RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Dec 30, 2010 at 3:57am
This one's pretty clear. Wikileaks: Ricochet has resolved that you're not a legitimate member of the Fourth Estate, and you don't deserve First Amendment protections.
It seems we had some issues with the voting mechanism. We've got a team of international election monitors coming over to have a look at the ballots. But I think it's nonetheless pretty clear that "Against" won by a good margin.
I thought the "In Favor" side did a great job of making its case--I switched my own vote from "undecided" to "In Favor" because of the powerful points raised by the "In Favor" side.
But "Against" won, and it's resolved.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right. (Henrik Ibsen)
May '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
The fix is in! Actually (cute story) had an FB friend (now defriended, not over this, but because she deleted my comments, that being in the exclusive purview of editrices) who derided the election results. I said, the worst thing Dems can do is blame the messaging. She responded, no, it was the voting machines. I replied "OK, the second worst thing Dems can do is blame the messaging".
Does this result remove our time-honored grousing rights?
Dec '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
WikiLeakers sleep peaceably in their leaky beds at night “only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
Aug '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
WikiLeakers also sleep peaceably because we aren't Venezuela and we don't have a state controlled media. We may not like the results of WikiLeaks leaks, and Assange appears to be a "Walk with mom on a sunny beach commercial," but a world which requires credentials as proof of legitimate journalism isn't a world I want to live in. I consider my blog journalism. Assange redacted documents, worked with the NYT and Guardian, and hasn't flooded the market.
A pox on all of you who fell into the Walter Lippmann definition of journalism trap.
Oct '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
FWIW, the vote tallies:
Before Debate
For: 15
Against: 52
Undecided: 8
Total: 75
Ratio of Against to For: 3.5
After Debate (those who say they voted initially)
For: 10
Against: 19
Undecided: 0
Total: 29
Ratio of Against to For: 1.9
The For camp seems to deserve at least one more vote (from Pilgrim, no less) due to tech problems. Sure, the numbers are meaningless because the totals don't match up, but if they wish, the Fors can pooh-pooh the technical difficulties and claim victory in the debate, if not in the cause.
Switched from undecided to For myself. A big thank you to all who took the time to defend their positions.
Dec '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
This vote transition seems illustrative of the decline of a leader of civilization from within.
Take a simple, direct, threat such as the theft of state secrets, then contort it, thinking ourselves better, more sophisticated, by deconstruction in anodyne words than in confrontation with harsh deeds.
Face the avowed fervor of forces that our own laws have long established the rules to combat, then recoil, thinking ourselves stronger by construing the threat distant so as to shrink from it.
See the repetition of history, yet another “Gathering Storm,” then ignore it, thinking that our enemies have no interest in us, because we cannot muster an interest to defend against them.
Churchill wrote about the 30s: “Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”
Oct '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
Charles Gordon: This vote transition seems illustrative of the decline of a leader of civilization from within.
Take a simple, direct, threat such as the theft of state secrets, then contort it, thinking ourselves better, more sophisticated, by deconstruction in anodyne words than in confrontation with harsh deeds.
Conan put it better.
May '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
Oh, goody! We're still arguing about it!
Dec '10
Re: RESOLVED: SORRY, WIKILEAKS, NO FIRST AMENDMENT FOR YOU
Ricochet Resolved (my intro to this community) was fun and valuable, though the Resolved part itself was anti-climactic, and the numeric results unuseful.
Still, we could have special discussions with an organized ending, maybe an elaboration of the pro & con highlights Claire provided. Ricochet Recap?