Assange is accused of working with Manning to crack a Linux password hash of a government computer so Manning could gain access. It’s not about publishing any data obtained; he was, it seems, not a passive receiver.
This is the critical difference. If the NY Times stole the Pentagon Papers themselves, they committed a crime regardless of whether or not they choose to publish the material. If Daniel Ellsberg steals the Pentagon Papers and the Times and Washington Post choose to publish them as part of their reporting on the Vietnam War, they are not somehow made accessories to his crime through publication.
Assange can publish whatever he wants* (*according to the US laws that govern freedom of speech, etc.) but as soon as he becomes actively involved in the exfiltration of classified material he is breaking the law.
The US isn't special in this regard. Many nations have extradition treaties with each other and they are often invoked in cases of espionage. To paint that as US law "reaching the globe" is a bit facetious; everyone is entangled in everyone else's law—especially when it comes to espionage.
>To paint that as US law "reaching the globe" is a bit facetious
'Everybody does it' argument does not invalidate the claim. I'm not making judgement on what should happen here but...
An Austrailian man was just arrested in the United Kingdom and is to be extridited to the United States for allegations of attempting to aide the circumvention of encryption on a laptop (while located in Sweeden) that was owned by the US government and stolen by (while located in the Afghanistan) a US citizen containing information about the United States government's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I couldn't find any good comparative statistics, but I hear about people being extradited to the US a lot more than from, giving the appearance of a rather one-sided relationship. The treaties may be the same, but they don't seem to be used the same.
According to the UK's Home Office, the US requests more extraditions of UK citizens than vice versa, but that might be due to the relative population sizes.
Your link doesn't list the reason for extradition, doing some research on this issue, I see parental kidnapping generates a fair number of extradition requests.
Well, following Snowden's revelations we learned that NSA was spying on European countries' citizens and administrations, the US president (Obama at the time) just said that spying on allies was a perfectly natural thing.
This is definitely a one-sided relationship.
You can be sure that the US will never extradite anyone for that at least.
Well, he allegedly attempted to hack into US computers, right? If a US citizen hacked into Australian servers, they could be extradited from the UK as well.
True. If the hack was related to divulging accurate but classified information detailing Australia's recent invasion and topple of two sovereign nations, against recommendation by the majority of the UN, it would likely play out different.
I understand the basis for the charges: Assange supposedly committed a crime against the US and so we claim jurisdiction, but does he have Constitutional rights, not just the ones extending from treaties and agreements?
If an Australian tourist visits the US, they can be arrested as part of a police investigation the same way an American can be, and they have Constitutional rights such the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
I’m assuming you’re asking about whether Assange can claim the law violates the guarantees of free speech and a free press. I’m sure his attorneys will make that argument. I’m also sure that the court will rule against him. If an American gave Manning advice on how to crack another user’s password on a classified military system, they wouldn’t get very far claiming “free speech” or “free press.”
Personally, I don’t see any reason that Assange should feel any loyalty to the US, so there is a difference between an American helping an American military intelligence analyst crack computer security and an Australian doing so. On the other hand, if an old friend contacted me and said “I’m in the Ecuadorian military and I need help cracking into a classified computer,” I would assume that my helping them would violate Ecuadorian law.
>Otherwise we could run roughshod over any foreigners we wanted.
That's the justification for (and purpose of) Guantanamo Bay, that the US can get around respecting (foreign and domestic) prisoners' Constitutional rights and obeying laws against indefinite detainment without trial and torture because it's not "technically" American, but Cuban.
That was what the Bush administration tried to do, but they were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court ruled that it was still unconstitutional, and the prisoners had the same rights under the US Constitution.
In the 50 states + DC + incorporated territories, the entire US Constitution applies to everyone. There are unincorporated territories, where things are a bit fuzzier.
Certain rights apply differently depending on what citizenship you hold. You can be held and deported if you're not a citizen; you have more due process if you have a green card than if you are on a tourist visa. But all of those gradations of rights are in the context of the Constitution.
