However, this is the type of sensationalist garbage that shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. How does this article promote intellectual curiosity?
Assange's story has been discussed on HN for many years. Obviously there's intellectual interest in it, but also many sensational articles. This one was downweighted by moderators and flagged by users.
When there's a major ongoing story, we generally penalize articles that don't add significant new information. Otherwise there are too many follow-up and copycat submissions.
Any American "standards" for what a journalist is or isn't isn't really applicable to an international defendent, which Assange is, yeah?
If so, then you must admit that America is imposing it's own (subjective and ever-changing, depending on the parties in power) view on the international theatre and that's where the concern starts to get exacerbated.
Assange broke US law, encouraging the theft of classified intel belonging to the US and then publishing it. It doesnt matter where Assange was geographically when he did so.
Example if I were to hack a foreign gov't or company's computers while residing in the US and being on US soil at the time, I would still be breaking that country's laws and could be arrested and extradited to that country.
This is an agreement many countries have with one another. Assange broke US law and therefore could be tried in a US court.
> encouraging the theft of classified intel belonging to the US and then publishing it.
Actually the order is the opposite: he received intel which had already been stolen - which is legal, see New York Times Co. v. United States - and then encouraged Manning to search for any more stuff, but never received anything more.
>then encouraged Manning to search for any more stuff
So, he did in fact encourage the theft of classified info?! Doesnt matter if it didnt produce any results. There was still intent. Secondly, do you think Manning is the first he tried that with? Don't be naive.
I could make you a huge list of US persons that have broken international laws and laws in other countries that have not been extradited and never will.
All those links seem on first look to say ‘they need to follow all laws like anyone else would’. Was there something specific?
I think people think there’s some kind of special legal status of being a journalist, like a police officer or something. I’m not sure that’s the case.
The gov't can arrest you any time they want for any reason they'd like. Courts ultimately decide whether or not it was lawful. To answer your question.
also...
"Under the First Amendment, laws "abridging the freedom...of the press" are invalid. Most states also have their own laws in place which protect reporters from having to disclose their sources and, in certain cases, unpublished materials. Some states have even included "free press" provisions in their state constitutions." ~ https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-force....
You can try and call yourself a journalist but you will need a court to uphold it.
You are free to believe whatever youd like but I choose to live in reality... Assange is no journalist.
“As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable” -- Ninth Circuit, deciding that a blogger count as "press", in Obsidian v. Cox.
Your link doesn't in any way support the distinction you're making, because the issue is who counts as "press", not whether the press has some rights.
Not only is he not a journalist, he actively encouraged others to steal and disseminate classified information. That is a crime in this country and most, if not all, other countries I would imagine.
Having a website doesn't make you a journalist. Calling yourself a journalist didn't make it so. Courts will have to decide that I suppose.
He's not even a US citizen. Why should he face our laws? Should American woman be extradited to Saudi Arabia for not following their laws? Should American citizens be extradited to North Korea, or China, for exposing their government secrets? It's extremely authoritarian for the United States to do this. It's not only an attack on free speech, it's the United States applying it's laws to everyone in the world.
Also, it doesn't matter if he's a journalist or not. It's an attack on freedom of the press or freedom of speech either way.
Actually we have extradition treaties/agreements with many countries so yes if an American were to break the law of another country that country could in fact ask to have that person arrested and extradited.
We do, but isn't that typically when the law was originally broken in the country they are to be extradited to? Not overseas? I'm also aware this isn't the first time the U.S. has done this sort of thing, but it's still very authoritarian.
So... let me get this straight. Youre alright with a foreign national stealing or encouraging the theft of classified US intel and publishing as long as it didnt happen on US soil? Further, youre alright with Americans being exposed and/or killed b/c of it? Because, you know, though it was a crime against the US, it was perpetrated by a foreign national of foreign soil?
That's beside the point. I don't think the person in that example should face charges in the U.S., no. (But maybe they should in their own country, and obviously any murderers should be brought to trial in their own country)
>Further, youre alright with Americans being exposed and/or killed b/c of it?
