Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#341

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #313

dragonwriter wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It's commonly understood that the conduct of foreigners abroad is not protected by American rights.

So we're backing away from legal argument to conventional wisdom?

> That is the legal basis for most of the 'War on Terror' military actions

No, it's not. About the closest that comes to the truth is that a lot of the War on Terror actions are based on the legal principle that certain, mostly procedural,. Constitutional rights do not apply to actions taken by the US government overseas against non-citizens, but there is no principal under which the limitations imposed by the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law...”) don't apply to the application of a law underlying a criminal prosecution in regular US federal courts, regardless of the nationality of the defendant or the location of the crime.

> 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.

That's debatable. It's fairly well established that being a US citizen does not exempt you from being targeted in war, and also that an authorization of military force requires no magic words to be a valid exercise of the power to declare war. There's a decent precedential bases that for someone not immediately engaged in active hostility, that is restrained within US territory when and where the civilian government and court system are not impaired, but there is no precedent that I am aware of creating a citizenship-based immunity to war conducted overseas.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#342

Post by josteink » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

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…

> I'm not dismissing the validity of the sexual assault charge

The accusation is having sex without a condom[1]. In Sweden this is a crime, but it’s not like it’s actual rape.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#343

Post by fit2rule » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 7:53 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…

> Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on?

Perhaps it makes Americans feel bad about themselves to hear this, but there are people in the world who feel that America and its 5-eyes allies are actually doing more harm to the world than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and "so on" - by way of endless, illegal, heinous wars wherein crimes against humanity are constantly ignored by the only people who have the power to do something about it: The American People.

Alas, The American People are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the realisation that many outside of America's reality-distortion fields have already had: America is a net evil force in the world, and its illegal wars must be stopped at all costs.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen. 500,000+ dead victims of America's illegal wars. When Russia and/or China have invaded and destroyed as many sovereign states as the USA has, then the moral stance you propose would be relevant. But, since neither Russia or China have started and engaged in countless, endless illegal wars of aggression in the last decade, the equivalence you desire is inappropriate. America and its allies are committing war crimes daily and have been doing so for decades. Without doing something effective about that, The American People have no chance to do something, next, about Russia or China. It simply doesn't work.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#344

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

otterley wrote: post #265

dragonwriter wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.

Attorney here! (Not offering legal advice, though - consult a licensed attorney in your state.) They key phrase here is "prior restraint." That's not the issue here; the information has been published already. So the holding in the Pentagon Papers case (aka _New York Times_) doesn't apply to this set of circumstances. Moreover, the Pentagon Papers case made no law. The opinion itself only reversed an appellate court…

> They key phrase here is "prior restraint."

Right, I'm not saying Pentagon Papers is applicable precedent in the Assange case, just that it stands against the notion that national security magically waves away the First Amendment.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#345

Post by acqq » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 7:55 AM UTC

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…

> In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to leak to the public?

"Hacking companies" is not the same as a journalist at his own location using the material received from its source to guess the information from the material which could help the protection of the source.

That is what the journalists are supposed to regularly do.

And that is what is claimed that Assange did. And that was known for years, and previously legal experts concluded that it is not a correct basis to a charge.

But then the US president becomes somebody who deeply doesn't care for the freedom of the press. And the Democrats still don't want to admit that they lost the election because they actually did many wrong things, like not being democratic in their own party before the elections. So the pressure started:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/pence-pr...

The fact which was somehow inconvenient:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/11/heres-interview...

The deleted part was exactly about that pressure.

Note also that Greenwald wrote: "The claim that Assange tried to help Manning circumvent a password to cover her tracks isn’t new. The Obama DOJ knew about it since 2011, but chose not to prosecute him. Story on this soon. Holder chose not to prosecute Assange based on the same info Trump DOJ cited."

and Assange's lawyer:

"While the indictment against Julian Assange disclosed today charges a conspiracy to commit computer crimes, the factual allegations against Mr. Assange boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges."

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#346

Post by Fnoord » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 8:08 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #306

raxxorrax wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. Shouldn't it if that access revealed information about war crimes? Or an artificial conflict that cost about 500.000 lives? That should remain undisclosed because computer sabotage is bad? This is missing perspective left and right.

Using that logic, we could argue that defective search warrants should be ignored if they uncover a horrible crime. This idea that breaking laws in the pursuit of a supposed greater good could lead to some dangerous places. This kind of thinking leads to things like torturing people to uncover a terrorist plot: the law against torture is broken using the rationale of uncovering a potentially greater crime. As soon we…

> This idea that breaking laws in the pursuit of a supposed greater good could lead to some dangerous places. This kind of thinking leads to things like torturing people to uncover a terrorist plot

Given Gitmo and the practices disclosed from there the US government seems to follow that rationale

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#347

Post by ehaliewicz2 » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 8:08 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…

I didn't mean to imply that freedom of speech necessarily applied to this case, just that if it did, the US government would hopefully (?) respect that.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#348

Post by fuzzbuzz » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 8:13 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #340

thatoneuser wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how exactly would you have the people informing themselves? We just sit and wait for the benevolent government to tell us what it deems is good for us to know? We don't need to make a whole new set of legal principles where people automatically get off for claiming journalism. In this case the people (here and around the world) were able to learn a lot of valuable information. Assanges actions are justified.

Are you proposing a double-standard? Can cops be justified breaking into your house without a warrant, so long as they find evidence of a crime?

Since USA invaded a country because they blamed that country had weapons of mass destruction, does that mean I can "invade" anyone on false accusations?

There is a huge difference between the state and the poeple. And they should be trated respectively.

What Julian Assange did was for the best of all poeple, not for the state.

It also follows that the state are made of the poeple, for the poeple. So anything that is "good" for the poeple, the state should do.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#349

Post by lostjohnny » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 8:13 AM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #343

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…

> Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Perhaps it makes Americans feel bad about themselves to hear this, but there are people in the world who feel that America and its 5-eyes allies are actually doing more harm to the world than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and "so on" - by way of endless, illegal, heinous wars wherei…

> When Russia and/or China have invaded and destroyed as many sovereign stats as the USA has

It's already happened.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#350

Post by croon » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 8:19 AM UTC

overgard wrote: post #175

scarmig wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information? Nothing illegal or particularly surprising was revealed in the 2016 emails; the only illegal act involved here was (presumably) Russian hackers committing several federal felonies in order to get access to those emails. Yes, they were embarrassing, but any political organization, or indeed any organization at all, will have mundane communicatio…

I'm thinking of the many other things Wikileaks have revealed, especially in regards to the Chelsea Manning stuff which I think was important. We need governments to be afraid of corruption and terrible acts getting out. If Assange only publishes some of that, at least it's better than none of it coming out. I have little interest in the email dramas. I doubt they really swung the election regardless (I have to imagi…

> (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations)

Not relevant to the discussion at hand, but I see this comment a lot. Yes, the Obama administration executed a lot more drone strikes than the Bush administration. However, there has been 2243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump administration, compared with 1878 drone strikes in the entirety (8 years) of Obamas tenure.

I'm not saying I support either of those, but comments like the one you made is inflammatory without being informative.