In an era of "insta-reputational death by accusation in media being the punishment", I want media to be cautious and skeptical when there are no real facts yet. An affidavit in support of a search warrant is little more than an unevidenced assertion. Compared to the often extreme punitive consequences of the mere accusation being widely spread it can be disproportionate.
If the warrant produces actual evidence of wrongdoing it will later result in an indictment and ultimately a trial. That's the more appropriate time for media to consider those allegations as newsworthy. Sadly, there are documented examples of government (or individuals wielding the power of government) using extreme accusations in affidavits to intentionally inflict punishment. Rolling Stone choosing to not be unwitting 'judge-jury-executioner' at that early no-evidence stage doesn't mean they wouldn't report on an eventual indictment - when and if it happens.
It's ok for journalists to withhold evidence they don't find trustworthy, but they can't just put in lies as a replacement. The story repeatedly says they have no idea what grounds there could be for a raid, and it's probably retaliation for the guy's reporting. Those insinuations should not be in there at all, and note that they did repeat some of the government's claims:
> Sources familiar with the matter say federal agents allegedly found classified information on Meek’s laptop during their raid.
Those are probably the same sources that told Siegel about the CSAM. The sources are trustworthy or not, you can't just pick which of their claims you like.
Read that quote carefully — there's two layers to it.
The source is "familiar with the matter" — the journalist trusts what they have to say.
What the source says, though, is that federal agents allegedly found classified information. In other words, the source claims that the federal agents themselves are claiming this; but the source does not put any credence in this claim, and didn't want to communicate the claim in such a way that the journalist would put credence into it.
If the source actually believed the feds, there would be no need for the "allegedly" in the sentence; the "says" would do fine at making a use-mention distinction between the journalist's beliefs and a source's claims.
The use of the word “allegedly” is standard practice for reputable new organisations reporting on an individual being charged, but not yet convicted.
A core tenet of the justice system is the idea that your innocence until proven guilty. Hence the use of the word “allegedly”, by default any claims made by the government shouldn’t be treated as proven, until they’ve proved them in a court of law.
To assume that a law enforcement official, or prosecutors charges are true before they’ve proven them in a court of law would be to ignore due process. To publish those charges as facts, would be libel.
Everything you're saying would be true if it was the journalist themselves doing the alledging. But the journalist is quoting a source through paraphrase, and the source is doing the alledging.
It is not libel to say "An anonymous source said [libelous thing.]" Because there is no claim made through that statement that what the anonymous source is saying, is true. The only claim being made through that statement is that that claim is in fact what the source said. If the anonymous source wasn't anonymous, maybe they'd be guilty of libel. But the journalist isn't. They're just reporting on the libel someone else is committing.
Yes that's fine, and a great use of the word allegedly, but it's not fine to pick and choose which alleged allegations from the same source you include, and replace their unverified allegations with your own.
Source: Federal agents found classified documents and CSAM on his computer.
Rolling Stone: Federal agents allegedly found classified documents on his computer. The question looms on what grounds the feds would have had room to act on Meek. He appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. Maybe they were retaliating for his legitimate reporting activities?
Im posting this as an alt for what I think are obvious reasons.
If you're good at searching google, duckduckgo, various tor search engines and IPFS, child porn is not hard to find. (It is NOT my thing, btw. Ive ran across it in some tor researching. Alas.) However, in most states, possession is a statutory charge. To that end, it means if images end up on a computer <whistles>, and there's an anonymous tip, its going to end badly, cause with the statutory nature, simple possession is highly illegal.
Now to be fair, Stallman got into hot water due to his lacklustre way of expressing this issue. It's documentation of a heinous crime - one that should likely be a death penalty case - but the images themselves shouldn't carry criminal charge, let alone a statutory criminal charge. Frankly, thats due to how easy they are to acquire, and of a "youre guilty due to simple possession" aspect, even if you were unaware.
I also have to wonder, since a journalist doing research into classified govt stuff.. It's really easy to plant those images, and then find them. And you don't even need to hack into a computer. Just leave a thumbdrive hanging around with a label like "hard candy" in the premises, and instant 100+ year felony charge with automatic public assumption of guilt. Having such a "child porn charge" against a journalist doing sensitive research is certainly a great way to get that person permanently out of your hair, and to send a message to anyone else foolish enough to go near their work.
You make excellent points, and in a world were we know that people will remember accusations and not subsequent exonerations, it would be humane to delay reporting on the kind of accusation that will ruin a person’s life.
The problem is that Rolling Stone plays favorites. In a recent incident they ran the false headline “CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to Be Eradicated,” about someone that they didn’t like and who wasn’t a friend of the editor in chief. After being threatened with a lawsuit for this libel, they changed the headline. I don’t think they can be trusted.
Seems like that article is currently titled much more accurately: "CPAC Speaker Calls for Eradication of ‘Transgenderism’ — and Somehow Claims He’s Not Calling for Elimination of Transgender People".
