A Final Thanks !!! I’m Buzzing !
3 hours ago
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Blocking internet pornography ... that's censorship, isn't it?
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Open letter to President Obama and General Attorney Holder regarding possible criminal prosecution against Julian Assange
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Paris, December 17, 2010
Dear President Obama and Attorney General Holder,
Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organization, would like to share with you its concern about reports that the Department of Justice is preparing a possible criminal prosecution against Julian Assange and other people who work at WikiLeaks.
We regard the publication of classified information by WikiLeaks and five associated newspapers as a journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment. Prosecuting WikiLeaks’ founders and other people linked to the website would seriously damage media freedom in the United States and impede the work of journalists who cover sensitive subjects.
It would also weaken the US and the international community efforts at protecting human rights, providing governments with poor press freedom records a ready-made excuse to justify censorship and retributive judicial campaigns against civil society and the media.
We believe the United States credibility as a leading proponent of freedom of expression is at stake, and that any arbitrary prosecution of WikiLeaks for receiving and publishing sensitive documents would inevitably create a dangerous precedent.
Members of the faculty at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism wrote to you recently warning that “government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.” We fully agree with this analysis.
The ability to publish confidential documents is a necessary safeguard against government over-classification. We urge you to use this debate to review the government’s policy of classifying documents in order to increase transparency in accordance with the promises made by the administration when it first assumed office.
We thank you both in advance for the attention you give to our observations.
Sincerely,
Jean-François Julliard Secretary-General
HERE
HERE
Why Julian Assange is a journalist
Julian Assange may not be Time's Man of the Year, but he almost certainly is a journalist -- at least as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
The Constitution’s First Amendment forbids Congress from making any law abridging either freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Some commentators and government officials have confidently asserted that Assange is not a journalist -- perhaps intending to imply that he does not enjoy the protections afforded by the First Amendment. But they are almost certainly incorrect.
Let us first dispense with the idea that Assange may not enjoy the safeguards of the First Amendment because he is not a United States citizen. The language of the First Amendment does not limit its protections to citizens, and the courts have never interpreted it that way.
Let us next dispense with the canard that Assange does not enjoy First Amendment protection because he is not objective, has a point of view, or is seeking to achieve a particular political outcome. As a historical matter, it is clear that objectivity has never been an indispensable characteristic of journalism. The ideology of journalistic objectivity emerged at the end of the 19th century as part of a broader cultural and intellectual movement. But for at least half of the history of American journalism, newspapers freely acknowledged that their judgments about news were influenced by partisan considerations. And today many established news organizations no longer even pretend to be neutral about the issues of the day. Others cling to a veneer of objectivity by presenting "both sides" of an issue while nevertheless presenting a clear point of view. More important than this history, however, is that grafting an "objectivity" requirement onto the First Amendment would subject freedom of expression to the subjective judgments of prosecutors and judges about whether a given journalist is sufficiently objective, thereby threatening to cripple press liberty.
Another claim made by some who dispute Assange’s right to First Amendment protection has to do with scale: "Real" journalists may disclose private or secret information selectively, in the context of a given story, while WikiLeaks is in the business (so to speak) of massive document dumps. Here again, there does not appear to be a reasoned basis for depriving WikiLeaks of First Amendment protections extended to others. The principles underlying the First Amendment do not suggest that its protections dissipate the more one engages in the activity it is designed to protect.
One potentially credible argument for denying WikiLeaks full First Amendment protection is that it is merely posting documents without adding its own analysis or commentary. Although I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of WikiLeaks’ website to evaluate the veracity of this claim, if it is true, it could provide a basis for prosecutors and courts to thread the constitutional needle and proceed with a case against WikiLeaks without running afoul of the First Amendment.
So is Assange a journalist? You and I are free to apply whatever standards we like when answering that question. But if the United States government decides to prosecute Assange, it will not have that luxury. Prosecutors and judges will have to put aside their subjective judgments about what constitutes journalism, and instead apply well-established constitutional principles to determine what protections, if any, the First Amendment affords Assange. And applied dispassionately -- without regard for one's personal feelings about Assange's actions -- those principles suggest he is entitled to whatever protections the First Amendment extends to his activities, just as if they had been undertaken by the New York Times.
That said, the protections of the First Amendment are not absolute -- far from it. Application of the First Amendment to WikiLeaks would raise the bar substantially for prosecutors -- and might result in an inability to convict Assange for violating U.S. law. But it would not end their case.
The Obama administration has important decisions to make when it considers whether and how to prosecute Assange. The government is appropriately concerned with protecting national security and preserving diplomatic initiatives. But the lines distinguishing professional journalists from other people who disseminate information, ideas and opinions to a wide audience have largely disappeared with the advent of the Web and inexpensive and powerful personal computers and software. WikiLeaks is just the beginning, and the government’s decision about how to proceed will have important implications for press freedom for years to come.
