On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Ergo, Wikileaks is criminal.
Why? They make a claim to be a journalistic endeavor just like the NYTimes, and
we don't register "journalists" in any way, really, so they've got every right
to make that claim. And once they get that "journa
> "Matt" == Matt Simmons writes:
Matt> I'm not disagreeing with any of your assertions, but if Wikileaks
Matt> received the leaked material from an informant, and didn't steal it
Matt> themselves, wouldn't the "greater public good" be a possible defense
Matt> for them?
Possible defense yes,
Randal,
I'm not disagreeing with any of your assertions, but if Wikileaks
received the leaked material from an informant, and didn't steal it
themselves, wouldn't the "greater public good" be a possible defense
for them?
--Matt
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
wrote:
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/11/10 21:02 , Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> "Brandon" == Brandon S Allbery KF8NH writes:
>>> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd
>>> appreciate if you can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege
>>> exists. I don't thi
> "Brandon" == Brandon S Allbery KF8NH writes:
>> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd
>> appreciate if you can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege
>> exists. I don't think there's a Woody Allen or "journalistic intent"
>> clause that says if Derek steals a classifi
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> On 12/9/10 16:42 , unix_fan wrote:
>> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd appreciate if
>> you
>> can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege exists. I don't think there's a
>> Woody
>> Allen or "journalistic intent" c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/9/10 16:42 , unix_fan wrote:
> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd appreciate if
> you
> can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege exists. I don't think there's a
> Woody
> Allen or "journalistic intent" clause that
