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

111–120 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#111

Post by throwawayjava »

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.

In that case, consider rethinking your use of the word "supposed". Most native speakers from my part of the US will interpret that use to mean something similar to "ostensible".

I.e., if you want to avoid confusion, don't ever say "supposedly X" if you actually do believe "X" is a fact.

Oxford has this to say on supposedly: "used to show that you do not believe that something you have been told is true". Hope that helps

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#112

Post by raxxorrax »

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #26
chmaynard wrote: post #2

When is the theft of information justified? The publication of The Pentagon Papers set a precedent for this type of argument, but it's a slippery slope. My preference would be for us to promote much stronger freedom of information laws.

When does information generated or collected by the government not belong to its people? If we could refactor the government, I think that question would be on my short list of things to define in such a way that it guides everything else.

more speedy automatic declassification without exceptions would be nice.

Retrospective control is better than nothing.

Although if you commit benign computer sabotage and happen to acquire information about war crimes, that should be a freebee.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#113

Post by ryanlool »

throwawayjava wrote: post #111
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.

In that case, consider rethinking your use of the word "supposed". Most native speakers from my part of the US will interpret that use to mean something similar to "ostensible". I.e., if you want to avoid confusion, don't ever say "supposedly X" if you actually do believe "X" is a fact. Oxford has this to say on supposedly: "used to show that you do not believe that something you have been told is true". Hope that he…

Surely it's a supposed or ostensible act until he's actually convicted?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#114

Post by roenxi »

roywiggins wrote: post #68
pytester wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it was cracking a password to blow the lid on US war crimes in Iraq.

I'm not saying anything about whether it was morally here or there, but that it's not at all an unreasonable application of the CFAA. The guy driving the getaway car from the FBI field-office break-in* (or whoever) is going to be on the hook for burglary, even if the burglary was done for laudable reasons. I think Obama 100% did the right thing commuting Manning's sentence, and was pleased to see her go free. I'm not…

Exposing government corruption (and sketchiness) isn't really the best area to apply black-letter law though - it is usually going to be illegal; governments routinely try to stop people publishing embarrassing information.

If a whistleblower can't intend to get information of a government network, how are they meant to make an allegation with some substance behind it? Are they meant to have unsubstantiated word of mouth? We had that for years with ECHELON, the moderate middle just didn't take any of it seriously until the breaking-the-law levels of leaking happened (yes, the legal details are different with Snowden, but the strategy is very similar - leaker gets hit with incidental charges).

The argument here seems to be that while in theory whistleblowing would be OK; none of the ways to attempt a credible whistleblow in the real world are legal. There is a lot of disagreement in this article's comments about what the law says, so it isn't obvious how a whistleblower, who could be anyone here, is meant to follow the details of what they are and are not allowed to attempt.

Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Functionally, all this rigmarole is to ensure that if the US government does something sketchy or even illegal then any foreigner who talks about it is legally subject to one of the US's famous black-bag-over-the-head abductions. The charges seem to be independent of what he leaked.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#115

Post by ikeboy »

belltaco wrote: post #86
ikeboy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has constitutional rights, not just US citizens.

Depends. A foreign citizen visiting or working in the US is not allowed to own guns regardless of the 2nd amendment.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_circuit/2015/09/non-citize...

hm.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#116

Post by gnu8 »

belltaco wrote: post #3

What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others? Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?

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?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#118

Post by belltaco »

abugheratwork wrote: post #110
belltaco wrote: post #3

What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others? Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?

> What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Is doing math a form of expression? Breaking a password amounts to thinking for a very long time about all the ways you could rearrange some bits, and choosing one. I'd call it an expression of preference for certain possible results over others, by way of saving one and letting the rest go. I know, I'm laughi…

>Is doing math a form of expression? Breaking a password amounts to thinking for a very long time about all the ways you could rearrange some bits, and choosing one. I'd call it an expression of preference for certain possible results over others, by way of saving one and letting the rest go.

Isn't shooting a gun at someone a matter of depressing a lever? It's about applying pressure on a lever with your finger.

>Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with a government having the authority to say, "You may not run that program."

Are you also deeply uncomfortable with a government having the authority to say "You may not press that lever".

Isn't the US firing nukes a matter of the US president entering numbers and pressing some buttons?

Isn't running into and maiming a pedestrian while driving a car at a traffic crossing a matter of actually doing nothing instead of braking?

Are you deeply uncomfortable with the thought of govt jailing you for literally doing nothing?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#119

Post by microcolonel »

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…

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 villain.

A seeming majority of the mainstream press in the U.S. is staffed by Democrat partisans, so it's no wonder that they say whatever they can to defend it.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#120

Post by cm2187 »

gnu8 wrote: post #116
belltaco wrote: post #3

What part of the first amendment exonerates knowingly attempting to crack NTLM keys of US military logins? Or is the reasoning that the law should give him special treatment and exemptions not given to others? Also, is the 1st amendment protection even applicable to foreigners on foreign soil?

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?

I do not believe Australia is at war with the United States.
Post reply on HN