Crosswords0 min ago
Is the Wikileaks website doing anything illegal?
Apparently the owner of the Wikileaks website is worried that America will attempt ro extradite him from Sweden if he is initially extradited there from Britain. Is the Wikileaks website actually doing anything illegal, or is it just showing the public information that America and other powers that be, would rather that the public did not have access to?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
QM, as I said, in my opinion generally one is free (i.e. has the choice) to tell of what one knows, including the trivial, personal (your accounts) or whatever. I would feel free to tell/show you anything I know without requiring you to keep it secret - then repeat that ad infinitum. Mischief is in the eye of the beholder and in that will be such a perception by those who don't want to be quoted (or their deeds made known, whether crimes or not). The question this thread raised was whether Wikileaks are doing anything illegal - my perception, under the presumption of freedom of expression, is that they are not doing anything illegal. There is absolutely no doubt that what they are doing annoyes the hell out of some, and indeed that in some countries what they have done is very possibly distinctly illegal. However, the internet is not the preserve of any single country's laws - what one does legally in one country is just that even though elsewhere it may be illigal - and thereby arises the question central to this thread. We once had the absurdity of something being published in France, but could not be quoted in the UK - the whole world knew but it could not be breathed on a few islands. The issues raised by Wikileaks are to me essentially ones of morality, not ones of crime versus innocence. Whether you choose to hold a group of institutions/officials/etc. up to the light is up to you, some will consider you mischievous, others brave, yet others perhaps amusing or the whole storm just plain uninteresting. Those who are furious would like it to be treated as a crime, whether there is any basis for that or not. If the messenger is handed over to a country where his otherwise free expression is illegal then clearly he is likely to be prosecuted. In the old days to question the system was illegal in the Soviet Union but the US and the West were vocal in protest and felt righteous when they "freed" and/or "protected" defectors. Now certain countrie
Now certain countries would be very pleased to have the opportunity to prosecute those who exercise the freedoms that in those countries have been hailed as sacred for generations. I don't claim to know everything about the circumstances of all the Wikileaks story, but I must say that the double standards, including a rather sad history in the Swedish case, leave me distinctly disappointed.
QM appears to be taking the tack that assange needs a public interest defence.
That might be the case if he had actually broken the law.
To compare him to a fence who sells on stolen property for a profit is clearly laughable.
The definition of theft involves the intention to permanently deprive the owner of something - so much as he'd like to label this a a theft it never can be.
I think we can be pretty clear that Assange has not broken the law by the simple fact he's not been arrested on any offence related to the publication nor any extradition.
If the Americans thought they had a snowballs chance in hell of extraditing him from the UK they'd be at him like a rat up a drainpipe.
You may not like what he's doing but he's clearly not broken the law.
That might be the case if he had actually broken the law.
To compare him to a fence who sells on stolen property for a profit is clearly laughable.
The definition of theft involves the intention to permanently deprive the owner of something - so much as he'd like to label this a a theft it never can be.
I think we can be pretty clear that Assange has not broken the law by the simple fact he's not been arrested on any offence related to the publication nor any extradition.
If the Americans thought they had a snowballs chance in hell of extraditing him from the UK they'd be at him like a rat up a drainpipe.
You may not like what he's doing but he's clearly not broken the law.
Every country is actually different. As far as I know in the UK if you don't sign up to the Official Secrets Act you're not bound by it. There is law on spying but would need to look into that, but at present the US think it is illegal there http://www.csmonitor....u-re-breaking-the-law while not in Australia http://www.news.com.a...n79cf6x-1225972733947
I'd need to have a word with my expert but so far I've found in the majority of countries it would not be an offence, presumably they would never have continued had they known it would be likely to break the law.
In America the law is not exactly clear either as the arguments are it is closer to the UK than they would like to think http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301156
Probably the best answer is it's not illegal in many countries, and a grey area in the others. As the law is different in each you will get a few where any sharing of information is illegal as in some of the communist states, but can't see any of the rest cooperating should they want to prosecute them.
I'd need to have a word with my expert but so far I've found in the majority of countries it would not be an offence, presumably they would never have continued had they known it would be likely to break the law.
In America the law is not exactly clear either as the arguments are it is closer to the UK than they would like to think http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301156
Probably the best answer is it's not illegal in many countries, and a grey area in the others. As the law is different in each you will get a few where any sharing of information is illegal as in some of the communist states, but can't see any of the rest cooperating should they want to prosecute them.
Publishing one file or series of files is not going to stop governments saying one thing and doing something quite contrary (and pretending it did not happen), or plot something very unsavoury, nor will it stop officials holding unflattering opinions of someone. These cables having come out should have led to those who sent/held them showing more grace than is evident, instead they huff and they puff and (to my eyes) make themselves look a bit silly. What it will probably do is cause the category of people involved to be more guarded, less flippant, but hopefully it will lead to governments being more consistent between the public and back room arenas (don't hold your breath) because all this can so easily happen all over again - that is why I see this as a positive rather than a negative event/development.
Jake, I have heard nothing of what the American military authorities are doing about Private Bradley Manning, but there is no doubt in MY mind but that he stole - or otherwise illegally obtained - the material in question. Are you telling me that Assange is making no profit from that fact? If he IS profiting, how exactly is the word 'fence' laughable? As far as I can see, it fits the Chambers definition...a receiver of stolen property...accurately.
And wasn't it hilarious that Assange asked the judge to keep his bail address secret? As far as he is concerned, obviously, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" doesn't apply!
And wasn't it hilarious that Assange asked the judge to keep his bail address secret? As far as he is concerned, obviously, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" doesn't apply!
Apparently Assange has been the victim of a leak and is now complaining about it through his lawyers.
The Guardian have published details of the sex allegations against him due to leaked police info ( http://www.guardian.c...ulian-assange-sweden)
Well he can't have it both ways can he?
The Guardian have published details of the sex allegations against him due to leaked police info ( http://www.guardian.c...ulian-assange-sweden)
Well he can't have it both ways can he?
Displaying hidden information can also be a cause for good. Imagine if the secret talks between Blair and Bush had been made public before the Iraq war. Would anyone in Britain have voted for it? Think of the lives that could have been saved not to mention the disruption in the whole of the Middle East and also the expenditure that has helped to get us into debt.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.