Warning from CNN: Its illegal to read Wikileaks

[zephid]

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.

That's not what they said. They said it's illegal to possess the stolen documents. It's not illegal to read them online.

[Deleted]

That's not what they said. They said it's illegal to possess the stolen documents. It's not illegal to read them online.

You can't "read them online" without possessing them. In order for your web browser to show them to you, it will have to download them onto your PC. That's how web browsers work.

[Karamaru]

I thought they were fake now they are stolen what is it because this is really confusing me.

[breadisfunny]

I thought they were fake now they are stolen what is it?

they would be stolen because they weren't intended for public consumption and the person receiving them to give out was not intended to see them either.

[Stelio Kontos]

I thought they were fake now they are stolen what is it because this is really confusing me.

They are whatever they need them to be. They're true when it applies to the opposition, stolen when it helps slime the opposition, and fake when there's no way to turn it against the opposition.

[Deleted]

To a lawyer those can quickly become the same. See, when you download a file to read it, you possess it. Displaying it in the browser probably doesn't, but I know some lawyers who seriously suggest that since it's in your computer's ram, you are possessing it for the duration of displaying it.

Pretty fucked up, I know, but it's a valid viewpoint until some court decides it's bullshit.

This is the exact reason why watching online child pornography is construed as ''posession'' of child pornography

[Deleted]

This is good though.. I just hope people aren't actually this stupid and are able to sense the desperation. Now I really want Trump to win the election, it's gonna be fun to see him clean house and even funnier if he actually manages to put Hillary behind bars(although its doubtful).

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

except the media is usually exempt from this. otherwise it wouldn't be a democracy and would instead be a totalitarian state if the government could silence the media whenever it felt like it.

Except, that isn't what we were discussing. PLEASE read the replies before you comment. Its about whether CNN stated its illegal to read the wikileaks documents online.

[breadisfunny]

Except, that isn't what we were discussing. PLEASE read the replies before you comment. Its about whether CNN stated its illegal to read the wikileaks documents online.

technically it is if they are classified documents.

[Deleted]

This is a mod? This isnt discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



XD This is a mod. Im dieing. XD

- - - Updated - - -



Hahahahaha. Not even trying to rebut the argument.

The title says ''its illegal to read wikileaks'' the quote says ''it is illegal to posses the wikileaks''.

This does seem like an open and shut case of lying, not sure what arguments you would like out of him?

[Edge-]

Its about whether CNN stated its illegal to read the wikileaks documents online.

Cool, they didn't. Guess the thread is over, then.

[zephid]

You can't "read them online" without possessing them. In order for your web browser to show them to you, it will have to download them onto your PC. That's how web browsers work.

Except that doesn't count as possession in most countries, not even in the United States afaik.

[Deleted]

Who hands out press credentials or decides who gets or does not get said credentials?

Everyone is free to hand out press credentials to their reporters, it is up to the events to decide if these press credentials are credible enough to be let into the venue.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought they were fake now they are stolen what is it because this is really confusing me.

They havn't been verified by anyone, they could very well be fake (if wikileaks is indeed in league with the russians, they would have an interest in faking it).

Having said that, if they are real then posession of stolen goods is indeed illegal.

My personal take is that they are indeed real, especially considering how extremely little inflamatory material is actually in there.

Go take a look at the research on /r/thedonald, the most inflamatory thing they can find is an e-mail thrashtalking clintons daughter & clinton accepting foreign campaign donations (though that last one might actually be illegal, havnt heard a non-rightwing source on that yet)

- - - Updated - - -

Except that doesn't count as possession in most countries, not even in the United States afaik.

You might actually be right, the first thing that comes up when googling the matter is that viewing a stream of child porn which is then cached onto your pc is in fact NOT posession: http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...ou-view-online

Everyone considering reading the article, it is quite enlightning

[Ifeanychukwu]

Not paying attention to the technicalities, isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that the media is using scare tactics to try and prevent people from informing themselves? They're basically saying "we're the only people you can listen to about this, if you try to learn the truth through any means other than blind faith in the media you're a criminal".

[Deleted]

They havn't been verified by anyone, they could very well be fake (if wikileaks is indeed in league with the russians, they would have an interest in faking it).

Having said that, if they are real then posession of stolen goods is indeed illegal.

My personal take is that they are indeed real, especially considering how extremely little inflamatory material is actually in there.

Go take a look at the research on /r/thedonald, the most inflamatory thing they can find is an e-mail thrashtalking clintons daughter & clinton accepting foreign campaign donations (though that last one might actually be illegal, havnt heard a non-rightwing source on that yet)

Being a whistle blower and shedding light to illegal activities, no matter how high up they go should never be illegal as long as their materials are real. I for one couldn't care less if it came from the Devil himself as long as it can be proven to be factual. Even if was fake.. it's nothing more than the Clinton News Networks is doing, making up lies about Trump and calling him a racist or worse, so if it's ok for one, I dont see why it shouldnt be ok for the other.

[Vargur]

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.

I get that the title of that clip is a lie, but why must you perpetuate said lie and even make it into an entire thread?
Because your post is based on that lie, thus this thread must be closed and you should get a warning.

[Jester Joe]

Not paying attention to the technicalities, isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that the media is using scare tactics to try and prevent people from informing themselves? They're basically saying "we're the only people you can listen to about this, if you try to learn the truth through any means other than blind faith in the media you're a criminal".

Well, it's a specific situation where the information is stolen.

It's like when that whole "fappening" thing happened where celebrity nudes were leaked onto the internet. It was technically illegal to look at those too, because they were illegally obtained in the first place, and a breach of privacy.

Otherwise, you're free to listen to whatever source you prefer (Extremely misleading to flat out lying headline in regards to that, since they never mention wikileaks in the video even).

[Deleted]

I think the more interesting part of what the CNN guy is saying is that he says that it's illegal to possess the documents, but that it's "different" for "the media", so "the media" - not journalists - possessing these documents isn't illegal? It's just curious what he means by "the media", since if he meant journalists, I guess he would've said journalists. I'm assuming that by "the media" he's talking about, among other networks, CNN, since he says "us" as well, so I wonder if he's saying that if the documents were leaked straight to CNN, instead of being leaked to WikiLeaks, it'd be fine and no laws would be broken, and in that regard, I suppose he thinks CNN is somehow "above" WikiLeaks in these kinds of matters of journalism, because CNN is a part of "the media", and WikiLeaks supposedly isn't.

[Venant]

I get that the title of that clip is a lie, but why must you perpetuate said lie and even make it into an entire thread?
Because your post is based on that lie, thus this thread must be closed and you should get a warning.

When you cut out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.

[Valizix]

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.

source on your claim?