What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Julian Assange-

Julian Assange-

  • Yes and he will be a free man

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Yes but in prison

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • No

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • Other-See Below

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
You neglected to mention the sole reason Sweden went
after him. It was at the behest of the CIA.

Would like to think it was an innocent omission...
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
You neglected to mention the sole reason Sweden went
after him. It was at the behest of the CIA.

Would like to think it was an innocent omission...
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
You neglected to mention the sole reason Sweden went
after him. It was at the behest of the CIA.

Would like to think it was an innocent omission...

Indeed it was.

I wasn't aware of that but I could believe it easily.

The allegations were dropped so that is a silver lining.

It's terrifying to see our own country attempting to abolish a free press.

I don't know how anyone can look at this as left or right...

It's a question of us and them.

Truth is precious.
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
Last edited:

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
i've seen the words "in the public interest" in re Assanges exposures. exactly WHO gets to decide what is IN the "publics best interests"? does the public get a vote ? :unsure: :shucks:
 

Gry

Well-known member
Veteran

There’s Growing Support To Free Julian Assange Because He “Deserves First Amendment Protections”​


 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
you have no first amendment protections when distributing information you came by illegally. JMHO. prove me wrong...
 

dramamine

Well-known member
you have no first amendment protections when distributing information you came by illegally. JMHO. prove me wrong...
Why would he need first amendment protection when he's Australian? You may still not understand what journalism is, nor what it entails.
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
manning.jpeg

Maybe a good cellmate for someone else who gets convicted of the Espionage Act,
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
leaking government crimes is good
i agree. but do you expect for everyone to ignore HOW you got the information you exposed? i think that one should stand up and take responsibility for an action they believe to be "in the public good". a military member has the right to disobey a direct order, but they stand trial for that . part of the deal... what happened to the ethos of "i regret that i have but one life..."
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Why would he need first amendment protection when he's Australian? You may still not understand what journalism is, nor what it entails.
i didn't advocate for his 1st amendment rights. i've got a pretty good grasp on journalism (i think, lol) . want to discuss taking responsibility for ones actions ?
 

dramamine

Well-known member
i didn't advocate for his 1st amendment rights. i've got a pretty good grasp on journalism (i think, lol) . want to discuss taking responsibility for ones actions ?
Publishing information that the public needs and has a right to know is the highest and most important function of non-fascist journalism. That often includes information that the military complex and bloodsucking politicians don't want us to know. The press is supposed to dig these things up and let us know about them. It's why papers have names like Monitor, Free Press, Bulldog, etc. So, no, those who do that type of journalism are not to be punished in a free society.
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
Having access to top secret documents and publishing them using the defense of being a whistleblower is the strawman argument because it begins with the fallacy that this is justifiable. It is not, and Chelsea Manning can not make that legal determination. That is your fallacy. Only a court can decide.
Journalism bullshit.
 
Top