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

361–370 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#361

Post by Emma_Goldman »

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."

That's because your formulation of the principle is too general. If everyone acts on their own subjective law then collective law would break down. But no one is arguing for that.

Wikileak's defenders would do better to point to the particular conditions that have led to mass whistle blowing: permanent wars in the Middle East and North Africa (the US is in seven wars right now); the creation of a massively powerful surveillance state; and the lack of legitimate channels for political and military transparency and accountability.

The case for whistleblowing hinges on that reality.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#362

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

Meph504 wrote: post #333
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.

You have every right to your opinion about if you feel his actions were justified. But that doesn't excuse him from the framework of our laws, if you break the law, even for a good reason, its a jury that decides.

Sadly yes, this doesn't excuse him from the framework of our laws, just like it did not excuse Turing, leading to his death.

Maybe it's time to adopt a more aggressive stance against immoral laws, don't you think?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#363

Post by raxxorrax »

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?

Of course there must be a double standard. You need to hold your government accountable.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#364

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

How should crimes enacted by a government be released then? Internal control?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#365

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

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…

Instructions to hack (which is what Assange did) should be protected by the first amendment.

Nevertheless, hacking-related laws are a disgrace to our freedom.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#366

Post by raxxorrax »

kbenson wrote: post #312
raxxorrax wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know how the opinion changed. There was relentless push by media and other organizations to create a narrative that there were some wizards that influenced the US elections. We still don't have any evidence on that by the way.

Using this as a justification to omit the governments responsibility in war crimes, people really shouldn't vote for anything associated with your politic platform. And maybe they just didn't. That would actually be an explanation that is far more probable.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#367

Post by dalbasal »

When WikiLeaks published their big "collateral murder" and this while shitstorm started, I happened to be in Melbourne. I came across a "free assange" petition manned by student activist types... and I assume WikiLeaks people. It think it's near their offices.

My take was that WikiLeaks is just doing what journalists do. Sourcing newsworthy information and publishing it. All the major papers, channels and such were republishing, in my mind proving the point. Meanwhile, assange was/is an Australian citizen and the efforts against him are clearly two faced. The charges against him weren't the reason for the charges against him.

Anyway... I walked over and read the petition, intending to sign it. Free Afghanistan! US out of Saudi Arabia. Down with the patriarchy! Capitalism must go! Fuck the zionist-imperialist deep state Etc^... it also had some stuff about assange.

My (long winded) point is that this is a microcosm of the wider affair.

WikiLeaks, assange and the leaks that got him in trouble are journalistic. I don't think he sees it that way though. I think he sees it in more political-activism terms. The journalism defense is mostly made by other people, for him.

I still think he should go free though.

^Made up specifics. I don't remember what all the stuff was. Just that it was typical left-radical student politics of the time and place. Iircc, voluntary student unionism was the (sort of parochial-australian-student issue of the day).

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#368

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

dosy wrote: post #276
msiyer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like an agent of the system. The authoritarian mindset is the reason why the whole system is so violent and morally bankrupt.

would you rather be an agent with agency or a subject flopping around helplessly complaining? authority doesn't have to be bad. you're projecting

"agents with agency" are people like Snowden.

> or a subject flopping around helplessly complaining?

Good thing, people like Stallman, Assange, DJB, Washington, Jefferson, etc did not flop around helplessly complain, they actually acted.

Without DJB specifically it would still be unlawful for you to publish your dosycrypt library for example.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#369

Post by raxxorrax »

Meph504 wrote: post #333
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.

You have every right to your opinion about if you feel his actions were justified. But that doesn't excuse him from the framework of our laws, if you break the law, even for a good reason, its a jury that decides.

This "holy" law is cleverly circumvented in the quest for war crimes. So any appeal only gets you so far. We are back to square one. Government will hide crimes, people will try to call them out. Law is as useful and error prone, as we want it to be.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#370

Post by prepend »

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…

How is discussing cracking a DOD database password relevant to the prosecution? We’re discussing the cracking of a password in this comment thread, does that make us criminals?

By nature, I don’t think discussing password cracks, without a ton more context than what has been shared, is not criminal. There are many forum posts with system and programming questions that are purely hypothetical (eg, “so I’m trying to determine if my security is appropriate, is it as easy to crack as this dod password, etc etc”).

I think criminal acts and conspiracy to commit criminal acts require quite a bit of information and would like to learn more how you would use this as a claim of journalism.

To my knowledge, Wikileaks has never actively participated in the hacking or cracking required to access restricted info. They serve as a Dropbox for others who do that.

Post reply on HN