That indictment is pretty interesting. It is short and pretty clear, but I'm still having trouble understanding what the indictment actually alleges he did.
> 7. On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password...
> 25. [...] Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had "no luck so far."
It seems to me that essentially the entire indictment discusses what Manning was doing. Is this all they have on Assange? I mean is the only evidence that he helped crack the password that single statement of his? He could have just said that and never done anything.
I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me.
Indictments are summaries of the allegations for which the grand jury has found probable cause based on evidence. They don't need to contain any evidence themselves, as their purpose isn't to prove charges but to state them.
> I mean sure presumably there is more evidence, but this indictment seems pretty thin to me.
All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.
> All criminal conspiracy legally needs is a agreed common purpose which is itself criminal and a concrete act by any of the participants to advance the common purpose.
Well I hope that they have something more concrete than him saying "no luck so far" because I read that as all of nothing. I make similar statements all the time and it need not mean I've done a thing.
Even with your elucidation, it seems to me that indictment seems to working quite creatively to paint Assange as conspiring with Manning. I presume at least that the British would demand to see the evidence of the conspiracy.
The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person. And many prosecutors work hard to make sure it contains no more than enough to meet that standard.
They’ll get a chance to amend the indictment before trial.
> The indictment just has to establish enough to arrest the person.
The indictment doesn't actually have to do that, that's what has to be done to get to the indictment, but the indictment doesn't need to actually recapitulate the evidence that supports it, only the factual allegations that the grand jury found that the evidence supported.
Sure, but would you be equally damning of the actions of the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI? [1] We are talking about breaking into a physical office in that case and I admit that it is different in that they mailed the documents anonymously to journalists, but let us not pretend that things are as black and white as active vs passive – would it have been okay if Manning and Assange had provided the documents to another media outlet?
Update (no replies yet): I should clarify that I care very little about the legal aspects as there are obviously legal implications, rather I think this is an interesting question from a moral standpoint.
I think it's important to note that if the Citizen's Commission members were identified within the 5 years after the theft, they would have been tried and jailed. That's the risk you take. They kept their silence about their identities for over 40 years.
Certainly, but would it have been morally (not legally) correct to have had them tried and jailed? Personally, I would have said no, in that their actions were clearly in the interest of the greater public and uncovered illegal actions on the part of the state. This is a difficult question though; I have not made up my mind entirely as to where the boundary lies.
This isn't about Assange trying to crack a password this is about punishing Assange for journalistic work he did. Since such journalism is not a crime in itself they have found some other minor crime which they can make a federal case out of.
Yes, this is another example of a dual-track justice system. Note how CIA officers aren't prosecuted for hacking the Senate [1, 2], but an activist is indicted for allegedly failing to decrypt some files.
At the end of the day they are going to send him away for life. The reason being that he did in no way apologize for his actions or feel any remorse. I am sure they have a litany of ways of doing that. This is just one of them. I am sure by the time this goes to trial there will be many more charges or if he beats one charge they will try him on something else. You can't escape the long arm of the US law.
This is the key thing. You cannot escape law by "being right". If you have to be punished for some reason, they will find a reason. Show me the man, and all that.
That being said: I hope it's just a few years. That's fair for what he is accused of.
The attempt of the US government to prosecute Assange is the gravest possible threat to press freedom imaginable.
People are talking about a hashed password like its something new, but this is not new information at all. The Obama justice department had all the same chat logs - no new evidence has been discovered since then - and knew all about this but decided they couldn't prosecute without endangering press freedom.[1]
So if you don't think this is a major assault on press freedom, you should at least realize you are disagreeing not only with me but literally the Obama justice department which looked at this for years. Why is it that they came to this conclusion and never moved forward with the case, but now the TRUMP administration is pursuing it anyway?
It's not just american journalists that are at risk, but this is meant to send a chilling message to anyone anywhere on earth that you better not report on the US government negatively or else we will have you extradited, prosecuted as a spy, and thrown in solitary.
Anyone cheering on the US government as they try to set a precedent for prosecuting journalists as spies needs to think more carefully about this issue.
