Ihlan Ohmar didn't choose her words carefully enough. Yes she was speaking extemporaneously; and yes, she has cause to resent the targeting by hate groups (including Fox News) of all Muslims because of the activities of an extreme fanatical Muslims religious fringe. There is widespread unjustified hatred of Muslims in many parts of the country particularly on the political right, and especially among Trump's supporters and his wing of the GOP (if a "wing" can encompass the vast majority of the spineless self-serving political cowards and sycophants that seem to make up the GOP these days).
But Ohmar's comments were both insensitive to a broader zeitgeist, and were a political gift to Trump, Fox, and their uncritically adoring fans. Speaking "truth to power" is one thing. But doing so without adequate consideration of how that truth might be turned against you and the cause you represent is short-sighted, counterproductive and ultimately irresponsible.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Assange
Julian Assange's extradition proceedings will get underway next week. The Department of Justice indictment unsealed this week alleges that he engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning to help Manning break into a secure government server to obtain top secret information.
The arguments have emerged. One is that Assange was engaging in spying and should be prosecuted for trying to help Manning in stealing top secret information. The other is that Assange is a journalist who should be protected by the First Amendment's protection of the free press, and that the indictment will allow the government to infringe on the Fourth Estate's journalistic methods.
There is no hard line that separates serious, quality journalists from bloggers. If publishing material in the public interest is all that is need to assert one is a journalist, all manner of people, serious and otherwise, would qualify. So arguing that Assange isn't really a proper journalist (which he really isn't) is hard. If Assange qualifies, then the publication of the material he obtained would seem to be protected.
But the indictment doesn't concern the publication of secrets; rather it focuses on the way in which they were obtained. Here journalists are worried that by defining a conspiracy as methods that involve encrypted communication and not revealing sources, much of the way they operate in soliciting information of public interest and in doing so holding government accountable, would be threatened.
So perhaps the answer is to amend the indictment to make it narrower so that it more clearly targets Assange's activities without setting a broad precedent. That, surely, would make both sides f not happy, at least somewhat less upset. That being said, the points in the indictment do itemize one tool, Jabber, used in the conspiracy.
If such as conspiracy requires the use of any one of the elements ("or"), journalist are right to be concerned. But that would be problematic since one element is the use of a cloud storage "drop box" (which should probably be DropBox), then anyone using cloud storage might be said to be engaging in a conspiracy. So the "or" interpretation is unlikely to be correct. If however all elements are required in alleging a conspiracy ("and"), then using anther encrypted communication platform would afford journalists protection from any precedent this case might set.
The arguments have emerged. One is that Assange was engaging in spying and should be prosecuted for trying to help Manning in stealing top secret information. The other is that Assange is a journalist who should be protected by the First Amendment's protection of the free press, and that the indictment will allow the government to infringe on the Fourth Estate's journalistic methods.
There is no hard line that separates serious, quality journalists from bloggers. If publishing material in the public interest is all that is need to assert one is a journalist, all manner of people, serious and otherwise, would qualify. So arguing that Assange isn't really a proper journalist (which he really isn't) is hard. If Assange qualifies, then the publication of the material he obtained would seem to be protected.
But the indictment doesn't concern the publication of secrets; rather it focuses on the way in which they were obtained. Here journalists are worried that by defining a conspiracy as methods that involve encrypted communication and not revealing sources, much of the way they operate in soliciting information of public interest and in doing so holding government accountable, would be threatened.
So perhaps the answer is to amend the indictment to make it narrower so that it more clearly targets Assange's activities without setting a broad precedent. That, surely, would make both sides f not happy, at least somewhat less upset. That being said, the points in the indictment do itemize one tool, Jabber, used in the conspiracy.
If such as conspiracy requires the use of any one of the elements ("or"), journalist are right to be concerned. But that would be problematic since one element is the use of a cloud storage "drop box" (which should probably be DropBox), then anyone using cloud storage might be said to be engaging in a conspiracy. So the "or" interpretation is unlikely to be correct. If however all elements are required in alleging a conspiracy ("and"), then using anther encrypted communication platform would afford journalists protection from any precedent this case might set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)