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

451–460 of 465 posts

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#451

Post by coldtea »

cbnotfromthere wrote: post #443
coldtea wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we start with the premises that if people think that something is a crime, they can commit a crime to try and prove it, our legal system will quickly crumble. How about starting with the solid facts, that what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed? > Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence. We could just say no -- or, if they did find evidence, yes. This keeps the…

So basically you want the process to be judged by the outcome, not by... the process. That's not how the legal system works and that's not how ANY legals system COULD work, because it would require the process to be finalized and the outcome known before any legal enforcing to happen). Basically you're bringing an utterly irrational viewpoint to the discussion then you end up with " we can make rational value judgeme…

>That's not how the legal system works and that's not how ANY legals system COULD work, because it would require the process to be finalized and the outcome known before any legal enforcing to happen).

Actually that's how many regional and "local customs" legal systems works all around the world.

And it's even part of standard roman-legacy law, to take into account the outcome (and also thinks as intentions, circumstances, and so on).

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#452

Post by fit2rule »

cbnotfromthere wrote: post #446
fit2rule wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it a coincidence that almost all Wikileaks cables are about the US, and never anything about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Perhaps it makes Americans feel bad about themselves to hear this, but there are people in the world who feel that America and its 5-eyes allies are actually doing more harm to the world than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and "so on" - by way of endless, illegal, heinous wars wherei…

" America is a net evil force in the world, and its illegal wars must be stopped at all costs." How about you move to Russia or Venezuela and stop USA's illegal wars at any cost from there?

America's illegal wars can be stopped from anywhere. All it takes is for the truth to be revealed by those brave enough to stand up to the establishment, and reveal their crimes.

It can be done from anywhere on the globe, as we have learned from Wikileaks and others working to expose the crimes of US's criminal military-industrial complex.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#453

Post by pytester »

mike00632 wrote: post #321
roenxi wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exposing government corruption (and sketchiness) isn't really the best area to apply black-letter law though - it is usually going to be illegal; governments routinely try to stop people publishing embarrassing information. If a whistleblower can't intend to get information of a government network, how are they meant to make an allegation with some substance behind it? Are they meant to have unsubstantiated word of m…

>Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. Most Americans are not aware of the bulk of laws that apply to them.

Apparently there was a solid legal defense for the journalist murderers in the videos released by assange. They are not facing any kind of legal action.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#454

Post by mike00632 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #341
mike00632 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... that is not present in the First Amendment lead to that conclusion? It's commonly understood that the conduct of foreigners abroad is not protected by American rights. That is the legal basis for most of the 'War on Terror' military actions and one of the key reasons why the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki was objectionable. The way our system understands the law means that American citizen Anway al-Awlaki (and…

> It's commonly understood that the conduct of foreigners abroad is not protected by American rights. So we're backing away from legal argument to conventional wisdom? > That is the legal basis for most of the 'War on Terror' military actions No, it's not. About the closest that comes to the truth is that a lot of the War on Terror actions are based on the legal principle that certain, mostly procedural,. Constitutio…

>So we're backing away from legal argument to conventional wisdom?

I meant understood by legal professionals according to judicial rulings. As far as we can determine the law, foreigners abroad are not afforded the same rights as American citizens. And I don't think the law has so much nuance as to allow the US government to legally kill people but not abridge their freedom of speech.

>... targeted in war...

Anwar al-Awlaki was a non-combatant killed in Yemen, which was not a war zone at the time (same with his son). Those words have a lot of legal implications against the actions of the United States.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#455

Post by mike00632 »

pytester wrote: post #453
mike00632 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Assange isn't even a US citizen, so he isn't expected to know US law. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. Most Americans are not aware of the bulk of laws that apply to them.

Apparently there was a solid legal defense for the journalist murderers in the videos released by assange. They are not facing any kind of legal action.

What defense are you suggesting? I'm not defending the killing of those journalists and I agree that what Assange did is petty in comparison. But nobody looks good in this saga. There are no good guys and bad guys. Assange exposed instances of over-classification and the potential cover-up of war crimes by the United States but eventually became a propagandist for Russia and their war crimes in Syria. Assange shouldn't benefit because some of his actions were in line with a benevolent ideology. This shouldn't be seen as an ideological clash between proponents of free speech and war hawks because it's not that black and white.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#456

Post by pytester »

mike00632 wrote: post #455
pytester wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently there was a solid legal defense for the journalist murderers in the videos released by assange. They are not facing any kind of legal action.

