Before you cheer, remember that if the White House can prosecute @Wikileaks, they can prosecute other publishers. And it seems they want to:https://twitter.com/CNN/status/855442341317836800 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
No, that's press ethics. If press protection is contingent on something arbitrarily evaluated, press protection is arbitrary. Not good™
That presumes "press ethics" is less imaginatory than benevolent government, which seems to be an outdated assumption.
I don't see relying on one as inherently more or less dangerous than the other.
"Arbitrarily evaluated" also seems inaccurate. You can have reasonably objective criteria for good-faith press behavior.
And however lax or tight those criteria are, WL is waaaaay across the line.
If something is illegal for ordinary individuals to do, "I call myself press, even though I don't behave like it" can't be license to do it.
Ppl screaming 1st amendment here don't even understand what kind of 1st amendment issues are involved.
Much of the crap WL does, like publishing ppl's private communications without their permissions, would be illegal if you or I did it.
A reporter can argue as a defense that their right to report, public interest, overrides reasons why the act would be illegal.
But you can't just say "I'm a reporter" as a way to step all over other people's rights (privacy, copyright, etc.) to do intentional harm.
Assange is not a reporter. He's a classic case of https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-make-great-informants-how-gender-violence-on-the-left-enables-state-violence-in-radical-movements/ …
Then perhaps we all need to stop paying attention to all mainstream media.
The only thing worse than the MSM is the adtech/clickbait driven media that profits from telling ppl what they want to hear...
Very few. And the ones who don't shouldn't receive special press privileges.
But who defines what is and isn't in the publics interest? If we leave that up to the gov, we're giving them way too much control.
*mumbles something about separation of powers and independent branches of government*
*mumbles something about how the judicial branch has grown more and more partisan since the 60's and isn't going to the center anytime soon*
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.