Let's see if I get this ...

[szh]

Not a quote (just my interpretation): "It is okay for me to leak information, but you can't do it!".

Hoist on his own petard.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_17332550

Z

[dusred]

I don't quite get it. So he leaks all these secret US documents. Shortly after Sweden leaks info of him for possible sex crimes. He cries like a baby at the injustice.

Is that correct?

[szh]

Pretty much!

Z

[IBCoupe]

The distinction being that it's arguably more acceptable for an individual to go after government wrongdoings than for the government to retaliate against that individual. And therein lies the point of whistleblower protection laws.

Probably, in his view, the government has no legal recourse, so they instead smear him.

Maybe there isn't a conspiracy, but that's the argument. In the event that the conspiracy did exist, I'm not so sure that he's wrong to be upset.

[szh]

Sorry, I do not compare Wikileaks actions to whistle-blowing actions by individuals. In particular, Assange does not work for the governments and organizations that he leaks information about.

Therefore, he cannot, and should not, be allowed to consider himself immune or protected in that manner. These laws were designed to protect the jobs (and financial situation) of the people who do whistle-blowing for ethical and moral reasons.

Since this is a fundamental difference between your viewpoint and mine, the rest of your argument does not hold water for me.

Z

[IBCoupe]

I'm not suggesting he should be shielded from all retribution. I'm just comparing the power imbalances and thus the purpose of whistleblower laws. I'm not suggesting that he should be subject to whistleblower laws.

Whatever you think of Assange's leaks, his past sexcapades have little to do with it. Even if you disagree with my "worldview," you surely don't accept ad hominem arguments as logically-sound, right?