
Wikileaks Documentary Makers Accuse Assange of Censorship - msabalau
http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-documentary-makers-accuse-assange-censorship-626613
======
WhitneyLand
I didn't know why he was so hell-bent against the movie then noticed this side
link in the article: [http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-
assange-wo...](http://www.newsweek.com/documentary-inside-julian-assange-
world-593037)

Assange comes off as a real machiavellian style asshole with vanity and
manipulation seeming to him at least as important as his cause.

Snowden and Assange often seem to get lumped together but there's a world of
difference in personal character, and also in mission. Saying such varied and
complex issues are all just "leaking" does both their supporters and
detractors a disservice. Details matter especially with so much at stake.

~~~
19eightyfour
I don't know why people still support Assange so clearly. It was interesting
to me that people on /r/The_Donald love Assange so much. Before this
documentary, I posted there criticising Wikileaks and it was totally hated on.
I find that weird because the idea that Assange is unreliable and fake, was
the kind of somewhat-counter-main-narrative idea that I thought people of T_D
would appreciate. They seem to see him as some sort of hero. I wanted to point
out that he seems to me to have once been good, but then he squandered by
trading whatever his mission originally was, with some bullshit idea of being
a martyr to serve his ego. I can't respect someone who talks about curing the
world of ignorance, and having the courage to tell the truth, but then cowers
for 7 years in a embassy because he's too afraid to stand up and tell the
truth, whatever it was, about what happened. I mean, I know his existence is
useful to the IC and various interests, but I personally just find him
disgusting. And I genuinely had some belief in what Wikileaks could have stood
for. But I don't really see it as that now. To me, Wikileaks and Assange
totally sold out. Sorry to offend anyone who feels very differently. This is
just my opinion on it.

~~~
lingben
I've observed that Trump and his supporters live in a childishly simple world
where anything and anyone who says "good" or supportive things is hailed and
anyone who criticizes or questions Trump is derided and held in contempt,
irrespective of any actual factual basis.

~~~
vultour
You realize that the other side is the same right?

~~~
moomin
Er... no they're not. Watch Bill Maher whinge about protests against him from
other progressives sometimes. He'd love to live in a world where progressives
behaved like that, he'd be a hero.

------
nailer
The other side: [http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-attorneys-blast-
citizenfou...](http://www.newsweek.com/wikileaks-attorneys-blast-citizenfour-
maker-poitras-610362)

"To be clear: our objections are not about censorship. WikiLeaks remains an
unwavering advocate for freedom of expression. This is about safety. It is
about protecting journalistic sources. It is about personal and professional
integrity, and honoring contractual obligations.

Our second major concern about Risk is the way the focus of the film has been
radically altered from a broadly sympathetic portrayal of WikiLeaks’ work and
the attacks against its staff by the U.S. government to an ill-defined
indictment of the "culture of sexism" online."

~~~
mirimir
This is an interesting argument:

> Poitras has also violated her unambiguous promise to the subjects of the
> film that they would have an opportunity to review the film in advance and
> request changes, and that they could decline to appear if they or their
> lawyers felt that the movie put them at risk.

So I'm wondering whether Assange declined to appear, and she refused. That'd
be funny, in a sad way.

Still, I've followed Assange's work for decades. Maybe he's been a sexist
asshole at times. The flesh is weak, no doubt. But I don't get how that can be
a criticism of Wikileaks.

Edit: In the parent article, Poitras says:

> There were individuals who requested from the beginning not to appear in the
> film, and those requests were respected.

I wonder what the contract actually says about the right of subjects to
decline to appear.

~~~
scoggs
For some reason my mind immediately went to the fact that Wikileaks has to
honor protecting its sources.

I know it should be real obvious that the task of protecting sources itself is
most paramount in their operation, but for some reason I get the feeling that
"full disclosure" includes "how do you get the info / who do you get the info
from / tell us juicy secrets / tell us the truth about your legal cases". I
don't know why, it's not that I do or don't fully trust Wikileaks, I think
they can do both good and bad for the world -- not very different from any
government, but I don't expect Wikileaks to get a fair shake from many people.

Everyone is looking to get the best information these days to get ahead.
Information and data is the name of the game so the possibilities are really
endless when it comes to the lengths people would go to get that information.

~~~
mirimir
Sure. But prudent leakers handle that themselves. So there really isn't
anything to protect. Leaking is different from journalism. In journalism,
identities of sources matter. In leaking, only the leaks matter. And, by the
way, I don't believe that Snowden needed to dox himself. He left the decision
to Poitras and Greenwald, and I think that they unnecessarily trashed his
life.

