This is true in both directions and Assange is the perfect example of that. Someone being a whistleblower is not a get out of jail free card and there are still laws regarding how whistleblowing should be handled and what qualifies. Assange leaked a lot of important stuff that qualifies, but that wasn't all he leaked or did. A shockingly few number of people seem willing to engage this issue with the nuance that is requires and either label Assange a hero or a villain when he clearly is somewhere in between.
In the beginning Assange tried to vet the leaks he published. He contacted the US over the Manning leaks to go over them so he could publish without risk, the US refused.
So Assange set up a huge team of journalists to comb through the documents to see what was safe to publish. One of those journalists working for The Guardian proceeded to publish the key to the entire database, ensuring everything was leaked
Shortly after, he ends up in embassy and was unable or unwilling to do similar things.
Interested in any links you could provide, too.
If you want a deeper dive, I'm sure something exists but I don't remember where it would be.
Are you suggesting with this "unable or unwilling to do similar things" part that he should be excused because he tried to do it initially? Should we forgive a lapse in journalistic ethics from that point forward because he started out on the right path and just couldn't stick to it?
It might have been somewhat leaked before, maybe because of misscomunication/individual action. But it was not known widely before - still, Wikipedia made the decision to publish all unredacted on their own:
"WikiLeaks said that on 2 September it would publish the entire, unredacted archive in searchable form on its website"
Wikileaks said their decision to publish was to prevent third parties from tampering with the leaks creating false stories, but it was likely primarily that Assange and Wikileaks wanted the credit for the leak. Not a noble reason, but it still wasn't their fault they were in that shitty situation.
This is much bigger than Assange.
I assume you mean the famous "collateral murder" videos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
That is my biggest issue with the whole wikileaks thing. Because it might borderline a warcrime by being careless - but it was no murder. Yet it was framed as the US army just killing journalists for fun. But it was not at all like this.
There was active fighting, the journalists that were killed were embedded with active fighters - and their camera misstaken for an RPG. Those things can happen, especially if the journalists do not mark themself as journalists.
"The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press"
The second attack while civilians evacuated and the children killed in the van - that was the bad thing. But it was still in the context of US troops receiving fire. So not at all allright, dirty war in a urban area - but not intentional murder. It was collateral damage in a wrong war.
I'm familiar with the video. Unfortunately, I don't see that WikiLeaks ever did publish that one.
All the other stuff in the video is either legal or something which could be an honest mistake.
At least part of that lesson is that if you engage in partisan politics with your 'journalism' then you instantly become a great deal less sympathetic with about half the population. That includes a bunch of people in positions with enough power to make your life complicated.
I find it troubling that people dont have the nuance to identify that hes a bit of a smelly housemate and problematic manager but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind.
I hesitate to even bring it up because it tends to poison any online discussion, but the DNC leaks were a pretty obvious one. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that the leaks were truly whistleblowing despite not actually revealing any illegal behavior, the way he continued to insinuate that Seth Rich was his source despite Assange still being in contact with the source after Rich's death should make it clear that Assange was not acting ethically.
>but ultimately a clear net benefit to mankind.
And this was exactly my original point. This isn't how the law works. We don't throw the good and bad on the scales of justice to see which side is heaviest. He did plenty of good things. He committed some crimes. The good things don't excuse the crimes.
Shoot, there goes the argument I was planning to deploy against Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.
Assange is a journalist. The DNC leaks were public interest. The fact that they occurred during an election heightened that public interest. They were 100% justified in the US in moral and legal terms under 1A. Unless you are still tilting at forgotten politicians its really really weird to keep harping on about.
>This isn't how the law works.
What has law got to do with morality, other than often standing in the way of morality?
He has consistently maintained that the crime they charged him with "Soliciting covert information" should be protected under 1a. Or at least otherwise protected as journalism. He isnt even a US citizen mind, but US law doesnt give a shit.
Law should follow morality. Any normal right thinking human bean should understand that its literally the job of journalists to solicit and expose public interest information. If the government is committing crimes, if the government is acting in a way counter to their domestic narrative (which you base your vote on), if the government is treating its foreign partners especially shittily, the public has a right to know.
That the US had made doing so a crime, is a matter for the US electorate to deal with. They should remove the dumb as dogdoodoo law, or remove the government that opposes removing that law, physically if necessary. That he failed to abide by a set of stupid rules in doesn't suddenly make his actions amoral.
Its not that on balance he did some good and some crimes. Its that his crimes were in the public interest, so the law that made his actions criminal, is at fault not he.
I actually don't understand why this has to be brought up. I don't understand why people cling to law as a substitute for morality. Governments are very often wrong.
And on the other hands there are Nazis who just followed legal orders.
Isn't "it's difficult to prove that people literally died because of his actions" a pretty low bar to set?
