Assange was a hero up until right about then. Then he was a criminal.
A better question is: why is the media telling you that the media is ignoring it?
In addition to this link, Google news is showing me[0] these headlines:
• “My ringside view in the case of Julian Assange” - Evening Standard, 1 day ago
• “George Christensen calls on Australia to lodge formal protest over treatment of Julian Assange” - The Guardian, 1 day ago
• “Julian Assange will spend Christmas in prison as judge will decide on January 4 whether to extradite WikiLeaks found to the US on espionage charges” - Daily Mail, 1 day ago
• “Assange ‘forced’ those behind war crimes ‘to look in the mirror,’ now faces revenge, John Pilger tells RT” - RT, today
• “Julian Assange 'acutely troubled' that unredacted documents made public, court hears” - Press Gazette, 3 days ago
• “Shooting of unarmed civilians in Iraq 'would have remained a secret but for Julian Assange'” - Evening Standard, 3 days ago
• “US intelligence sources discussed poisoning Julian Assange, court told” - The Guardian, 2 days ago
And that’s just the first page of results; subsequent pages show it being covered by The Intercept, The Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, Sky News, Deutsche Welle, and a lot more I’ve never heard of.
[0] caveat: I’m in Berlin and explicitly chose UK results, because The Independent is a UK newspaper; choosing USA results gives me a differently list of recent results from a different set of publishers, but the point is the same
The modern day digital equivalent is harder to determine and I am not aware of any service attempting to do so. The news companies have solid analytics on how their websites are used. For each of those articles linked were they on the front page? Did the user have to scroll down to a section where stories are only clicked on by 2% of users? Did the story remain linked on the front page of the website for 1 hour or for 2 days? Is the contents of the link the same as the contents was when it was first published?
It’s entirely possible that the reach of all of those articles you linked above could be measured in the 10’s of people rather than the millions.
Most people don’t search for news on a topic. They visit Fox/CNN or whatever their preferred source is and consume what is presented to them.
They picked sides because the FSB threatened to kill them, so it was a good call for not dying, but it does entirely invalidate their mission.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileak...
They aren't, media industry organizations have been hyping this story. And media outlets have been full of hyperventilating editorial and opinion articles on it.
And, weirdly, also pushing the “the media is ignoring it” narrative, which as bizarre self-referential media metanarratives go, is a doozy.
> I assume it’s because Wikileaks’ mission came under question because their leaks benefited the wrong side.
Wikileaks had very little support outside of the far left fringe even before they became overtly part of the Russian influence operation in 2016 so, yeah, when they became a tool of the Russians supporting the American hard right they lost a lot of that; the mainstream media, of any leaning, never really supported them but is, nevertheless, hyping the media freedom angle in the Assange case.
Assange pissed off the American left when he gave the appearance of supporting Trump. I would guess he pissed off a lot of people outside of America because most liberal leaning people seem to dislike Trump. Those same people are the ones that would normally be outraged by something like this but don't care anymore.
Fascism and totalitarian Communism are the two great utopian death cults of the 20th century. Anyone who supports either of these in any serious and substantial way should absolutely be “cancelled.”
I agree that there has been more attention toward cancelling the fascist side, but that is because they were ascendant. Those who actually believe in freedom generally find themselves opposing the totalitarian left or the totalitarian right depending on which side is presenting a threat at a given time. If the totalitarian left rises again, then the focus will have to change to destroying that.
I’ve heard it put this way: true libertarians sound like conservatives when the far left is rising and like liberals when the far right is rising. That is because we have to fight every utopian totalitarian grift that comes along.
Good luck.
I definitely end up this way talking to friends. My politics are always othered for not parroting their party line, generally whatever nascent groupthink is setting the stage for some future corporate-totalitarian push.
But you've seriously got to apply this insight to your own lead off assertion:
> It was clear to me that he [Assange] was a supporter of the fascist movement that swept across the tech and hacker culture in the early to mid teens, and that he biased his leaks accordingly
Your claim that the right-totalitarian side was ascendant in the "early to mid teens" has more to do with your own perspective, seemingly ignoring the overarching societal tone of left authoritarianism (led by the White House). IMO the rise in red flavored thinking was driven by dissent, and I say this as someone with generally blue biases.
It's extraordinary the power of even absurd allegations as those to ruin a man's life.
Whether Assange committed a sexual crime or not, it is incontrovertible that accusing him of one was the most effective and least risky way to discrete him. It wouldn't even have required any lying accuser either; manipulating a pissed off lover into reframing their relationship with him as less consensual than it was at the time would be a rather simple exercise for a spymaster.
Read it for yourself: https://www.ericschwartzman.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/c...
No threats, coercion, or violence need to be involved. You must have explicit consent for every sexual encounter. Not just intercourse.
So, if you do something sexual but you failed to get her to sign a contract. She later reports the sexual encounter as not having the signed contract. You are a rapist going to prison.
Suspiciously timed in terms of raising and dropping, let alone the actual detail of the accusations (not apparently made in those terms by the alleged victims) which trivialise the awful trauma of actual rape.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-j...
This is used to imply that the US does not respect press freedom. While that might be true (personally don’t think it particularly is), non-US persons don’t enjoy any of the rights of the US constitution. There are different laws in different places. Assange should enjoy the British Rights to freedom of the press/expression, whatever those are (or the rights relevant to wherever he was).
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This doesn't say anything about whose freedom of speech, only that Congress may not abridge it. The existence of the freedom of speech is taken as a given, regardless of whose speech it is. The restriction is on Congress to not be able to abridge that freedom of speech, no matter who holds it.
Isn't it because the preamble begins with `We the people of the united states [..]` ?
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I believe the right treaty is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_tr...
This is a very common misconception. In most cases, the Bill of Rights protects any person anywhere from the US government.
There's no mention of citizenship in the Bill of Rights, and the 1st Amendment forbids the federal government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." There's no geographic or citizenship qualification.
It seems to me that the only thing the American press disagrees with the author on is the degree of hype that's warranted. They think the case is worth covering, but disagree that it's "an unprecedented attack on press freedom", "a crucial tipping point", "their future is wrapped up in his fate".
The Espionage Act is almost certainly unconstitutional, though it's still on the books. Ever since the Vietnam War, there's been a tacit understanding that the government will only use the law to go after government employees who leak information, but that the government won't prosecute the people who publish the information. With this prosecution, the Trump administration is breaking that understanding. The precedent is being set that whenever a newspaper publishes, "Sources tell us..." or "According to documents viewed by...," they're opening themselves up to criminal prosecution.
Christopher Hitchens references that in the opening of his defense of free speech: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY?t=2
"There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, […]. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. […] If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. […] The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon […]. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. […] They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, journalist for The New York Times, 1880
