Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: WikiLeaks Scandal
i said on news of the world some time ago..
founder now is "Interpol wanted" for a supposed "rapper" in Sweden, just when the last leaks were sent to some main newspapers , the NY Times (USA), the Guardian (UK) and El País (Spain). I dont know if others newspapers received that information
Now some people wants him dead...it shows how limited the freedom of speech is, and that no one cares about it ( you are the first one , and the last news about it are some days old )
typo
(edited)
founder now is "Interpol wanted" for a supposed "rapper" in Sweden, just when the last leaks were sent to some main newspapers , the NY Times (USA), the Guardian (UK) and El País (Spain). I dont know if others newspapers received that information
Now some people wants him dead...it shows how limited the freedom of speech is, and that no one cares about it ( you are the first one , and the last news about it are some days old )
typo
(edited)
I am a big defender of freedom of speech ... but this is just theft of information. So freedom of speech has nothing to do with it.
but this is just theft of information
so what? Have you read about Nixon and Watergate case?
So you defend that is ned to kill that aussie brave guy? or to accuse him of anything, dosent mind if rape or tax evassion or...so with him in the jail stops wikileaks
I dont think you are a big defender of freedom of speech when you show that opinion
so what? Have you read about Nixon and Watergate case?
So you defend that is ned to kill that aussie brave guy? or to accuse him of anything, dosent mind if rape or tax evassion or...so with him in the jail stops wikileaks
I dont think you are a big defender of freedom of speech when you show that opinion
Can you prove that he is not guilty of rape? I guess not.
However, I also get the impression this could be a set-up. Though, you can never know until there is real proof for either side.
About theft:
I think it's also a question of how to control governments, firms and military aside from the control machinery installed by the same governments or similar.
Journalism has the task to inform about things going wrong when the designated control mechanics don't work as they should. It's obvious that the controlled institutions will try to hide this and thus there are only few ways to get this information, e.g. one is informants, another is stealing.
However, I also get the impression this could be a set-up. Though, you can never know until there is real proof for either side.
About theft:
I think it's also a question of how to control governments, firms and military aside from the control machinery installed by the same governments or similar.
Journalism has the task to inform about things going wrong when the designated control mechanics don't work as they should. It's obvious that the controlled institutions will try to hide this and thus there are only few ways to get this information, e.g. one is informants, another is stealing.
i can not prove it neither i cant prove it. Its curious the accusation starts again just when last leaks where sent to newspapers.
Teorichly, freedom of speech protects journalists in that way, so he can not be judged by giving newspapers his informations. Only can be judged the foint if USA gov catch him.
I think this is so clear, just aplying some logic
(edited)
Teorichly, freedom of speech protects journalists in that way, so he can not be judged by giving newspapers his informations. Only can be judged the foint if USA gov catch him.
I think this is so clear, just aplying some logic
(edited)
but this is just theft of information
so what? Have you read about Nixon and Watergate case?
So you defend that is ned to kill that aussie brave guy? or to accuse him of anything, dosent mind if rape or tax evassion or...so with him in the jail stops wikileaks
I dont think you are a big defender of freedom of speech when you show that opinion
First of all, if you had read previous topics, you would have seen that I am a big defender of freedom of speech. I have no problem with insulting whatsoever. And no, I don't want the guy to be killed, not at all, as I'm an opponent of death penalty. But WikiLeaks should be offline. Stolen information must never be published, that's a basic rule. And I repeat, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can say things that are published ( I don't mind what you say about Saudi-Arabia, Iran, ... I wouldn't care if you said Obama is big friends with Ahmadinejad, and they have intentions to kill Putin ... if someone would really believe that, no problem ), but you cannot publish them.
so what? Have you read about Nixon and Watergate case?
So you defend that is ned to kill that aussie brave guy? or to accuse him of anything, dosent mind if rape or tax evassion or...so with him in the jail stops wikileaks
I dont think you are a big defender of freedom of speech when you show that opinion
First of all, if you had read previous topics, you would have seen that I am a big defender of freedom of speech. I have no problem with insulting whatsoever. And no, I don't want the guy to be killed, not at all, as I'm an opponent of death penalty. But WikiLeaks should be offline. Stolen information must never be published, that's a basic rule. And I repeat, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can say things that are published ( I don't mind what you say about Saudi-Arabia, Iran, ... I wouldn't care if you said Obama is big friends with Ahmadinejad, and they have intentions to kill Putin ... if someone would really believe that, no problem ), but you cannot publish them.
Teorichly, freedom of speech protects journalists in that way, so he can not be judged by giving newspapers his informations.
Not true. Not true at all. A journalist cannot publish documents without the permission of the original writer.
Not true. Not true at all. A journalist cannot publish documents without the permission of the original writer.
According to freedom fo speech laws, it can be published.
No. Freedom of speech doesn't exclude copyright.
Not true. Not true at all. A journalist cannot publish documents without the permission of the original writer.
Again, read about Nixon case. You dont belive in freedom of speech but in freedom of goverments to tell us what they want to tell, no freedom jounralists.
Fxxing Osama Bin Laden 1- democracys 0. Without a bullet some countries are getting less democratics, great.
Again, read about Nixon case. You dont belive in freedom of speech but in freedom of goverments to tell us what they want to tell, no freedom jounralists.
Fxxing Osama Bin Laden 1- democracys 0. Without a bullet some countries are getting less democratics, great.
So, if I break into your house, steal personal documents of you, and publish them online, you won't have any problem with it?
No. Freedom of speech doesn't exclude copyright.
Your statement is false. If true, that guy would have been accused of "copyright bla bla bla", but he is being accused of rape.
Your statement is false. If true, that guy would have been accused of "copyright bla bla bla", but he is being accused of rape.
Everyone has the right to say what he wants. The government has obligations ( things they have to tell, things they have to publish ), but it seems normal to me that 'secret stuff' ( you know what I mean ) isn't supposed to be published.
So, if I break into your house, steal personal documents of you, and publish them online, you won't have any problem with it?
No one is break nothing, there is a foint thats all. I have to go to do a strange thing called work, bye.
but it seems normal to me that 'secret stuff' ( you know what I mean ) isn't supposed to be published.
But it has been. And the journalist is not accused for publishing ( freedom of speech remember), but for rape.
(edited)
No one is break nothing, there is a foint thats all. I have to go to do a strange thing called work, bye.
but it seems normal to me that 'secret stuff' ( you know what I mean ) isn't supposed to be published.
But it has been. And the journalist is not accused for publishing ( freedom of speech remember), but for rape.
(edited)
If true, that guy would have been accused of "copyright bla bla bla", but he is being accused of rape.
I don't know exactly how that rape-case is, but that statement is true if he didn't rape anyone ( I'm not in the position to know that ). He has been accused of offending the copyright for several years.
I don't know exactly how that rape-case is, but that statement is true if he didn't rape anyone ( I'm not in the position to know that ). He has been accused of offending the copyright for several years.