|
I am a huge supporter of free speech, but wikileaks isn't free speech.
Free speech is the right to say anything you want, to write anything you want. Not to publish documents you obtained illegally. The military have good reason to keep some things "top secret" to protect lives of soldiers, spies and civilians.
I have the right to say that the government shouldn't keep those things secret, I have the right to protest to have those documents released.... I do not have the right to obtain them illegally and then publish them.
We have an elected government for a reason, if you want to change how that government works then you have to become a part of it or lobby it.... not just release sensitive documents without any care for the consequences.
Anyone who thinks that we as a society have the right to know every detail should remember one thing, while we have that right, we as an individual are not qualified to understand most of these documents and even if explained to us by an expert, most people still wouldn't understand them. That is why we have elections and a trained military and intelligence services.... they specifically train and prepare to udnerstand these things and protect us.
The british government is not perfect, no government is, but they have the right to protect their operatives and soldiers. How would you feel if you're every move was posted online by someone else, without your permission? Would you then say "free speech" or would you want to have that person arrested for harassment and invasion of privacy?
|
Sorry KhrisKuel, but read up. The two women are in the same feminist political party and collaborated on this. Months after they slept with him they concocted this scheme, it's all come out due to their phone records and visiting the police station together to ask questions.
And now Assange has been denied bail because the judge said the charges are 'very serious'... lmao, so sad. They're going to execute him for this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-refused-bail-over-rape-allegations
|
I love the fact that if Assange gets convicted for a crime he obviously did not commit to its full extent, he is ultimately revealing yet another secret - the fallacy of the actual justice in our justice systems
|
Australian man hands himself into British police over warrant for arrest put out in Sweden.
Fucking Americans.
|
On December 08 2010 00:46 KhrisKruel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 00:42 Consolidate wrote:On December 08 2010 00:37 KhrisKruel wrote:On December 08 2010 00:35 RiotSpectre wrote:
Funny how these "incidents" of sexual crimes came up after all of the leaks hit the net. This is just revenge on the man who embarassed the government. And there's no better way to discredit a man than to make him out to be a sexual predator.
If you were a sexual predator, would you wait until the political scene surrounding you clears up so everyone knows for a fact that you are an asshole or would you use that to get away with your sexual desires? What does this even mean? If you can't read, it means he's using his political sensationalism to take advantage of his raping tendencies. I find it sick that everyone dismisses a rape allegation just because you agree with his political ideologies. Donnie Darko had it right. When that asshole was shown to be a child porn reader, his biggest supporter immediately dismissed his child porn allegations as political hogwash. That's what is going on with all of you
I note the following chosen wording:
`his raping tendencies´
`everyone´
`rape allegation`
`just because you agree with his political ideologies´
What you are asserting sir, is flat out false, and it has been posted in response to you several times now. And yet you keep posting misrepresentations...
|
Stop answering to this "Khris Kruel" fellow, he is either a troll (very obvious one at that), a fanatic red neck who refuses to see the facts laid out in front of him or a child who simply does not understand these facts.
It is obvious that these "rape allegations", if they were so serious, would have been prosecuted a long time ago when they were comitted and not now when everyone wants to bring Assange down. There are no coincidences in this world.
|
On December 08 2010 00:46 KhrisKruel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 00:42 Consolidate wrote:On December 08 2010 00:37 KhrisKruel wrote:On December 08 2010 00:35 RiotSpectre wrote:
Funny how these "incidents" of sexual crimes came up after all of the leaks hit the net. This is just revenge on the man who embarassed the government. And there's no better way to discredit a man than to make him out to be a sexual predator.
If you were a sexual predator, would you wait until the political scene surrounding you clears up so everyone knows for a fact that you are an asshole or would you use that to get away with your sexual desires? What does this even mean? If you can't read, it means he's using his political sensationalism to take advantage of his raping tendencies. I find it sick that everyone dismisses a rape allegation just because you agree with his political ideologies. Donnie Darko had it right. When that asshole was shown to be a child porn reader, his biggest supporter immediately dismissed his child porn allegations as political hogwash. That's what is going on with all of you
did you read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
and then re-read the BS you just made up about classified information and war crimes. gtfo troll
|
On December 08 2010 00:46 KhrisKruel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 00:42 Consolidate wrote:On December 08 2010 00:37 KhrisKruel wrote:On December 08 2010 00:35 RiotSpectre wrote:
Funny how these "incidents" of sexual crimes came up after all of the leaks hit the net. This is just revenge on the man who embarassed the government. And there's no better way to discredit a man than to make him out to be a sexual predator.