What defense are you suggesting? I'm not defending the killing of those journalists and I agree that what Assange did is petty in comparison. But nobody looks good in this saga. There are no good guys and bad guys. Assange exposed instances of over-classification and the potential cover-up of war crimes by the United States but eventually became a propagandist for Russia and their war crimes in Syria. Assange shouldn…

Assange can't even get a hostile media to report what he said correctly. The idea that he is running a propaganda campaign is as fantastical as the idea that you are running your own personal propaganda campaign.

Assange cannot frame narratives, suppress journalism or push talking points through media outlets under his control. He didn't control anything except one twitter feed.

The only thing that people really pay attention to and the only reason he has a platform at all is because of what he leaks. Most people don't even have any idea what his opinions are - although the effect of the leaks is felt far and wide.

This absolutely SHOULD be seen as an ideological clash between proponents of journalism (it's not even about freedom of speech, it's about freedom of journalism) and war hawks. And taking the side of the journalist murderers? Not a good look.

It is that simple and you can tell it's that simple because Assange is getting prosecuted for exposing the murders and the murderers are going free and nobody even disputes (except in a very legalistic sense) that they were murderers.

The idea that he's a stooge for Russia? There's your propaganda - it's pretty much no different to the red scare of yesteryear.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#457

Post by no-s »

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…

I am also applying a similar discrimination to HN forum participants. Too many of whom seem absurdly credulous of the govt claims...

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#458

Post by wallace_f »

sctb wrote: post #239
wallace_f wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anoth…

Sorry for the lack of explanation! If you were being literal and straightforward, then the thing to do is not to post off topic but flag the post (or email us to tell us that someone is posting algorithmically). If you meant it as a diss to the poster, then the rule is: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic get…

I can assure you it wasn't a put-down to the poster (I personally disagree with this). It was certainly a sincere, albeit admittedly snarky criticism of that particular post (I think this rule against snarkiness is getting a bit sensitive, but I'm happy to cooperate with the rule).

While I have your attention, you might want to investigate the bullying and downvote brigaiding I've experienced. I noticed over the last days my posts go down in simultaneous troves. For example, sometimes I would move to a new thread, and see I'd lost 6 karma. Then I'd open up my comments, and every time it was each of my comments that day going down by 1. Then about 5-10 minutes later, they would all each go down by -1 again.

I still notice this. I cant make a comment on this site without, at some point, each of my comments ticking down by -1 in perfect synchronizarion, two times.

It seems blatantly obvious someone has 2 HN accounts and is stalking my comments.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#459

Post by jonfw »

kbenson wrote: post #278
jonfw wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of anybody else reading this, I edited my previous comment before you responded, but at the time you saw my comment your first quote was accurate. My fault for that disjointed communication, I thought I edited it quickly enough. In that quote he has specifically said "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death neccessarily is connected to our publications." I see nothing wrong with entertaining a conspiracy…

> I'd like to hear how you know that Assange knew that they had nothing to do with it? Because your argument seems to hinge on that idea. I'm not sure who "they" are in this question. I assume Assange knows who his sources are, and as someone who claims to be a journalist and run a journalistic enterprise, he would not accuse people of something he had no evidence of. At this point, there's plenty of investigations a…

You are 100% sure that Seth Rich wasn't murdered in a conspiracy because Wikipedia said so?

I'm not saying that he was murdered by the DNC because I haven't seen enough evidence that supports that theory. But to act like the theory has been conclusively disproven because of a wikipedia article that cites the Washington Post, Snopes, and Politifact is rather naive.

Re: Julian Assange Deserves First Amendment Protection

#460

Post by dosy »

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #382
dosy wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden was definitely an agent. Agency? Jury's out. There's a difference between being effective, GW, TJ, and stupidly ineffective, JA, RS. Or just plain stupid, ES. Interesting about DJB, I did not know that story.

How was Snowden "plain stupid" exactly? "stupidly ineffective" - well, one has to start from somewhere. Plus stallman's work was far from ineffective. As for assange's work, the publication of the war crimes might have saved thousands of civilian lives.

Snowden was a pawn, taken in by savior complex.

Stallman made zero impact.

Assange had no effect on war policy. He was also a pawn entrapped by savior complex.

Post reply on HN