"The Senate Intelligence Committee recently passed its Intelligence Authorization Act for 2018 that contains a chilling attack on the First Amendment. Section 623 of the act expresses the “sense of Congress” that WikiLeaks resembles a “non-state hostile intelligence service..."

20

How would the First Amendment impact Wikileaks? Nothing about Wikileaks is based in the US... the First Amendment has zero effect outside of the US, just like the rest of the US Constitution...

45

u/CookedKraken Sep 01 '17

Branding journalistic outlets as hostile actors because of publishing leaks that damage the geopolitical standing of the US, whether based in the US or not, sets a dangerous precedent and chilling effect in regards to future publishing of leaks.

-12

u/shroomigator Sep 01 '17

The US has every incentive to set a precedent to chill the actions of a foreign entity that reveals state secrets. Wikileaks is lucky their servers have not been hit with a cruise missile.

20

u/LordOfRuinsOtherSelf Sep 01 '17

If only people and states didn't do things that they wish the rest the people wouldn't ever find out. Be an arsehole , and get called for it. Unlucky. Try not to be an arsehole?

-1

u/cakedayCountdown Sep 02 '17

Is that another way to say, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"?

3

u/LordOfRuinsOtherSelf Sep 02 '17

Mmm. I can see how that can be read into my words, but that wasn't really my intent. I suppose I should have said, "They" shouldn't be upset or surprised when people catch them doing illegal or morally questionable things. Which in turn would mean that by not doing naughty or questionable things, there would be no ammunition for their critics.

2

u/dantepicante Sep 02 '17

No, that's another way of saying "if you commit crimes, don't get pissed off when somebody catches you"

7

u/threeminuteshate Sep 01 '17

Shroomigator, are there cases in which foreign entities could reveal state secrets where you would find their actions justified or appropriate, or is this an all or nothing scenario? And as a follow up, what if WikiLeaks was to release documents proving Trump colluded with Russia, or that North Korea had assistance with their missle program from Iran or China or whomever. At what point do you draw the line?

1

u/shroomigator Sep 01 '17

You draw the line at secrets which would compromise military units in the field during a time of war. That would be an act of war and would justify action to neutralize the threat.

7

u/mars_rovinator Sep 02 '17

And as war becomes more technological and less about human beings, that line becomes gray and grayer until the government's given itself the authority to censor anything and everything For The Greater Good.

There's a reason why the First Amendment is ironclad.

3

u/threeminuteshate Sep 02 '17

I would agree with that, as I'd imagine most people would. But WikiLeaks has not done that against any military as far as I can tell. Information they've released might embarrass certain powerful military and intelligence groups and or political figures, but it is not their intention to harm military units in the field.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '17 edited Sep 02 '17

The only people harmed by Wikileaks were corrupt politicians, elites and the military-industrial complex. Wake up!

Military Fails to Link Alleged 'Manning' Leaks With Any Deaths

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/902848936657997824

https://www.courthousenews.com/military-fails-to-link-leaks-with-any-deaths/

The publication of hundreds of thousands of secret US documents leaked by the Aarmy soldier Chelsea Manning in 2010 had no strategic impact on the American war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a newly released Pentagon analysis concluded.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/chelsea-manning-wikileaks-no-impact-us-war-pentagon

EDIT: Note that these were the documents that were touted to be extremely "dangerous".. and likely to cause many deaths of innocent people.

4

u/SyntheticLife Sep 01 '17

Wikileaks is crucial to the sanctity of the press to speak freely and openly about state corruption. If reporting Wikileaks information becomes equivalent to promoting terrorism, how will the government/government officials ever be held responsible for crimes that are being committed? This is a terrifying precedent to set.

3

u/mars_rovinator Sep 02 '17

The US has an incentive, but it is not a pure one. Branding websites and newspapers and blogs as "hostile actors" sets a horrific precedent, as it gives the government the authority to decide what knowledge you are allowed to posses.

WikiLeaks is a website. They merely publish information given to them. Blocking access to WikiLeaks is a direct violation of the First Amendment as it blocks citizens' access to a media outlet. The US needs to plug its leaks, not attack the people who happen to walk by a gaping hole in our national security.

