Assange prosecution attacks free speech of witnesses. Freedom of speech is a right.in News

NKJVPrewrather

Erfisflat

Not another one. Or is this the same one?

MayCaesar

What constitutes free speech in the modern world is a complicated matter. Take Snowden, for example. Some would say that by revealing confidential data he expressed his right for free speech and exposed unethical practices of NSA. Others would say that by doing so he violated a non-disclosure contract he voluntarily signed, and that the revealed confidential data put lives of the exposed individuals, as well as the structural integrity of the whole system, in danger. Which outlook is right? Both, in a way.

In the ideal world, governmental secrets should not exist: everybody should have full access to all information on public organizations. In the real world, however, openness is easily exploitable by individuals and groups aimed to use the information to their advantage. This is why we have privacy/confidentiality/access level laws, this is why we have non-disclosure agreements and travel restrictions, and this is why one cannot say anything they want with no consideration without potential repercussions.

Assange and his supporters have an ultra-libertarian view (which I am in general a big supporter of) according to which there should be zero barriers on the spread of information. However, they operate in the international legal system in which this is not the case. According to the international community, governments have rights on informational confidentiality, and if Assange and his advocates choose to disregard these rights, then they should not be shocked when threats from the governments start flying in their direction.

I am all for informational freedoms, but even I am pragmatic enough to not hack into a secured CIA server and then release the data I retrieve under my real name. Assange is an idealist living at the time well before his views become viable, and now he is facing the consequences of his naivety.

NKJVPrewrather

@MayCaesar People have the right to free speech or they don't. Make up your mind.

Applesauce

MayCaesar said:

What constitutes free speech in the modern world is a complicated matter. Take Snowden, for example. Some would say that by revealing confidential data he expressed his right for free speech and exposed unethical practices of NSA. Others would say that by doing so he violated a non-disclosure contract he voluntarily signed, and that the revealed confidential data put lives of the exposed individuals, as well as the structural integrity of the whole system, in danger. Which outlook is right? Both, in a way.

it's not complicated at all, only citizens in the U.S. have a right to free speech.

In the ideal world, governmental secrets should not exist: everybody should have full access to all information on public organizations. In the real world, however, openness is easily exploitable by individuals and groups aimed to use the information to their advantage. This is why we have privacy/confidentiality/access level laws, this is why we have non-disclosure agreements and travel restrictions, and this is why one cannot say anything they want with no consideration without potential repercussions.

secrets are leaked all the time and reported by the media, freedom of the press, they have protections.

Assange and his supporters have an ultra-libertarian view (which I am in general a big supporter of) according to which there should be zero barriers on the spread of information. However, they operate in the international legal system in which this is not the case. According to the international community, governments have rights on informational confidentiality, and if Assange and his advocates choose to disregard these rights, then they should not be shocked when threats from the governments start flying in their direction.

that's true, he's not in the U.S. hence no right to free speech or any protections, sucks for him

I am all for informational freedoms, but even I am pragmatic enough to not hack into a secured CIA server and then release the data I retrieve under my real name. Assange is an idealist living at the time well before his views become viable, and now he is facing the consequences of his naivety.

similar to  Ross Ulbricht 

MayCaesar

@Applesauce

Not all secret leaks are protected, however. The protections of this kind exist to facilitate one of the duties of the press: to watch the government and to make any corruption and violation public. For example, if someone working for senator Sanders find that Bernie violated the law and accepted a bribe from another Vermont senator to not vote against a certain legal proposition, then that someone can confidentially leak this data and be legally protected from retaliation from Sanders' staff.

However, when a secret is revealed by someone who has explicitly signed a non-disclosure agreement, then the presence or lack of protection depends on the nature of that secret. If secret contained illegal practices of the agency, then revealing those practices, indeed, is protected by the law. However, if the agency acted according to the law and the whistleblower simply found the actions to be immoral or different from how they are presented by the agency, then protection does not apply to such a leak. You cannot leak some information you vowed to keep secret just because you do not like what it suggests and expect to not be prosecuted for it.

This is just how the legal system works. Some would say it should not work like this, and I somewhat agree: I do not think non-disclosure agreements should exist in the first place, I think that it should be up to the employer to keep their information confidential by creating a proper security access system, and the concept of intellectual/informational property should not exist. However, neither of us has an exclusive say in the matter, and ultimately it should be defined as a result of a democratic consensus.