Barrett_Brown

Really, Mike? They just "seem" to be different, despite relaying contradictory accounts? You can't even acknowledge that they're quite demonstrably different in key aspects? And given that this aspect of the case has been of major international focus, might you consider explaining how - in a universe of such vast uncertainty that one may only cautiously hypothesize that a door being locked and man being shot at the doorway and a door being ajar and a man being shot well inside his own apartment are in fact different things - you have managed to "know" that the version on the search warrant was written "before investigators spoke to Guyger"? Because that would be somewhat of a story in and of itself, if that warrant was based on an account given by something other than the sole survivor? Could it have been provided via automatic writing? Was it fan fiction?

Unfortunately, the mainstream press didn't really have the gravity or the integrity of action to prevent other, even worse outlets from popping up. Had the New York Times not continued to employ Thomas Friedman even after it became clear that he was less than worthless in terms of explaining world politics, they would have more room to make their own case. Same thing with the Washington Post and Charles Krauthammer, who, as I showed in an old Vanity Fair online piece, was wrong about every U.S. military engagement since Kosovo. Those aren't the only problems with these respectable national outlets, of course, but they're very telling regarding the cowardice of editors and publishers who continued to promote incompetent commentators simply because they've made some vague name for themselves.

And of course WaPo's failed attempt to identify some website that could sort out "fake news" is indicative of the chief fact of our press culture - that much of how it operates is haphazard at best, and that falsehoods can creep in to any outlets, regardless of pedigree, if its operators lose track of basic principles such as hiring competent people and firing incompetent ones. Personal relationships, inertia, ambition, and that sort of things are the chief problems facing our political press, rather than corporate interference or anything else of that sort.

EDIT:

Here's an incomplete case against Friedman; a more comprehensive argument as to why he represents a crisis of ethics within the legacy press may be seen in my free book, Keep Rootin' for Putin (the title of which is taken from an actual Friedman column from 2000). column

I never really minded raping people, so I guess the food.

Hi, William; Barrett Brown here. First I want to thank you for your work in protecting those like myself who were investigated for bringing attention to these issues, such as by your involvement with the Courage Foundation, which has helped me, Lauri Love, and several others over the past few years. I'm scheduled to do an IAMA two hours from now and will be going into all of that then.

My question is, in your opinion, does there come a point at which the weight of criminal conduct by the state is sufficient to justify resistance to its activities, regardless of whether or not the state derives its powers from the consent of the citizenry, informed or otherwise? And does a republic have greater rights to engage in oppression of domestic and foreign populations than would a dictatorship simply by virtue of deriving its powers from the citizenry?

I was an early supporter of Wikileaks, and continue to support the leaking of files from any state or other institution that engages in criminal activity on a large scale.

I have no doubt that leaking, as well as hacking by various ideologically-motivated groups, will become more common in the coming years.

Yes, I will not remain in the United States after my term of probation is up. Most likely I will move to Berlin or Iceland, at which point I'll revoke my citizenship.