Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#231

Post by freeflight » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:30 AM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #210

ehaliewicz2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1st amendment simply prohibits the united states government from abridging freedom of speech.

Putting thousands of people's lives in danger because you're not careful isn't freedom of speech [0]. If Assange cared about freedom of speech, he wouldn't have called the Panama leaks an attack on Putin fueled by Soros [1]. Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on? I definitely don't think he should be prosecuted for journa…

Afaik that Wikileaks tweet about the Panama Papers was referring to the fact that the full papers were never released [0].

While at the same time most of the MSM coverage focused solely on the Russian/Putin angle, making the Panama Papers more about Putin than anything else.

[0] https://www.dw.com/en/wikileaks-slams-panama-papers-trickle-...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#232

Post by belltaco » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:35 AM UTC

overgard wrote: post #178

scarmig wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's pretty much nothing Wikileaks has done in the past 5 years except the "email dramas", which was probably just as consequential in real world effects (good and ill) as its earlier history. When I think of big leaks of information that were of public interest, the only other one I can think of recently is the Panama Papers. And Wikileaks had nothing to do with those, except insofar as Assange tweeted "#PanamaPa…

Well, I'm sure the relative lack of new reports has nothing to do with Assange hiding in an embassy since 2012 and being extremely carefully monitored... > You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats? W…

He was doing much more than just releasing information.

He was actively aiding and abetting nonsense.

https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate

Leading to https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john...

Not to mention fueling the Seth Rich nonsense.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#233

Post by freeflight » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:36 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #159

mikeash wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. I wouldn’t trust what he says.

> He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. That's strictly true, though misleading.

What about it is misleading?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#234

Post by bhelkey » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:36 AM UTC

sys_64738 wrote: post #167

Ecuador's embassy is their country so the UK police have no jurisdiction. Assange's barrister should file for illegal arrest and get him freed.

> Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy on Thursday by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#235

Post by droithomme » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:39 AM 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 .

> 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.

First Amendment deals with US federal government and states.

Neither the federal government nor the states can prosecute you for free speech you engage in as US citizen or resident while in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian government might choose to prosecute you, but the first amendment does prohibit the US government from prosecuting you for speech made overseas as well as on US soil.

An american journalist is living in Brazil and writes an article critical of the US government. The US government can not prosecute them simply because they wrote the article while out of the country.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#236

Post by freeflight » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

antt wrote: post #93

SiempreViernes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Don't forget "he doesn't clean his bathroom" and "doesn't take proper care of his cat".

If Hitler wasn't dead, he'd probably be rumored to have bunked with Assange as a flatmate.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#237

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:47 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #89

apsec112 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.

The First Amendment probably does not apply to non-Americans with respect to their conduct abroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui... > The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply where United States agents searched and seized property located in a foreign country owned by a nonresident alien in the United States. Chief J…

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#238

Post by bubblethink » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:51 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #118

abugheratwork wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Is doing math a form of expression? Breaking a password amounts to thinking for a very long time about all the ways you could rearrange some bits, and choosing one. I'd call it an expression of preference for certain possible results over others, by way of saving one and letting the rest go. I know, I'm laughi…

>Is doing math a form of expression? Breaking a password amounts to thinking for a very long time about all the ways you could rearrange some bits, and choosing one. I'd call it an expression of preference for certain possible results over others, by way of saving one and letting the rest go. Isn't shooting a gun at someone a matter of depressing a lever? It's about applying pressure on a lever with your finger. >Sti…

You are reducing the OP's point, which is rather important, to silly analogies about intent. The OP's point is also why, for eg., many govts' attempts to ban encryption are stupid because you cannot outlaw math. Which is why the legality of both having and breaking encryption needs to be detached from intent.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#239

Post by sctb » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #204

sctb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry about that. I wonder how to communicate that more politely. I took a quick look at roughly the last two dozen comments you've made to users regarding guideline infractions. I noticed in every single one that you named a specific rule within your complaint. I also noticed that they all appeared to be actually not just downvoted, but even flagged. By stsrk contrast, this comment here is actually upvoted. As anoth…

Sorry for the lack of explanation! If you were being literal and straightforward, then the thing to do is not to post off topic but flag the post (or email us to tell us that someone is posting algorithmically). If you meant it as a diss to the poster, then the rule is:

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If it was somewhere in between those two then the rule still applies: we want civil and substantive discussion in which we can learn something.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#240

Post by overgard » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:24 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #232

overgard wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm sure the relative lack of new reports has nothing to do with Assange hiding in an embassy since 2012 and being extremely carefully monitored... > You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats? W…

He was doing much more than just releasing information. He was actively aiding and abetting nonsense. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john... Not to mention fueling the Seth Rich nonsense.

Well A) that wiki leaks page directly says it’s speculative and not endorsed directly at the top, and B) that’s related to him being arrested for being involved in this how? Other than character assassination of him? I don’t even think he’s probably a good guy, but I’m amused that most of the criticism of him is ad hominem.