!

I agree with those who view these moves as an Internet “tax on dissent.” To put this in perspective, what if Amazon interpreted its terms of service to kick controversial politicians off its servers?  What if Paypal stopped processing payments to controversial newspapers, political blogs, or … Klansmen and flag burners?  What if Mastercard, after receiving calls from a Senator, refused to process donations to the Palin or Romney campaigns, while processing donations for the Obama reelection?  The affected speakers would be harmed and would have no legal means to defend themselves by challenging the government’s attempt to silence them.

The New York Times has raised concerns about these actions: “A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.”

U.S. administration officials should not help set a dangerous precedent of enlisting private parties to kick the legs out from political opponents.  Again, what would we think if the Chinese government engaged in similar activity with their financial intermediaries and their disfavored sites?

Reading this, does it make you wonder if the New World Order is actually something other than just a conspiracy theory?  Does it seem coincidental to you that all of this is taking place at the height of the US Economy Collapse?   The US in 2011 is going to monetize our debt by having the federal reserve buy 100 million dollars a month or thereabouts and monetize it.  What this means is that even though the value of the American Dollar is worth little to nothing right now – it will be worth even less after this happens.  That means if you wish to go buy bread at a grocery store – you might as well bring a wheel barrow full of US Dollars to the grocery store with you.  The American economy is about to implode.  So to engage in this type of “marketing” by pay pal, mastercard, visa, BOFA..etc, we are then giving up control of an entire nation to Corporate America – who is unregulated at the moment.

Be Sociable, Share!