The article you posted highlights exactly what's happening here, he's being charged with hacking, not publishing.
> One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer. But the Justice officials said he would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.
The indictment is not only about hacking, but about aiding the source in avoiding detection, and encouraging them for more documents.
There is zero allegation of hacking. Rather they are saying Manning sent a hashed password and Julian said in the chat he sent it to his team and then it never went anywhere. Calling this hacking is a big stretch.
This article from 2011 shows the Obama justice department knew all about this[1], check out the last two paragraphs which I will post here:
"In the exchange prosecutors showed in the courtroom, Manning appeared to have sent Assange a “hash,” or encrypted, password. Assange said he’d passed it on to members of his team, but the exchange prosecutors showed did not indicate whether WikiLeaks ever actually helped Manning with the password.
That chat could be a critical one for the parallel criminal investigation the Justice Department is pursuing into Assange and WikiLeaks. If Assange gave Manning advice or assistance in breaking into computer systems, that could transform Assange’s role from a mere recipient of secret data to a conspirator in efforts to steal it."
I am curious why you think the Trump administration is pursuing this now whereas the Obama DOJ declined to prosecute sighting the "new york times problem" as described in the previous link.
I've always assumed Obama's DOJ would act once they were able to, and that the DOJ itself was always intent on pursuing. He finally wore out his Ecuador welcome and so it's happening now. Had Clinton won, I think the outcome would be the same, if not far more aggressive (due the DNC email leak).
Being given government secrets and publishing them for the public interest should not be a crime, and it isn't. The New York Times won that case 8-1 or 9-0 at the Supreme Court for the Pentagon Papers.
Assisting with the exfiltration of that data is clearly a different beast. Professional journalists know the difference, and stay clear of it to protect themselves, their employer, and the trust journalists are granted.
Helping to crack a password clearly crosses the line, even if it's minor in the scheme of things, or unsuccessful. There will be endless handwringing here on HN over the precise definition of "assistance", because somehow the tech community cannot handle the ambiguity of non-binary real world situations. Would it be material assistance to let your whistleblower use your USB stick? What if you bought them a coffee on the morning they did the deed? etc... But the inability to precisely define the single tree that makes the forest doesn't stop us from making any "forest or desert?" decisions.
Of course this sets an ugly precedent. To the ignorant, it suddenly becomes far less extraordinary to see a publisher of secrets in jail. The Atlantic is rightly worried here, because who knows how long the courts will still operate independently, considering the current trajectory of other institutions like DoJ?
So he helped crack a password like, what a decade ago?
Time served for having to live in an embassy for the last several years?
You're right, it's illegal, but it just doesn't feel that bad to me. Not even remotely on the level of the problems we face as a country this day. It almost feels petty.
He didn’t have to live in the embassy. Sweden was by all accounts far less likely to extradite him, but he choose to flee rather than face his rape charges.
Even if he had been convicted in Sweden he would have been out by now.
Good comment. Though I expect the handwringing will be less over the nature of assistance and more whether an illegal act (cracking a password) is justified by the greater good (whistleblowing).
I don't think the fact that he once worked with a sincere whistleblower to release information in the public interest should automatically excuse anything else he may have done.
> I don't think the fact that he once worked with a sincere whistleblower
I don't think that it's at all clear that Manning was a “sincere whistleblower”, even if some of the leaked material was in the public interest, so much as a seriously emotionally damaged individual lashing out collaterally and simultaneously seeking external validation in response to signficant personal institutional mistreatment.
It would be unfair to say that we must grapple with the particular, legal questions of the current charges but don't have to speak about the general, not-necessarily-legal, questions of Assange's overall behavior.
Al Capone was indicted under charges of tax fraud, though that was not primarily why authorities wanted him. We must consider both consider the justice of those particular charges as well as the justice of general punishment of Capone, whatever the source.
What I mean is that we have to consider both things separately and simultaneously. You're correct that we need to think about if we agree with this particular charge. I'd also say that you have a similar responsibility to say if Assange should be charged for, as you said, "anything else 'bad'" he's done.
