FTA:

"Julian, meanwhile, is being charged with having gone beyond the limits of journalism by helping Manning to conceal her identity with a new username. He is also charged with having encouraged her to give him documents."

And that's exactly my argument why he's not a journalist.

Specifically, my argument is that if you want to protect journalism from being criminalized, then criminal activity cannot be called journalism.

Again: Ellsberg says otherwise. Let's quote the whole passage:

"Julian, meanwhile, is being charged with having gone beyond the limits of journalism by helping Manning to conceal her identity with a new username. He is also charged with having encouraged her to give him documents. That is criminalizing journalism. I can’t count the number of times that I have been asked for documents by journalists or for more documents. She had already given hundreds of thousands of files to Assange and he wanted more. This is the practice of journalism."

>that's exactly my argument why he's not a journalist...if you want to protect journalism from being criminalized, then criminal activity cannot be called journalism.

If you want to protect the standard of "innocent until proven guilty", you shouldn't deem them guilty until proven innocent; though it seems you already have?

Agree :) Sorry I do want nitpick here as it's seen so often - "innocent until proven guilty" might imply that they haven't been found guilty yet (until). "Innocent unless proven guilty" I think is a better phrase :)