221–230 of 465 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value on behalf of Manning and encouraging him to leak more information (Obama's DOJ refused to make this charge because it's something all journalists do).
that'd be "encouraging her", unless you're not referring to Manning here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever. Filtering out everyone who happens to disagree with your opinion is a good way to get stuck in an echo chamber.
This goes some way toward explaining the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria...
Spread by Mr. Assange himself for political purposes.
https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate
Leading to https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-pod...
Uhm what? Non US citizens aren't covered by the Constitution. Its why you never ever do anything illegal when you are in the US. I would try to smuggle a bag of heroine into Singapore before ignoring a red light in New York.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they can't break there law and get away with it. what gives them the right to decide what's secret or not? the state is not wholly good, nor are people. but that's okay, a lot of good still gets done. attacking such a system is wrong. attacking it under delusion of moral righteousness, then continuing to live in the shadow of the freedom it provides, is morally bankrupt. it's also stupid. I totally have the authorita…
Are you honestly comparing exposing war crimesdone on tax payer dollar to someone spying on my private life? I just want to reply here just so you can't delete this crap comment.
why would I want to delete my awesome comment?
yes, I'm doing more than comparing, they're analogous. spying and publishing, mind.
if you're so huffy about war crimes, why do you pay your taxes? because doesn't that make you complicit?
oh no but you're morally righteous. let me get you a badge for that.
also, language.
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.
He's being prosecuted for allegedly extracting a password from a hash value on behalf of Manning and encouraging him to leak more information (Obama's DOJ refused to make this charge because it's something all journalists do).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
American law can not apply to non-Americans abroad.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
American law can not apply to non-Americans abroad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of Information only exists because government is historically corrupt and there needs to be a counterweight. Given the corruptness of government, Freedom of Information can be bad. Unredacted data sounds dangerous, but it asks the question- "Why is the government doing it to begin with?"
Because there ARE secrets that governments need to keep.