Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#91

Post by the_watcher »

pytester wrote: post #66
roywiggins wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Cracking a password is one thing; cracking a password for someone else so they can commit a crime (and you knew this was what they were doing with it) is a crime. If I know Joe's password, and I pass it on to Steve so Steve can log in and steal Joe's secrets and pass them back to me, I am in a conspiracy to commit a crime under the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car is on t…

In this case it was cracking a password to blow the lid on US war crimes in Iraq.

That is irrelevant to the fact that he's being charged with conspiracy to, which doesn't require that he's the person who actually gains access.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#92

Post by rosser »

ryanlol wrote: post #65
pytester wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value on behalf of Manning and encouraging him to leak more information (Obama's DOJ refused to make this charge because it's something all journalists do).

No, he's being prosecuted for allegedly agreeing to extract a password from a hash. Not for actually doing so, massive difference.

The definition of a criminal conspiracy requires intent and an agreement to act in furtherance of that intent, and only one of the conspirators to have committed overt acts.

Everyone with mens rea is guilty of conspiring, not just the person who committed the actus reus.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#93

Post by antt »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #50
chiefalchemist wrote: post #32

First, I want to say I'm not dismissing the validity of the sexual assault charge. That's a serious change, and it should be addressed via proper legal channels. That said, having watched (the film) "Untouchables" for the Xth time, it's certainly possible given the powers involved he could be getting the Al Capone treatment. Put another way, how or why he ends up in jail isn't nearly as important as him ending up in…

You have to choose: either the sexual assault charges are being investigated by an independent judiciary, or it is all part of some conspiracy to put him in jail. Judging by how much emphasis on the second option, I find it hard to not read an implied dismissal of the sexual assault charge in your comment.

Everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at Assange. Grooming children from the embassy, meeting Russians in the embassy, meeting Trumps team in the embassy. At what point does you bullshit detector go off and you think "there are at least three people organizing this character assaination, that is the definition of a conspiracy"?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#94

Post by calhoun137 »

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded

https://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#95

Post by the_watcher »

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…

Journalism gets First Amendment protections. So if you broke into someone's house, found out they were doing something illegal, then wrote an expose on it, your story would get First Amendment protections, but you would not be immune from being charged with breaking and entering.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#96

Post by roywiggins »

ceejayoz wrote: post #51
pytester wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access In this case it was Chelsea Manning accessing the computer. Assange didn't touch it. >It doesn't matter if you guess the password because you knew the owner's dogs's name and date of birth, it's still intentional access ...by Chelsea Manning, not Assange.

The indictment alleges Assange induced Manning to do it, which makes it a conspiracy. I do think that presents big press freedom issues; it'd be easy to see news organizations under fire in this fashion. Convincing a source to hand over stuff isn't much (or at all, really) different than the behavior described in the Assange/Manning case.

Yes, that concerns me too. Where does inducement start? There must be case law on it and maybe it really is a bright line, but it seems like a bit of a reach.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#97

Post by ryanlool »

>Please don't post about how the law works from your gut feelings about the matter. This forum is awash in people just imagining what the law is every time it comes up. Go look at the law itself. There's no requirement as you've imagined there is.

I never made any claims about how US law works. Please do not misattribute such claims to me, it's not only dishonest but also quite rude.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#98

Post by belltaco »

ryanlol wrote: post #74
ABCLAW wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assange wrote in a chat "No luck so far" to Manning.

Where you are from, can you go around trying to pick locks on front doors and are only prosecuted if you succeed? And the same with cars?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#99

Post by nickysielicki »

acqq wrote: post #64
pytester wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value on behalf of Manning and encouraging him to leak more information (Obama's DOJ refused to make this charge because it's something all journalists do).

> He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value They don't claim Assange extracted a password. They just claim that Assange said in the chat "no luck so far"! That is, that he wrote to Manning that he tried. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481... The indictment is "conspiracy" with Manning. So there's certainly something to back up the claim from this title https…

> Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the portion of the password provided to Assange.

Fun to see them exonerate themselves for using broken security by calling a hash a, "portion of the password".

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#100

Post by throwawayjava »

belltaco wrote: post #86
ikeboy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has constitutional rights, not just US citizens.

Depends. A foreign citizen visiting or working in the US is not allowed to own guns regardless of the 2nd amendment.

Green card holders may own and purchase guns, and non-permanent residents may also own and purchase guns (but it's complicated).

This isn't really relevant to the point you're making in this thread, but figured I'd point it out anyways

Post reply on HN