Assange Arrested


Under British law, bail is only legally breached if there’s a failure to meet bail ‘without reasonable cause’, which the human right to seek asylum certainly is.

Are you being facetious here? Genuinely confused.


Publisher is sensible.


He’s also a journalist.


Yes, so you keep saying.
Do you have an article he’s written?
Not an opinion piece.


Yes so I keep saying and a sleuth of top investigative journalist out there echoes that same opinion. His work with Manning to over the Iraq/Afghan war logs is the core of investigative journalism. Your personal definition of ‘journalism’ appears to be extremely rigid.


And yes, my definition of a journalist is rigid enough to exclude myself.


I just gave you a direct example of journalistic activity and because it doesn’t suit your narrative you’ve dismissed it out of hand.

I didn’t expect anything else tbh. Nothing I say or show you is going to change your mind so let’s agree to disagree.


Can you point me to the case law on that?

That provision is to protect you if you’ve literally been hit by a bus.


An example of what I asked for would change my mind.
Quite rude of you to assume I’d ignore what I specifically asked for.


What Wimmera said …


Seems to have pleaded guilty
Judge’s sentencing remarks are up on the site.
Three reasons given:
-deliberately put himself out of reach
-cost to taxpayer£16m
-did not surrender willingly
Mitigating circumstances ( fear of extradition to US and voluntary forfeiture of bail money) dismissed
Could be eligible for parole halfway through


Worked with Manning ?

Yep probably handled the downloads and then posted them. What a journalistic feat !!!


Peter Greste does not consider Assange a journalist. He has every reason to be concerned about journalistic freedom, given what happened to him in Egypt. He is very critical of Assange, highlighting that real journalists make great effort to go through source material and only publish what is in the public interest while Assange and Wikileaks do none of that.


Can I ask who Peter Greste is to appoint himself the arbiter of public interest?

Journalism is failing society on the whole. Journalists can no longer be trusted (as a group) to determine public interest.

Apparently, Chris Kenny is a journalist.


He doesn’t appoint himself the arbiter of public interest. He does, however, have an opinion about these matters and given that he has suffered and been jailed on trumped up charges for doing journalism, perhaps his opinion carries some weight.


I’m aware of who he is, and agree that his opinion carries weight.

I disagree with the assertion that journalists have the right to decide what should and should not be public knowledge.

Personally, I find the whole “he is / isn’t a journalist” discussion a distraction and nothing more than a construct to paint Assange as a doer of evil as opposed to an exposer of evil.

For me it comes down to one question: Did Assange lie or manipulate when he released information?

The fact that he didn’t makes him morally superior to the majority of “journalists” operating today.

Edit: Greste does appoint himself arbiter. I read his opinion piece and your summary is an accurate reflection of what he believes:

I’m sorry, but why should I trust him or anyone in his profession to decide what I should know?


Assange was dishonest or at least willingly misleading in amplifying Seth Rich. Happy to add to a mourning family’s pain over his death and the conspiracy built around it in order to distract from his actual sources.


I guess that could be argued, but the point he makes is that if your source is very sensitive and classified, such as disclosing who are your field operatives, if you don’t apply some kind of public interest filter, and simply disclose it all, you put people’s lives in danger - and this so regardless of whether it achieves any public good or not.

So in choosing what to publish based on the public interest, he is an arbiter of public interest - so to that degree I change what I said above. The law requires them to be where the public interest is a defense to charges (eg under various anti-terrorist laws that limit public disclose). If they don’t bother to do this arbitration, they risk jail.

In the case of Assange, he mainly published as is. He did feel free to editorialize: eg “collateral murder”, but in that case the publication of that source material was in the public interest.


So effectively @FromOutside50’s point is completely irrelevant since it is about whether he would be guilty or not, and it turns out he pleaded guilty! :rofl:


Out of curiosity, is @theDJR a journalist for what he posts on Blitz regarding the VFL matches? :thinking: