I don't see how you can group them with Snowden and Manning who observed wrong-doing first hand and took action at great personal risk.
Breaking into the watergate offices by one campaign to spy on another isn’t protected behavior in my opinion. I do support both Snowden and Assange and Manning and other whistleblowers who want the people to know how their government is spending their money or lying to them.
The Democrats lynched our President over nothing, and this should be grounds for outlawing the Democratic Party.
The Russians broke into the DNC to spy and find information they could use to destabilize the US elections.
Do you believe that Russian hacking of the DNC and releasing of selected emails is acceptable?
You approve of unfettered "altruistic" hacking but not evil hacking? How do you know what is being done? I assure you that if I were a hacker, I would be spinning everything I could in public and using whatever I could in private behind the scenes. One person's altruism is another person's personal profit. I think you are on a very slippery slope here condoning illegal conduct that embarrasses your opponents.
If it was Sander's campaign that was hacked by the Russians (or say the DNC) and embarrassing emails released, I doubt you would be so sanguine. There would be no moral difference between hacking Sanders, using it to publicly embarrass his campaign and privately develop strategies against him and what the Russians actually did to the DNC accept that if the DNC did such a thing, at least it wouldn't be an attack by a foreign power.
I will tell you that I do not approve of hacking anyone's e-mails and releasing them anywhere. I consider it theft and it should be punished. I believe that in a campaign you have to be able to communicate freely with others in your campaign without fear of it being released to the general public.
rosborne979 wrote:Freedom of Speech. If Russia wishes to pitch an argument to America's voters, they have just as much right to speak as anyone else.No votes were meddled with (at least not directly). You don’t need to meddle with votes if you can color the information stream which people use to pick their votes. That’s the value of propaganda.
I'm not sure it's Freedom of Speech when one country sets out to intentionally and surreptitiously alter the outcome of another country's political process. That's a singularly aggressive act for one sovereign country to take against another.
How else could Trump get away with such blatant lies and claims of fake news?
rosborne979 wrote:If all they do is run political ads to try to sway the voters, that seems like speech to me.I'm not sure it's Freedom of Speech when one country sets out to intentionally and surreptitiously alter the outcome of another country's political process. That's a singularly aggressive act for one sovereign country to take against another.