Wikipedia said:A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is acknowledged as journalism.
Not to be stupid online. Go do some research Dave, there is tons of information out there about how employers are searching the internet for what appplicants have posted.DaveC426913 said:What will they get?
No he put up a website and solicited people to upload hacked files. Do you ever read anything?Mathnomalous said:Oh, anyone with 1/10 of a brain gets it: you are free to say what you like, so long as it does not challenge authority, even if what you say is valid.
I ask once again, who is a journalist?
Do Assange's actions fit the description?
Not sure why you think I don't know all this...Evo said:Not to be stupid online. Go do some research Dave, there is tons of information out there about how employers are searching the internet for what appplicants have posted.
There was even a thread on this here a few years ago about employers turning down applicants based on online comments. You missed all of this? It's all over the internet!
Go do some research dave. Your post made it obvious you don't know this. I'm just going by your post.DaveC426913 said:Not sure why you think I don't know all this...
But why do you think this is any stupider than any other thing one might not want an employer to read?
Evo said:Not to be stupid online. Go do some research Dave, there is tons of information out there about how employers are searching the internet for what appplicants have posted.
There was even a thread on this here a few years ago about employers turning down applicants based on online comments. You missed all of this? It's all over the internet!
Evo said:No he put up a website and solicited people to upload hackes files. Do you ever read anything?
Dave, it really seems to me like you are being obtuse just for the sake of being difficult. The last sentence in the quote I posted was for things not directly related to the job, but that could affect job performance. Are you seriously saying you can't see how not taking document security seriously would call into question a prospective employee's ability to keep company secrets?DaveC426913 said:The article is about corporations becoming aware of how potential emplyees behave in ways that directly impact the corporation - slagging the company or lying in interviews.
That has nothing to do with someone's viewpoints on Wikileaks.
I didn't say you mentioned free speech, Dave. What I said was that what you are saying reflects a misunderstanding of it.I said nothing about free speech. Don't put words in my mouth.
I can't believe you don't see how a person can damage themselves with inappropriate speech. Have you never found yourself "muzzling yourself"?I can't believe PF members are promoting this attitude that people should muzzle themselves.
So why are you arguing about it??I get that anything you can say online could alway come back to bite you...
Perhaps, but this one made the news today...and the way people are arguing, it seems like they don't get it, so I think it was worthwhile to discuss....but that's true of this this issue no more or less than anything else.
I have always known this site is not moderate so I for one am not surprised by some of the naive, knee-jerk left-wing responses I am seeing.I'm just shocked at PF members. I always saw PFers as more moderarate and sensible, and able to recognize this as the scare tactic it is.
Or perhaps we're just giving prudent advice?You guys sound like the bitter old uncle, telling the kids that they better respect their elders, or else.
Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects?russ_watters said:Or perhaps we're just giving prudent advice?
Gokul43201 said:Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects?
Well first off, no one is telling anyone not to post in any thread. But [shrug] the article was published yesterday, Gokul.Gokul43201 said:Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects?
I don't think discussing the topic is bad if you aren't irresponsible enough to discuss it without putting yourself in a predicament. It's only those that mouth off at their own detriment that have to worry, which is why I also started a thread warning people not to post something that could hurt them.Gokul43201 said:Isn't it a little late in the game, after having permitted (and even started) up to 5 different threads on this topic to be telling people not to post in them if they care about their future job prospects?
This is the original source of the letter: http://www.arabist.net/blog/2010/12...rospective-recruits-to-steer-clear-of-wi.htmlFrom: “Office of Career Services”
Date: November 30, 2010 15:26:53 EST:
Hi students,
We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.
The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.
Regards,
Office of Career Services
Ellsberg was the whistle-blower, not the journalist that publicized the Papers. No one at the Times (or later at the Post) was ever charged with espionage, treason, or, to my knowledge, anything remotely close to that. Even the mere injunction to stop the papers from printing further details didn't survive the courts.russ_watters said:On the fingers of one hand in the past 50 years. In any case, Daniel Ellsberg was tried, but acquitted for reasons not related to the merrit of the case.
I believe he is generally considered a journalist. Whether or not the hosting and publicizing of the leaked information constitutes an act of first-amendment-protected journalism is a different matter, one on which I don't have a solid opinion yet.[edit] Disclaimer: please do not take this post to be a statement that I consider Assange a journalist. I do not.
Those weren't on the level of the current uploads. The government has now come out officially stating that anyone in possesion of or dispersing the files are violating the law. It's serious now. People that were foolish enough to go to a server that had the files and download them are now on record. The government doesn't know if you were just curious or intending harm.Mathnomalous said:Was a similar email sent when the "collateral murder" video was recently released by Wikileaks? Going back a bit further, was a similar email sent when Valerie Plame's name was leaked?
Those are two very important questions.
Evo said:Those weren't on the level of the current uploads. The government has now come out officially stating that anyone in possesion of or dispersing the files are violating the law. It's serious now. People that were foolish enough to go to a server that had the files and download them are now on record. The government doesn't know if you were just curious or intending harm.
Actually what I've been reading is that he is not *currently* considered a journalist. There have been so many issues, I have not saved everything that I have read. But no, wikileaks is definitely not considered a news site and doesn't qualify as journalism, it is considered a site simply for uploading files due to the wikileaks purpose statement.Gokul43201 said:I believe he is generally considered a journalist.
We could do that, but this thread was my "wake up call" and you see that people still don't get it.As for the policy decision, I think it would be prudent and at least somewhat more overtly consistent to have a clear "post at your own peril" kind of warning in some prominent place (like the thread title) in the other threads.
