Warning from CNN: Its illegal to read Wikileaks

[Edge-]

I already did. You can read my earlier comment, the one you're replying to.

No, he did not say that. Stop lying.

[Al Gorefiend]

Anything you read online is technically in your 'possession' due to being cached on your computer, is this not correct?

The precedent was set with child pornography convictions so I'm gonna say the answer is yes

[LilSaihah]

well he says its illegal to possess, not to read, which is a bit different i suppose. though im not sure how acurate he is with the "only the media has the right to read these" bit

There's a case to be made that it's reporting in the public's interest and therefore, as reporters, they have a right to read it (and then report on it) that other people might not have. But that gets muddy when that protection could be applied to Wikileaks itself.

[Deleted]

No, he did not say that. Stop lying.

OK buddy. You see my statement as me lying, and that's fair enough. I see it as me pointing out the truth about what he inferred. Agree to disagree.

[Edge-]

OK buddy. You see my statement as me lying, and that's fair enough. I see it as me pointing out the truth about what he inferred. Agree to disagree.

He was making a factual statement. That media are allowed to possess these types of documents, as it is protected under the First Amendment, while non-media people are not.

He inferred nothing beyond that. Stop lying.

[Alydael]

Would you expect anything less from the Clinton news network? Wolf Blitzer was drinking wine and dancing during Hillary's speech.... how is that for credibility?

They (and most of the media) have been running cover for her the whole election cycle. If the news actually was unbiased she would be soooo far behind it would be incredible.

I have read all the e-mails (it doesn't take long, they are just e-mails). You couldn't vote for her or a Dem if you read them. They are totally disgusting.

I also don't see how you could even vote in this election if you haven't read them, they are so relevant to this election. Unless, of course, you are totally fine with being part of the totally uninformed voter problem.

Don't you want to know the truth?

CNN should be fined for so blatant a lie. Oh, I forgot- Dems are in power- there will be no fine...........

[Justank]

Phrasing makes it very easy to infer that the OP's interpretation is correct. I'm not sure why it would be illegal to view/possess the Clinton campaign e-mails though, is it because they were stolen? If it was the few Clinton e-mails that contained classified information he would be correct, but this one doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm just out of the loop though.

[Wells]

CNN should be fined for so blatant a lie. Oh, I forgot- Dems are in power- there will be no fine...........

Who are they defaming? Slandering?

- - - Updated - - -

Phrasing makes it very easy to infer that the OP's interpretation is correct. I'm not sure why it would be illegal to view/possess the Clinton campaign e-mails though, is it because they were stolen? If it was the few Clinton e-mails that contained classified information he would be correct, but this one doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm just out of the loop though.

Illegally obtained materials and information tends to be illegal to possess, unless you're the press. The DNC has a legal privacy right.

[Theodarzna]

It's a slippery slope indeed. Considering how many people have actually read these documents, it's impossible for the government to act on it, unless you're a particularly annoying target.

A very easy method of tyranny is to make anything theoretically illegal so anyone and everyone can be thrown in jail or at least harassed into silenced.

[Mister Cheese]

Well it's technically illegal to leak private government information. So if you possess said information then yes, you are breaking the law. But reading it is another story.

[Aggrophobic]

Only the corporate media is approved for deciding what information you are allowed to consume. If you are attempting to 'inform' yourself, then you are guilty of colluding with the enemies of our great democracy. Conform now, or you are buying yourself a one way ticket to behind the chemical sheds.

But... Wasn't he just trying to say that it was ok for media to dig into it?
So you don't want media to cover what was in thoes emails or what? You're really confusing me here.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Can't really IMO say anyone that looks at the document has done something illegal. That's just absurd and stupid. Now physically having those documents. Sure I could argue it might be illegal but


ethically the DNC already fucked up.

[Deleted]

Stop lying.

You keep repeating that but I've not been lying once yet.

He was making a factual statement. That media are allowed to possess these types of documents, as it is protected under the First Amendment, while non-media people are not.

...but now you're agreeing fully with what I said? I'm seriously confused now.

[Wells]

Can't really IMO say anyone that looks at the document has done something illegal. That's just absurd and stupid. Now physically having those documents. Sure I could argue it might be illegal but


ethically the DNC already fucked up.

There's astoundingly little in the emails that actually incriminating at all. Especially the Podesta ones. Its just an unfiltered look at the sausage making of running a national party. People are confusing gossip with scandal.

[Cyberowl]

CNN should be fined for so blatant a lie. Oh, I forgot- Dems are in power- there will be no fine...........

So un-American of you.

[LilSaihah]

But... Wasn't he just trying to say that it was ok for media to dig into it?
So you don't want media to cover what was in thoes emails or what? You're really confusing me here.

Allowing the media to pick and choose what is acceptable for the public to see is extremely questionable considering the relationship that purportedly exists between the media and the body which is being reported on. If such a relationship exists, there is a clear conflict of interest.

[Wells]

Allowing the media to pick and choose what is acceptable for the public to see is extremely questionable considering the relationship that purportedly exists between the media and the body which is being reported on. If such a relationship exists, there is a clear conflict of interest.

On the other hand, the media does have to pick what they will and won't show.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

A very easy method of tyranny is to make anything theoretically illegal so anyone and everyone can be thrown in jail or at least harassed into silenced.

That sounds ridiculously similar to what's happening right now.

[Theodarzna]

I wonder if the same Liberals who now defend the mainstream media did so in the early 2000's as the government beat the drumbeat for war in Iraq?

[Cyberowl]

I wonder if the same Liberals who now defend the mainstream media did so in the early 2000's as the government beat the drumbeat for war in Iraq?

If you can't see how this is apple and oranges, I can't help you.