Cari nexiani, contrariamente a quanto (giustamente) in uso in lista, l'oggetto dell'email è mio, non è il titolo dell'articolo: ci tenevo a DRAMMATIZZARE il discorso. Per analogia con quanto detto da Fico ieri in merito a Regeni, quanto sta succedendo ad Assange è un calcio in faccia, con gli anfibi, alla libertà di ciascuno di noi. Non credo di esagerare dicendo che il «caso Assange» è un punto di non ritorno, dopo il quale sarà impossibile per l'occidente sostenere quello che ha sostenuto fino a tre secondi fa. «Wikileaks-Hosted "Most Wanted Leaks" Reflects the Transparency Priorities of Public Contributors» Kurt Opsahl, Wed 1 Jul 2020 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/wikileaks-hosted-most-wanted-leaks-ref... --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The government recently released a superseding indictment[1] against Wikileaks editor in chief Julian Assange, currently imprisoned and awaiting extradition in the United Kingdom. As we’ve written before, this prosecution poses a clear threat to journalism, and, whether or not Assange considers himself a journalist, the indictment targets routine journalistic practices such as working with and encouraging sources during an investigation. [...] Rather than viewing this document as a wishlist generated by Wikileaks staff or a reflection of Assange’s personal priorities, we must understand that this was a publicly-generated list developed by contributors who felt each “wanted” document offered information that would be valuable to the public. [...] The Most Wanted Leaks page shows that it has visible “edit” links, similar to what one might find on any wiki page. [...] It’s easy to understand why. The government prosecutors are trying to paint a picture of Assange as a mastermind soliciting leaks, and is charging him with violating computer crime law and the Espionage Act. It doesn’t suit their narrative to show Wikileaks as a host for a crowdsourced page where activists, scholars, and government accountability experts from across the globe could safely and anonymously offer their feedback on the transparency failures of their own governments. [...] We’ve long argued that working with sources to obtain classified documents of public importance is a well-established and integral part of investigative journalism and protected by the First Amendment. [...] Many of the documents on the Most Wanted Leaks page are of clear public interest. Some of the documents requested by editors of the page include: * Lists of domains that are censored (or on proposed or voluntary censorship lists) in China, Australia, Germany, and the U.K. * In Austria, the source code for e-Voting systems used in student elections. * Documents detailing the Vatican’s interactions with Nazi Germany. * Profit-sharing agreements between the Ugandan government and oil companies * PACER - the United States’ federal court record search database. While today it’s in the government’s interest to paint Wikileaks as a rogue band of hackers directed by Assange, the Most Wanted Leaks page epitomizes one of the most important features of Wikileaks: that as a publisher, it served the public interest. Wikileaks served activists, human rights defenders, scholars, reformers, journalists and other members of the public. With the Most Wanted Leaks page, it gave members of the public a platform to speak anonymously about documents they believed would further public understanding. It’s an astonishingly thoughtful and democratic way for the public to educate and communicate their priorities to potential whistleblowers, those in power, and other members of the public. The ways Wikileaks served and furthered the public interest doesn’t fit the prosecution’s litigation strategy. If Assange goes to court to combat the Espionage charges he is facing, he may well be prevented from discussing the public interest and impact of Wikileaks’ publication history. That’s because the Espionage Act, passed in 1917, pre-dated modern communications technology and was never designed as a tool to crack down on investigative journalists and their publishers. There’s no public interest defense to the Espionage Act, and those charged under the Espionage Act may have no chance to even explain their motivation or the impact—good or bad—of their actions. [...] Regardless of how you feel about Assange as a person, we should all be concerned about his prosecution. If found guilty, the harm won’t be just to Assange himself—it will be to every journalist and news outlet that will face legal uncertainty for working with sources to publish leaked information. And a weakened press ultimately hurts the public’s ability to access truthful and relevant information about those in power. And that is directly against the public interest. Read the new charges against Assange. [1] A superseding indictment means that the government is replacing its original charges with new, amended charges. [2] The Most Wanted Leaks document was also submitted in Chelsea Manning’s trial. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-wikileaks-most-wanted-list-admitte... --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- -- Giovanni Biscuolo