Why do you feel that it strengthens your argument to say "calling him a journalist is a farce"? Clearly, lots of people consider him a journalist. He's even won several prizes for being a journalist. Here's one from 2011:
"Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism.
The annual prize is awarded to a journalist "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel', as Martha Gellhorn called it".
In the absence of a clear legal definition of "journalist" in the US, it seems entirely reasonable to call someone who wins prizes for journalism a journalist. Why do you disagree, and why should your opinion be weighted more strongly than those who disagree with you?
I agree, however, that calling him a "journalist" is a tactic. The goal is imply that because he's a journalist, he should not be prosecuted for breaking the law. It's a strange tactic, though, since as far as I know there are no exceptions for journalists to break US federal laws.
Anyway, I'd argue that calling him "not a journalist" is a tactic as well. Why not simplify to your stronger point of "Assange broke the law ... and has to deal with the consequences"? Do you feel that if he was a "proper journalist" he should be treated differently?
(Personally, I think trying to enforce US law on foreign nationals who have never set foot in your country is a terrible precedent. I believe that prosecuting him is selective-enforcement, intended to punish him for releasing true but embarrassing information about US government misdeeds, and to dissuade others who might be tempted to follow his example. While he likely broke the laws that he is charged with, I think journalists worldwide are right to be afraid of the change in policy that this implies.)
>It's a strange tactic, though, since as far as I know there are no exceptions for journalists to break US federal laws.
There is a strong social and institutional norm that we don't prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, even though it is against the law. The government is even sort of maintaining that norm here, by charging the password cracking instead of the publication.
From my understanding, part of the requirement in Assange's defense against the extradition treaty (which the US and Equador swore wasn't going to happen) is that he must prove he was acting as a journalist.
And yes, this entire situation is definitely meant to create a chilling effect among whistleblowers, and simultaneously cement in the public mind that if data is protected/encrypted, you're not ethically allowed as a vigilante to use digital forensics against it in order to expose horrendous crimes committed in the name of the government.
Even though government digital forensics against a foreign political adversary is why they have these chat logs of Assange in the first place. It's about creating an uneven playing field.
> Pointing to awards is effectively just an appeal to authority.
It would be, if it wasn't followed by the (correct) fact that there is an absence of an official record of who is and isn't a journalist, and saying that this is a decent proxy. And an appeal to authority, when we're discussing whether someone is authoritatively a journalist, seems apt, to me.
Do you believe that journalism at large isn't under attack?
Do you truly believe that a political journalist is not ethically allowed to commit digital forensics against an adversary who committed war crimes in secret? What gives the US government immunity from hacking but not Assange?
What if Assange does not recognize the authority of a State he has never set foot in?
If I am tipped off about a badly protected server in China which contains information about State-wide concentration camps and Buddhist and Muslim persecution which I think the world needs to see, am I acting unethically if I want to acquire this information?
Why the hell do I care about the laws of a foreign totalitarian authoritarian regime who commits human rights atrocities on a daily basis?
> They can do whatever they want. But they need to be aware of and accept the consequences of doing so.
Okay, and are you willing to stand behind journalists who accept these consequences in order to make the world a better place while you sit on your thumbs playing the blame game? Are you willing to fight for their freedoms, or just reap the benefits of their actions while throwing them under the bus and saying, "Well, they should have known better before attacking an authoritarian state"?
> Not really. There's a lot of tantrum throwing, though.
Tantrum throwing != fighting for journalism rights. The general decline of journalism quality is part of this attack on journalism, btw. Surely you would agree that journalistic integrity in the last two centuries has suffered greatly.
> The world's largest military.
This doesn't grant them any ethical passes, it just allows them to enforce their totalitarian practices and silence dissenters.
Using this as an excuse literally makes you an authoritarian, and means you accept human rights violations such as Collateral Murder, one of the main leaked elements which Assange is now under threat of extradition for.
Do you stand by the soldiers' actions in Collateral Murder? Do you think these actions should have stayed secret?
> What if I don't recognize the authority of local law enforcement? Can I start doing as I please?
You can certainly try. And if I feel you have been unjustly persecuted for actions which should not be illegal, I will be there protesting for your freedom.
Remember, the government is a public service meant to keep us safe and protect our rights, not our daddies and mommies whose job is to teach us right and wrong. It's the public's job to teach the government what is right and wrong, through public education, voting and protesting. Law and ethics are entirely orthogonal, the only people who try to purport they are the same seek to benefit from this lie.
> If you're referring to the U.S., it's not a totalitarian, authoritarian regime. There's just a stubborn asshole in charge that a lot of people don't like.
> And based on your overall tone, I'd assume you lack focus, emotional composure, and have struggled to find meaning in life (using politics as an outlet for your anger).
Wow. You really like to presume things. So because I am politically engaged, I lack focus and emotional composure? Lol what?
I don't know my meaning in life? What shit are you smoking? My meaning in life is to fight for individual freedoms and spend my time helping others, which I am literally doing right now. Methinks you doth project too much.
"Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism.
The annual prize is awarded to a journalist "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel', as Martha Gellhorn called it".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange...
In the absence of a clear legal definition of "journalist" in the US, it seems entirely reasonable to call someone who wins prizes for journalism a journalist. Why do you disagree, and why should your opinion be weighted more strongly than those who disagree with you?
I agree, however, that calling him a "journalist" is a tactic. The goal is imply that because he's a journalist, he should not be prosecuted for breaking the law. It's a strange tactic, though, since as far as I know there are no exceptions for journalists to break US federal laws.
Anyway, I'd argue that calling him "not a journalist" is a tactic as well. Why not simplify to your stronger point of "Assange broke the law ... and has to deal with the consequences"? Do you feel that if he was a "proper journalist" he should be treated differently?
(Personally, I think trying to enforce US law on foreign nationals who have never set foot in your country is a terrible precedent. I believe that prosecuting him is selective-enforcement, intended to punish him for releasing true but embarrassing information about US government misdeeds, and to dissuade others who might be tempted to follow his example. While he likely broke the laws that he is charged with, I think journalists worldwide are right to be afraid of the change in policy that this implies.)