Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#171

Post by mejari » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:09 AM UTC

carnagii wrote: post #166

txru wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe we could have political candidates who aren't criminals so then foreign powers couldn't tilt our elections by revealing the truth about them.

What was revealed in the 2016 election wasn't criminal, so what exactly are you talking about?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#172

Post by mikeash » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #159

mikeash wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it’s kind of funny. But it does seem to indicate that he’d rather cause a fuss than convey the truth.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#173

Post by ausbah » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:14 AM UTC

doe88 wrote: post #139

I tell you what, I'm moderate, some might say a bit coward, tonight I will sleep as usual, tomorrow I won't protest, never been in a single protest in my life. But I nonetheless think there is something wrong in our current western democracies. Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video, these are the men and women revealing these facts that are hunted down, for years. Meanwhile, these same people do…

>Instead of prosecuting people committing murders in a video

what..?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#174

Post by torstenvl » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

gnu8 wrote: post #152

torstenvl wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ICJ handles dispute between states. It has no authority to prosecute the soldiers of any country.

You are, perhaps, referring to the ICC, established by the Rome Statute - to which the United States is not a party.

The issue of whether the United States respects international law is not likely to be conducive to productive conversation on HN. It is also beside the point of this specific topic.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#175

Post by overgard » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #165

overgard wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because he prefers revealing truths about one side over another (which -- presumably a lot of entities are like that) doesn't mean those truths aren't important to reveal. Yeah it's a political act, but it's an extremely important one and one that deserves protection. Was Snowden obligated to reveal information about 3rd party hackers to make it fair for the NSA? You seem to be under the impression that he's obl…

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 imagine Trump's genital grabbing comments were just as damaging). The democrats were more than capable of beating themselves, honestly. People would have overlooked the email stuff for a more likable candidate (look at some of the terrible stuff Obama did with regard to drone strikes and military operations); she lost because people found her extremely unlikable -- like they did in 2008. (NB: I'm not right wing and I didn't vote for Trump)

> What value to the public came of his targeted weaponizing of information?

What political information isn't targeted and weaponized? And I have no idea, it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not. Maybe future historians will be able to say.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#176

Post by scarmig » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:21 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…

There's pretty much nothing Wikileaks has done in the past 5 years except the "email dramas", which was probably just as consequential in real world effects (good and ill) as its earlier history.

When I think of big leaks of information that were of public interest, the only other one I can think of recently is the Panama Papers. And Wikileaks had nothing to do with those, except insofar as Assange tweeted "#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and Soros."

Truly a profile in courage, passionate about improving the world by releasing information of public interest.

> it's impossible to measure whether it was of value or not

You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#177

Post by jancsika » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:21 AM UTC

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…

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 grounds.

Follow the small group that survives #3 to get a variety of (probably) high-quality perspectives from serious journalists.

Use set from #2 as a casual guide for when to prick your ears up and listen to the news.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#178

Post by overgard » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:23 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #176

overgard wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's pretty much nothing Wikileaks has done in the past 5 years except the "email dramas", which was probably just as consequential in real world effects (good and ill) as its earlier history. When I think of big leaks of information that were of public interest, the only other one I can think of recently is the Panama Papers. And Wikileaks had nothing to do with those, except insofar as Assange tweeted "#PanamaPa…

Well, I'm sure the relative lack of new reports has nothing to do with Assange hiding in an embassy since 2012 and being extremely carefully monitored...

> You're the one who's justifying the felonies because they release information of public interest! If any tidbit of information that could be of interest to historians is important to release, why not release the RNC emails, or information on Russian kleptocrats?

Well, yeah, if he has that information then I think he should release it. But I don't know if he does? And if he does I don't know if he has other reasons for not releasing it, maybe it'd damage a source, or he doubts it's reliability, or maybe he just dislikes the DNC. I don't know! But I think that just because what he releases damages the supposed "good guys" doesn't mean he shouldn't release it.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#179

Post by ng12 » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

haberman wrote: post #160

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…

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…

You're not wrong but there's nothing to be done about it. You either have freedom of speech/press or you don't, you can't have "freedom of speech as long as you're fair".

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#180

Post by Retra » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 12:29 AM UTC

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #54

Pxl_Buzzard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. So in his proposed system, we would define the procedure for making that information protected. The failure of our current government in this regard is that the default for any information is to classify it. There is more burden to create open documents than classified.

Or, better yet, a given set of information is automatically classified or not by virtue of what it is and what it's about, rather than an opt-in/opt-out system. Of course, that's just the first step. Next we'd have to define who or what makes the determination for a given document. And we'd have to define the granularity. Otherwise the system could be gamed in such a way that you could cause an entire document to be…

In my experience, most information is classified by virtue of it being aggregated and manipulated on a classified system. The only way to declassify that information is to have someone laboriously scrub all the data you want to put on an unclassified system and get it approved. if your entire network is classified, there's going to be a lot of mundane stuff there that is classified by default, because securing such a network requires that people can't just take data off of it without oversight.