I assume you this article is tongue and cheek and you're not actually morons.
There's a HUGE difference between a joke with ZERO follow-up (unless you have some smoking gun about him coercing Russia or giving support to them) and someone who makes actual EFFORT to get or induce someone to get classified material. Not to mention the RESULT. The result of Trump telling his joke was....NOTHING (again, unless you have the smoking gun no one else has), whereas with Manning, the result was actual theft of government documents.
PLUS, did you forget... Hillary swore up and down that there was no classified documents and I believe the FBI "cleared" her, so even if Russia DID get the emails - which has never been proven that they did - if there was no classified material in the emails, then there's no crime regardless.
That said, I think going after Assange is a mistake. I don't really care for him personally, but I respect that he serves a legitimate purpose in publishing information on wikileaks. He's even gone out of his way to remove certain information from the cables that could endanger certain people.
Wow... I know Techdirt are left wing hacks when they stray from intellectual "property issues", but seriously?! You seem to spend alot of time about the Punisher poster when it could just as easily have been a Batman, Superman, Daredevil, Deadpool, Lobo or any number of heroes/anti-heroes found in popular culture.
What would the narrative have been if it had been Batman? Another dark vigilante? Or Deadpool? Or Lobo? Or Ghost Rider?
Trying to infer motivations from what entertainment character someone likes is a HUGE stretch. Like... Stretch Armstrong or Plastic Man stretch.
Stick to intellectual property issues.
Let's face it... most "domestic terrorists" are those that the FBI's "sting" operations have coached and lead down the primrose path to arrest. Going so far as to pretty much come up the the plan, the money, the motivation and even pep talk to get them to finally agree.
The likelihood of them ever actually doing anything without FBI is minimal at worse, impossible at best.
So, if the FBI wants to halt the "domestic terrorist" "stings", I'm ok with that.
You can't regulate something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as journalism any longer. It died the true death. There are only editorials and commentators who tried to hide their bias... or don't even bother any longer.
Anyone who tells you differently is probably someone trying to pretend to be a journalist.
Once again, the Leftists in TechDirt rear their ugly heads. The SPLC is a despicable organization who takes things out of context or simply has no context whatsoever for labeling things "hate" speech or a "hate" group. They are the private equivalent of the government's No-Fly list. No one knows exactly how you get on it, but if you do, good luck getting off.
Funny how LeftDirt... I mean... TechDirt... hates the no-fly list but just smooches the butt of SPLC.
If you get put on the SPLC, it can do REAL harm to you. Certain organizations and banks/financial institutions (Visa/Mastercard) will not do business organizations on the SPLC "hate" list. Which can cause significantly more issues than not being able to fly.
And they have NO ACCOUNTABILITY. ZERO. ZIP. NIL. NADA.
And yet... LeftDirt thinks it's a bad idea to fight them?
I don't have alot of sympathy for this guy. He KNEW at the time that his girlfriend was underage. He CHOSE to be in relationship with an underage person. Then he CHOSE to take inappropriate pictures of her, knowing full well that she was underage.
The US should do some saber rattling and have the State Department put Malaysia on the DO NOT TRAVEL list for the US until they retract such a broad and obviously overreaching and abusive law for violating human rights.
It's not much, but if enough nations that contribute to the prosperity of Malaysia do it, they'll get the message.
Seems like this is the "catch all" "get out of jail free" law for the government to arrest and/or fine anyone it feels like since it appears that THEIR version of the facts always triumph.
Geez... you just LOVE throwing your left-wing liberal bias into your stories.
Like most liberals, you ignore any facts that don't suit your narrative. It's actually been proved over and over that Facebook and Youtube DO have a bias against conservatives. Do some research.
That said, there is no case for censorship - even on a partisan basis - against Facebook, Youtube or any other private platform for censorship.
Private companies CAN censor anyone for any reason. If you don't like it, you take your business elsewhere. The first amendment only restricts GOVERNMENT restrictions on speech - and has been watered down since it's inception.
So, while I do agree that the "Masters of the Universe" (Facebook/Google/Twitter) have a STRONG liberal bias, I don't believe there is any merit in the case, except to possibly draw attention to the fact that they do have a bias.
Please get back to things you can speak intelligently on.
You may a number of completely false statements and quite a WRONG few assumptions based on some vague theory that you obviously created from a warped liberal mindset.
While I agree that the Secret Service is probably NOT the agency to be monitoring election polling stations, the fact that there ARE monitors should make people feel SAFER to vote, knowing there is someone there to prevent ANY political organization or group from intimidating LEGAL voters.
But... the moment they advocate one party over another or turn away a single LEGAL voter, then I would have a problem with it. THAT'S when it becomes similar to a dictatorship. If there are secret service agents walking into the booth with guns drawn while you cast your vote, then we have an issue. Just having armed members of law enforcement around... no... not even REMOTELY close to the "elections" in dictatorships.
I see both sides in this. Being a libertarian, I believe in free speech.
But, I also believe in the right of a company to run the company as they see fit.
The conflict occurs when the speech I post to the platform is moderated in an opaque way to suit a specific agenda, etc.
The recent news of facebook moderating conservative posts and links comes to mind.
Personally, I don't care for most social platforms, but I know people who are so hopelessly addicted to them that as long as they can post pictures of their latest meal or the shoes they saw someone wearing, they would never pull themselves away.
The bottom line is... you use someone else's platform, you play by their rules. Just make sure you know what those rules are. And if you find them having "secret rules", best look somewhere else.
Everyone complains about warrant-less searches and surveillance yet despite it being used by one administration (Obama's) to spy on a political opponent (Trump at the time) using some made up dossier, Republicans and Democrats BOTH signed on for 6 more years.
More Washington double speak. Say one thing to the press and your voters, and then do the exact opposite when you vote.
That's completely bogus. How does the school saying "remove our logo" in ANY way impend on anyone's freedom of speech?! ZERO. ZIP. NIL. NADA. The school had NOTHING to do with the students wanting reform AND by including the logo, "an idiot in a hurry" might assume the SCHOOL is siding with the reform - which was not the case.
In which case, the students were actually harming the reputation of the school by using the trademark, which IS protected by law.
Otherwise, I could use any logo on any product to pretend that company support my position or my product. But I can't do that.