What moral footing is that?

* There is no unbiased media outlet

* There are no laws against partisan media outlets

* It's not even clear that Wikileaks is partisan, despite rantings to the opposite effect

* Nothing wikileaks has released has ever been proven to be false.

I think it's pretty clear wikileaks has been used in a partisan manner in the 2016 presidential elections. I don't believe most serious journalists would have published most of Podesta's emails, if any. Especially considering the probable sources.

Why would they not publish these emails?

Because most of them are completely irrelevant and there is very little informational benefit to warrant this privacy violation. I mean... risotto recipes?

After wikileaks published the material journalists did cover some of it. And even so, they partly regret that, in light of what we know now.

"serious journalists" Approved by the state, perhaps?

Those with a particular "traditional" ethics standard. Which is getting muddier by the day.

It really isn't. You're just becoming more aware of it. There are good journalists, dishonest journalists and everything in between at the Times, which for all its issues is still probably the best newspaper in the world. I'd be a fool to take what they say as fact because they say it as much as they pretend it's so.

First of all Wikileaks is not a media outlet. But that's not even the point and that's another story.

The point is the "timed" the action to purposefully benefit one side and in effect benefit itself, while purporting all the time that it is a paragon of openness.

Whole problem with WikiLeaks has been it is telling the truths, half-truths or not even telling anything in some cases.

At the end of the day WikiLeaks has a agenda and it become a tool, albeit a political one.

> Unfortunately, Assange and in effect WikiLeaks took a political and partisan position, and gave the moral footing for the authorities to that end.

So free speech, due process, and publishing rights are only granted to the nonpartisan? Are you kidding me?

This is part of a coordinated and well-funded effort by the CIA to reduce sympathy for him and his cause, so that they can deny him human rights without a big stink as soon as he's in US or US-ally custody. It's absolutely shameful.

Not sure which set of free speech you subscribe to but I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech. It is NOT.

I am not sure what publish rights you are talking about. You must be kidding yourself, if I may borrow your language, to talk about publishing rights and WikiLeaks in the same breath.

The thing is I do love the principle on which WikiLeaks was founded. Is what WikiLeaks doing legal ? Hell, no. But morally I know it is the right thing to do.

Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side. And telling the truth selectively and conveniently. And that does not deserve the moral approval, which I would have given earlier.

>I really doubt WikiLeaks publishing stealing information falls under the definition of US constitution of free speech.

It actually is legal to publish stolen information, and there is a lot of legal precedent in the US saying it is. And that's a good thing as it is sometimes the only way to hold those in power accountable for their actions they'd otherwise hide. See e.g. Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, US torture program, Snowden, Panama papers, just to name a few, all of which were at least in part based on leaked (read: stolen) information. Also the Trump administration is leaking like a sieve these days. Do you consider the journalists who publish such information criminals too?

This is legally different to stealing the information yourself and/or instructing somebody else on how to steal information. I'd wager they'll at least try to pin the latter on Assange if they ever get him in a court.

> Again, as mentioned elsewhere, my problem with WikiLeaks is has taken a side.

Being anti-Democratic Party is not inherently being pro-anyone-else. The Democratic Party was being shady as fuck and regardless of who you or they prefer to be or not be president, exposing their corruption was valuable and useful—irrespective of where that information came from or who it may have indirectly benefited. I do not think the results from that publication constitutes Wikileaks "taking a side".

People could make the argument that they could have assumed that publishing would have had a certain outcome or effect upon the election, but one cannot reasonably assert that they would have had to reach the exact same conclusion about the effects of publishing. It's a big stretch to ascribe motive or bias based on your assumption that you can't assert someone else must have made (especially without the benefit of hindsight).

Which "side" precisely do you think Wikileaks has taken, and what specific facts support such a conclusion?

It is very hypocritical of you to ask facts when whole your arguments is based on conjecture.

Again, I don't have a problem with releasing information. But timing the release with a coordinated effort to profit from it, it reeks of corruption from WikiLeaks.

Agreed, whereas previously they told the unconvenient truth, they grew into a political outlet asking their twitter followers to vote for specific presidency candidates

So far it has yet to end, which is quite surprising. Sad to see how far my country will stoop to attempt to abscond with a foriegner, he will not have a fair trial if extradited.

I'm Australian - it's sad for me to see how little our government will do to protect one of our own who has helped to expose the war crimes of our allies, and has himself still not been charged with any crime, notwithstanding clearly transparent character smear rape allegations that have been dropped anyway.

And when asked his position on the issue of an Australian citizen in effectively indefinite imprisonment, our pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister simply dodges the question by making lewd comments about the questioner.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/pamela...

Should Buzzfeed journalists be prosecuted for publishing the dossier about golden shower, at least parts of which have been proven to be false? As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with publishing information in partisan manner. Has anything Wikileaks published been proven to be doctored or edited in any way? I am under the impression not even DNC is disputing authenticity of the emails.

How much of the dossier came from systems hacked by a foreign power?

It doesn't matter legally or otherwise.

I agree but the parent commenter implication that an outlet could be prosecuted for printing the Steele dossier is a non sequitur for many reasons here.