Should Journalists Ignore Some Leaked Emails? (backchannel.com)

Tuesday Lawrence Lessig issued a comment about a leaked email which showed complaints about his smugness from a Clinton campaign staffer: "I'm a big believer in leaks for the public interest... But I can't for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this..." Now mirandakatz shares an article by tech journalist Steven Levy arguing that instead, "The press is mining the dirty work of Russian hackers for gossipy inside-beltway accounts." This is perfectly legal. As long as journalists don't do the stealing themselves, they are solidly allowed to publish what thieves expose, especially if, as in this case, the contents are available to all... [But] is the exploitation of stolen personal emails a moral act? By diving into this corpus to expose anything unseemly or embarrassing, reporters may be, however unwillingly, participating in a scheme by a foreign power to mess with our election...

As a 'good' journalist, I know that I'm supposed to cheer on the availability of information... But it's difficult to argue that these discoveries were unearthed by reporters for the sake of public good...
He's sympathetic to the idea that minutiae from campaigns lets journalists "examine the failings of 'business as usual'," but "it would be so much nicer if some disgruntled colleague of Podesta's was providing information to reporters, rather than Vladimir Putin using them as stooges to undermine our democracy." He ultimately asks, "is it moral to amplify anything that's already exposed on the internet, even if the exposers are lawbreakers with an agenda?"

Comments

Snowden also did something illegal

[NotInHere]

also, look at watergate. Journalists both used that content.

Re:Snowden also did something illegal

[0100010001010011]

Pentagon Papers

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

Re:Snowden also did something illegal

[Shane_Optima]

Motive: Helping us determine whether or not Hillary Clinton can be trusted when she promises something or makes a public stand.

I'd say that's a pretty goddamn honorable motive, but some people seem to think that by definition it can't be honorable if the evidence paints her in an unflattering light because Trump must be stopped at all costs.

I swear to fucking god, it's like it's 2004 again and asshat conservatives are trying to lecture us on why we're not supposed to ever criticize the president during wartime.

Re:Snowden also did something illegal

[Xenographic]

That's supposed to come out Monday, actually, in the next Project Veritas video. I'll reserve judgement until I see it for myself.

That said, there's already evidence that one of the guys caught was regularly visiting Obama and there was an email in the leaks that corroborated their daily 1 o'clock calls with the DNC. And there's all the talk of people who set things up so they won't know about things, not to mention that one might think the "nasty things" you were talking about were the violent rallies we now know to be staged, but whatever. This certainly has been a dismal election, I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.

Anyhow, let's wait and see when all the facts come out. I prefer to update my thinking as facts are uncovered, rather than pre-commit.

Re:Snowden also did something illegal

[squiggleslash]

And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?

They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.

There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.

And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.

Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.

So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.

Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.

Re:Palin was treated differently.

[jordanjay29]

Stolen is an interesting term for a routine publication of a former governor's communications.

Russia? You sure about that?

[mschuyler]

There surely are a lot of people determined to pin this stuff on Russia and claim interference, but the newest would suggest it was our own guy: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...