Julian Assange talks about libel...

DeVore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGshmyKhcX4

He says all the things I would like to hear said.

Its time we changed our laws here to protect whistleblowers and investigative journalists so that we have a properly functioning press who can keep the populace informed.

I think if anything, the recent events have shown just how "in bed" with our corrupt politicians our emasculated journos are.

Believe me, if they didnt think I'm kick up an unholy sh*t storm at the first, slightest hint of undue pressure here, they would try it on with us too.

This man should have been Time's Man of the Year but apparently Mark Zuckerberg won it with 1/20th of the number of votes.

As Colbert said, sorry Julian, I guess you just didnt invade ENOUGH people's privacy.


Either way, what he is saying about libel laws is so accurate for this country its painful.

DeV.

loldog

I hope he stops media-whoring and starts to raise the profile of Bradley Manning, who is being held in solitary confinement though not having been convicted of anything by a court of any kind.

The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention

.

Nodin

Rather off-topic. However - He doesn't raise his name, in case its used against Manning in his trial. He made oblique references to him yesterday, which I'd imagine is all thats safe to do at this point in time.

Wolfe Tone

Cant watch videos atm, anyone care to summarize what he says?

later12

DeVore wrote: »

This man should have been Time's Man of the Year but apparently Mark Zuckerberg won it with 1/20th of the number of votes.

In fairness, the reader's choice winner isn't necessarily the overall winner in any year; particularly so, perhaps, if rape charges have been brought against that individual.

Personally I though mark Zuckerberg was a deserving winner. Not just through his influence on social media which has effected most of us in our everyday lives, but in fact due to his belief in philanthropy, having agreed to donate most of his wealth to charitable causes.

To be quite honest, while embarrassing for the US, Saudi and a certain British Prince, I really don't see how Assange's 2010 contribution through his work has been as beneficial as Zuckerberg's.

Goodshape

later10 wrote: »

particularly so, perhaps, if rape charges have been brought against that individual.

Hitler was Man of the Year 1939. Being a good guy doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The Person of the Year is whoever "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year"

Bottle_of_Smoke

DeVore wrote:

Believe me, if they didnt think I'm kick up an unholy sh*t storm at the first, slightest hint of undue pressure here, they would try it on with us too.

Sorry what do you mean by this? Was I'm meant to be I'd?

The Raven.

It is always good to listen to what the person at the heart of the matter has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWAXiMIglXY

I am glad to see him looking so well after his ordeal, and continuing the fight for freedom of speech. It would appear that no evidence has yet been produced to back up the controversial accusations against him.

I think it is grossly unfair to accuse him of 'media-whoring'. Firstly, he would at present be hounded by the media, and secondly there are millions of people who want to see him and hear what he has to say. After all isn't that what it is all about - Freedom of Information, openness, transparency etc. This in no way negates or covers up the disgraceful, inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning. In fact it draws attention to the plight of whistleblowers in general.

later12

The Raven. wrote: »

I am glad to see him looking so well after his ordeal, and continuing the fight for freedom of speech. It would appear that no evidence has yet been produced to back up the scurrilous accusations against him.

Why do you say they are scurrilous?

The evidence of rape and coercian in the public domain may be absent or scant, but that is probably as it should be. This should be a legal case, not a popularity contest.

The Raven.

later10 wrote: »

Why do you say they are scurrilous?

The evidence of rape and coercian in the public domain may be absent or scant, but that is probably as it should be. This should be a legal case, not a popularity contest.

OK. Point taken. Post modified accordingly.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by 'a popularity contest'. Are you accusing me of seeing it in that light? I would hope not! I have done some research into it and the people involved. I'm not some naive groupie blinded by hero-worship.

later12

The Raven. wrote: »

However, I'm not sure what you mean by 'a popularity contest'. Are you accusing me of seeing it in that light? I would hope not! I have done some research into it and the people involved. I'm not some naive groupie blinded by hero-worship.

But you are removed from the investigation, or what little is known about evidence, as we all are. It is highly inappropriate, in such a situation, to describe the relevant accusations as scurrilous. I can only assume you are using such a description based on the reported yet totally unverified sequence of events, or else on an admiration of the character of Julian Assange as a celebrity.

The latter seems to be particularly widespread.

The fact that Mr Assange is a celebrity who has been responsible for high profile yet almost thoroughly irrelevant leaks, gossip in some cases, is the only reason I can realistically see for the widespread support for him and his situation as he awaits extradition.

The Raven.

later10 wrote: »

But you are removed from the investigation, or what little is known about evidence, as we all are. It is highly inappropriate, in such a situation, to describe the relevant accusations as scurrilous. I can only assume you are using such a description based on the reported yet totally unverified sequence of events, or else on an admiration of the character of Julian Assange as a celebrity.

The latter seems to be particularly widespread.

The fact that Mr Assange is a celebrity who has been responsible for high profile yet almost thoroughly irrelevant leaks, gossip in some cases, is the only reason I can realistically see for the widespread support for him and his situation as he awaits extradition.

As I stated in my last post, I took your point about the term ‘scurrilous’ and modified my post accordingly, yet you still continue regardless. It beggars belief! I am not going to waste my time by discussing it any further.

It is inappropriate to assume that everyone knows very little about this case, and it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that their views are based simply on ‘admiration’ of a ‘celebrity’. Try not to underestimate everyone’s intelligence.

It is also pointless at this stage trying to trivialize the WikiLeaks by describing them as ‘irrelevant’ and ‘gossip’, unless you have evidence to back it up.

later12

The Raven. wrote: »

As I stated in my last post, I took your point about the term ‘scurrilous’ and modified my post accordingly, yet you still continue regardless. It beggars belief! I am not going to waste my time by discussing it any further.

I must say I find your indignation rather surprising. In explaining my criticism of your post, further to your question, I was merely pointing, as I still do, out that the use of such a term was inappropriate. I acknowledge that you have altered your post accordingly, anyway...

It is inappropriate to assume that everyone knows very little about this case,

I'm saying, specifically, that there is little evidence or verified information in the public domain. You might think that you know a lot about it, but presumably that is largely based on media reports or gossip.

and it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that their views are based simply on ‘admiration’ of a ‘celebrity’. Try not to underestimate everyone’s intelligence.

But I did not suggest such a thing - If you read my post, I suggested it was either through admiration of him as a celebrity and a political leaks activist, or else through what are largely unverified media reports.

The public information is rather scant with regards to evidence. Or do you have some information that is not public?

It is also pointless at this stage trying to trivialize the WikiLeaks by describing them as ‘irrelevant’ and ‘gossip’, unless you have evidence to back it up.

Evidence? The cables are largely irrelevant gossip, or else irrelevant, or else simply verifying common knowledge. There were a few valuable revelations, such as the Saudi-Iran one, but i am talking about the majority being irrelevant or otherwise unremarkable from a political point of view.

loldog

The Raven. wrote: »

I think it is grossly unfair to accuse him of 'media-whoring'.

There's more to Wikileaks than just one person. There's a huge infrastructure that needs people to run. His high media profile has caused some friction among the Wikileaks staff.

.

DeVore

This thread ISNT about Wikileaks, Manning, Assange or the allegations against him.

Its about the points raised regarding the chilling effect of the libel laws in England (and I'm extending that to Ireland).... ie: the use of the court process as itself a punitive method.

DeV.

Sulmac

We should go the way of Iceland with it's "Modern Media Initiative".