Wikileaks Mega Thread!

[Buffett and Colbert]

Why not?

Because there isn't any point to it except to use as a defense of censorship.

Or maybe so hundreds of people don't get trampled?

[The Parkus Empire]

Because there isn't any point to it except to use as a defense of censorship.

Or maybe so hundreds of people don't get trampled?

I don't see how such a law would deter someone from doing such a thing. The only likely way such a shouter could be caught is if everyone remained relatively calm (and even then only if a cop were there, and even then it doesn't seem likely that he could be sure of who said it or that such a person's friends wouldn't come to his defense), and thus, under such a circumstance, conviction seems pointless. Moreover, a trampling of this nature doesn't appear feasible in modern theatres, at least the ones I've been in. It just sounds like far-fetched twaddle used to support a weak position along the lines of: "Would you allow torture if a terrorists planted a nuclear warhead in New York and there was no other way to get him to confess?"

[Buffett and Colbert]

Or maybe so hundreds of people don't get trampled?

I don't see how such a law would deter someone from doing such a thing. The only likely way such a shouter could be caught is if everyone remained relatively calm (and even then only if a cop were there, and even then it doesn't seem likely that he could be sure of who said it or that such a person's friends wouldn't come to his defense), and thus, under such a circumstance, conviction seems pointless. Moreover, a trampling of this nature doesn't appear feasible in modern theatres, at least the ones I've been in. It just sounds like far-fetched twaddle used to support a weak position along the lines of: "Would you allow torture if a terrorists planted a nuclear warhead in New York and there was no other way to get him to confess?"

You do know that that's an expression, right?

In the US, as per Brandenburg v. Ohio, if speech has the intent to cause imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite such, it is not protected under the Constitution. And I don't see why it should be. Burying into the technicalities of a metaphor isn't really an argument. Just like with any other crime, people tried under "fire in a theatre" laws should be treated fairly, be awarded due process of law, be assumed innocent until proven guilty, not have the burden of proof on his shoulders, etc.

However, just so you know, I don't think Wikileaks is an example of yelling fire in a theatre.

[Sane Outcasts]

Or maybe so hundreds of people don't get trampled?

I don't see how such a law would deter someone from doing such a thing. The only likely way such a shouter could be caught is if everyone remained relatively calm (and even then only if a cop were there, and even then it doesn't seem likely that he could be sure of who said it or that such a person's friends wouldn't come to his defense), and thus, under such a circumstance, conviction seems pointless. Moreover, a trampling of this nature doesn't appear feasible in modern theatres, at least the ones I've been in. It just sounds like far-fetched twaddle used to support a weak position along the lines of: "Would you allow torture if a terrorists planted a nuclear warhead in New York and there was no other way to get him to confess?"

It's a quote from a 1917 Supreme Court decision that ruled speech which creates a clear and present danger, while serving no other purpose, isn't protected legally. The full quote is "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" and it was being used as an example, probably because 73 people died a few years earlier under those circumstances.

Now, as to whether the leaks fall under this category of speech, I doubt it. There doesn't seem to be any danger to world relations by posting this stuff online and it hasn't caused any riots or violent reprisals so far. Besides, this isn't a series of false accusations or manufactured evidence, it's real cables and real opinions. The real question that should be asked is whether encouraging people to break the law and jeopardize their futures to bring classified material to light is responsible on the part of Wikileaks or not.

[The Parkus Empire]

You do know that that's an expression, right?

In the US, as per Brandenburg v. Ohio, if speech has the intent to cause imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite such, it is not protected under the Constitution. And I don't see why it should be. Burying into the technicalities of a metaphor isn't really an argument. Just like with any other crime, people tried under "fire in a theatre" laws should be treated fairly, be awarded due process of law, be assumed innocent until proven guilty, not have the burden of proof on his shoulders, etc.

However, just so you know, I don't think Wikileaks is an example of yelling fire in a theatre.

Nah, the person who commits the crime caused by the wording should be held accountable (provided the guy who put the idea in his head wasn't involved in an entrapment kinda thing). The speaker shouldn't be blamed, unless that speaker has legal authority.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You do know that that's an expression, right?

In the US, as per Brandenburg v. Ohio, if speech has the intent to cause imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite such, it is not protected under the Constitution. And I don't see why it should be. Burying into the technicalities of a metaphor isn't really an argument. Just like with any other crime, people tried under "fire in a theatre" laws should be treated fairly, be awarded due process of law, be assumed innocent until proven guilty, not have the burden of proof on his shoulders, etc.

However, just so you know, I don't think Wikileaks is an example of yelling fire in a theatre.

Nah, the person who commits the crime caused by the wording should be held accountable (provided the guy who put the idea in his head wasn't involved in an entrapment kinda thing). The speaker shouldn't be blamed, unless that speaker has legal authority.

