Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#71

Post by slg » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #34

slg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-Americans are certainly protected by the Constitution while in the US, but I thought there was still a legal debate about whether the US Constitution fully applies to foreign nationals while outside the US. Hasn't that long been the legal excuse used for things like international mass surveillance and what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?

The First Amendment doesn't apply to anyone while outside the US. A US citizen in Saudi Arabia doesn't have First Amendment protections there. For the US to prosecute Assange, they have to prosecute him in the US, where he does enjoy First Amendment protections, as the First Amendment limits what Congress (and via the Fourteenth, state/local as well) can do .

I think you are misinterpreting the question. The US Constitution obviously has no legal impact on the laws of Saudi Arabia. The question is whether the US government needs to follow the US Constitution when dealing with a non-US citizen on non-US soil.

There seems to be a precedent that US citizens have different legal protections from the US government while abroad when compared with non-citizens. That is why US citizens involved with Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or similar hostile organizations will occasionally receive a domestic trial in the criminal justice system while non-citizens generally only face military trials if anything.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#72

Post by diminoten » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #41

tssva wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. US Government employees have whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and PPD-19 which Obama issued in 2012.

Unfortunately too late for Chelsea Manning.

Yeah, which is why her sentence was commuted (albeit later than would be ideal for her).

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#73

Post by ABCLAW » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #57

belltaco wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent is very important in the judicial system. If Assange can show that he was cracking the password of a US military login as a hobby, he might get away with it. But I don't think even his ardent supporters would buy that theory.

I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people, but that's not what happened here. The only supposed criminal act here is agreeing to help, not actually providing help. This does nothing at all to further the conspiracy.

So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#74

Post by ryanlol » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #73

ryanlol wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people, but that's not what happened here. The only supposed criminal act here is agreeing to help, not actually providing help. This does nothing at all to further the conspiracy.

So you're saying he... conspired to do something illegal?

Yes, but where I'm from you need to actually do something in furtherance of the conspiracy to face prosecution.

I'm not trying to make a legal argument, this just feels fundamentally wrong to me.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#75

Post by syntaxing » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under.

Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1].

[1]https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-first-amendmen...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#76

Post by throwawayjava » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #57

belltaco wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent is very important in the judicial system. If Assange can show that he was cracking the password of a US military login as a hobby, he might get away with it. But I don't think even his ardent supporters would buy that theory.

I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people, but that's not what happened here. The only supposed criminal act here is agreeing to help, not actually providing help. This does nothing at all to further the conspiracy.

It's not aupposed.

The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. The court's job is to enforce the actual existing text of the actual existing laws.

The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if your effort alone is not the lynchpin. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#77

Post by favorited » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

chmaynard wrote: post #2

When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.

> The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent

The Times was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers, but they didn't facilitate their theft. Ellsberg was charged for the theft, but of course the Nixon admin's misconduct resulted in the charges being dismissed.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#78

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #3

What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others? Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#79

Post by ryanlol » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #76

ryanlol wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hope that the government would have to show actual acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to charge people, but that's not what happened here. The only supposed criminal act here is agreeing to help, not actually providing help. This does nothing at all to further the conspiracy.

It's not aupposed. The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. The court's job is to enforce the actual existing text of the actual existing laws. The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if your effort alone is not the lynchpin. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime.

>The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be.

Ah great. Did I ever suggest that?

>The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if you do not succeed. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime.

This is correct, but doesn't mean that it's right.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#80

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

syntaxing wrote: post #75

When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under. Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1]. [1] https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-fir…

> When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security

You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.