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

211–220 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#211

Post by techntoke »

wybiral wrote: post #202
jancsika wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter. 1. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists. 2. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange. 3. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment groun…

Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to…

Exactly. They want special protections. I'm not advocating for the justice department not to take into consideration their motivation for transparency, but just because they may have had good intentions doesn't mean they can act with careless disregard in their actions. There are a lot of opportunities for improvement here on both sides.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#212

Post by loudtieblahblah »

dosy wrote: post #169
calhoun137 wrote: post #94

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 WikiL…

they can't break there law and get away with it. what gives them the right to decide what's secret or not? the state is not wholly good, nor are people. but that's okay, a lot of good still gets done. attacking such a system is wrong. attacking it under delusion of moral righteousness, then continuing to live in the shadow of the freedom it provides, is morally bankrupt. it's also stupid. I totally have the authorita…

Are you honestly comparing exposing war crimesdone on tax payer dollar to someone spying on my private life?

I just want to reply here just so you can't delete this crap comment.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#213

Post by cheesymuffin »

txru wrote: post #128

Revealing unknown facts is a political act. It never occurs inside a vacuum. While it's frequently a good thing, the sort of broad statements you're making about politicians making criminals out of the 'good guys' just doesn't represent the political facts. Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. Only the DNC hacked info got released. Are we supposed to thank…

And do you really think that he's the only one who had access to that information? If you're interested in the truth, you should be glad that someone out there is able and chooses to provide you with new information, even if he doesn't provide all of it.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#214

Post by jessaustin »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #185
jancsika wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter. 1. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists. 2. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange. 3. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment groun…

Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever. Filtering out everyone who happens to disagree with your opinion is a good way to get stuck in an echo chamber.

This goes some way toward explaining the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#215

Post by alasdair_ »

wybiral wrote: post #202
jancsika wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter. 1. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists. 2. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange. 3. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment groun…

Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to…

Was the database already in their possession, or was it remote?

Remote is hacking. If it’s something that was handed to them from a source then that seems like legitimate journalism.

Also “wikileaks” and Assange are very distinct entities. Are there jabber records of (provably) Assange stating that he was trying to hack a remote server belonging to the DoD or was it some hanger-on doing the typing?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#216

Post by jessaustin »

scarmig wrote: post #170
carnagii wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we could have political candidates who aren't criminals so then foreign powers couldn't tilt our elections by revealing the truth about them.

...except the Russian state was undermining the non-criminal to aid the known criminal? Please, point to any "criminal" act that was revealed in the emails (that were stolen and released to Wikileaks by Russian security services).

If a game show that gave away real prizes leaked the questions in advance to one contestant but not the other, that would be fraud. I'm not sure if a debate can be held to that standard, however?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#217

Post by lazyasciiart »

ryanlool wrote: post #97

>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.

You haven't shown that you know how any law works.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#218

Post by jessaustin »

haberman wrote: post #160
calhoun137 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians would like them to think: "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…

I feel like you're missing GP's point. Even if we stipulate that leaks are in the public interest (inasmuch as they expose corruption), selective leaks give an undue amount of power to the person deciding what to leak. If we were getting a similar number of leaks from the DNC, RNC, USA, non-USA, etc. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it. When the leaks are all focused in one direction though, it looks less like…

...undue amount of power to the person deciding what to leak.

Totally with you on this. How is Assange the exemplar for this problem, when scores of people in government, law enforcement, military, unsupervised services, etc. leak their opinions to journalists every week, anonymously? Journalists should challenge these leaks rather than taking dictation.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#219

Post by wybiral »

alasdair_ wrote: post #215
wybiral wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to…

Was the database already in their possession, or was it remote? Remote is hacking. If it’s something that was handed to them from a source then that seems like legitimate journalism. Also “wikileaks” and Assange are very distinct entities. Are there jabber records of (provably) Assange stating that he was trying to hack a remote server belonging to the DoD or was it some hanger-on doing the typing?

For the sake of not confusing things here, forget about the data they leaked, they already had access to it. They were trying to crack the password of DoD accounts to cover up where they got the data and possibly access more data.

But that's not important, from a legal perspective. Cracking those passwords with the intent to use them for unauthorized access seems like conspiracy, and that's what WikiLeaks was offering Manning in the Jabber records (to crack the passwords for her).

I don't know the details about how they know Assange was involved but it was compelling enough for a grand jury indictment. It's up to the UK now to decide whether a request for extradition is valid, so the US needs to make a case for this indictment. We'll see where that goes and what evidence is presented.

Edit:

And I'm pretty sure the charge of conspiring to hack defense systems is also a crime in the UK so the grounds for extradition aren't so shaky.

It's also really important to note that they can't just extradite for this hacking charge and then do a trial for the leaks or whatever the 1st Amendment concerns are. The extradition will have to be specific to whatever charge the US is bringing (which so far is only the conspiracy to hack). Also, if found guilty he can't be charged again for leaking or anything without ANOTHER extradition claim and that would be very unlikely. So whatever they decide to extradite him for in the next 60 days will be the kind of charges he faces.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#220

Post by rorykoehler »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #185
jancsika wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter. 1. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists. 2. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange. 3. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment groun…

Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever. Filtering out everyone who happens to disagree with your opinion is a good way to get stuck in an echo chamber.

I don't get purchasing recommendations from paid ads in my instagram feed.
Post reply on HN