Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

Main Page

Ebooks Main Page

Old Articles

Forum Home > Scholarly Pursuits > Questions & Answers > Post Reply

FAQ

Post Reply: What is the difference?

Post Reply

Message

Topic: What is the difference?
Posted: 04-Apr-2016 at 07:16 By TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Aeoli

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Absolutely huge difference, at first sight, Aeoli, but saying that I'm unsure what Turkish laws your newspaper man is meant to have broken.

Turkey is not a law state, so I don't think that Turkish laws are matter. Current Turkey is good example of how stuck democracy. Democracy in here just means election and polls now. There is no law. We are real form of the fears of ancient philosophers about democracy.

If Turkish laws aren't the matter here then on what pretext is this newspaper man taken to court. Is it that all articles in your newspapers have to be cleared by a governmental department or something? As for the fear of ancient philosophers, Aeoli, what were these fears about having democracy?

Originally posted by Aeoli

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Regarding Snowden, he was in a position generally accepted as having restraints against disclosing sensitive material. However, it could be argued that some of the material which was only embarrassing when disclosed should not be considered in the same light as material putting current field operatives in jeopardy.

When I read "disclosing sensitive material", your all huge difference return to the dust, my friend.

Do you have any idea about why Can DUNDAR is accusing? I mean which news and how sensitve is the issue?

It seems that Dundar sees same huge difference as you. In his last defence, he mentioned about Snowden is a spy(he is not directly saying) but he is a reporter.

Let me discripe how shitty and cheap this perspective with a example

*Snowden can give the sources to an orginary reporter.

*Reporter can keep his source as secret.

*Reporter write it, make a news about it and he is totally free because of freedom speech.

*Reporter gets Pulitzer. HAPPY END

I would hardly say there's not a gulf between a member of the press whose job tends to be to sniff out stories of potential interest to the reader and disclose them and an operative of the security services who tends to be obliged by contract, written or verbal, to keep certain aspects/knowledge secret.. There's no conflict here only differences in perceived obligation.