The question was SHOULD I BE ARRESTED for my role in exposing the satanist shitbags in office? Okay you say. I suppose you consider it fair price to pay for exposing the truth? I'll accept that.
Once again, what matters more regarding Assange exposing truth? How he did it or that he did it?
Quoting: Bright Side The thing is, the example you gave is a bad one, because posting a video of child rape on facebook would be 100%
illegal, regardless of any reason you may or may not have had for doing so, and regardless of who it showed doing it. The person doing it might end up being arrested too, but that doesn't make you posting it legal.
With Assange I think he could have been more careful in how he acted, even if some of what he released needed to be released.
Bright Side's argument was about
ethics ("SHOULD"), not legality.
The legal system is CORRUPT.
Who do you suggest Bright expose this
major world leader's act to?
The police???? Yeah, RIGHT..
Look at what happened with Hampstead, and there are other cases, very similar.
Assange knows and understands, the ONLY reliable (i.e. the most
ethical) way to handle
truth that governments will not allow: is to put it directly into the hands of the PUBLIC.
What other way is there? Literally
any other way - is going to be twisted into a conspiracy theory, discredited, silenced by media.
As to the specific example-
o you realize how "discredited" pedogate is in the public? People literally will mock you if you bring it up.
They are so blinded by the control system they WILL NOT BELIEVE unless you
prove it to them.
As harsh/crude as the material is -- THAT is how harsh/crude people's obstinace has become, to require that.
That's what Wikileaks achieved, and what made them so powerful. To put the raw evidence directly into the hands of the public. Let them be the jury.
So I believe Bright Side's example was very appropriate.
His question was... SHOULD he be arrested. "Should" is a question of
ethics, not a rigged legal system.
