Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#291

Post by ddingus » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:31 AM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #177

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 groun…

Bingo.

A lot of "journalists" are actually just parrots, depending on access to have "exclusive" things to say.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#292

Post by ru999gol » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:36 AM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #174

gnu8 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

its not productive conversation with any american, as you are all brainwashed anyways by your corrupt government and media. As far as I'm concerned any american is complicit in war crimes.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#293

Post by drewmol » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:37 AM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #279

drewmol wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And I'm pretty sure the charge of conspiring to hack defense systems is also a crime in the UK so the grounds for extradition aren't so shaky. The jurisdictional overreach of my government (US) in this case concerns me. Some questions we should consider: Is it a crime in the UK for an Australian citizen residing in Sweden to offer help cracking a password over online chat to a US citizen residing in Afghanistan and…

It's really up to the UK whether to extradite, but yeah extradition is a thing that several allied countries do to prevent people from being able to commit crimes in other countries without consequence. I get the concerns, but the charge is of conspiracy and that's exactly how it works... If you get caught planning to hack the DoD but you don't accomplish it, those plans can be used against you in a conspiracy charge…

I'll admit that last question was poorly related to this situation. The idea that the US claims jurisdiction to enforce laws against vaugly defined actions like this conspiracy law on an Australian citizen for a violation that took place in Sweden with very little evidence by extraditing from the UK seems to indicate all citizens of any nation can be governed by US laws and will be labeled as conspirators if the US government is pissed enought.

Is it different if China extradites an Italian citizen from Thailand for conspiring against them by, while in South Africa, assisting a Chinese citizen, who's located in Australia, participate in circumventing Chinese censorship technology by helping root a device?

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#294

Post by wybiral » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:46 AM UTC

drewmol wrote: post #293

wybiral wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really up to the UK whether to extradite, but yeah extradition is a thing that several allied countries do to prevent people from being able to commit crimes in other countries without consequence. I get the concerns, but the charge is of conspiracy and that's exactly how it works... If you get caught planning to hack the DoD but you don't accomplish it, those plans can be used against you in a conspiracy charge…

I'll admit that last question was poorly related to this situation. The idea that the US claims jurisdiction to enforce laws against vaugly defined actions like this conspiracy law on an Australian citizen for a violation that took place in Sweden with very little evidence by extraditing from the UK seems to indicate all citizens of any nation can be governed by US laws and will be labeled as conspirators if the US g…

Well, think of it this way: imagine that you were trying to help someone else hack the Australian Department of Defense. Should you face an investigation and trial for it or are you immune because you're not Australian?

The US might extradite you if Australia could make that case. Especially if it could be proven that you would receive a fair trial and no cruel or unusual punishment. That's what's happening here. The UK can still refuse to give him up if they don't make a good enough case.

For context on the issue of "fair trial": look at cases of worse charges than conspiracy to hack, like Maria Butina, for instance. She still received a proper trial and chance to defend herself against the evidence. Our legal system is broken in many ways, but mostly when it comes to racial or income inequality and local law enforcement. On the larger stage the rules for these things are pretty clear.

If you want to see some contrast take a look around at other large nation's justice system.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#295

Post by fastball » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:47 AM UTC

roguecoder wrote: post #284

pfisch wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you change your gender does it apply retroactively? I assume it doesn't because that is needlessly complicated.

She didn’t change her gender: she is and has been a woman who was in times passed misread. Besides, in what world would referring to someone by a name they purposefully decided not to use be less complicated than referring to them by their actual name? Regardless of whether or not someone is trans, always call them by their current name: it is polite and also doesn’t cause null pointer errors.

The word "woman" exists to describe a human female. Just as "bull" describes a male bovine and "hen" describes a female chicken.

If you want to stretch the term woman past the historical biological meaning, you can. But nobody else need participate in your re-imagination of terms.

Even with your stretched definition, however, you are still either a woman because of biology or a woman because you choose to live as one. Chelsea Manning was not born a female and was not "living as a woman" at the time of her arrest. Therefore, it is still unreasonable to claim that she has "always been a woman". At the time of her arrest, she lived as a man and she was biologically a man.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#296

Post by raxxorrax » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:51 AM UTC

wybiral wrote: post #202

jancsika wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense.

Shouldn't it if that access revealed information about war crimes? Or an artificial conflict that cost about 500.000 lives?

That should remain undisclosed because computer sabotage is bad? This is missing perspective left and right.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#297

Post by roguecoder » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:54 AM UTC

overgard wrote: post #184

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…

I don’t see how that makes sense in practice in a globalised world with the internet. The information is going to come from everywhere, and given the way the US meddles, our elections are of interest to practically every country. OF COURSE they’re going to try to influence our elections. Even a brief glance at our own history shows us doing that to, uh, practically every other country. It’s only going to get more pro…

The way the media handled Watergate was very different not because of the internet age of information, but because they weren’t trying to maintain their access to a vindictive, racist party that has abandoned all decorum and sent sitting Congressmen to “investigate” Facebook for not prioritizing Breitbart in its rankings.

There was no real information in the leaks, no crimes and certainly nothing as criminal as their theft, but that wasn’t the narrative the media wanted and so that wasn’t the narrative we got.

If anything, the internet is our only way out of this: we don’t have to buy their narrative. We could insist on legal conduct from political operatives. We can choose not to be manipulated.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#298

Post by nocturnial » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:56 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #199

nocturnial wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you read over the part where I said it was illegal. You don't need to invent scenarios, you can use the facts of this case. Manning already had access and didn't need the password to be cracked. Wikileaks already received information from Manning. Someone in the chat log told Manning they would pass the hash to someone else. They then told Manning "no luck so far". Keep in mind, they haven't provided any proo…

>Or that he actually send the hash to someone else to crack it, Still a crime. >And to top it all off, Manning did not need the password in the first place! People keep forgetting this. Still a crime.

What are talking about? Is it because I said it was illegal instead of it being a crime?

The first sentence you quoted was also part of a larger piece about we still need to see the proof that he actually sent it to someone else. So replying "Still a crime" makes zero sense.

In any case, the point is that these are trumped up charge probably to get him to the US so they can question him about russiagate.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#299

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:58 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #216

scarmig wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...except the Russian state was undermining the non-criminal to aid the known criminal? Please, point to any "criminal" act that was revealed in the emails (that were stolen and released to Wikileaks by Russian security services).

If a game show that gave away real prizes leaked the questions in advance to one contestant but not the other, that would be fraud. I'm not sure if a debate can be held to that standard, however?

[deleted]

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#300

Post by raxxorrax » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:59 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #242

microcolonel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There may be some truth to that for some people, but let's not discount the amount of people (I think a majority) that distinguish between exposing government actions and meddling with an election and colluding with a foreign power in dosing so. To be clear, whether they are guilty of that or not is irrelevant to the point that people beleive they are, and that can explain a lot of the difference in how they are perc…

The "meddling in elections" is neither quantifiable nor in any way an excuse for the issue at hand. You want to get someone behind bars because he leaked information about war crimes. Nothing else at hand matters to this case.

"meddling in elections".... pff....