Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

harpers.org

201–210 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#201
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…

> 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.

Having worked in government a long time I can in all good faith say that obstructing the distribution of information that will make governments look bad is the primary occupation of vast numbers of government officials.

Some of them will happily use any legal technicality, no matter the principles.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#202

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 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 leak to the public?

"It's just journalism, you can't arrest me..."

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#203
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He took specific steps (cracking a hash) with the clear intent of helping break into a government owned computer system. I'm not sure what the gray area is supposed to be here. If I teach you lock picking skills as a fun hobby, that's clearly okay. If I teach you lock picking skills knowing you aspire to be a house robber, that is grayish legally and wrong ethically. But if I break into a specific bank vault for you…

>Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist. But for your bank account comparison to make sense Manning would've already have emptied your bank account before JA broke the law.

How do you know the Administrator account wouldn't have yielded more documents compared to a user account?

Regardless, imagine two independent people trying to murder someone. The first shoots a fatal bullet and the victim is about to imminently die, even if the best medical aid were to be immediately provided. Then the second murderer comes on the scene, does not realize that the victim is fatally wounded, and shoots another bullet, instantly killing him.

Both these people would be fully responsible for the murder, not just attempted murder. Arguments from them saying "no, the other killed him, I did not", do not fly in court.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#204
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment reads like it was written by an algorithm.

Please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry about that. I wonder how to communicate that more politely.

I took a quick look at roughly the last two dozen comments you've made to users regarding guideline infractions. I noticed in every single one that you named a specific rule within your complaint. I also noticed that they all appeared to be actually not just downvoted, but even flagged. By stsrk contrast, this comment here is actually upvoted.

As another user pointed out here, the relative objectionable content of this comment is questionable. Yet, I'm actually happy to cooperate. I'd ask in the future that you offer me the same benefit of the doubt and entitlement to know what it is I am being charged with respect to the rules, as you do with every other user.

As you might be aware, I've been receiving trolling, bullying and very suspicious, apparent downvote brigaiding by some users here, so I ask you consider my request in good faith as this would be helpful to have no doubts that the mods are not part of any hate, bullying or negativity.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#205

When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security which I assume his case falls under. Edit: As I get down voted, I should clarify that I mean for a civilian. I believe my professor was talking about this case since it was relatively new at that time [1]. [1] https://www.rcfp.org/national-security-trumps-fir…

> When I took journalism in college, they taught us to things that is not protected by the first amendment. One of them is anything that effects national security You should get a refund on your tuition; a number of First Amendment protections have been articulated in national security related cases, notably the rule against prior restraint in the Pentagon Papers case which is what allowed their publication.

Im not 100% sure but I think parent comment needs just 1-2 more downvotes to be flagged/hidden which is kind of sad because combined with your comment, it is a valuable, relevant discussion.

In other words, comment downvoting is used for disagreement, but the effect of silencing discussions will also silence information users may be able to use to know why such comments are disagreeable.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#206

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 groun…

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#207
post #154
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inform…

From Mueller's filing on the GRU, Organization 1 is WikiLeaks:

The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia Charges: Count 1 (Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States) In or around 2016, the Russian Federation ("Russia") operated a military intelligence agency called the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff ("GRU"). These units conducted large scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants ... were GRU officers who knowingly and intentionally conspired ... to gain unauthorized access (to "hack") into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election ... steal documents from those computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Starting in at least March 2016, the Conspirators used a variety of means to hack the email accounts of volunteers and employees of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (the "Clinton Campaign"), including the email account of the Clinton Campaign's chairman. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee ("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails and other documents from the DCCC and DNC. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization 1"), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government.

pg 17 Use of Organization 1: In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to "[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days preferable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok...i see." Organization 1 explained, "we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary...so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting." On or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled "wk dnc link1.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file container instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 22, 29016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

Conversations reported from WikiLeaks to DJT JR. "Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us," WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump's followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. "There's many great stories the press are missing and we're sure some of your follows [sic] will find it," WikiLeaks went on. "Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4."

WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee's oldest son and campaign surrogate. "A PAC run anti-TRump site putintrump.org is about to launch," WikiLeaks wrote. "The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is 'putintrump.'"

Wikileaks urged Donald Trump Jr. to tell his father to not concede if he lost on Election Day, according to a bombshell report from The Atlantic that alleges the president's eldest child and the transparency organization secretly corresponded in private direct messages on Twitter during the U.S. presidential campaign.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#208
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to choose: either the sexual assault charges are being investigated by an independent judiciary, or it is all part of some conspiracy to put him in jail. Judging by how much emphasis on the second option, I find it hard to not read an implied dismissal of the sexual assault charge in your comment.

Everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at Assange. Grooming children from the embassy, meeting Russians in the embassy, meeting Trumps team in the embassy. At what point does you bullshit detector go off and you think "there are at least three people organizing this character assaination, that is the definition of a conspiracy"?

Can't say I'm too concerned after what he did.

https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate

Leading to:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#209
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-Americans are certainly protected by the Constitution while in the US, but I thought there was still a legal debate about whether the US Constitution fully applies to foreign nationals while outside the US. Hasn't that long been the legal excuse used for things like international mass surveillance and what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay is American soil similar to embassies in foreign cities.

>Guantanamo Bay is American soil

That doesn't seem to be 100% settled law either. The US government has argued both sides in different court cases.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#210
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?

The 1st amendment simply prohibits the united states government from abridging freedom of speech.

Putting thousands of people's lives in danger because you're not careful isn't freedom of speech [0]. If Assange cared about freedom of speech, he wouldn't have called the Panama leaks an attack on Putin fueled by Soros [1]. Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on?

I definitely don't think he should be prosecuted for journalism, but if it is shown that he was Putin's puppet and intentionally helped meddle in US election, then he does deserve whatever sentence he receives.

[0] https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks...

[1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

Post reply on HN