CNN says that it’s illegal to read Wikileaks for anyone but the media [video] | Hacker News Reader

CNN says that it’s illegal to read Wikileaks for anyone but the media [video]

reddit.com

37 pointsgrej22 comments

The reporter defends his statement on twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo

edit: maybe HN will care about CNN collusion with the Clinton campaign...

Larry King on a hot mic telling Bill Clinton that Ted Turner (CNN founder) would "serve" him https://youtu.be/VCUIlV-AKY4

CNN reporter Donna Brazile gave town hall question in advance https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

CNN edits HRC speech http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/cnn-edits-out-tired...

CNN coaches "independent" focus group before interview https://youtu.be/jz5Jtz74CUU

For those who would dismiss this as conspiracy theory, none of this stuff is remotely "out there." This is just what's on tape and record.

This kind of stuff makes me genuinely afraid for the future of the American people and western democracy.

With Amy Goodman and Deia S. facing charges for doing their ostensibly Constitutionally-protected civic duties and job requirements, either ND gov went full George Wallace or enforcement and accountability for journalistic protection is reaching a historic low. would have check CPJ for quantitive data, but qualitatively it seems to feel like it's 1964 and rights have to be fought for anew, all over again. Don't take them for-granted, eternal vigilance.

Ya know growing up my father would vent at CNN calling it the "Clinton News Network" .. perhaps he wasn't far from the truth.

Link to actual tweet: https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/788011326488580096

backup: http://imgur.com/a/Ui3NC

>Remember it's illegal to posses these documents. It's different for the media; everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us

This is terrifying. Like, 1984-style terrifying.

Members of the media routinely make the argument that they are different from the remainder of the public when it comes to free speech and campaign finance issues; we shouldn't be surprised when they take a similar view of access to information.

This sounds more like gross incompetence than anything

What's with the knee-jerk reaction where everything is "Orwellian" or "1984-like?" I actually think this kind of hyperbole is damaging because, when something actually is "Orwellian," no one's going to listen because we've all been inured to people throwing this word around like it's nothing.

When it comes to incidents like this I'm reminded of Hanlon's Razor more than anything from Orwell: "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

This is insanity. Can you imagine if Richard Nixon had told the world that the Watergate tapes were a Russian plot to defame him, and not only the media went along with it, but they also insisted that it was illegal to listen to the tapes?

Watergate was someone's attempt to defame him... Why do we still reference Watergate as if it's any worse than surveillance today?

Here's a rebuttal from attorney Eugene Volokh, writing in the Washington Post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727143

"Now, while knowingly possessing tangible stolen property would often be a crime for both the media and others, possessing copies of illegally leaked materials is generally not treated the same way. See Pearson v. Dodd, 410 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1969). But in any event, remember that, whatever First Amendment rules may apply, the media has no more First Amendment rights than the rest of us."

Just to create a discussion here instead of jumping all over the guy for his questionable legal assertions:

You could make the argument that a news organization in possession of stolen documents has a legitimate claim to possessing them for the public good. An individual could not reasonably make the same claims.

So you're saying that the media organization should be allowed to collect information, and filter what gets told to the public, but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials? If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?

I didn't say that at all, but I'm going to respond to your questions anyways. I don't actually believe the media should have special legal carve outs (namely because it creates alignments that end up being against the public interest), but it's fun to argue it anyways.

> but the public should not be able to 'double-check', or use their expertise and perspective to examine the same materials?

If you have a free market for the media, then they should be double checking each other.

> If we are to entrust all information gathering and interpretation to media organization, shouldn't we let them vote for us too?

The US is a representative democracy. Your political representatives are already acting as surrogates for your interests. Thus, the media acting as an additional surrogate on top of that would not make a lot of sense.

> If you have a free market for the media

And how would a new player in a "free market for the media" enter the playground? If you have to say "A new player has to be more than an individual" then it's not a free market.

Are you actually serious?

There's a difference between presenting an argument and agreeing with that argument.

In this case, it is actually an interesting discussion because you can use the same arguments in a discussion about whether we should have a direct or representative democracy.

Of course, I know that.

I still don't understand why you're suggesting journalists have a status different to that of Tom from down the street.

From whence doth their rights come forth?

I think most of the population puts journalists somewhere between rat catchers and dog walkers. Somebody has to do it I suppose but I don't like them putting on great airs.

No, an individual could.

Go on...

Wikipedia says "Media (the singular form of which is medium) is the collective communication outlets or tools that are used to store and deliver information or data".

Hmmm so basically these media people are just tools :)

There is absolutely no reason for this to be flagged. Both candidates' actions and the media's response to them have been deplorable this election cycle, and we have a right to recognize them as being such. I am deeply concerned that CTR may now be operating on HN.

I have vouched for this submission to be reinstated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com