Free Press

Not so much topic, though please comment away, but more of an FYI.This girl is good. I like her presentation, her personality and, yes, yes, yes, I like her politics a lot.The question she presents here is how far is our commitment to free speech via a free press.We know there are limits to free speech already established in our courts. Interference by government can be justified under unique and special circumstances.What is happening here are attempts to punish, get revenge, crucify, a real asshole of a human being (literally), who just happens to be a journalist (told ya it was literal) and the incidences requiring the punishment, revenge and crucifixion were the publications of US Government SuperDouble Top Secret stuff that turned out to reveal massive corruption, murders, conspiracies and just flat out amazingly embarrassing things.The revelations severely damaged the standing and reputation of this country like real bad. But these things weren’t wrong. They weren’t lies, propaganda or hoax and everyone (now) knows and acknowledges that. We did this to ourselves or more accurately put our government did this to us in our name.I admit this guy would not be my first choice for poster boy for a free press but isn’t this what a free press is supposed to do? This is a chilling hit on anyone else, poster boy or not, thinking of exposing this level of real evil government crap.But, then, I’m a bit surprised they haven’t done an Epstein on his ass already.

Thread copied here from the Free Press thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

The guy is a super douchey attention whore, but he still did not do anything that was explicitly illegal. The press is free to run a story on information, classified or not, that is passed to them. Its true that technically Chelsea Manning violated the law for passing the information but the receiver cannot be faulted and he has a right to protect his sources.Case in point, the NSA knew they couldn't go after journalists like Glen Greenwald for receiving the documents provided by Edward Snowden. So why should Assange be any different? Douchey or not, protecting Assange in this instance is protecting free speech and the freedom of press.