[flagged]
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?
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.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why would they need to decide that?
Are there laws which only apply to journalists, or don't apply to journalists?
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.
"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also have their own laws in place which protect reporters from having to disclose their sources and, in certain cases, unpublished materials.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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
this is absolute nonsense
Then if the prosecutors are unable to present said evidence, should he be free to go?
Because he allegedly spied on our country. That gives us the right to charge him.
If someone plots to murder someone but does it over the Internet, should they be immune from legal action?
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.
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.
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?
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.
It's amazing that people cannot see beyond their own self-righteous indignation enough to discern that this is what's happening.