State Dept Decides: Julian Assange Not a Journalist

Agorism

Banned
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
12,663
State Dept Decides: Julian Assange Not a Journalist

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/10/state-dept-decides-julian-assange-not-a-journalist

The protection of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange under the umbrella of freedom of the press has been a surprisingly controversial subject in the United States. But the US State Department has weighed in today and ruled that Julian Assange doesn’t count as a journalist but is rather a “politcal actor.”

The claim, which was announced by US Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley came with the justification that Assange has an “agenda” behind his activities, which in this case appears to be the goal of seeing the truth revealed to the public, which is wholly incompatible with being a “journalist.”

It is a doubly bizarre claim, both because the historical concept of a journalist involves exactly this, revealing true information to the public, and in that the United States does not formally license journalists nor does there seem to be any basis for deciding who does or doesn’t count.

The Constitution, of course, makes no effort to limit the “freedom of the press” to a specific class of officially approved of journalists, and the term “political actor” appears to have been made up entirely on the spot, which no existing basis under US law as giving a person less of a constitutional right to free speech.

Crowley went on to say that Assange is trying to “undermine the international system” and that he is an “anarchist” for having done so. Assange self-identifies as a libertarian in the American sense, but insists he is not actively political.
 
Last edited:
LOL, well I guess that means about 99% of so called journalists are just actors....

Well hell, haven't most of us been saying that for years now?
 
"...which in this case appears to be the goal of seeing the truth revealed to the public, which is wholly incompatible with being a “journalist.”

What the hell!?!? I thought that was the definition of being a journalist.
 
They won't accept any other title than "enemy combatant". The only thing supporting Assange is favorable public support and the direct loss in public support from the political establishment for pursuing him.
 
Last edited:
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
--Samuel Adams
 
  • Like
Reactions: eOs
His criteria for reclassifying someone from protected "journalist" to a legally vulnerable "political actor": "Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist," Crowley said.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/...ualifies-reporter-from-considered-journalist/

---------------

WOW. Apparently (just pronounced by our federal government) most of the major radio and television news networks, especially CNN and FOX and MSNBC – and most of the major newspapers, including our own local republican-biased one – and thousands of news websites, are now officially thrown out of the category of journalism.

And this also just in:
“INSTEAD OF GOVERNMENT-BY-CONSTITUTION, WE NOW HAVE GOVERNMENT-BY-PRONOUNCEMENT”
So by all means, listen closely, as things can change by the minute.
 
I think this is it.

2012 will be our last shot to preserve our liberties or we are going to live under tyranny for the rest of most of our lives.
 
Kind of like how they can just decide you're not an american anymore, if the president wants to kill you.
 
They also decide who the "terrorists" are.

According to Crowley, when "asked what Assange's political objective is, he replied: "I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist." "

If people do not want to end up in Gitmo, they need to be very careful about proclaiming on the net that they are an "anarchist". Self proclaimed "anarchist" have already been targeted. This is scary stuff.
 
The claim, which was announced by US Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley came with the justification that Assange has an “agenda” behind his activities, which in this case appears to be the goal of seeing the truth revealed to the public, which is wholly incompatible with being a “journalist.”

So in his mind, journalists are not supposed to be revealing truth to the public? If that is the case, then he must expect journalists to only print untruths and government propaganda.
 
So in his mind, journalists are not supposed to be revealing truth to the public? If that is the case, then he must expect journalists to only print untruths and government propaganda.

I think the "agenda" part was from Crowley -- the rest was a comment on the part of the author.

But yes, I'm sure that's more or less what Crowley believes.
 
Back
Top