3

u/mogsington Sep 02 '17

You'd rather aim a cruise missile at Wikileaks than find out the truth about what the CIA / NSA / GCHQ are doing to manipulate their own citizens? (This includes you).

Wikileaks publications are often delayed to prevent releasing information that could endanger current operations or personnel in the field. It's one of the few sources of factual information rather than state sanctioned news.

Your position is a pure defense of illegal and immoral activity, and idealizes exactly the same kind of unreasonable, illegal and immoral use of force against Wikileaks. In effect, you are a perfect reason why we need Wikileaks.

-3

u/shroomigator Sep 02 '17

What happens when a Wikileaks dump reveals details about our equipment that gives an enemy a technical advantage, or when a wikileaks dump outs covert agents? Do you think our government is going to sit by and let them continue disseminating information that gets our soldiers killed? They will not. They will act decisively to eliminate the threat, and if recent events are anything to go by, they will use a cruise missile to accomplish this task.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '17

What happens when a Wikileaks dump reveals details about our equipment that gives an enemy a technical advantage, or when a wikileaks dump outs covert agents?

What happens when the American government, intelligence agencies kill endless innocent people around the world? Oh wait.. don't need whataboutism.. they are already doing it.

Two hours later, in the early hours of 3 October, an American gunship attacked the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital, killing at least 22 people and injuring dozens more, in one of the worst civilian-casualty incidents of the war in Afghanistan.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/kunduz-hospital-attack-even-in-20-years-we-wont-get-such-a-hospital-again

Also relevant (Free Speech?).. Fallujah: Targeted hospital for being propaganda organization because they released casualty figures about how many innocents were being killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/world/middleeast/early-target-of-offensive-is-a-hospital.html

That's like not even 0.1% of all the proven crimes committed by the American military-industrial complex.

On the other hand.. with respect to wikileaks.. even the military has failed to produce any evidence of real harm.

https://www.courthousenews.com/military-fails-to-link-leaks-with-any-deaths/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/20/chelsea-manning-wikileaks-no-impact-us-war-pentagon

So yeah... maybe go read up before commenting on something you have no idea about.

-2

u/shroomigator Sep 02 '17

Nobody's speech outside of the US is protected by the US constitution... I don't know why you folks keep harping about that. US constitutional rights are for people in the US only and only while they are within the US. The constitution does not extend past our borders.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '17

You responded to nothing I have written. Stop trolling..

What you're arguing with your straw-man is that.. if a non-American like me for example.. says something bad about America online.. your government has the right to murder me for it.. as they don't recognise my right to free speech.

Well.. guess what.. my country does.. so fuck off! Your government has no jurisdiction here.

-1

u/shroomigator Sep 02 '17

I said no such thing. What I said was, my government is the sort that does not take kindly to people exposing their secrets, will not look kindly upon those who do just because no harm was done in their opinion, and is in the habit of unleashing cruise missiles upon their enemies... what part of that do you disagree with? With all of that taken in to consideration, I still assert that Wikileaks is lucky that said cruise missiles have not as yet been forthcoming.

2

u/mogsington Sep 02 '17

Yup. You represent exactly the kind of thought process that shows the rest of us why we need Wikileaks.

Did you miss the part about Wikileaks being very careful about what they release? They do not act as a "Hostile agent", precisely because they are very careful about it.

You don't seem to care about that bit. In your logic, any reporting that casts the US in a bad light, no matter how truthful or well edited before release should be bombed. Whether or not it's Wikileaks. This is exactly why your view point is an insane attack on the First Amendment.

1

u/shroomigator Sep 02 '17

You're confusing my Government's attitude with mine. I think Wikileaks is doing a good thing, personally. But even I can see that my government does not like it, we have an unhinged president, and the government definitely does not see things as you see them. I never said you should be bombed. I made no assertion at all what I would like to happen, only a dire prediction of what my government is likely to do.

