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

251–260 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#251

Post by ryanlol »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #217
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.

That seems quite consistent with the fact that I have mostly avoided commenting on how laws work.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#252

Post by msiyer »

dosy wrote: post #225
loudtieblahblah wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

haha. "war crimes" why would I want to delete my awesome comment? yes, I'm doing more than comparing, they're analogous. spying and publishing, mind. if you're so huffy about war crimes, why do you pay your taxes? because doesn't that make you complicit? oh no but you're morally righteous. let me get you a badge for that. also, language.

>> if you're so huffy about war crimes, why do you pay your taxes? because doesn't that make you complicit?

No, because I do not have a choice. If I refuse, the system will use violence against me.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#253

Post by jonfw »

kbenson wrote: post #242
microcolonel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They believe that partisanship makes them moral people, but really it just makes their party morally bankrupt. When the Democrats got to sit back and watch wars they secretly liked, under cover of Republican administrations, Julian Assange was a hero who would speak truth to big bad Republican power. Now that they think Julian Assange's public service helped Americans choose the current President, they view him as a…

There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so. To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perc…

Election meddling is not inherently bad. If your version of "election meddling" is just by sharing facts about a potential electee, than I would say that you have meddled in a positive manner by making americans more educated.

If he was engaged in manipulating vote counts, or if he was spreading false information, I would see the problem. But wikileaks for the most part just shared accurate government secrets. You're just using "election meddling" as a negatively connotated buzzword, without supporting how this was negative to the american people.

I also meddled with the election by sharing my opinion on the internet, or at least I attempted to. Does that mean I'm anti-american? What if a foreign person retweeted me, or vice versa? Have I now colluded with foreigners to meddle with the election?

The support of foreigners is not evidence of wrong-doing, and the sharing of information in an attempt to influence an election is not wrongdoing. Free speech includes speech about the elections, in fact that's where it is MOST important.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#254

Post by ehsankia »

freeflight wrote: post #231
ehsankia wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

But what was the purpose of throwing Soros in there?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#255

Post by FireBeyond »

roywiggins wrote: post #45
maccio92 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say a more accurate distinction is breaking into someone's home vs trying to break into a military base. In the first case you're likely to get arrested, in the second they'll probably shoot first and ask questions later

Picking your own door lock is legal. Picking someone else's door lock is legal if they ask you to. Picking someone else's lock, if it's not actually in a door and isn't protecting anything, is not illegal, even if they don't ask you to or give permission. You're just picking up a lock and fiddling with it, there's no trespass. Picking someone else's door lock to burgle their home is illegal. Handing someone a lockpic…

> Handing someone a lockpick so that they can burgle a home for you is illegal.

Even more so, trying to create a key that you can hand to someone to get into that home....

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#256

Post by jancsika »

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.

> Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever.

Since I'm forced to interpret your comment in the most generous way, I'll reply with yes. Step 4 is living in a bubble where obviously incorrect interpretations of the world don't waste much of my time and concentration.

But even if I were wrong on the facts of this particular case I wouldn't end up in an echo chamber. I simply end up reading a variety of op-eds and articles written by people who vociferously defend freedom of the press. AFAICT those writers cross ideological lines.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#257

Post by ryanlol »

belltaco wrote: post #108
ryanlol wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So if someone tried to break into your home and failed, that means they never committed a crime? If someone acquired the same lock as me, tried to pick it in the privacy of their own home and never actually broke into my home I would sure hope that they wouldn't face criminal charges. >That's why the maximum sentence is only 5 years. 10 for what he's being charged with, no? I could very well be wrong here, but I tho…

>If someone acquired the same lock as me, tried to pick it in the privacy of their own home and never actually broke into my home I would sure hope that they wouldn't face criminal charges. Acquiring the same lock is bad phrasing, since the same model has different keys. So what you're implying is that people who go around cloning locks to crack them at home, and generate keys, with the intent to break into homes or…

>So what you're implying is that people who go around cloning locks to crack them at home, and generate keys, with the intent to break into homes or military installations, have committed no crime?

Of course not (although it wouldn’t be a crime where I’m from until you actually try to break in somewhere).

I’m only implying that this shouldn’t be a crime, not until you actually try to do the deed.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#258

Post by belltaco »

jonfw wrote: post #253
kbenson wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so. To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perc…

Election meddling is not inherently bad. If your version of "election meddling" is just by sharing facts about a potential electee, than I would say that you have meddled in a positive manner by making americans more educated. If he was engaged in manipulating vote counts, or if he was spreading false information, I would see the problem. But wikileaks for the most part just shared accurate government secrets. You're…

Selective leaking and delaying/timing leaks for maximum impact is election meddling.

> if he was spreading false information

https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate

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

Also implying that Seth Rich was the real leaker and that the DNC had him killed for it.

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks-founder-addresses-death...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#259

Post by FireBeyond »

torstenvl wrote: post #125
gnu8 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone who isn’t a citizen of the United States, it’s not illegal to fight against the military of the United States. It’s not possible for Assange to have committed a crime here. Would you suggest indicting a drone operator of the US Air Force for violating Afghanistan’s law against murdering people?

Yes. Actually, it is. You have to be a lawful combatant to receive combatant immunity under international law. The U.S. Air Force consists of lawful combatants. They are members of the armed forces and wear uniforms that readily distinguish themselves as combatants, which permits the opposing party to a conflict to abide by principles of distinction and proportionality. They are therefore disanalogous. CIA operatives…

> he U.S. Air Force consists of lawful combatants. They are members of the armed forces and wear uniforms that readily distinguish themselves as combatants, which permits the opposing party to a conflict to abide by principles of distinction and proportionality. They are therefore disanalogous.

Yes, all you need to do is head down from the hills of Afghanistan, hop a flight to Omaha, sneak onto an AFB, and go to the drone warfare unit, and verify that "Indeed, these are enemy combatants".

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#260

Post by ABCLAW »

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.

>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.

>The case against Assange appears to be very weak

This is probably the easiest, most straightforward example.

Post reply on HN