If you were a sexual predator, would you wait until the political scene surrounding you clears up so everyone knows for a fact that you are an asshole or would you use that to get away with your sexual desires? What does this even mean? If you can't read, it means he's using his political sensationalism to take advantage of his raping tendencies. I find it sick that everyone dismisses a rape allegation just because you agree with his political ideologies. Donnie Darko had it right. When that asshole was shown to be a child porn reader, his biggest supporter immediately dismissed his child porn allegations as political hogwash. That's what is going on with all of you
It's not so much my not being able to read as it is your inability to string together a coherent thought.
What information do you have access to that the rest of us don't? The evidence presented so far suggests that these rape allegations are highly suspect.
Are you so naive to believe that the political pressure levied against him is an adequate substitute for actual evidence for the crime he is charged with?
Most people here don't take you seriously. While I'd usually be loathe to respond to someone presenting such weak arguments. Here's in hope that you can learn to tread lightly in the future instead of making further unsubstantiated claims.
|
Donnie Darko had it right. When that asshole was shown to be a child porn reader, his biggest supporter immediately dismissed his child porn allegations as political hogwash. That's what is going on with all of you
I'm not saying he DIDN'T do it. However, given the information that has been released (statements by the women) it would seem that the sex was in fact consensual, at least by my definition.
Not to mention this isn't child porn, this is sex with adult women.
|
On December 08 2010 00:48 dibbaN wrote:
I love the fact that if Assange gets convicted for a crime he obviously did not commit to its full extent, he is ultimately revealing yet another secret - the fallacy of the actual justice in our justice systems
AFAIK he has not been convicted, only arrested. Two very different things.
On December 08 2010 00:53 Whiladan wrote:
Australian man hands himself into British police over warrant for arrest put out in Sweden.
Fucking Americans.
People keep making this point. Look, the American connection is an obvious thing to wonder about - it's disingenuous on your part to act as though seeing signs of American influence here is completely crazy. Cablegate (and other major Wikileaks actions) centers around the US, it is not a leap to wonder how much our government is involved in having him arrested.
That said, the British are not acting as helpless puppets here. Their government is taking action and should bear responsibility for that.
|
On December 08 2010 00:47 emythrel wrote:
I am a huge supporter of free speech, but wikileaks isn't free speech.
Free speech is the right to say anything you want, to write anything you want. Not to publish documents you obtained illegally. The military have good reason to keep some things "top secret" to protect lives of soldiers, spies and civilians.
I have the right to say that the government shouldn't keep those things secret, I have the right to protest to have those documents released.... I do not have the right to obtain them illegally and then publish them.
We have an elected government for a reason, if you want to change how that government works then you have to become a part of it or lobby it.... not just release sensitive documents without any care for the consequences.
Anyone who thinks that we as a society have the right to know every detail should remember one thing, while we have that right, we as an individual are not qualified to understand most of these documents and even if explained to us by an expert, most people still wouldn't understand them. That is why we have elections and a trained military and intelligence services.... they specifically train and prepare to udnerstand these things and protect us.
The british government is not perfect, no government is, but they have the right to protect their operatives and soldiers. How would you feel if you're every move was posted online by someone else, without your permission? Would you then say "free speech" or would you want to have that person arrested for harassment and invasion of privacy?
Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Also, please point to a case where Wikileaks caused a death.
None of the documents/cables released by Wikileaks have been 'top secret'.
|
On December 07 2010 19:53 decemberTV wrote:
The US has swedish prosecutors in its pockets ?
I mean the UK prosecutors are probably just following a European Arrest Warrant but the sweedes ?
The internets will change the world sooner or later. True democracy can be achieved online !
right until the power goes out
|
|
|
|
|
On December 08 2010 01:01 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 00:47 emythrel wrote:
I am a huge supporter of free speech, but wikileaks isn't free speech.
