In which I raise concerns abt the specific language targeting Wikileaks in the DNC suit.https://twitter.com/pressfreedom/status/1001493006120378373 …
I'm not addressing either. I'm addressing protecting activities solidly defined as journalism. Your "reporters ought to" language is about norms, and I think it should be dealt with normatively, but right now tradmed has a distorted sense of their own norms.
-
-
I end up where you do legally, so yeah, discussing norms. But Snowden and Manning and so many others are *whistleblowers,* and my understanding is the Panama & Paradise papers are believed to be the same.
-
We have ZERO real knowledge abt Panama and Paradise. It's just that we like those leaks so we don't think too much about it. And I've got even more serious concerns abt BVI leaks.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Agree, I think. But not sure which you're classifying as which?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
DOJ tried hard to substantiate an Assange recruit of Manning, but did not. WL's role may well have changed since. We shall see.
-
But I agree that there should be real clarity on difference between recruited leak--especially third party--and a person choosing on their own to leak.
-
One concern I specifically raised in the interview is how DOJ is using Reality Winner's access to secure drop--of the Intercept but not WaPo--as a means to incriminate her.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.