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

311–320 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#311

Post by belltaco »

burfog wrote: post #303
kbenson wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd like to hear how you know that Assange knew that they had nothing to do with it? Because your argument seems to hinge on that idea. I'm not sure who "they" are in this question. I assume Assange knows who his sources are, and as someone who claims to be a journalist and run a journalistic enterprise, he would not accuse people of something he had no evidence of. At this point, there's plenty of investigations a…

Wikipedia is particularly untrustworthy for political topics. Political parties and even nations are employing teams of people to work their way up the Wikipedia ranks in a fight for control. Assange would know the source. Assange also made a promise to not reveal sources, making no exception for death. Giving suggestive hints would be one reasonable way to deal with the awkwardness of the situation.

So you're saying Assange is implying that Seth Rich is the leaker, and that he is indeed the leaker?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#312

Post by kbenson »

raxxorrax wrote: post #300
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…

The "meddling in elections" is neither quantifiable nor in any way an excuse for the issue at hand. You want to get someone behind bars because he leaked information about war crimes. Nothing else at hand matters to this case. "meddling in elections".... pff....

I think you've missed the context within which I was speaking, which was in direct reply to someone. I was not speaking as to whether Assange is guilty or should be prosecuted. I was speaking to someone's assessment of how "the Democrats" opinion changed on Assange over time, and the reasons for which that happened. I think the perception that Wikilieaks and Assange in particular were not acting as the neutral third party they presented themselves as has a lot to do with that, and ignoring that in lieu of a simplistic narrative the denigrates others by reducing their thoughts and motives to base approximations and stereotypes is not useful.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#313

Post by mike00632 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #155
rayiner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The First Amendment probably does not apply to non-Americans with respect to their conduct abroad. How does a Fourth Amendment case turning on the interpretation of specific language that is not present in the First Amendment lead to that conclusion? (Also, since the alleged conspiracy was related to acts that would be committed within the US, by a US citizen, it's far from clear whether, even if the rationale of t…

>... that is not present in the First Amendment lead to that conclusion?

It's commonly understood that the conduct of foreigners abroad is not protected by American rights. That is the legal basis for most of the 'War on Terror' military actions and one of the key reasons why the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki was objectionable. The way our system understands the law means that American citizen Anway al-Awlaki (and his son) had rights that were violated when he was killed.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#314

Post by roguecoder »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #249
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…

>Assange almost certainly had access to hacked information related to both the DNC and the RNC[0]. There is no proof that Assange knowingly cooperated with Russia, meaning it would be unlikely that he would have any idea what data they had. On top of that, Comey and Clapper are not trustworthy sources.

Your A does not imply your B: a lack of publically-revealed proof does not imply that it is “unlikely” that he knew, it merely means it has not yet been publicly proven that he knew. I certainly wouldn’t put my money on his ignorance.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#315

Post by roguecoder »

cheesymuffin wrote: post #213
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.

So when your emails come out, you’ll thank whoever publishes them? Have any good recipes in there?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#316

Post by mike00632 »

pfisch wrote: post #273
eridius wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are known now, and has been known for a very long time.

When you change your gender does it apply retroactively? I assume it doesn't because that is needlessly complicated.

I remember this being settled on the Chelsea Manning talk page. In short, you refer to women as women even if they previously identified as men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning

>This article should adhere to the identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Main biographical articles should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Other articles should use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT noticeboard, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Iden...

>Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). MOS:MULTIPLENAMES calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#317

Post by thatoneuser »

belltaco wrote: post #126
thatoneuser wrote: post #117

Dark day to see so many people willingly claim assange deserves punishment.

In my opinion, Assange lost his moral high ground after it came out that he was communicating with Trump Jr. and helping the Trump campaign. And that he delayed and timed the DNC and Podesta leaks to cause maximum advantage to Trump, instead of just releasing them when ready. Not to mention that DNC and Podesta were private entities, not government officials and zero illegality was revealed by those leaks. He later w…

Showed Hillary was cheating the dnc which she lied to the public about. There's plenty more justification but thats enough for me.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#318

Post by mike00632 »

bubblethink wrote: post #288
roguecoder wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t break and enter and then claim that it was legal because all you did was read documents you used to write a New York Times article. Indeed, actual journalists have ethics departments that help ensure they don’t step over the line from accepting information gained illegally into encouraging people to commit illegal acts to get them information, and if they commit illegal acts to get information that is alway…

"Breaking and entering" is a well defined thing in the real world. It does not extend well to digital stuff, and if you go down that road, you end up with the failure to decrypt DVDs. There is no digital property per se. It's just a proxy for other things. So decouple the two. There is no breaking and entering in the digital world. There are just actions you take after the fact, and you can rule on the actions.

If you use someone else's credentials to log in as them then you are breaking the law, even if you didn't have to crack the password. I feel like this is very clearly defined. It's just like if you steal someone's purse because they set it down without securing it. It doesn't matter how easy it was or if you consider your act "art", it's still clearly breaking the law and easy to understand why it's illegal.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#319

Post by roguecoder »

antidesitter wrote: post #162
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…

> Or can we admit that he had an agenda in all of this that didn't align with the best interests of the American people? What agenda would that be? Edit: It’s a sad state of affairs for HN when a question like this immediately gets downvoted twice without explanation. HN is indeed changing, and not for the better.

Assange himself told us his agenda: he hated Clinton and wanted to prevent her election [1]. He then collaborated with Roger Stone[2] to desciminate the documents stolen by Russian intelligence [3], and succeeded at his goal.

1: https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston... 2: https://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-stone-and-wikileaks-dire... 3: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#320

Post by roguecoder »

ausbah wrote: post #173
doe88 wrote: post #139

I tell you what, I'm moderate, some might say a bit coward, tonight I will sleep as usual, tomorrow I won't protest, never been in a single protest in my life. But I nonetheless think there is something wrong in our current western democracies. Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video, these are the men and women revealing these facts that are hunted down, for years. Meanwhile, these same people do…

>Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video what..?

Maybe the police shootings? Vallejo just had another one.
Post reply on HN