Scott Gant @'War Room'
Remember...
...that this time of the year can be a very difficult time for lots of people for a number of reasons...
Sometimes random acts of senseless kindness can make YOU feel a whole lot better too!
If things get too tough, for whatever reason you can always ring Direct Line if you are in Melbourne.
1800 888 236 (24 hours)
OR
Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800
if you are a young person.
Believe me there are people who will listen to you out there.
Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800
if you are a young person.
Believe me there are people who will listen to you out there.
Facebook is the suburbs not the global village
In a house lashed by a winter rainstorm, perched above Mill Valley, north of San Francisco, we found one of the most passionate voices about our digital culture. John Perry Barlow is best known as a lyricist for the Grateful Dead, the essential counterculture band whose passionate fans, the Deadheads, were eager early adopters of online communities like the Well (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link).
Throughout our interview, the man who founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation kept harking back to his life in a small town in Wyoming, where he spent years as a cattle rancher.
Ever since, he told us, he'd been trying to find the same sense of small-town community in cyberspace. The Well, whose members met in "meatspace" as well as online, had been a great experience. He told how, at Well parties, the members of the community emerged blinking into the real world, and discovered the faces behind the words.
John Perry Barlow seemed disappointed by today's social networks, and in particular the one that has really taken the online experience to the masses. "Facebook is like television, the opposite of what I was looking for," he grumbled. "It's the suburbs, not the global village."
He was a little more enthusiastic about Twitter, which he is using to promote the cause of online freedom. During the Wikileaks saga, one tweet by @jpbarlow echoed across the battlefield:
Ever since, he told us, he'd been trying to find the same sense of small-town community in cyberspace. The Well, whose members met in "meatspace" as well as online, had been a great experience. He told how, at Well parties, the members of the community emerged blinking into the real world, and discovered the faces behind the words.
John Perry Barlow seemed disappointed by today's social networks, and in particular the one that has really taken the online experience to the masses. "Facebook is like television, the opposite of what I was looking for," he grumbled. "It's the suburbs, not the global village."
He was a little more enthusiastic about Twitter, which he is using to promote the cause of online freedom. During the Wikileaks saga, one tweet by @jpbarlow echoed across the battlefield:
"The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops."He remains, however, sceptical about the progress that has been made in building sustainable online communities. Although he does see one personal upside - "a guy gave me his parking space the other day," he laughs. "He said he liked my Tweets."
John Perry Barlow @'BBC'
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Monday, 20 December 2010
Minsk
Protesters try to storm government HQ in Belarus
Photo reportedly shows provocateur calling for police backup
On-U Sound news
Adrian Sherwood announces 12 re-issues and 4 new albums (African Head Charge, Little Axe, Lee Perry and a compilation album with all female vocalists) in 2011, the year that On-U Sound has been in business for 30 years.
(Thanx mARCO!)
Why Shouldn’t Freedom of the Press Apply to WikiLeaks?
Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the quarter of a million secret government cables from the State Department had been leaked, not to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, but to Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times.
First, let’s state the obvious: The Times would never have returned the confidential files to the Obama administration. Most likely, the newspaper would have attempted to engage with State to try to scrub life- and source- threatening details from the cables — as Assange and his lawyers did.
And if the administration had refused to participate in that effort -- as it did with WikiLeaks? The Times would have done what any serious news organization has the imperative to do: It would have published, at a pacing of its own choosing, any cable it deemed to be in the public interest. In this digital age, it’s likely the Times would have even created a massive searchable database of the cables.
The optics of the information dump would likely have been very different -- overlaid with the Times’ newspaper-of-record gravitas. But the effect would have been identical: Information that the U.S. government finds embarrassing, damning, and even damaging would have seen the light of day.
Now let’s extend the thought experiment:
How would you react if top American conservatives were today baying for Bill Keller’s blood? If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had called on Keller to be prosecuted as a “high-tech terrorist”? If Sarah Palin were demanding that Keller be hunted down like a member of Al Qaeda? If Newt Gingrich were calling for the Times editor to be assassinated as an “enemy combatant.”
What if Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, had successfully pressured the Times’ web hosting company to boot the newspaper off its servers? What if Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal suddenly stopped processing subscriptions for the paper?
Imagine that students at Columbia University’s graduate school of international affairs had been warned not to Tweet about the New York Times if they had any hopes of ever working at the State Department.
Imagine U.S. soldiers abroad being told that they’d be breaking the law if they read even other news outlets’ coverage of the Times’ exclusives.
Imagine that the Library of Congress had simply blocked all access to the New York Times site.