If someone who has access to a large following abuses his status to, say, get everyone to kill a minority member on x day, he should be held accountable. Speech should be productive. Inciting criminal activity is not productive.

[Allrule]

Assange's account just got frozen by a Swiss bank:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034

[Sane Outcasts]

Assange's account just got frozen by a Swiss bank:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034

They do take their claims of residency quite seriously.

[The Parkus Empire]

If someone who has access to a large following abuses his status to, say, get everyone to kill a minority member on x day, he should be held accountable.

Only if such followers couldn't possibly execute such a plan without a leader's expertise or legal authority.

Speech should be productive.

That's a nice, vague term right there. Doesn't seem like something being unproductive should make it illegal, anyway.

Inciting criminal activity is not productive.

It could be. Crime is not by definition "bad", just illegal.

[Buffett and Colbert]

If someone who has access to a large following abuses his status to, say, get everyone to kill a minority member on x day, he should be held accountable.

Only if such followers couldn't possibly execute such a plan without a leader's expertise or legal authority.

Why, if it can be proven that the orator sparked the chain of events?

That's a nice, vague term right there. Doesn't seem like something being unproductive should make it illegal, anyway.

Thankfully I explained why it is.

It could be. Crime is not by definition "bad", just illegal.

But the state's role in law enforcement is to maintain order through, well, the law. If a person's words were, beyond reasonable doubt, a cataclysm for other crimes, the state should make the person pay if he wouldn't have otherwise.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why, if it can be proven that the orator sparked the chain of events?

They I guess we should hold Marx responsible for a lot of shit.

But the state's role in law enforcement is to maintain order through, well, the law. If a person's words were, beyond reasonable doubt, a cataclysm for other crimes, the state should make the person pay if he wouldn't have otherwise.

And making him pay would maintain order how? Like the way Christ's crucifixion stopped Christianity?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Why, if it can be proven that the orator sparked the chain of events?

They I guess we should hold Marx responsible for a lot of shit.

If you can prove intent, imminence, and liklihood, sure.

But the state's role in law enforcement is to maintain order through, well, the law. If a person's words were, beyond reasonable doubt, a cataclysm for other crimes, the state should make the person pay if he wouldn't have otherwise.

And making him pay would maintain order how? Like the way Christ's crucifixion stopped Christianity?

Set, an example, etc. The concept of justice is integral in the American court system. If we were to simply say, "Oh, well. The deed is done. No one's going to miss that murdered chap anyway," there would be many murders roaming about without fear of consequence for their actions.

[Nobel Hobos]

Oh the irony of you bleeding heart liberals. "How dare they take away our civil rights to endanger other people's life's and civil rights."

I love it.

First point: with the post you quote properly linked to, it is clear that "you bleeding heart liberals" refers to the poster not the post. As a personal attack it is mild, but it's still personal.

Now, to your point: how does Wikileaks endanger anyone's civil rights?

Life is a right. Putting peoples lives at danger is not your right.

That's the point of "how dare they take away our civil rights to endanger other people's life" covered. But how does leaking endanger anyone's civil rights?

Or are you just going to pretend you didn't say that ...

[The Parkus Empire]

If you can prove intent, imminence, and liklihood, sure.

Do Marxist workers sabotaging machinery in the 19th Century fit the bill?

Set, an example, etc. The concept of justice is integral in the American court system. If we were to simply say, "Oh, well. The deed is done. No one's going to miss that murdered chap anyway," there would be many murders roaming about without fear of consequence for their actions.

It's a flawed concept. The courts rarely provide punishment equivalent to the crime (example, bank robbers forfeit years of their life--the punishment doesn't fit the crime). And then you have victimless crimes, such as selling drugs to adults who know the consequences, and our absurd punishment of that leads to worse crimes like murder. And even with a proper punishment, men and women desperate enough to commit, say, murder, will not be put off. Preventing criminals from repeat offenses makes more sense, but that isn't a primary goal.

[Buffett and Colbert]

If you can prove intent, imminence, and liklihood, sure.

Do Marxist workers sabotaging machinery in the 19th Century fit the bill?

I dunno. Can it be proved that Marx intended, with his speech, to incite them to do this? Were these crimes being committed likely or imminent given Marx's speech?

I don't really think so.

It's a flawed concept. The courts rarely provide punishment equivalent to the crime (example, bank robbers forfeit years of their life--the punishment doesn't fit the crime). And then you have victimless crimes, such as selling drugs to adults who know the consequences, and our absurd punishment of that leads to worse crimes like murder. And even with a proper punishment, men and women desperate enough to commit, say, murder, will not be put off. Preventing criminals from repeat offenses makes more sense, but that isn't a primary goal.

No one's saying the system is perfect. That's far from the truth. But what would your alternative be? No action whatsoever?

[Gauthier]

Life is a right. Putting peoples lives at danger is not your right.

That's the point of "how dare they take away our civil rights to endanger other people's life" covered. But how does leaking endanger anyone's civil rights?