There's no evidence of this. Since the leaks were about embarrassing unprosecuted US military murders of civilians arguably it saved lives by driving them to be more careful.
There is no evidence of this that you are aware of.
>There's no evidence of this. Since the leaks were about embarrassing unprosecuted US military murders of civilians arguably it saved lives by driving them to be more careful.
Does there need to be? No. An E-3 isn't in the position to know whether it will or won't and its pretty fucking arrogant to assume that risk. Do you know that it saved lives? No you don't. You couldnt, and whether it did or did not, it wasn't Manning's call to make.
It's good that we should think that journalists should be non partisan and just report on the facts. The reality appears that almost all of the media outlets are partisan and that journalists appear to be biased. Would it be better if we spread the idea that no journalism is impartial and spread facts of such bias and influence where we encounter them or would it be better to put our effort into (what I assume is the current strategy) of promoting the idea that it's only the other side that is partisan and our side sees clearly?
When you encourage others to steal classified information and then publish it without regard to the harm it may cause others, you are not a journalist, you are a criminal. When you go on to publish stolen information about one Presidential candidate, in a foreign election no less, and not the other you are no longer a journalist - not that he ever was, you are a tool.
Im not making an argument about whether or not the current state of journalism is biased - of course it is. Im simply saying Assange is no journalist.
Your statement makes no sense. There is a lot of information that ought to be exposed, is classified and will cause harm to some people. Exposing secrets almost necessarily will cause harm to somebody.
Furthermore you refuse to allow assange to be classified as a journalist on that basis, which is exactly what Glenn greenwald did. So I suppose you would disqualify Glenn greenwald as a journalist as well? If not you’re wildly inconsistent.
I personally think Glenn Greenwald is piece of shit but that is beside the point. It doesnt matter what I think about whether or not the information in question should be exposed. As a person that has held a security clearance I can tell you this, it isnt for me to decide - That decision was way above my pay grade. I personally believe both Snowden and Manning should be imprisoned for a better part of the rest of their lives, but thats just me. They arent heroes, no matter how much you try to make that so. Its pretty egotistical of someone to believe they can see the bigger picture and know what the outcome of exposing that data will be. Data is classified for a reason and that decision wasn't made by you or I. It'd be even more maniacal of someone to decide the fate of others by exposing it which is what Assange, Snowden, Manning, and others have decided of their own volition to do.
That is a fair position. On the other hand, the people above your pay grade making those decisions are also deciding the fate of others. The distinction, of course, is that they have the legal legitimacy that you and I do not have.
But when those decisions go beyond the law, then that legal legitimacy can no longer be claimed, and they are just as egotistical for believing they can see beyond the lawmakers and courts. And unlike in the case of Assange, Snowden and Manning, we know their decisions have cost the lives of civilians, often children.
So as a citizen outside of the whole thing, I can only look at two groups of "maniacs" (to use your term) and be flabbergasted that we're even talking about the bad deeds of those three, let alone of only those three. If they deserve to be imprisoned for a better part of the rest of their lives, what does the other group deserve? Multiple life sentences?
Exactly. He willingly participated in a Russian cyber/disinformation attack on the US electoral system. Whatever journalistic bona fides he once possessed are long gone.
>The precise nature of WikiLeaks’ relationship to Moscow is not publicly known. A PolitiFact analysis found a documented pattern in which both parties’ interests appeared to align. Elements of the relationship might be clarified in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, though a full accounting of their possible coordination may never be known.
In other words: this is all speculation, there's no evidence of coordination other than it looking like it for people who are already wanting that as their narrative.
We don't know Wikileak's source. Assange has said it wasn't a state actor or Russia and he has a flawless track record for the information he provides. There's not even a real level of reliability in knowing who hacked the DNC or Hillary servers. The servers were never given to law enforcement to look at, and there are details in the story that don't add up to it being an external party that took the data.
>In other words: this is all speculation, there's no evidence of coordination other than it looking like it for people who are already wanting that as their narrative.
It's amazing that people cannot see beyond their own self-righteous indignation enough to discern that this is what's happening.