You can’t imagine this actually happening to the New York Times. Yet this has been has been exactly the federal and corporate response to Assange and WikiLeaks.
The behavior is outrageous on its face and totalitarian in its impulse. Indeed, we should all be alarmed at the Orwellian coloring of the Obama administration’s official response to the publishing of the cables:
“President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal.”
Secrecy is openness. What the fuck?!
Listen: You don’t have to approve of Assange or his political views; you can even believe he’s a sex criminal. It doesn’t matter. What’s at stake here isn’t the right of one flouncy Australian expat to embarrass a superpower. It’s freedom of the press. And it’s a dark day for journalists everywhere when the imperatives of government secrecy begin to triumph over our First Amendment.
First, let’s state the obvious: The Times would never have returned the confidential files to the Obama administration. Most likely, the newspaper would have attempted to engage with State to try to scrub life- and source- threatening details from the cables — as Assange and his lawyers did.
And if the administration had refused to participate in that effort -- as it did with WikiLeaks? The Times would have done what any serious news organization has the imperative to do: It would have published, at a pacing of its own choosing, any cable it deemed to be in the public interest. In this digital age, it’s likely the Times would have even created a massive searchable database of the cables.
The optics of the information dump would likely have been very different -- overlaid with the Times’ newspaper-of-record gravitas. But the effect would have been identical: Information that the U.S. government finds embarrassing, damning, and even damaging would have seen the light of day.
Now let’s extend the thought experiment:
How would you react if top American conservatives were today baying for Bill Keller’s blood? If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had called on Keller to be prosecuted as a “high-tech terrorist”? If Sarah Palin were demanding that Keller be hunted down like a member of Al Qaeda? If Newt Gingrich were calling for the Times editor to be assassinated as an “enemy combatant.”
What if Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, had successfully pressured the Times’ web hosting company to boot the newspaper off its servers? What if Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal suddenly stopped processing subscriptions for the paper?
Imagine that students at Columbia University’s graduate school of international affairs had been warned not to Tweet about the New York Times if they had any hopes of ever working at the State Department.
Imagine U.S. soldiers abroad being told that they’d be breaking the law if they read even other news outlets’ coverage of the Times’ exclusives.
Imagine that the Library of Congress had simply blocked all access to the New York Times site.
You can’t imagine this actually happening to the New York Times. Yet this has been has been exactly the federal and corporate response to Assange and WikiLeaks.
The behavior is outrageous on its face and totalitarian in its impulse. Indeed, we should all be alarmed at the Orwellian coloring of the Obama administration’s official response to the publishing of the cables:
“President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal.”
Secrecy is openness. What the fuck?!
Listen: You don’t have to approve of Assange or his political views; you can even believe he’s a sex criminal. It doesn’t matter. What’s at stake here isn’t the right of one flouncy Australian expat to embarrass a superpower. It’s freedom of the press. And it’s a dark day for journalists everywhere when the imperatives of government secrecy begin to triumph over our First Amendment.
Tim Dickinson @'Rolling Stone'
Interesting:
"I think he just has a tendency to follow the path of highest resistance, simply for the sake of defiance."
Daniel Assange on his father 2006
Daniel Assange on his father 2006
Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band - Funeral Hill (Outtake)
An outtake from The Spotlight Kid sessions
Don Van Vliet a/k/a Captain Beefheart--vocals, harp
Elliot Ingber (Winged Eel Fingerling) and Bill Harkleroad (Zoot Horn Rollo)--guitars
Mark Boston (Rockette Morton)--bass
Artie Tripp (Ed Marimba)--drums
Words and music by Don Van Vliet
Bradley Manning's Life Behind Bars
The last time Bradley Manning saw the world outside of a jail, most Americans had never heard of WikiLeaks. On Friday, Manning, the man whose alleged unauthorized release of hundreds of thousands of classified documents put the website and its controversial leader, Julian Assange, on the map, turns 23 behind bars. Since his arrest in May, Manning has spent most of his 200-plus days in solitary confinement. Other than receiving a card and some books from his family, his birthday will be no different. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, his attorney, David Coombs, revealed key details about Manning’s imprisonment and kind gestures from his family that provided a bit of comfort in the inmate's otherwise extremely harsh incarceration.
“They’re thinking about him on his birthday, that they love and support him,” Coombs said of Manning's family and the card his mother, father, sister and aunt passed along via the lawyer on Wednesday. “They wish they could be with him on his day, but they are not allowed because visitation is only on Saturday and Sunday, and a family member would be going down to see him on Saturday.” Coombs passed a message to Manning from his aunt on behalf of the family; Manning, the lawyer says, asked Coombs to tell his aunt he loved her and wishes he could be with her as well...
Continue reading
Denver Nicks @'The Daily Beast'
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