Or are you just going to pretend you didn't say that ...

I bet he kept his mouth shut when Bob Novak outed Valerie Plame Wilson.

[Andaluciae]

I don't see how such a law would deter someone from doing such a thing. The only likely way such a shouter could be caught is if everyone remained relatively calm (and even then only if a cop were there, and even then it doesn't seem likely that he could be sure of who said it or that such a person's friends wouldn't come to his defense), and thus, under such a circumstance, conviction seems pointless. Moreover, a trampling of this nature doesn't appear feasible in modern theatres, at least the ones I've been in. It just sounds like far-fetched twaddle used to support a weak position along the lines of: "Would you allow torture if a terrorists planted a nuclear warhead in New York and there was no other way to get him to confess?"

It's a quote from a 1917 Supreme Court decision that ruled speech which creates a clear and present danger, while serving no other purpose, isn't protected legally. The full quote is "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" and it was being used as an example, probably because 73 people died a few years earlier under those circumstances.

Now, as to whether the leaks fall under this category of speech, I doubt it. There doesn't seem to be any danger to world relations by posting this stuff online and it hasn't caused any riots or violent reprisals so far. Besides, this isn't a series of false accusations or manufactured evidence, it's real cables and real opinions. The real question that should be asked is whether encouraging people to break the law and jeopardize their futures to bring classified material to light is responsible on the part of Wikileaks or not.

The damage that these leaks will have isn't a riot or violence against the United States--rather it's the irrevocable harm to the ability of our allies and others to trust the confidentiality of their communications with the United States. Without the sort of candid communication that is fostered by the classified nature of diplomatic cables, the harm is very real and substantial. How would you feel if the US embassy in Rome was unwilling to communicate it's honest opinion of Berlusconi for fear of the potential blowback of an embarrassing assessment should their opinions of his playboy lifestyle, cronyism and incompetence come to light? Just saying?

[The Parkus Empire]

I dunno. Can it be proved that Marx intended, with his speech, to incite them to do this? Were these crimes being committed likely or imminent given Marx's speech?

I'm talking about his writings. And they were likely incited by them, and fairly imminent. His works did promote workers rebelling against their employers.

No one's saying the system is perfect. That's far from the truth. But what would your alternative be? No action whatsoever?

Certainly not "punishment." It is not the government's place, since it's proven to be easily as bad as any criminal. To answer your question on what the alternative should be, it largely depends upon the crime.

[United Dependencies]

Assange's account just got frozen by a Swiss bank:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034

From your article

On Monday, Wikileaks released an extensive list of facilities around the world that, according to the latest leaked cables, the US describes as vital to its national security.

Spotlight on 'sensitive' sites
The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.

Alright I demand to know how this knowledge benefits the general public.
edit-New article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

[The Alma Mater]

Assange's account just got frozen by a Swiss bank:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929034

From your article

On Monday, Wikileaks released an extensive list of facilities around the world that, according to the latest leaked cables, the US describes as vital to its national security.

Spotlight on 'sensitive' sites
The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.

Alright I demand to know how this knowledge benefits the general public.
edit-New article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11932041

It saves them the 10 minutes needed to figure most of them out themselves ?
Seriously... why do people assume "enemy" means "utter moron" ?

[Cannot think of a name]

And Assange is under arrest in London.

Now with link... though by the time you read this you'll have heard about it all over the damn news, I don't know why I wanted to be the 'first' to mention it here...not proud of myself at the moment...

[Rambhutan]

And Assange is under arrest in London.

Now with link... though by the time you read this you'll have heard about it all over the damn news, I don't know why I wanted to be the 'first' to mention it here...not proud of myself at the moment...

Meh me too but got ninja'd by you. Not proud either....but competitive.

Though whether he can actually get a fair trial is doubtful...I seem to remember extradition has been turned down on those grounds before. Could be wrong about that.

BBC version of the story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

[James Bluntus]

What has been lost in the debate on wikileaks is this. Yes, it is good that an organisation is outing governments for doing bad things. However, what about this latest release? The sites on which the US identified as a security threat to them if attacked.

That is just inviting a terrorist attack.

The point is that some documents are kept secret for a reason. These documents should not be released.

[The Alma Mater]

And Assange is under arrest in London.

Hurrah.
Now that we have arrested "Interpols most wanted" - never knew you could become that based merely on a charge of sexual assault, buy hey - we can go back to looking for Bin Laden.

[The Alma Mater]

What has been lost in the debate on wikileaks is this. Yes, it is good that an organisation is outing governments for doing bad things. However, what about this latest release? The sites on which the US identified as a security threat to them if attacked.

That is just inviting a terrorist attack.

As I said a few posts above - terrorists are not idiots. If one sits down and thinks, one can easily produce that list on ones own. The information on where everything is is not exactly secret - heck, just about ALL of it has been readily available for years.