Sorry, no. The ideal behind the rule of law is to specifically detail behavior that we've managed to formalize and agree upon should be punished, not as a haystack of justifications in which to find something to go after people who are unliked. False negatives based on unequal enforcement are prevalent enough, we don't need to be encouraging false positives.
That the Al Capone thing gets trotted out as an example of reasonable government behavior really only demonstrates how accepting society is of corruption serving popular opinion.
And Assange appears to have committed the crime of conspiring to hack a Department of Defense system.
You're talking about it like they're innocent, but really they just got more attention towards their crimes because they did other things which they were more notorious for.
And frankly, that's always the case. If you want to get away with a crime don't make a name for yourself as being a criminal.
> And Assange appears to have committed the crime of conspiring to hack a Department of Defense system.
No, that is USG's argument - an argument which has yet to be proven or really even fleshed out. Given its reliance on a tenuous concept of nexus that USG stretches further and further, I think it's tough for it to "appear" to anyone that this spooky action at a distance is immediately criminal - USG's general ability to eventually justify extracting blood notwithstanding.
But back to the specific argument - What GP appears to be advocating is that while considering this possible crime, we should "simultaneously" be thinking of what a general twit Assange is, lest we forget that the real goal is to punish him somehow. That is directly contrary to the rule of law.
> What GP appears to be advocating is that while considering this possible crime, we should "simultaneously" be thinking of what a general twit Assange is, lest we forget that the real goal is to punish him somehow.
Is that the real goal? That's the point I'm making, because both directions of reasoning matter. It could be that the charges against Assange are absurd and he should be freed. It could be that the charges are accurate but he should be granted clemency. It could be that he's guilty but not worth it. It could be that he's innocent of these crimes but guilty of things that, for various reasons, sit outside statutes. All of these positions imply stances one should take on the various particulars of the situation and so we should think about them.
> That is directly contrary to the rule of law.
This is exactly how the rule of law is practiced. It's one of the reasons why there are such dramatic racial disparities in the american legal system. It's why people regularly commit felonies without knowing it[1].
I am aware of the idea of law that you're invoking - that a crime is a crime is a crime and that we should speak to the issue at hand and not address the context around the issue. The problem, to me, is that the context around the crime is exactly the thing that produced the crime! The charge was doubtless chosen based on what the government thinks it can prove. If it couldn't prove this, it would have selected another charge.
To refuse to consider the context is to play the governments' game. If the charge is the charge, then go ahead and read the statute - I have no doubt Assange is technically guilty in some way. We are all guilty of felonies in some abstract technical sense.
But - if we do the sensible thing and consider the context, we have to consider both sides of the context - how did we arrive at this charge and what behavior (if any) does this charge ignore? This is what I mean by needing to do the two things simultaneously - you can't pretend Assange isn't arrested while you talk about his actions and you can't pretend his past actions don't exist while you talk about his arrest.
Given that USians overwhelming reaction to Assange is negative thanks to our vibrant state run media, coupled with the tenuousness of the charge - yes I do think that most any attempt to pull wider "context" into the specific legal situation is essentially character assassination.
> The problem, to me, is that the context around the crime is exactly the thing that produced the crime! The charge was doubtless chosen based on what the government thinks it can prove. If it couldn't prove this, it would have selected another charge.
Except a major aspect that defines this situation is that the USG is claiming jurisdiction over a foreign national committing actions wholly on foreign soil. Even if Assange's actions were unquestionably hostile to the United States, and blatantly illegal if done on its soil, claiming jurisdiction over him still relies on purely technical legal reasoning!
So what USG really chose is a charge they can best hang some sort of nexus onto - and it's not really a surprise that the overbroad, overbearing, and draconian CFAA is what they ended up at. It mostly makes sense to use the CFAA to criminally prosecute a foreign actor breaking into US computers because they are still remotely committing actions on US soil, but Assange is essentially being charged in the US for talking to Manning about Manning committing a crime in the US!
