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

381–390 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#381

Post by luckylion »

kstenerud wrote: post #371

The problem is that Assange repeatedly angers and alienates his friends. The journalistic establishment won't support him because they don't like him. An unliked person is the worst thing for a constitutional test, because almost no one can separate their ideals from their emotions. There were similar likability problems with Larry Flint.

Wouldn't that person would be the best to test the constitution? If everybody loves you, you don't need the protection of the law. And if the law only works when everybody likes you, what good is it?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#382

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

dosy wrote: post #379
AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Snowden was definitely an agent. Agency? Jury's out. There's a difference between being effective, GW, TJ, and stupidly ineffective, JA, RS. Or just plain stupid, ES. Interesting about DJB, I did not know that story.

How was Snowden "plain stupid" exactly?

"stupidly ineffective" - well, one has to start from somewhere. Plus stallman's work was far from ineffective. As for assange's work, the publication of the war crimes might have saved thousands of civilian lives.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#383

Post by stoolpigeon »

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…

I used to consider grand jury indictments to indicate that something was going on. Then someone close to me was indicted. That's when I learned that it takes almost nothing to get an indictment. In the case I know best it was less than nothing. When the case finally made it to a judge and was heard the judge realized how bad it was and through it out.

Those indictments come from a group of people who hear only one side, there is no one there to question the validity of what they are told, and they are basically being asked to let it go to court and so I don't think they see it as so bad if they are wrong, it can work out in trial.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#384

Post by crankylinuxuser »

stoolpigeon wrote: post #383
wybiral wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I used to consider grand jury indictments to indicate that something was going on. Then someone close to me was indicted. That's when I learned that it takes almost nothing to get an indictment. In the case I know best it was less than nothing. When the case finally made it to a judge and was heard the judge realized how bad it was and through it out. Those indictments come from a group of people who hear only one si…

This is a sentiment I've seen with the Assange threads. I see something significantly wrong with:

"Well if a grand jury wishes to bring charges, it must be a legitimate charge, or they'd not bring it to them."

It's akin to the idea that if someone has charges for a crime, that because they were charged they must have did it.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#385

Post by gameswithgo »

calhoun137 wrote: post #94

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiL…

some of us have a bit of cognitive dissonance with assange, where we maybe don’t think he should be prosecuted but holy cow are we enjoying seeing him get pwned by trumps administration after he helped trump get elected.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#386

Post by gameswithgo »

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #362
Meph504 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

everyone breaks laws every day, if the government has a problem with you they will find one you broke. we see it all the time at scales big and small.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#387

Post by eyko »

gameswithgo wrote: post #385
calhoun137 wrote: post #94

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiL…

some of us have a bit of cognitive dissonance with assange, where we maybe don’t think he should be prosecuted but holy cow are we enjoying seeing him get pwned by trumps administration after he helped trump get elected.

To me it sounds like people are enjoying seeing him go through this because he didn't help Hillary Clinton get elected, which is an important nuance there. Had it been any other candidate instead of Trump, Wikileaks would still have published the leaked emails. The DNC emails leaked were both authentic, and newsworthy, which made it their duty (as journalists) to publish them.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#388

Post by boomboomsubban »

roguecoder wrote: post #314
boomboomsubban wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>Your A does not imply your B: a lack of publically-revealed proof does not imply that it is “unlikely” that he knew,

Yes, it does. "Unlikely" is a better fit than "almost certainly," as all the evidence available supports the conclusion that he was not aware of the data.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#389

Post by belorn »

wybiral wrote: post #279
drewmol wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And I'm pretty sure the charge of conspiring to hack defense systems is also a crime in the UK so the grounds for extradition aren't so shaky. The jurisdictional overreach of my government (US) in this case concerns me. Some questions we should consider: Is it a crime in the UK for an Australian citizen residing in Sweden to offer help cracking a password over online chat to a US citizen residing in Afghanistan and…

It's really up to the UK whether to extradite, but yeah extradition is a thing that several allied countries do to prevent people from being able to commit crimes in other countries without consequence. I get the concerns, but the charge is of conspiracy and that's exactly how it works... If you get caught planning to hack the DoD but you don't accomplish it, those plans can be used against you in a conspiracy charge…

If we want to be pedantic about it, then it is enough that a person who lives in a area where weed is legal and they consider to visit a area where it is not legal and don't explicitly declare that they intend to leave the weed at home. You don't need to add the "massive amount" aspect, as it would be a crime if they made the trip, which then makes it a conspiracy.

But that is not how the law get enforced, and people don't get extradited for crimes like that. They don't even get extradited when you have evidence of committed crimes like speeding, which maximum punishment is longer than cracking a password.

Post reply on HN