WikiLeaks

Flint · 12-09-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Traditionally news organizations are usually protected, Wikileaks is not one of those.

What defines a news organization? More to the point, once the precedent of howWikileaks (whatever they are) is handled in this situation, how can that be made to NOT apply to news organizations? What is the clear, legal separation?

What about unaffiliated individuals who may see information on the internet and post a link to it somewhere else (such as this message board)? Are we protected from prosecution? Is Undertoad?

This is genuine curiosity on my part--I'm not asking because I think I already know the answer.

Lamplighter · 12-09-2010, 10:56 AM

Flint, I think the old definitions of "news organization" is extinct.

But it is just because of your remark/question about liability, and copyrights,
when I re-post some item that I try to take real care with links, citations, and quote-boxes for the copied text.

My understanding is that copyright infringements are avoided if there is a good faith effort
to provide the citation AND the copied material is not the entire document.
That way, the reader has reason and means to go back to the original.

TheMercenary · 12-09-2010, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

What defines a news organization? More to the point, once the precedent of howWikileaks (whatever they are) is handled in this situation, how can that be made to NOT apply to news organizations? What is the clear, legal separation?

What about unaffiliated individuals who may see information on the internet and post a link to it somewhere else (such as this message board)? Are we protected from prosecution? Is Undertoad?

This is genuine curiosity on my part--I'm not asking because I think I already know the answer.

I guess my take would be based on "intent". What is Wikileaks intent on publishing the data, and what is a news organizations intent on publishing the data. I don't ever recall that the NYT or any other news organization stated their intent was to go after governments and try to bring them down. Assange has declared himself to be the judge of what is right and wrong. He is nothing more than an internet terrorist and should be treated as such.

Stormieweather · 12-10-2010, 10:38 AM

Editorial on those "real" journalists:

The willingness of leading media outlets to amplify clear falsehoods highlights their true allegiances

12-10-2010, 10:38 AM	#4
Stormieweather Wearing her bitch boots Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Floriduh Posts: 1,181	Editorial on those "real" journalists: The willingness of leading media outlets to amplify clear falsehoods highlights their true allegiances __________________ "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

12-09-2010, 10:56 AM	#2
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	Flint, I think the old definitions of "news organization" is extinct. But it is just because of your remark/question about liability, and copyrights, when I re-post some item that I try to take real care with links, citations, and quote-boxes for the copied text. My understanding is that copyright infringements are avoided if there is a good faith effort to provide the citation AND the copied material is not the entire document. That way, the reader has reason and means to go back to the original.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)