Which is why the charge is chilling - because the same reasoning applies to any journalist receiving information from any source. Not because it's illegal for the journalist themselves to mishandle classified information, but because by talking to the source they're conspiring to further the source's own mishandling of classified (/tradesecret) information!
Are you saying that, like Al Capone, Assange has somehow threatened people with knowledge of some greater crime?
If you're referring to the Swedish allegations, keep in mind Assange constantly made himself available to the Swedish prosecutor to answer questions at any time the prosecutor asked: via video conference, in person or otherwise. The prosecutor declined.
The Capone comparison is probably because there is speculation (for good reason) that the US wants to punish Assange for things unrelated to the hacking conspiracy charge he was actually indicted for...
But since they can't do that directly they've chosen a different crime to snag him on.
> Are you saying that, like Al Capone, Assange has somehow threatened people with knowledge of some greater crime?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'm not sure how to answer - if you expand I'm happy to respond.
I'm not an expert on Assange or Capone. I invoked the example because I understand that people dislike Assange for reasons related that are unevenly covered by the law. That seemed similar to Capone who, as I understand, operated at a time where little of his actual behavior violated the law (though he was at the top of a violent criminal organization).
The things people dislike Assange for may or may not be narrowly legal - but their feelings towards him will affect how they treat these charges against him.
> The prosecutor declined.
This is a longer discussion, which we can have. Generally, for the Swedish legal system to be able to take action, it must have power over the object of its action. Saying you will "cooperate" as long as you aren't subject to the power of a process which demands power over you seems, to me, like a rhetorical maneuver than genuine effort to engage. His arrest illustrates why he was nervous about leaving the embassy, of course, but doesn't make evasive representations more true.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'm not sure how to answer - if you expand I'm happy to respond.
People were unwilling to testify against Capone due to fear of violent retribution. That's the basis of going after him for tax evasion.
Saying you must have power over someone before you can talk to them gives the lie to the Swedish prosecutor aim being determining the facts of the Ardin case
I don't think that's a fair description of what's happened. What we currently know about are the Manning charges. It's pretty clear that Assange will be pursued for the 2016 election activities, but we likely won't hear about that either until he's already standing trial or it'll never come to light simply because they can put him away for life with the charges they've got now. If the 2010 issues didn't involve him at all no one can seriously content that the US would be letting him go - they have a plethora of reasons to pursue him.
Maximum time for current charges is 5 years...and unless the US adds on more charges before the extradition hearing, they can't just do so after he's in the US since they owe him back to the UK after his initial prison term (or after the trial, if he's found not guilty). They could (and probably would) try to re-extradite him, but that would require another hearing and UK judges are less willing to put up with that sort of procedural nonsense.
This is a straw man mischaracterization of what the article is arguing. His work with a "sincere whistleblower ... in the public interest" is the direct and only thing he's been charged for (by USG).
> The effort to extradite and prosecute the WikiLeaks founder threatens the free media.
No, it doesn't; press freedom is the right to publish, not the right to actively participate in breaches of non-social (e.g., physical or technical) security measures.
> The charges leveled against Assange stem from the 2010 Manning leaks, which were judged to have been in the public interest by some of the world’s most significant and thoughtful news publishers, who ran some of the revelations in their pages.
News publishers don't have any binding authority to decide what is in the public interest; there is no Constitutional prerogative to an institutional press pardon for criminal offenses. Further, this claim is outright dishonest: the decision to publish some of the information as being information whose publication was in the public interest is not a judgement that the leaks themselves were, on balance, in the public interest.
The fundamental problem with this sort of accusation is that I could write the same about a person with your attitude towards the situation. "It's absolutely ridiculous how easy it is for Assange (and/or foreign governments with an interest in supporting him) to make gullible people on the internet believe that the CIA somehow ginned up the rape charges in Sweden just because Assange leaked a video that makes the U.S. military look (very) bad--the very same government that commuted almost all of his source's sentence...." And so on.
And no, not "high treason." But knowingly conspiring to access a U.S. Government computer to obtain classified information without authorization, the actual offense listed in the indictment? Sounds about right, if the allegations are true.
