Probably not. Society is more complex than that, especially when you mix perverse actions with seemingly honest intentions. If you reveal 10 military secrets that put lives at risk but then have 1 piece of whistleblower evidence to protect yourself that's a shortcut to getting all your secrets revealed. There is no society in which revealing state secrets would be tolerated without being quickly destroyed by their enemies. And it's certainly showing one dosent care about the lives recklessly put at risk either, so is this really about helping people or is it just a blaze of ego?

Personally I'm more or less ambivalent whether he walks free or not today, what matters is deterrence is established.

Nobody ever charged Assange with releasing secrets which led to to the death of any operative.

And if he did, it would make perfect sense to charge him with that.

Sure, they implied it might possibly maybe have happened and some suckers believed it. Why wouldn't they? They hated his guts because he exposed a war crime so naturally they'll sling any kind of mud they can - whether there is evidence or not.

In this case not.

My anedoctical experience is that Assange detractors are mostly restricted to US and some countries that are its closer allies. Here in Brazil I would find hard finding someone with negative views about him. Between informed people that knows about him, he is a hero that exposed the truth and an example of US hipocrisy concerning free press and human rights.

It’s a tad ironic, that Assange has quite many links with pro ruzzian information bubble.

For a person in his position - he must’ve been very naive to have a show on ruzzia today.

It isn't ironic at all. It is like asking "Why does the ACLU support freedom of speech of people who strongly oppose the ACLU?" It really isn't defending freedom of speech if we only defend the freedom of speech we like, is it?

It's no more or less ironic than Navalny the documentary being produced by CNN films.

If you're a dissident rival foreign powers will give you a platform which you won't get domestically.

Plenty of Russians think Navalny was a traitor because he made western documentaries. It's good to know you agree with them that releasing dissident material with a hostile foreign power means he is automatically a traitor I guess.

I wouldn't say that that is a position I agreed with though. I would say the principled stance is that dissidents should use the options available to them to avoid being silenced - hostile power or no.

We can't all be principled though, can we?

What? Wikileaks had a huge drop of shit about Russia they were going to publish.

Assange was told he would be falling out a window if he published it. Then he buried it.

He is only about publishing leaks about western countries that don’t directly tell him they will murder him.

That isn’t a free society.

Source?

There won't be any kind of source that isnt horseshit.

I think Snowden is a hero who deserves a medal from the president.

I think Assange deserves what he got.

The differences in what they did and how make the distinction.

Snowden saw something the public needed to know and filtered it through a journalist who did everything reasonable to filter and publish what the public needed to know. And the public really did need to know it.

Assange tried to find anything and everything to publish in bulk and did so with no regards to the content or the need for anybody to know. He actually put things in danger and the things he leaked were of limited value and often hyped up to be much more than they were.

If you're an edgy teenager with a "fuck the system" mentality sure you'll appreciate Assange, but I'm not. That's not dystopia.

Information (and truth) need no filtering. Such "filtering", in my opinion, is equal to tempering and it taints the truth.

Ok, why don't you publish the contents of all of your text messages, emails, and recordings of all the phone calls you've ever made and put a video camera in your bedroom streaming 24/7?

Because my text messages asking my girlfriend to pick up some food on her way back is of no interest to the public.

If, however, I am suspected of committing a crime, the police expects the whole untempered truth and anything else can be considered as obstruction of justice. If I can be held to this standard, so does our public servants in the government.

The government, however, has the power to hide stuff from the public. Leakers and whistleblowers are the only thing that can hold them accountable.

Because they (or myself - or yourself) are not empowered to systematically commit crimes by their/our citizens - who pay for the privilege of that through taxation.

So - you are saying that governments should not be accountable and transparent in their operations? Transparency within the limits of safety (intelligence gathering/criminal investigation (while it is underway - once it hits the courts and convictions are made, should be transparent) - yet - what happens when those who have the power are abusing it and committing criminal acts?

Yeah - give me the leakers, give me the dissidents - because you end-up with an out-of-control fascist police-state otherwise.

>what happens when those who have the power are abusing it and committing criminal acts?

I never saw anything on Wikileaks I thought needed to be leaked.

>Because they (or myself - or yourself) are not empowered to systematically commit crimes by their/our citizens - who pay for the privilege of that through taxation.

You have power over, say, your children, spouse, parents, maybe you manage folks? Do they have a right to dump all your information to each other?

>Yeah - give me the leakers, give me the dissidents - because you end-up with an out-of-control fascist police-state otherwise.

This is exactly the kind of teenage rebel logic I'm talking about. Snowden exposed an actual significant abuse of power issue. Assange didn't, as far as I know with the things I've seen and remember. People who want to blindly rebel but have nothing but vague charges and cannot point to real issues supporting anything anti-government.

Adults need to focus on understanding the real problems of government and providing real feedback on logically sound arguments. Not ambiguous "down with the man" rhetoric. You live in a world that needs government to function and governments need to keep secrets.

>I never saw anything on Wikileaks I thought needed to be leaked.

This is essentially a pro war crime position.

huh? Wikileaks used all reputable journals/newspapers to vet and publish doc that would ensure no soldiers or civiliands will be hurt by the disclousre.

How is that "fuck the system" ?

How is trying to uncover warcrimes a bad thing?

Yeah, I also agree that the public really doesn't need to know everything their leaders are up to. It's much better for us if we only receive pre-filtered information.

Perhaps journalists are not the best choice, though, don't you think? In a democracy I'd say the most trustworthy people we have to be tasked with filtering our information are our freely elected politicians!