I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one.
The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether.
I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty.
My wife's ex was "being investigated by CPS" at one point. He didn't do anything, but it is/was humiliating for him nonetheless.
"Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-enforcement officers actually removed him from the building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case remain sealed."
So, according to Siegel, Rolling Stone had information that the raid was not related to Meek's journalism. That first sentence is a lie.
And yet, the editor was willing to run that classified material had been found on his computer from those same sources and lead the reader to the conclusion he was targeted for national security reasons. Leaving out what has been reported to you as part of an effort to twist the narrative doesn't deserve slack.
I would argue that the general public does not give a single shit about the latest individual being accused of vague national security drama on any given day. A reporter possessed classified material on his personal laptop? Someone wake the President!
...oh, wait. The President's kid possessed classified material on his personal laptop too.
There's nothing really defamatory about it; if anything it might help his career. Nobody gives a shit about victimless white-collar crimes.
But child porn? You're radioactive once painted. That accusation causes actual damages.
I don’t believe the reason for an FBI raid is a notable fact at all, that’s just politics. A notable fact would be evidence discovered, and even that needs to be verified
Based upon NPR's telling it seems like the editor was trying to hide details about a friend's story as long as possible, and not present the details of the story with skepticism like you're implying.
So Dropbox found uploads, allegedly from Meek, containing CP. Then devices were found at Meek's residence containing CP. To there, you could fake it: pwn the box, open a Dropbox, upload pictures. Basic parallel construction.
In items 30-53 we have an allegation that Meek exposed himself to children on Omegle. This is more damning. Included in the evidence are pictures apparently showing Meek naked. Harder to fake. His face does not seem to be visible in any of the images. Some legitimate communications of Meek are also on the phone, corresponding with his known whereabouts (and might be checked against the other end if possible).
Conclusion: if this is a frame, it's a very well-made one.
Why would he be framed, though? He made a documentary about a military embarrassment (the Tongo Tongo ambush), and many years ago he documented a case of apparent manslaughter (of an American) by a captain in Iraq. In short, he was not exactly a Seymour Hersh or a Glenn Greenwald. I just don't see the 3LAs going to this much trouble to bag a guy who wrote a story about Niger.
So I conclude the case is probably real.
Thought I'd put this down and save someone else the trouble.
"on tape" meaning they have a video of him in front of a computer engaging in the conversation?
I skimmed through the affidavit & couldn't find that claim. It was difficult to read the content so I didn't look to deeply into it. Could you post a quote of the claim if it's there?
They don't claim to have video of him engaging in the conversation, but they do claim to have a pretty damning picture of him.
To support the idea that it was he who engaged in these messages, they claim that you can only be logged in to kik on one device at a time and have evidence that he was using the device for other purposes around the same time and in the same location as kik for at least one of these conversations.
That's my reading, anyways. Not a lawyer and have trouble with the stilted language in these kinds of things.
> We should not forget that illicit images are easily 'found' in convenient places to get people put behind bars.
"The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people. Based on other comments it seems like the accusations are a bit more substantial than a low effort frame. Nevertheless, there's a reason that the rest of the journalism industry basically dismissed it flat out.
That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard.
> "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people.
Except that we know, via Snowden, all manner of things that the TLAs can do and have done.
"Child Porn" charges should ALWAYS be acknowledged with great skepticism given just how much damage even the accusation will do--especially if the investigation is focused on just one person (ie. not part of a broader sting or sweep).
However, in this instance, the evidence looks pretty damning. I still don't like them reporting on it, though. The man deserves the opportunity to prove his innocence in court and reporting the accusations denies him that--even if he is found innocent (which admittedly looks unlikely), the reporting will destroy his life.
> That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard.
You said it yourself -- it's the difference between a suspicion, aka hypothesis, and theory, aka explanation based on evidence.
The problem with conspiracy theorists isn't that they think unlikely things might have happened, it's that they are 100% convicted that unlikely things are the only possible explanation, and (typically) that any evidence to the contrary is just part of the conspiracy.
> the investigation into James Gordon Meek, 53, of Arlington, was initiated from an investigative lead sent by Dropbox and ultimately received by the FBI Washington Field Office’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force.
Dropbox working with the fbi is a fact here. Jumping to dropbox working with the fbi regarding other files is fact as well. Dropbox knowing what is in your files is known as well.
It stops being a conspiracy when everyone admits to the facts
Well at one point they were paying GeekSquaders to _find_ and report it.
> "how does the government intend to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Geek Squad employees themselves didn't put the alleged porn pictures on the device?"
At what point is it more plausible that the FBI did their job? How does the government intend to prove that the CSAM wasn't created by cosmic ray bit flips? Threads like these are insufferable.
I don't really blame this journalist for suspecting the illicit images claim may not be as true as it appears.