I wasn't arguing in the first place, I was expressing my anger and sadness about how gullible some people are, because they don't realize the shift in public opinion and how it was manufactured (and partly also due to Assange's own behavior, no doubt about that).
It's not a matter of opinion or one's political views whether Assange was the victim of an orchestrated smear campaign or not.
True, I don't have to like him to defend him. I do, however, have to feel confident that I know the facts -- and I don't feel confident at all about that.
> People are presumed innocent until the facts are known.
Inside the justice system, yes. I am not a part of the justice system, and I have every right to have my own opinion. I'm suspending my personal judgement until I feel I have a better handle on what's happened.
The judicial system presumes innocence. The media, and public opinion, does not. It's debatable if the court of public opinion should presume innocence as well.
It should but does not. The court of public opinion should be subordinate to the judicial system. When it isn't, you end up with a kind of cognitive dissonance where someone is legally declared not guilty but still suffers social consequences due to bad optics.
> The court of public opinion should be subordinate to the judicial system.
I don't think I agree with this. The legal system decides whether or not an action was legal, not whether or not an action was acceptable in society. The court of public opinion decides whether or not an action was acceptable in society, not whether or not it was legal.
They address two different things, and I think that's proper. You don't really want the legal system deciding social mores, and you also don't really want legality to be determined based on the public's emotional reaction to things.
> The legal system decides whether or not an action was legal
This isn't quite right. The legal system decides if a person is guilty of committing an illegal act, and if so, what the sentence should be. The system may find that the person did not actually perform the act they were accused of doing, regardless of the legality of that act.
I think there is the small chance the extradition won't go through.The UK courts are particularly considerate when it comes to extraditions -- when compared to other countries, it's not just a a hand-stamp (usually). In fact, Google the term "uk refuses to extradite" and there's pages upon pages of results.
It's probably his best hope. The current charges are thin -- based on one statement he made to manning -- and the feds know this. BUT the reason you never talk to the feds is that it is way, way to easy for them to get you on other charges: purgery (generally the main one if they can't get you for anything else), conspiracy, racketeering, and of course with this one they have a litany of government security charges they can cherry pick as well.
If he doesn't have excellent legal representation (even with) he's in real trouble. His best shot is to fight to not come here in the first place -- if he can make a case that they may bait and switch the charges to national security, and somewhere put the death penalty into play, that could work.
Note that I don't know how it works being that he is actually an Australian citizen -- does the UK care if it's not one of its citizens facing what their courts would consider unfair charges overseas? (which is their standard for denying extradition -- I'm not judging the charges either way)
It would be interesting to know the number of refused extraditions the UK has by the country requesting it. I imagine an extradition request from the US would be more likely to be filled than one from a less powerful/friendly country. The US has a "special" relationship [0] with the UK after all.
They're actually more likely not to extradite to countries with the death penalty, which the US has and the UK doesn't. That's one of the main reasons for the state not to agree to extradition -- the punishment is what the state views as cruel or unusual, which many countries view the death penalty as. Extradition agreements are generally much simpler among countries without it, but that is indeed a generality.
Barrack Obama pardoned Manning on his last day in office. If Assange's only crime is assisting Manning, and Manning's sentence has been commuted by the very President of the United States and is now free, why are we on a hunt for Assange?
It may sound a bit silly but is an honest question.
It's like... if I commit a robbery and you drive the getaway vehicle, I am (the actual robber) deemed innocent and let go, but you still go to prison for being an accomplice. It makes little sense?
IANAL but maintaining precedence seems reasonable, the same reason Manning was commuted and not pardoned. Not giving the green light for future offenses.
a president commuting a sentence is orthogonal to whether or not a crime actually occurred. imo, the president was reacting to the political reality that, in the public eye, manning was becoming a sympathetic character and had already been punished enough. there's no particular reason why the same deal would be extended to assange, who has essentially spent the last several years thumbing his nose at the US government.
