Slashdot Mirror
UK Asks News Outlets Not To Publish WikiLeaks Bombshell, US Prepares For Fallout
Stoobalou writes "The UK government has issued Defense Advisory Notices to editors of UK news outlets in an attempt to hush up the latest bombshell from whistle-blowing web site WikiLeaks. DA Notices, the last of which was issued in April 2009 after sensitive defense documents were photographed using a telephoto lens in the hand of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick as he arrived at No 10 Downing Street for a briefing, are requests not to publish, and therefore not legally enforceable."
This news comes alongside a raft of articles detailing the US government's preparations for the release. Officials are warning allies that the documents will be more damaging than previous releases, to the point of potentially damaging diplomatic relations with countries like Turkey. The Vancouver Sun wonders if this will lead to a change in the way diplomats communicate.
Look, the most important thing to Julian Assange is that he get babes and that his hair looks good at all time. And that he has hip life story. He doesn't care about helping anyone, he's just a self-centered narcissist trying to get power. He'd have played the role of Dick Cheney if it had been offered to him.
Greatest source of freedom and liberty in the history of the planet. Saved you from living under hitler and then the politburo. Ungrateful pricks. Deserve your fate
Is this the point where I reminder the poster that slavery and inequality for a group of Americans was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Okay, how about you and your significant other start being brutally honest with each other all the time...let us know how that works for you.
"Perhaps governments should behave lawfully". Sure, who's law? Sharia, how about basing international law on that. The Christian countries won't mind covering up their women, paying a tithe to the Muslim nations for the sin of not being Muslim, etc. Or how about Chinese law? They have human rights there. Maybe you'd like Russian law which is more contact sport than anything else.
Ah, but you probably mean some International Law which springs forth immaculate from the bunny world of your imagination. Let's try that for awhile. Remember this is the same international law that allowed Darfur.
Indeed at an absolute minimum we need regulations to prevent media monopolies.
That's absurd. This type of company doesn't lend itself well to economies of scale, nor are there's (non-artificial) barriers to entry, meaning while a really good one could try to become a natural monopoly, you'd likely still get monopolistic competition.
No, we need a well informed electorate to keep them in check.
And you're saying we need government interfering with the news, to make it better? So, the institution currently stomping around the world, trying to stop the news from getting out. The one institution that has abused their rights, and attempted to control the media when they think its in their/our best interests. This is the institution you want regulating our media companies?
You talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
...just because you disagree with something, does not make it "flamebait".
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
"best achieved with an unregulated media but, with the rise of companies such as Fox News"
You imply that Fox News is unregulated media. The US media is highly regulated. Your local newspaper might be willing to report anything but the people in a position dig up real dirt will lose all access and be blocked from every press conference if they report anything serious.
That's absurd. This type of company doesn't lend itself well to economies of scale
So you would be happy getting ALL your news from a single company? Are you insane? Why not just give them your vote and let them cast it for you while you are at it - it will save time.
...nor are there's[sic] (non-artificial)[sic] barriers to entry, meaning ... you'd likely still get monopolistic competition.
Really? How about the requirement to purchase a broadcast license to use certain areas of the bandwidth? How do you have competition if one company owns all the available channels?
And you're saying we need government interfering with the news, to make it better?
No, I'm saying that we need government regulation to ensure that people have access to a variety of different news sources so that one company does not get to dictate what they see. Care to explain how that can possibly prevent news from getting out?
You talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
Have you ever wondered what "freedom of the press" is a useful for? Questioning whether it is still fulfilling that essential purpose is not an unreasonable thing to do. Of course if you were that well educated you probably wouldn't have to resort to such childish arguments.
Oh, he read it in a book. Must be true!
Oh, bullshit. The "Civil War" happened because a bunch of slave-owning terrorists were fearful that people were turning against their morally bankrupt way of life.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
That's right, we just ignore you if they don't already assist our confirmation bias.
As for independently verifying anything, well, that would require some critical though and some time; those are two things we don't like because it usually compromises geopolitical ideology or our limited capacity world view.
Wait, did I just say that out loud?
When did that happen?