Swordfish Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Just now, Kalbear said: Again, I ask - if it was important to suppress Wikileaks information, why not just kill the page? At the very least it would eliminate any chance of more going on - which has still happened, by the way. And it's pretty trivial for the US to kill that website in any number of ways if it chose to do so. Plus, stopping Assange's internet doesn't stop Wikileaks as an organization either. It just stops Assange. If your goal is to suppress information that doesn't help at all. If your goal is to limit the ability for known criminals to contact someone, it does. Killing the page is not as simple as you seem to think. Certainly not as simple as pressuring ecuador to cut his internet access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Killing the page is not as simple as you seem to think. Certainly not as simple as pressuring ecuador to cut his internet access. It's pretty simple for the US government to kill Wikileaks if they so chose to do so. And while it's a smidgen harder compared to Ecuadorean diplomacy, it's not that bad. More importantly, again I ask - if the goal is to actually suppress the information, why not do both? Because you don't appear to be arguing that the US can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: It's pretty simple for the US government to kill Wikileaks if they so chose to do so. And while it's a smidgen harder compared to Ecuadorean diplomacy, it's not that bad. More importantly, again I ask - if the goal is to actually suppress the information, why not do both? Because you don't appear to be arguing that the US can't do it. What is the process by which the US government would eliminate Wikileaks entirely from the internet? Both legally and logistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Swordfish said: What is the process by which the US government would eliminate Wikileaks entirely from the internet? Both legally and logistically. Ask north korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Just now, DunderMifflin said: Ask north korea? Why would I ask North Korea? That would be nonsensical and irrelevant, since we are not talking about the north korean government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: Why would I ask North Korea? They are pretty good banning things from their public without much questions asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: They are pretty good banning things from their public without much questions asked And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Swordfish said: And? I don't know what else they are good at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tijgy Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 On 21/10/2016 at 0:40 AM, Kalbear said: So why frame it as a matter of US freedom of speech then? What rights does an extraterritorial person living at the grace of Ecuador have, and why can't the US ask that question. I am actually starting to get terrified when rights which are considered universal human rights by the United Nations and the Council of Europe are suddenly only considered to apply to the US by the United States? Oh, look, the Ecuadorian constitution even says "everyone should have access to information and communication technologies", next to the right of free communication (propably something similar as the freedom of speech. (article 16). And freedom of speech is also a human right that should be protected by the UK according the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. So I would actually be worried a person suddenly loses a human right in the eyes of the US Government solely because he isn't an US citizen or isn't in the US. Further they can ask anything, but the Ecuadorians should also take in account the rights someone (a political refugee) has according to their constitution before giving into a requirement of a foreign state (especially if it is state from whom the person in question is running). OTOH Human Rights can Always be limited under certain conditions. The question is if those conditions are applicable in this certain situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Nerd question here, how are they actually blocking his internet? Do they just turn off the wifi within the entire building? Why couldn't he use 4G? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 6 hours ago, Tijgy said: I am actually starting to get terrified when rights which are considered universal human rights by the United Nations and the Council of Europe are suddenly only considered to apply to the US by the United States? Oh, look, the Ecuadorian constitution even says "everyone should have access to information and communication technologies", next to the right of free communication (propably something similar as the freedom of speech. (article 16). And freedom of speech is also a human right that should be protected by the UK according the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. So I would actually be worried a person suddenly loses a human right in the eyes of the US Government solely because he isn't an US citizen or isn't in the US. Further they can ask anything, but the Ecuadorians should also take in account the rights someone (a political refugee) has according to their constitution before giving into a requirement of a foreign state (especially if it is state from whom the person in question is running). OTOH Human Rights can Always be limited under certain conditions. The question is if those conditions are applicable in this certain situation. This is all irrelevant to the point, which is that why are you bringing up the 1st Amendment to the American Constitution in a situation where the American Constitution does not apply? If there's a violation of rights going on here with Assange and his internet access, it's got nothing to do with the US constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Shryke said: This is all irrelevant to the point, which is that why are you bringing up the 1st Amendment to the American Constitution in a situation where the American Constitution does not apply? If there's a violation of rights going on here with Assange and his internet access, it's got nothing to do with the US constitution. Yeah, I'm fine framing it as a world right, but calling it a first amendment violation seems really silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tijgy Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: Yeah, I'm fine framing it as a world right, but calling it a first amendment violation seems really silly. You were talking constantly about silencing people by pressuring foreign government and referring to their possible rights? Which I personally also include the rights he is granted by other elements than the US? This are the rights Assange has: he has at least a right to a freedom of speech according to Constitution of Ecuador (who are the ones who cut him from his access and who should follow their constitution) and the US is party to human right treaties. And I will admit I am not that familar to American Constitutional Law; but it would really hypocritical to deny not-US citizens a right which is also seen as human right while you are taking actions against that certain US-citizen. I am not really sure about this, but you might even say he is under the juridiction of the UK who also then has the obligation to protect his human rights. If you say "what rights to someone has?", you should also consider the rights this person has according to other countries. And to be honest, I am really happy about this, if apparenty freedom of speech would depend on your citizenship to the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 To my knowledge neither the US or Ecuador are infringing on assange and his ability to speak. You don't have a right to a telephone either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Wikileaks dropping some more of that spicy anti-semitism today: These are good people doing good work though. And totally not bigoted conspiracy theorist nutters acting pushing a political agenda and fuck the consequences: No sir, good people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 9 hours ago, Tijgy said: but you might even say he is under the juridiction of the UK You might, but literally the entire point of him being in the embassy is that he's not, so you'd be wrong to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 What in the world is anti-semitic about that Wikileaks tweet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 25 minutes ago, Ran said: What in the world is anti-semitic about that Wikileaks tweet? The reference to Rothschilds controlling everything. https://skeptoid.com/mobile/4311 Quote Just about every conspiracy theory website that presumes the world's governments act in willing concert under the guidance of some secret council points the finger at the Rothschilds...Driven by their quest for money, the Rothschilds have been said to assassinate US Presidents, and to create virtually every war since the 1800s in order to finance both sides. Some say the Rothschilds (who are Jewish) caused the Holocaust, while others say they were the true power behind the creation of Israel. They would, and continue, to do anything for money...The Rothschilds' whole story is one of money, and it began in the 18th century. Their history is perhaps largely responsible for the modern belief that Jews control the world's money supply... "Rothschild" is one of those things you should not Google without preparing yourself to take a bath in neo-Nazi anti-semitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Ran said: What in the world is anti-semitic about that Wikileaks tweet? again a bit of a push to call it anti-semitic. I think the point was more about a very rich person who controls a media outlet being in bed with politicians. Bit of 2+2 = 5 to read more into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 5 hours ago, polishgenius said: 58 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said: The reference to Rothschilds controlling everything. https://skeptoid.com/mobile/4311 "Rothschild" is one of those things you should not Google without preparing yourself to take a bath in neo-Nazi anti-semitism. They should just replace "Rothschilds" with "white people" like everybody else does and there'd be no problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.