~~~
qb45
I thought it was because both Snowden and Greenwald believed that the US would
identify him sooner or later and if his identity wasn't public the CIA would
quietly arrest him illegally abroad, like they did to others before, and
nobody would even know.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-day-we-revealed-
snowdens-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-day-we-revealed-snowdens-
identity-2014-5)

------
msabalau
The specific claims: “In WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent the distribution of
‘Risk,’ they are using the very tactics often used against them – legal
threats, false security claims, underhanded personal attacks, misdirection –
and with the same intentions: to suppress information and silence speech"

~~~
mirimir
It is funny to see Wikileaks complaining about leaks. Not even leaks, but
rather material provided voluntarily. They were obviously gobsmacked by
Poitras turning on them.

I must say, however, that Wikileaks overall censors leaks much less heavily
than do Greenwald, Poitras and crew. I mean, does anyone know what percentage
of Snowden's stuff that's been released? It's my impression that it's small.

Edit: typo

~~~
mirimir
Re Poitras turning on Assange: [https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/23/risk-
a-sad-comedown-...](https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/23/risk-a-sad-
comedown-for-laura-poitras/)

I had forgotten that she and Appelbaum had been lovers. Bringing him into the
mix destroys the film's objectivity.

~~~
asveikau
What is this supposed to convince me of? I am now more convinced that Assange
is guilty if this is the way his defenders talk.

This reads like a guy trying to defend a rapist. Does he seriously not
understand why people get touchy on the subject of sexual assault when he
calls it political correctness? This is not simple unorthodoxy as alleged in
your link but a serious crime.

It's​ also hilarious that he is compared to Gandhi at the end.

~~~
mirimir
I've read many articles about what went down in Sweden. I've seen no claims
that he forced either woman to have sex. He didn't seduce them. They wanted to
have sex with him, and bragged to their friends.

And they remained friendly with him afterward. Until they learned that he'd
had sex with both of them. That's when it got crazy. Also, one of them was
concerned that a condom had broken, and wanted him tested for STDs. That's
initially why she filed a police report.

After that, it was mostly driven by the prosecutor. It's not impossible that
the US government played a role in that. But the women were initially
Wikileaks supporters, and weren't likely part of a plot to entrap him.

~~~
asveikau
I googled and found: [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-
assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-
sweden)

If this is as reported, I am not a lawyer but it sounds like he committed a
crime, and he is most certainly a major asshole, among other things pushing
the boundaries of what constitutes consent, then making the other party feel
uncomfortable in their own home.

Then he blames the consequences on a global conspiracy. Probably part of the
abuser personality, to evict himself from blame.

I was thinking, western intelligence has done a lot of sketchy things, usually
in the form of coups, more recently with "enhanced interrogation" or
eavesdropping... But I am not aware of any other case where people claim they
falsely accused somebody of rape. Doesn't fit the profile.

~~~
mirimir
Thanks, I hadn't seen that article. He does sound horrible. And yet, I wonder
why those women took so long to decide that they'd been raped. I have read
that it's not uncommon. And I suppose that, being Wikileaks supporters, they
didn't want to make a scene.

So yes, he does seem like a major asshole.

------
throw2016
Isn't it rational to focus on outcomes. For the average citizen who doesn't
work for the government or has a vested interest there is no context in which
they would not value more transparency, especially when the cost is borne
almost exclusively by Assange, Snowden, Poitras and others. The constants
attempts to belittle and discredit them without considering the overall
outcomes seem motivated and desperate.

Shutting down conversation by smug references to conspiracy theories is not as
easy to do now. On the contrary it's the people who hang on desperately to the
'safety' of fantasy narratives and demand Snowden level sacrifice or signed
confessions from authorities who seem out of touch and suspect.

Illusions and delusions about fundamental principles and values lies in
tatters. Its not as easy to trade in pretensions and present a holier than
thou attitude while working the backroom. And for those interested its now
possible to have a more informed perspective of our world. That's a huge
contribution by wikileaks.

------
qb45
_The unauthorized release of the Film has caused our clients to suffer ongoing
irreparable harm, and exponentially increasing damages every time a new viewer
sees the Film._

Somebody will be _very_ rich, _very_ fast.

Yeah, I know I'm fighting a lost battle. But that's the most ridiculous abuse
I have seen in a while.

------
Kiro
I remember seeing a documentary many years ago where they interviewed a lot of
Wikileaks ex-staff and Assange came off as a power-mad megalomaniac. I don't
remember the name but my view of Assange was completely changed after that.

Does anyone know what documentary I'm talking about? It was aired on Swedish
television (this was before the sexual offense accusations).

------
papabrown
I've always had mixed feelings about Assange going back to the beginning of
WL. While I take my hat off to what he has claimed is the purpose of WL, I
never quite trusted Assange the man. It always felt to me like the kind of
power that WL has needs to be wielded by a person of great moral integrity and
Assange never struck me as that kind of person.

Information is powerful and it can be used both to force transparency and it
can be used as a weapon. My impression is that Assange views it more as a
weapon that he can use against others.

Nobody can operate effectively in a 100% transparent environment. I was living
overseas when WL released the State Department communications and most of the
information released pertaining to the country I was living in revealed little
of noteworthiness. It was all tabloid level stuff where some ambassador made a
dismissive or insulting comment about some government official in a report
back to Washington.

How would any of us like every email we've ever written to be put into the
public domain? If we were doing nothing illegal what purpose would it serve to
let everyone know that I hate my aunt's cooking and tried to get out of a
family dinner in June of 2013? The only thing that information would do is
embarrass me and strain my relationship with my aunt. No public good comes
from it.