Free speech is the right to say anything you want, to write anything you want. Not to publish documents you obtained illegally. The military have good reason to keep some things "top secret" to protect lives of soldiers, spies and civilians.
I have the right to say that the government shouldn't keep those things secret, I have the right to protest to have those documents released.... I do not have the right to obtain them illegally and then publish them.
We have an elected government for a reason, if you want to change how that government works then you have to become a part of it or lobby it.... not just release sensitive documents without any care for the consequences.
Anyone who thinks that we as a society have the right to know every detail should remember one thing, while we have that right, we as an individual are not qualified to understand most of these documents and even if explained to us by an expert, most people still wouldn't understand them. That is why we have elections and a trained military and intelligence services.... they specifically train and prepare to udnerstand these things and protect us.
The british government is not perfect, no government is, but they have the right to protect their operatives and soldiers. How would you feel if you're every move was posted online by someone else, without your permission? Would you then say "free speech" or would you want to have that person arrested for harassment and invasion of privacy? Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_StatesAlso, please point to a case where Wikileaks caused a death. None of the documents/cables released by Wikileaks have been 'top secret'.
You are severely overestimating what our government considers "top secret". Top secret is not some spy show bullshit, a soldier could video an Iraqi fucking a goat and it will be classified top secret (ok, MAYBE secret) because it involves the war.
|
On December 08 2010 00:47 emythrel wrote:
I am a huge supporter of free speech, but wikileaks isn't free speech.
Free speech is the right to say anything you want, to write anything you want. Not to publish documents you obtained illegally. The military have good reason to keep some things "top secret" to protect lives of soldiers, spies and civilians.
I have the right to say that the government shouldn't keep those things secret, I have the right to protest to have those documents released.... I do not have the right to obtain them illegally and then publish them.
We have an elected government for a reason, if you want to change how that government works then you have to become a part of it or lobby it.... not just release sensitive documents without any care for the consequences.
Anyone who thinks that we as a society have the right to know every detail should remember one thing, while we have that right, we as an individual are not qualified to understand most of these documents and even if explained to us by an expert, most people still wouldn't understand them. That is why we have elections and a trained military and intelligence services.... they specifically train and prepare to udnerstand these things and protect us.
The british government is not perfect, no government is, but they have the right to protect their operatives and soldiers. How would you feel if you're every move was posted online by someone else, without your permission? Would you then say "free speech" or would you want to have that person arrested for harassment and invasion of privacy?
You pretty much contradict yourself.
When you support the freedom of speech there can be no "but". Be able to read/write/say anything you want BUT certain things is just not freedom.
The same goes for democracy. A real democracy REQUIRES citizens to have full access to any information that has to do with their country so they can valuate and vote accordingly.
|
Might have been said before, but i dont think this is to do with the Iraq documents or the cables. Sure they might have embarrassed the US Gov. a bit but didnt cause any serious consequences. I think this is more to do with discrediting him and trying to shut down the website before wikileaks can release their planned piece early next year which targets a major US bank. This leak is supposed to expose deep corruption in the US banking system and will lose a lot of very rich people, who have very strong lobbies in the US Gov., maybe even payoffs going to the Gov., a hell of a lot of money.
Source :
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/exclusive-wikileaks-will-unveil-major-bank-scandal/
|
On December 08 2010 01:07 accela wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 00:47 emythrel wrote:
I am a huge supporter of free speech, but wikileaks isn't free speech.
Free speech is the right to say anything you want, to write anything you want. Not to publish documents you obtained illegally. The military have good reason to keep some things "top secret" to protect lives of soldiers, spies and civilians.
I have the right to say that the government shouldn't keep those things secret, I have the right to protest to have those documents released.... I do not have the right to obtain them illegally and then publish them.
We have an elected government for a reason, if you want to change how that government works then you have to become a part of it or lobby it.... not just release sensitive documents without any care for the consequences.
Anyone who thinks that we as a society have the right to know every detail should remember one thing, while we have that right, we as an individual are not qualified to understand most of these documents and even if explained to us by an expert, most people still wouldn't understand them. That is why we have elections and a trained military and intelligence services.... they specifically train and prepare to udnerstand these things and protect us.
