Ask yourself what value to society do Chelsea create with her leak?

Then ask, what value does broadcasting her health status everywhere provide society?

Hopefully this will help inform you of the differences in these separate acts, since it seems to have blown right by you at light speed.

> Ask yourself what value to society do Chelsea create with her leak? > Then ask, what value does broadcasting her health status everywhere provide society?

(Not who you replied to, but...)

I believe Chelsea Manning deserves privacy for an issue such as this, but also hope that the situation will (at least) make more people contemplate the extreme nature of solitary. I would be undone fifty times by now if I were isolated by force.

You are entirely overlooking the question of whether the public should have the right to know the private information, which was what drove Manning's motivations.

"Information that some people would have preferred to keep private" is a general statement that could be applied to anything from a teenage girl's diary to an impending nuclear attack. To handwave that away is to make the entire matter meaningless.

The two cases are hardly comparable.

You're getting plenty of feedback here, but you might want to read up on "category error" as to your sense of the privacy concepts you use.

The problem with this is that Manning released, along with some things you could argue the public has a right to know, all the other data diplomats and spies had collected.

Did we all need to know salacious details about Muammar Gaddafi's "voluptuous" Ukrainian nurse? That seems very much the same kind of data to me.

Public figures, especially those with substantial power, have less of a right to privacy in general than random citizens.

You have confused human rights with governmental rights.

> Is that not why she's come into the public eye?

Yeah, for releasing someones health info. Do yourself a favor and do a little research before commenting on a public forum.