If we’d built a more civically minded culture we would not be having debates about, say, whether Julian Assange is a nice guy, or whether what he does is responsible journalism. We would instead be asking whether the basic elements of the crime he’s alleged to have committed against America – encouraging a whistleblower to disclose classified information – are the same basic elements of so much investigative journalism. The point is not Julian Assange. The point is the way the crime is framed – not the alleged criminal, but the things being criminalised. Just as the point is not whether the person being raided is a journalist or a citizen, but the extent to which those powers are ripe for abuse. If the only freedom you care about is freedom of the press, soon enough that will fold too because you’ve created a culture that’s insensitive to civic ideals.
Waleed Aly, Sydney Morning Herald 06.06.2019
As a stand-alone paragraph, the above has been constructed in a chaotic style. Please permit me to restate your oddly convoluted reasoning:
1. “Civically minded” cultures would not be debating Assange’s winning personality and ethics.
2. “Civically minded” cultures would be debating whether whistleblowing encouragement is the equivalent of investigative journalism.
3. Julian Assange is only a symbol being used to further the loss of journalistic rights narrative.
4. The Assange narrative is false and it sucks and it’s dangerous.
5. Such a narrative leads to abuse of power.
6. Freedom of the press is only as good as its culture.
That’s better, I feel more intellectually organised, now. Let me respond.
1. Civilised cultures inhabited with civilised people would not need to debate the infringements which 18c imposes.
2. Civilised cultures would be debating whether freedom of speech infringements are the equivalent of inferior cultures’ censorship and what that type of censorship leads to, ie, a throw-back.
3. 18c is only a symbol and it’s only a baby step to further the loss of rights narrative.
4. The multicultural narrative on freedom of speech is false and it sucks and it’s dangerous.
5. This fake narrative will lead to abuse of power.
6. Freedom of speech is only as good as its culture.
One peel leads to another peel. It’s like an onion. So when MSM cry but muh journalistic rights, I can’t say that I am surprised and you cannot deny that you weren’t warned. Yet, to this day, you stand by the 18c freedom of speech narrative.
I have not seen any comments on whether Julian Assange is nice or not, but I’ll grant you that that could be due to our very different reading and researching diets. I have, however, seen on the ABC (your mates), the Most Holy Father Peter Greste stating that journalistic protections ought to be reserved only for a select few and that Julian Assange was not included in the club.
I could, at this point, sit here and describe the glee and joy I am currently feeling, but I shan’t. Well, maybe just a little.
Annabelle @ The Art of Flag-waving