Perhaps so. But all that means is that I didn't formulate eloquently enough my understanding of ideals that I would assume we all espouse.russ_watters said:That's fractured and naive.
As much as any other individual.russ_watters said:Lets turn it around: how much privacy do you think you are entitled to?
Because (1) governments and companies aren't individuals, and (2) because their collective wealth and power makes them adversaries wrt individual freedom.russ_watters said:Why is a government or a company not entitled to any?...
Bad for your job prospects?? Job prospects?? Ok. The advice is saying anti-government things will hurt your job prospects. What's next? Saying anti-government things will affect ...? What? Your life? Your family? For all of you so-called mature people who want to advocate this sort of behavior, all I can say is that I was, as a youth, willing to die for quite the opposite. That anybody, anywhere, at any time could say any goddamned thing they wanted to about the freaking government. Now, you tell me, was I wrong? Were more than 200,000 young people killed or wounded in Vietnam wrong?russ_watters said:It is also - again - completely irrelevant to the practical reality of the warning. The issue isn't whether you think secrecy is good or bad, the issue is to make people aware that saying anti-government things on the internet can be bad for your job prospects.
What are you talking about? This thread is a warning not to post dumb stuff that will ruin your life.ThomasT said:I mean, what are you talking about? Don't you want a government that's propagating lies or doing bad things to be exposed? Well, if you say yes to that, then the only way to go about it is to have as much exposure, disclosure, and freedom of discussion as possible -- don't you think?
The question should not so much be whether wikileaks qualifies as journalism as much as whether their work is protected under the first amendment. The case law, as far as I'm aware, takes a broad view of what gets to be protected under the freedom of press.Evo said:Actually what I've been reading is that he is not *currently* considered a journalist. There have been so many issues, I have not saved everything that I have read. But no, wikileaks is definitely not considered a news site and doesn't qualify as journalism, it is considered a site simply for uploading files due to the wikileaks purpose statement.
I might be one of those people. I think it's reasonable to expect that an employer like the government might not be inclined to hire someone that praises the leaking. At the same time, I think it does look like a bit of an over-the-top threat to warn that any discussion about wikileaks would jeopardize your possibility of government employment.We could do that, but this thread was my "wake up call" and you see that people still don't get it.
Of course they will publicly say "do what you want". Is that surprising? The fact is that employers are refusing to hire people based on what they posted online.Gokul43201 said:The question should not so much be whether wikileaks qualifies as journalism as much as whether their work is protected under the first amendment. The case law, as far as I'm aware, takes a broad view of what gets to be protected under the freedom of press.
Reading from the wiki page, the notable precedent seem to be Lovell v. City of Griffin, in which Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." I think something like wikileaks would very well fit under that definition.
I might be one of those people. I think it's reasonable to expect that an employer like the government might not be inclined to hire someone that praises the leaking. At the same time, I think it does look like a bit of an over-the-top threat to warn that any discussion about wikileaks would jeopardize your possibility of government employment.
Edit: Was typing this up simultaneously with galteeth's post above.
Evo said:Of course they will publicly say "do what you want". Is that surprising? The fact is that employers are refusing to hire people based on what they posted online.
You're in high school, surely you know how to google. Like I said, it's been posted before. It's not new.Mathnomalous said:It must be shocking stuff, since I am positive almost everyone at some point has posted something that may be deemed controversial online. Can we get specific examples?
Evo said:You're in high school, surely you know how to google. Like I said, it's been posted before. It's not new.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/assange-threatens-to-release-entire-cache-of-unfiltered-files/article1825922/
What are you talking about? Do you want to live in a society governed by propagandists? Would you acquiesce to lies? Or, would you rather be part of that element of society that exposes lies? It's a pretty straightforward question. If you say that you would want to expose lies, then that entails that you would be amenable to examining and discussing, in public, critically, what government and corporate entities forward as 'truth'. And, if so, then it would seem that you would encourage any discussions of any governmental and/or corporate communications that have been exposed. Which would seem to obviate any admonitions wrt such behavior that you're already given in this thread.Evo said:What are you talking about? This thread is a warning not to post dumb stuff that will ruin your life.
I didn't know that. Anyway, I don't think this changes the general tenor of the discussion.Mathnomalous said:Mr. ThomasT, in another thread, Ms. Evo claimed she works under a non-disclosure contract for the US Department of Homeland Security. If this is true, part of her duties include, but are not limited to, the protection of classified US Government documents; that means she is not at liberty to discuss classified US Government business and must discourage and/or report any such discussions that may violate US federal laws.
Well ... ok.Mathnomalous said:Which really means, her side of the issue is already forced upon her, for good reasons, and however she truly feels about this issue, you will not know about it, unless she is released of her duties (depending on her clearance, up to 50 years, perhaps more). Basically, if the US Government engages in any wrong-doing, she must protect that information, because it may be classified information.
Andre said:Excuse me that I have not read all posts in this thread, so this may have been said before. But what would you think if somebody of the family went on the street and distributed all the keys of your house and the combination of the safe to anybody who wants it. Now would it matter then if your dad was super or an incompetent government? It's a matter of your security and your belongings. I can't even remotely understand how people sympathize with this jeapardizing their own interests.
Lisa talked about age relating to anybody position to this, maybe so but, IMO it's likely blind anger and/or some foreign interpretation of common sense to sympathize with such a crime.
This thread is about the right of any segment of the population to discuss publicly exposed government documents without fear of some sort of retribution by the governmental officials who authored those documents.Andre said:You are giving the key to somebody who enters your home at night with a gun and you won't survive?
A national safety issue means safety and national means you, not an incompetent government or anything of that.