The british government is not perfect, no government is, but they have the right to protect their operatives and soldiers. How would you feel if you're every move was posted online by someone else, without your permission? Would you then say "free speech" or would you want to have that person arrested for harassment and invasion of privacy? You pretty much contradict yourself. When you support the freedom of speech there can be no "but". Be able to read/write/say anything you want BUT certain things is just not freedom. The same goes for democracy. A real democracy REQUIRES citizens to have full access to any information that has to do with their country so they can valuate and vote accordingly.
I think everyone here seems to be ignoring that there are not any democracies in the world (at least as far as major countries are concerned). Most of us have governments that are some form of republic. So the "true" democracy argument doesn't hold water-- we aren't a democracy, we are a republic, and there is indeed a difference.
|
On December 08 2010 01:09 Blacktion wrote:Might have been said before, but i dont think this is to do with the Iraq documents or the cables. Sure they might have embarrassed the US Gov. a bit but didnt cause any serious consequences. I think this is more to do with discrediting him and trying to shut down the website before wikileaks can release their planned piece early next year which targets a major US bank. This leak is supposed to expose deep corruption in the US banking system and will lose a lot of very rich people, who have very strong lobbies in the US Gov., maybe even payoffs going to the Gov., a hell of a lot of money. Source : http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/exclusive-wikileaks-will-unveil-major-bank-scandal/
good thing is, even if they kill him, the documents will come out.
|
Getting hold of/given illegal documents and publishing is what the free press is all about. Being able to say 'hey, this dosent look right, what is my goverment doing, I better give this to some journalists to dig in' is every citizens job, to do this anonymous to not risk being put to sleep or jailed to keep 'dirt' in the box.
It tells miles of wikileaks neutrality and belifs; releasing everything to the regular media including the 'strategic resources' document, a document that you can see faroff has nothing to do with anything, and a big chance as we see happening that supporters turn away from wikileaks for releasing this document. Should they have censored that document out of their pile and only give the parts/documents they like? No they gave everything, including things that can be used by politicans to turn the population away from wikileaks, giving politicans right 'they are terrorists'.
The two ladies in question more likely, seeing Anna Ardins 'revenge scheme' blog and the retracted twitters after etc etc was out to get a player that played them both, managed to talk them into having sex without a condom and possibly a broken condom as well. It could be a honeytrap, but more likely its two women that felt played/betrayed and wanted to get even. Hitting Assange with this at a bad time. Possibly being elevated to a honeytrap after the two women had comeforth and gotten light on them, using their story and unattachment to further another agenda to get at assange/leaks in bad light.
All in all, the free internet.
I have friends in Korea, Japan, India, Egypt, Europe, Russia and the US.
The next generation growing up now will have even more friends across the globe from the start of their lives. And you dont hurt your friends, or your friends friends.
Already in the US Id say that you now must begin self censorship as a citizen at a young age 'Will friending this guy from pakistans make me unable to get a job with the goverment in the future?' 'Will discussing wikileaks make me unfit for jobs in the future?'
All laid down by the hands of old institutions that only know how to operate in the old world, that don't want freedom and certainly not transparency; they dont see themselves as bad but they are hindering the development we all should cheer for: A more connected world where you dont label people by country or creed, were you dont have to wonder: Will my affiliation with thoose ideas land me in trouble? Will disclosing this information get me in trouble?
We will walk one of two paths, either we will retain freedom of speech and get it back to a better state and our coming generations in the west will mingle and interconnect more leading to a brighter future down the road. The second road I see is where internet is censored, were things continue as they always have, were you cant be anonymous, were goverments and old instituions by habit lay down more control to know everything about you, but critizing them lands you in trouble, this is were we are walking and this is precisely what thoose precious founding fathers knew would happen again and again if the people cannot watch and keep a goverment in reins properly. So the second road leads us to a place were the people of the free west once more learn why 'free press, freedom of speech, freedom' was such precious ideals to their fathers and their fathers fathers that they would fight and bleed for thoose rights that we today merrily give away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