> it's like... if I commit a robbery and you drive the getaway vehicle, I am (the actual robber) deemed innocent and let go, but you still go to prison for being an accomplice. It makes little sense?
it could easily be the case that there's enough evidence to show that a robbery occurred and that I drove the getaway car, but not enough to convict you of the robbery itself. the fact that one of the accused in an alleged conspiracy is found not guilty really has no bearing on whether others can still be convicted.
What I particularly don't understand is how his government, my government, Australia, has left him hanging for all this time with never a reproach about the situation. I can only assume that the 5 eyes network is so tightly knit that it's inconceivable to our politicians to do the right thing and say "No, he's one of ours: you might have grievance with him -- but tough luck".
Instead, he's been holed up in the embassy of a country that initially had the fortitude to say just that. But since the Equidorian political landscape had shifted, so has the message it has sent. Sadly it shifted to what the Australian government has been doing all along, and has colluded in hanging him out to dry.
Tragically, when he arrives on US soil I suspect he in for a very bad time.
I don't particularly agree with Assange's methodology, but I find the actions of the Australian and UK political landscape utterly deplorable.
Indeed - I don't like him (but on this basis I'm not a great fan of myself either) - but what wikileaks exposed is important.
I'm not even saying it's true, or of importance, or of anything.
There was no principle at play when Assange choose to publish the material he did. I fail to see what principles we're defending by choosing to defend him.
Yeah, if the free media is told something is classified, they will do the responsible thing and not pursue the matter any further. They know the government has everybody's best interest at heart, and that if something is classified, it's probably classified for your own good.
Then why bother with the term at all? What does the "free" in "free press" mean?
The First Amendment of the US constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. Although the term "free press" isn't specifically mentioned, if one cannot decide what does and does not qualify as "the press" then everything from espionage to outright falsehood can equally be considered an expression of "the press."
As this is not the case, then "the press" and "the free press" must have some established definition, which means some qualifiers must have been decided upon. And yet it doesn't seem as if the US has fallen prey to wholesale government silencing of critics or censorship of criticism either in the mainstream or alternative press, as a result of such definition.
So while it may be possible that defining "the press" could result in abusing that definition to silence critics, it doesn't appear to be inevitable.
Therefore, it can safely be argued whether or not Wikileaks qualifies as the "free press" without fear of a slippery slope to press censorship in general.
You might need a refresher of US history. It can and has been abused in the past and only through fighting back hard have we gotten the status quo of today.
If the spooks of weren't so damn aggeessive that they spoiled a can't lose trial Ellswood would have been fucked for the Pentagon Papers as there is no public interest defense against the Espionage Act.
To be frank the Espionage act is an unconstitutional relic of past mistakes that should have a stake driven through its heart, head chopped off and stuffed with garlic and the body burned outside in and left in sunlight.
Falsehood /is/ protected. It is a civil matter at very worst. Because if it isn't then you can have prosecutions for "lies" that are really inconvenient facts.
The current jurisprudence /as it should be/ is that the press is an activity and not a position.
We regulate most professions e.g. builders, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists etc. Why can't we regulate journalists ?
If you did a college/university degree, if you are a member of some association, if you follow some code of practice and abide by some definition of ethics and values then you are a journalist and a protected entity.
Because they are a check on the powers of the state is an obvious reason why not. It would be like saying wolves should have the power to regulate sheepdog usage and pasture fencing.
Imagine these comments in pre-Obama era, I remember when the left and liberals considered Assange a hero because he exposed the American right wing government back then, no wonder that the tech industry is so left wing to an unbearable and dishonest degree, just because they lost an election to a TV celebrity that they can't imagine despite controlling the entire media and government, the American people could dare challenge them and elect an outsider even if he's a joke like Trump, it must be a Russian conspiracy! it must be everything except that there are other people with other views, right?! The people can't have a another view when we control everything? how dare they? We must destroy even the heroes we made to make sure the people don't dare and have a choice we don't like again ever!
Congratulations on finding yourself in a bubble, where no argument can persuade you. Maybe you should watch the whole debate before declaring it one-sided.
https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/docu...