Help me with this: If you come across something that was gotten illegally, ie stolen property, and you use it for some purpose, are you not committing a crime?
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-12 17:52
Considering the title of your post I assume you talk about Wikileaks posting cables (smart me! :) )
As far as I understood they did use it for any purpose (like selling it to Good Ol' Kim) but merely made it public. The one getting butt-fucked is the soldier who delivered those cables.
US prosecutors are still trying to figure out how to include Wikileaks in that butt-fuck.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-12 17:52
I meant: did NOT use it for any purpose. bluh
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-12 18:26
The only one who can be held accountable -- according to the laws in usa right now -- is the person who "steals". Newspapers which publish the material are protected by freedom of press.
In Germany the federal tax authority obtained stolen documents from lichtenstein about german citizens who evaded tax payments by transfering money there. It was brought in court and confirmed to be legal.
It depends on which country we talk about these issues. And time will tell which way the regulation/freedom of inforamtion on the internet is heading in the future.
Wikileaks is liable for prosecution if they encouraged Manning to leak the documents. the actual publishing of leaked information is the same as the newspaper
>>5 Wikileaks is liable for prosecution if they encouraged Manning to leak the documents.
Then that means anyone who has uploaded documents to WikiLeaks makes them liable. Manning was just some dude who had stuff and decided to upload it himself. Plus, I don't see WikiLeaks advertise wherever you go, (even though they do have things like wallpaper you can download from them). Agree with your second point.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-19 21:21
The problem is not with Assange. He shouldn't be held liable for posting the documents...and as of right now, I don't believe the U.S. has charged him with anything.
If the U.S. wanted to stop this from ever happening again they should publicly execute Manning for treason, as a warning to anyone else who plans to steal classified info.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-19 22:03
Comparing property to information like this is, to me, a ridiculous notion. For example, leaked information cannot simply be returned to its owner.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-19 23:42
Has OP even heard of the Bill of Rights? Do you understand the importance of a free press to democracy and why the first amendment is essential? Your analogy is deeply flawed.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-20 14:15
>>9
Ever hear of sedition? I believe that's a limit to free speech.
Now go back to your 9th grade civics class and tell your teacher he failed you.
>>10
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were declared unconstitutional and a direct violation of the First Amendment not long after being passed during the 5th United States Congress. They are what prompted Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to pass the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions so states could nullify Federal laws. They are an affront to a truly free press and liberty.
>>14
Generally, people prove things are right by citing sources...
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-21 13:10
>>1
I'm not sure digital documents are 'stolen' in the same sense as property. Nobody 'removed' them, only copied.
News sites do this all the time and post leaked information and they don't end up going to jail for it.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-21 13:10
>>15
This is common knowledge, sorry your civics class failed you.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-21 14:01
>>16
That's the whole basis on criticizing the idea of "intellectual property". It's never "stolen" in the traditional sense, only copied.