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

151–160 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#151

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rayiner wrote: post #89
apsec112 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.

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…

Well... the first amendment doesn't mention the people. It just says "Congress shall make no law..."

So I'm not sure the same logic applies.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#152

Post by gnu8 »

torstenvl wrote: post #125
gnu8 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. Actually, it is. You have to be a lawful combatant to receive combatant immunity under international law. The U.S. Air Force consists of lawful combatants. They are members of the armed forces and wear uniforms that readily distinguish themselves as combatants, which permits the opposing party to a conflict to abide by principles of distinction and proportionality. They are therefore disanalogous. CIA operatives…

The United States itself does not respect international law and does not permit its soldiers to be prosecuted in the ICJ under any circumstances. Therefore there is no reason to afford it any similar consideration.

International law is largely a myth due to the extreme power differential between the United States and most other countries. The only hard and fast rule is that might makes right.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#153

Post by reitzensteinm »

txru wrote: post #143
calhoun137 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians would like them to think: "just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if…

Trust me, I'm aware of the thin lines that these things ride upon. I don't care that, in particular, the Podesta emails, the DNC emails, the Brazile questions, or anything else about the Clinton campaign were leaked. It was information, and it was illuminating to the nature of American politics. What I have a problem with is, these sorts of leaks allow American elections to become a target of nation-state attacks. We…

You are prescribing the problem as the solution. Journalists being unwilling to hold political feet to the fire is what caused the buildup of weaponizable secrets in the first place.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#154

Post by rocqua »

txru wrote: post #141
ENGNR wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That linked article doesn't say that Assange had any RNC emails, only that Russia probably has some. Given that Russia is very pro-Trump it's not hard to imagine Russia only providing Assange with the DNC ones to publish. And he has said that if he had RNC emails he'd have published them

The Podesta leaks and the DNC emails came from Russia, and he must have known their intent. Either he's an active tool, or a passive and complicit one, but I think my point stands.

There is a big difference between these two cases:

1. Here are DNC leaks, here are RNC leaks. Thanks, oh you want me to withhold on the RNC ones because you like those. Sure!

2. Here are DNC leaks, we have some RNC leaks, but we won't give them to you. Thanks, can I please have the RNC ones too? No. Okay.

In the first case, one actively withholds important information. In the second case, one is publishing all information available.

You might argue that in the second case, you should hold fast and say 'give me everything or I don't show anything' and therefore case 2 is bad. But you can't deny that case 1 is worse than case 2.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#155

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #89
apsec112 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, First Amendment protections apply to non-Americans. However, as you say, Assange is being prosecuted for conspiracy to hack computers, not for his speech.

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 the case you cite did apply, the result would still be that there was insufficient relationship to the U.S. with regard to the act in question.)

Note that I don't think the First Amendment has any bearing on this case because of the actual conduct at issue, but if it did, I'm not seeing how the case you point to would make it inapplicable based on Assange’s citizenship and location.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#156

Post by henryfjordan »

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…

You're welcome to crack the password and frame it on your wall. Using or intending to use it is the crime.

The state would have to argue your intent to log into their computers and you'd have the chance to respond. The jury would decide whether you meant to gain unauthorized access to a computer system or just geeked out over password cracking.

Practically, I could see things going poorly for the over-enthusiastic cracker, but theoretically they'd be within their rights.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#157

Post by amanaplanacanal »

cphoover wrote: post #129
the_watcher wrote: post #88

He has First Amendment protections. That doesn't apply to what he's being charged with, which is conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to US military systems.

As far as I understood WikiLeaks was purely a publishing platform. Not sure if this is the case back then but they have had claimed anonymity through the submission process (via proxies, and encryption)... to protect both themselves and whistle blowers. If all they were doing was publishing... that should be protected by first amendment. If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn'…

> If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm guessing that they have evidence that yes, he did conspire.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#158

Post by dragonwriter »

cphoover wrote: post #129
the_watcher wrote: post #88

He has First Amendment protections. That doesn't apply to what he's being charged with, which is conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to US military systems.

As far as I understood WikiLeaks was purely a publishing platform. Not sure if this is the case back then but they have had claimed anonymity through the submission process (via proxies, and encryption)... to protect both themselves and whistle blowers. If all they were doing was publishing... that should be protected by first amendment. If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn'…

> If Assange conspired with manning that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

That's literally the exactly what he is charged with.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#159

Post by dragonwriter »

mikeash wrote: post #142
ENGNR wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That linked article doesn't say that Assange had any RNC emails, only that Russia probably has some. Given that Russia is very pro-Trump it's not hard to imagine Russia only providing Assange with the DNC ones to publish. And he has said that if he had RNC emails he'd have published them

He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi. I wouldn’t trust what he says.

> He also said that his internet access had been cut off “by a state actor” when the Ecuadorians kicked him off their WiFi.

That's strictly true, though misleading.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#160

Post by haberman »

calhoun137 wrote: post #137
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…

I honestly feel like you comment is a perfect illustration of this point made in the OP, which was as much about citizens as it was about what politicians would like them to think: "just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if…

I feel like you're missing GP's point. Even if we stipulate that leaks are in the public interest (inasmuch as they expose corruption), selective leaks give an undue amount of power to the person deciding what to leak. If we were getting a similar number of leaks from the DNC, RNC, USA, non-USA, etc. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it. When the leaks are all focused in one direction though, it looks less like journalism and more like propaganda.

That's separate from the question of whether it's criminal though. I haven't read the indictment yet and don't have an opinion on that.

Post reply on HN