And that's where I see many of the WL releases being. Many leaks seem to stir
up trouble where nothing illegal or malicious is actually occurring.

So, an organization like WL has a great responsibility. I applaud them for
uncovering deceit and illegal activities, and I think we need some outside
force doing it, but they also need to use that power in a way such that they
don't try to prove their own importance by releasing information that is
merely sensationalistic in order to heighten their brand.

I've never trusted Assange to be the kind of person who can make that
distinction. WL would be much better off in the hands of someone/people who
were far less concerned about elevating their own notoriety and were able to
better able to separate the mission of WL from the politics.

~~~
tgragnato
> Nobody can operate effectively in a 100% transparent environment. > Many
> leaks seem to stir up trouble where nothing illegal or malicious is actually
> occurring.

A distinction has to be made between secrecy and privacy. While Assange built
a great tool against secrecy (and that's what scares Washington and alikes),
it may be something good for privacy (hypothetically, the relationship with
your aunt is safe, and maybe safer than before Wikileaks).

Things work when the penalty is commensurate with the bad behaviour, if
there's no penalty than you're inciting "the bad things"...

If your definition of "bad things" is "everything that's illegal", you're
making a reference to the law, but what we should consider is that the law is
made by humans. Wikileaks targets those who think they are exempted not only
by law, but also by morality, and do this using the threat of completely
exposing them ...

If you partially expose things, choosing what to publish and what's private;
than not only you are implicitly expressing a priori judgment without clearly
exposing it, but you’re manipulating the data and decreasing the punishment
too (effectively incentivising the wrong behaviour).

I think that exposing some of the dirty little secrets of these big players is
not something that the average Jane/Joe can do, and is definitely not
something that you should expect from someone with a strong moral integrity,
or excessive scruples of conscience.

Trust is something tricky in intelligence chess games.

Penalty is what is needed here, things won’t change until we require the
governments to put the people responsible of killings, dragnets, … in jail.
But Hacking Team is still happily up and running despite their actions and the
same goes for the attitude of the American intelligence community.

I might also agree, but I’m sorry to say that we still need Wikileaks.

~~~
papabrown
I don't think we're that far off. I didn't say we didn't need WL. I said, I
don't necessarily trust Assange to be in charge of it. He's a self-promoter. A
hypocrite. Opinionated. These are things even some of his best friends might
say about him. Not exactly the character traits for someone who has access to
things that may be both secret and private.

If he has secret video of US forces firing on unarmed civilians, yes, of
course, I consider it an obligation of WL to release it and expose who covered
it up.

If a diplomat sends a cable back to his superiors at the State Department and
says, "The prime minister is rumored to act irrationally under stress. I
suggest that we do not snap react to any statements he makes without obtaining
further clarifications from other contacts within the administration." what
good does that information being in the public domain do? It embarrasses the
prime minister. It ruins the relationship between the sender and the prime
minister. But what public good does it do to have this information in the
public domain?

Sometimes I think WL revels in knocking the powerful down a peg or two whether
or not they've actually done anything other than share a private thought that
was now exposed to the public.

And part of my point is that I think Assange already picks sides. He's doling
out punishment based on his own political biases. That's why I don't trust
him.

~~~
tgragnato
> I don't necessarily trust Assange to be in charge of it.

As long as published documents are verifiable by a third party, you don't need
to trust him.

> If a diplomat sends a cable back to his superiors at the State Department
> and says ...

When a government does not listen, you get to a point where you need
unconventional (read controversial) arguments to be heard. Like it or not, the
more things you publish, the more impact you have: that's exactly what
Wikileaks is.

For a more detailed exposition:
[https://youtu.be/TSR-b9yuTbM](https://youtu.be/TSR-b9yuTbM)

> He's doling out punishment based on his own political biases.

It may be, but is it really relevant? If you have infos regarding Russian
and/or Chinese activities that Wikileaks do not want to disclose, you can
always publish them through another channel.

------
GrumpyNl
Everybody should thank Assange for what he has done for us, regarding he is an
ass or not.

------
Operyl
Not terribly surprised, it's been well known that Assange leaks what he wants,
and doesn't care much after the leak. A lot of information, like the email
"dumps" didn't have valid DKIM headers for one. A lot of their stuff is
questionable at best now.

~~~
microcolonel
That form of censorship was not alleged. You are imagining things.

They're accusing him of attempting to censor the _personal_ stuff, such as the
sexual misconduct allegations. Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in
a documentary about WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the
organizational purpose.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in a documentary about
> WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the organizational purpose.

It's a documentary about Assange. Why would it not include "personal stuff"?

~~~
microcolonel
I was under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that it was about WikiLeaks in
main, and referenced Assange only to serve that topic.

~~~
ceejayoz
All the coverage I've seen indicates it's primarily an Assange documentary,
and that it was one even in the earlier cut that Assange approved of.

Even if it were explicitly a Wikileaks documentary, I don't see how Assange
and his personal life wouldn't be a fair subject. A documentary about the
Civil War will probably include info on Lincoln, a WWII one will probably talk
about Hitler and his life, etc.

