
CNN says that it’s illegal to read Wikileaks for anyone but the media [video] - grej
https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/57qg6f/cnn_says_that_its_illegal_to_read_wikileaks_for/
======
rjeli
The reporter defends his statement on twitter:
[https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo](https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo)

edit: maybe HN will care about CNN collusion with the Clinton campaign...

Larry King on a hot mic telling Bill Clinton that Ted Turner (CNN founder)
would "serve" him [https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4](https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4)

CNN reporter Donna Brazile gave town hall question in advance
[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/5205](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205)

CNN edits HRC speech [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/cnn-edits-out-
tired...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/cnn-edits-out-tired-
clintons-reference-nyc-explosion-bombing?page=3)

CNN coaches "independent" focus group before interview
[https://youtu.be/jz5Jtz74CUU](https://youtu.be/jz5Jtz74CUU)

For those who would dismiss this as conspiracy theory, none of this stuff is
remotely "out there." This is just what's on tape and record.

This kind of stuff makes me genuinely afraid for the future of the American
people and western democracy.

~~~
disposablezero
With Amy Goodman and Deia S. facing charges for doing their ostensibly
Constitutionally-protected civic duties and job requirements, either ND gov
went full George Wallace or enforcement and accountability for journalistic
protection is reaching a historic low. would have check CPJ for quantitive
data, but qualitatively it seems to feel like it's 1964 and rights have to be
fought for anew, all over again. Don't take them for-granted, eternal
vigilance.

------
robinhoodexe
>Remember it's illegal to posses these documents. It's different for the
media; everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us

This is terrifying. Like, 1984-style terrifying.

~~~
nickff
Members of the media routinely make the argument that they are different from
the remainder of the public when it comes to free speech and campaign finance
issues; we shouldn't be surprised when they take a similar view of access to
information.

------
xjdjfjjdjcs
This is insanity. Can you imagine if Richard Nixon had told the world that the
Watergate tapes were a Russian plot to defame him, and not only the media went
along with it, but they also insisted that it was illegal to listen to the
tapes?

~~~
helthanatos
Watergate was someone's attempt to defame him... Why do we still reference
Watergate as if it's any worse than surveillance today?

------
greenyoda
Here's a rebuttal from attorney Eugene Volokh, writing in the Washington Post:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727143](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727143)

 _" Now, while knowingly possessing tangible stolen property would often be a
crime for both the media and others, possessing copies of illegally leaked
materials is generally not treated the same way. See Pearson v. Dodd, 410 F.2d
701 (D.C. Cir. 1969). But in any event, remember that, whatever First
Amendment rules may apply, the media has no more First Amendment rights than
the rest of us."_

------
danielrhodes
Just to create a discussion here instead of jumping all over the guy for his
questionable legal assertions:

You could make the argument that a news organization in possession of stolen
documents has a legitimate claim to possessing them for the public good. An
individual could not reasonably make the same claims.

~~~
nickff
So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect
information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should
not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to
examine the same materials? If we are to entrust all information gathering and
interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?

~~~
danielrhodes
I didn't say that at all, but I'm going to respond to your questions anyways.
I don't actually believe the media should have special legal carve outs
(namely because it creates alignments that end up being against the public
interest), but it's fun to argue it anyways.

> but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise
> and perspective to examine the same materials?

If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking
each other.

> If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media
> organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?

The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are
already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an
additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.

~~~
pritambaral
> If you have a free market for the media

And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the
playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an
individual" then it's not a free market.

------
ankurdhama
Wikipedia says "Media (the singular form of which is medium) is the collective
communication outlets or tools that are used to store and deliver information
or data".

Hmmm so basically these media people are just tools :)

------
chroem-
There is absolutely no reason for this to be flagged. Both candidates' actions
and the media's response to them have been deplorable this election cycle, and
we have a right to recognize them as being such. I am deeply concerned that
CTR may now be operating on HN.

I have vouched for this submission to be reinstated.

