<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">(Re)producing selected masses of anonymously contributed documents does not, I think, constitute either 'speech' or journalism. This does raise an IG issue, since (as you note) only an extreme free-information (as distinct from free speech) position would argue against any filtration. That argument is already conceded in respect of e.g. hate speech, fraud and IP to whose publication the creator has not consented. It may be that IG needs an intent-based or results-based approach, but IMHO the wikileaks case is too weak to support the general argument. <br/><br/>And intention does matter. It matters to the interpretation of what is chosen for publication, it shapes the selection and timing of publication, and it runs straight through criminal and civil law. Ignoring it is neither just nor fair. J. <br/><br/><div>Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange</div><hr/><div><b>From: </b> Dominique Lacroix <dl@panamo.eu>
</div><div><b>Sender: </b> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:33:14 +0200</div><div><b>To: </b><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></div><div><b>ReplyTo: </b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Dominique Lacroix <dl@panamo.eu>
</div><div><b>Cc: </b>Koven Ronald<kovenronald@aol.com>; <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>; <gpaque@gmail.com></div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's
vassal acts decisively and illegally</div><div><br/></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 19/08/12 23:57, Koven Ronald a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com"
type="cite"><font color="black" face="arial" size="2"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="2">Quite aside from that, from
my perspective and that of many of my most thoughtful American
journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange is motivated
by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- </font></font></blockquote>
Disclaimer : I do admire great US companies such as Verisign,
Google, Amazon, etc.<br>
I like Apple, Coca Cola and Mickey Mouse.<br>
I'm still an Obama supporter, as I was four years ago (I can prove
it. It's on the Internet ;-))<br>
I like so called "America". A great nation. My mother married an US
marine. And half of my family are American people.<br>
<br>
I'm not either an anti-American nor a spy. Can we begin free talks
now?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com"
type="cite"><font color="black" face="arial" size="2"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="2">that he means to embarass
the US government as much as possible. </font></font></blockquote>
That was the result, for sure.<br>
<br>
Not necessarily the main intentions. "Procès d'intention" (Google
translate bugged, sorry...) are not fair, do you know?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com"
type="cite"><font color="black" face="arial" size="2"><font
class="Apple-style-span" size="2">That may be a perfectly
legitimate for a political activist. But it undercuts any
claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists aren't
supposed to follow political agendas.</font></font></blockquote>
A journalist may have political opinions and may express them. The
journalist's duty is to prove what she/he says with documents or
arguments. He/she has to provide readers means for thinking. But
she/he cannot be deprived of freedom of thinking or speeching, isn't
it?<br>
<br>
As you are not a journalist, I guess, dear Koven, you may freely
write your opinion on this list...<br>
<br>
@+, Dominique<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dominique Lacroix
Société européenne de l'Internet
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ies-france.eu">http://www.ies-france.eu</a>
+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14</pre>
</body>
</html>