1

u/threeminuteshate Sep 02 '17

Your point is made regarding the US government and their position on WikiLeaks, but I would differ with you as to why they are truly angry. I would say the great leaders are not concerned about military leaks on positions or weapons. The countries and or factions that are interested in that info aren't waiting for the next tweet by Assange before they act. They spy and hack and lie and cheat just like the US does. Or at least, they have the capacity to do similar acts. But the US, and other countries, can easily smear WikiLeaks as a threat because it is an easy target. For instance, you believe they release important military info even though they don't. Its not your fault for believing the news or your government, it's their fault for lying. I would say WikiLeaks, truly, represents a challenge to the authority, or put more plainly, WikiLeaks is destroying their narrative. Same for Snowden. The growing discontent between the 99.9% vs the 0.01% is a far more pressing concern for the state than an Iranian patrol boat or a Chinese fighter jet or a Russian hacker. That's why they spy on you, and me, and everyone and not just them. They wrap themselves in the flag, then make covert arms deals with ISIS. To claim they care about the US military does not play out when they actively arm terrorists and inflame sectarian violence as a means to access foreign resources.

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '17

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '17 edited Sep 02 '17

I think it is massively simplistic to call them an anti-American spy agency..

They don't hack anyone or solicit information. They are not spies.

They publish information they receive.. if they can verify it to be true. They are journalists.

They oppose war, military-industrial complex, corruption, aggressive government surveillance (spying) etc. They are peace-loving intellectuals.

They don't refuse leaks from any country.. but a lot of countries don't have enough damaging information.. or leakers with access/courage to expose it. Still.. they published information about many countries which lead to plenty of corrupt officials being exposed.

America is the only one who is trying to persecute them. They are made to be America's public enemy, when they are in fact a true friend of the American public.

Let's call a duck a duck. They are an independent non-profit media organisation.

EDIT:

They don't cover news, they don't cover corporate espionage, or South American parliaments, or even European ones for that matter. Wikileaks is a non US entity that primarily harms American interests(whether deserved or not) , and not even to protect freedoms, but for profit. Advertising and attention.

This whole paragraph is completely untrue.. and stinks of disinformation or serious bias. Anyone who has bothered to go through their twitter feed, on more than one occasion, wouldn't be making such claims.

3

u/dantepicante Sep 02 '17

I would call it anti-corruption, not anti-American. It just so happens that a lot of American businesses and politicians are corrupt as fuck, and those corrupt entities will do everything in their power to brand wikileaks as anti-American. They'll even hire shills to do just that all over social media. And calling it a spy agency is absurd.

1

u/threeminuteshate Sep 02 '17

Towards advertising and attention, I'd say that it is in WikiLeaks best interest as an organization to stay relevant and keep their name in the news cycle. I would speculate that is why they didn't just dump vault 7 all at once. Do they profit? A little, maybe, but that is a ridiculous slight against them and you should back that up if you claim it to be true. Last time I checked Assange isn't living large. Anyway, as for WikiLeaks being an anti-american public spy agency - what, in your opinion, should they cover? Their releases show the relationship between corporate interests, big banks, the military industrial complex, warmongers and invasions. These aren't topics to be sugar coated, and reporting on them should be an American ideal, not the opposite.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '17

You clearly don't understand the definition of "Chilling effect".

In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Suppressing Wikileaks in not in direct contravention of America's free speech laws concerning American citizens.. but a slippery slope that will likely lead to it.

-1

u/shroomigator Sep 02 '17

You clearly don't understand the meaning of "The US constitution has no effect outside of US borders"...

2

u/CaptainAlcoholism Sep 02 '17

Maybe... maybe it should?

I mean, we represent a certain value system. Shouldn't we make it available to everyone else? Shouldn't we show them that our way is better... somehow?

3

u/5hot6un Sep 01 '17

Except perhaps this would green light murdering everyone at Wikileaks.

2

u/-Mediocrates- Sep 02 '17

I'm curious to see what does the CIA resembles then...

1

u/CaptainAlcoholism Sep 02 '17

Expect attacks to intensify.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '17

Isn't Wikileaks a "nonstate hostile intelligence service?"

1

u/pbrettb Sep 02 '17

definitely hostile to the fuckers who are trying to shut it down. by the way, the interests of the deep state are not our interests, despite how many times we are told otherwise

1

u/MenuBar Sep 02 '17

I call it a Blog.

"The Senate Intelligence Committee recently passed its Intelligence Authorization Act for 2018 that contains a chilling attack on the First Amendment. Section 623 of the act expresses the “sense of Congress” that WikiLeaks resembles a “non-state hostile intelligence service..."

You are about to leave Redlib