5 ms·

> Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source. Except that the "different user" was an admin account t

by _rpd 7y ago

> Assange gave assistance to Manning to log in as a different user to protect his identity as a source. Except that the "different user" was an admin account that had the needed permissions to access the data Manning wanted to upload to wikileaks, and the "assistance" was attempting to crack the admin password using a Windows SAM file Manning had provided.

monocasa 7y ago
There's more to it than that, but IMO even that doesn't matter. So let's talk about this in 1970s terms. A whistleblower knows there are documents of import in a locked room. They take a picture of the locked door and give it the journalist. The journalist gives them instructions of how to pick the specific lock in a way that won't be traced back to them. The whistleblower then uses that information to break into the room and take the documents. Did the journalist commit a crime?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  If I understand correctly, yes - conspiracy to commit theft.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    I mean, conspiracy to commit theft of documents to whistleblow is exactly the kind of thing that's protected by the first amendment's freedom of the press provision.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      You are absolutely, completely wrong. That in no way is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment does not give the press the right to commit theft, of documents or of anything else.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        'Conspiracy to commit theft' isn't 'theft'. Conspiracy is exactly the kind of charge that is protected or else you couldn't talk to a whistleblower until they had already acquired the documents. Just because you say 'you're wrong' doesn't make it true.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        And just because you say you're right, that doesn't make it true, either. No, conspiracy to commit theft isn't theft. It's still illegal, and it's not protected in any way. You're trying to use logic and the way you think the world works, or at least ought to work. You need to look at what the law actually says, and how it's actually applied.
        monocasa 7y ago
        I'm going (in part) of off the legal opinion of the Obama DoJ (which had no love for Assange) that they didn't pursue these specific charges for the reasons I've outlined. On the other end, can you cite either true legal opinion, or better yet case law, showing conspiracy charges sticking against a journalist in a whistleblower situation?
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        The Obama DoJ isn't a legal precedent in any way. Can I show case law? No - either way. IANAL, and I am not aware of any cases in which the question came up that are specifically against a journalist in a whistleblower situation. There probably is case law that says that conspiracy to commit theft is a valid charge for actions similar to this. The question, then, is whether "but press" is a valid get-out-of-jail-free card (literally) for this kind of action. I'm pretty sure the answer is no, just like the answer would be no for outright burglary by the press. That's how I think the symmetry between "X" and "conspiracy to X" works. But as I said, IANAL.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      No, “the press” in “freedom of the press” is the printing press, not the institutional media. It protects the right to print and distribute information; it's the “in print” extension of the right to speech, needed because the 18th Century norm was for print to be more tightly regulated than speech itself, so it would not without explicit listing be clear that free speech extended to expression in print. It is not a get-out-of-generally-applicable-crimes free card for people engaged in media-related activity.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        Lollllzzz I would love to read a legal opinion that freedom of the press only applies to literal physical printing presses.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        That would be amusing, but that's not what I said. I said that's what he word “the press” refers directly to, not the modern usage of the term for the institutional media; what it applies to is publishing and distribution on a fixed form (rather than ephemeral speech). What it doesn't apply to is violations of otherwise-valid laws to gather information that is intended for publication.
        monocasa 7y ago
        Cite a legal opinion backing up what you're saying.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        ... says the guy who's been throwing around claims without citing legal opinions all over this thread. (Though in fairness, I've been doing it too...)

by _rpd 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

There's more to it than that, but IMO even that doesn't matter. So let's talk about this in 1970s terms. A whistleblower knows there are documents of import in a locked room. They take a picture of the locked door and give it the journalist. The journalist gives them instructions of how to pick the specific lock in a way that won't be traced back to them. The whistleblower then uses that information to break into the room and take the documents. Did the journalist commit a crime?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
If I understand correctly, yes - conspiracy to commit theft.
- monocasa 7y ago
  I mean, conspiracy to commit theft of documents to whistleblow is exactly the kind of thing that's protected by the first amendment's freedom of the press provision.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    You are absolutely, completely wrong. That in no way is protected by the first amendment. The first amendment does not give the press the right to commit theft, of documents or of anything else.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      'Conspiracy to commit theft' isn't 'theft'. Conspiracy is exactly the kind of charge that is protected or else you couldn't talk to a whistleblower until they had already acquired the documents. Just because you say 'you're wrong' doesn't make it true.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        And just because you say you're right, that doesn't make it true, either. No, conspiracy to commit theft isn't theft. It's still illegal, and it's not protected in any way. You're trying to use logic and the way you think the world works, or at least ought to work. You need to look at what the law actually says, and how it's actually applied.
        monocasa 7y ago
        I'm going (in part) of off the legal opinion of the Obama DoJ (which had no love for Assange) that they didn't pursue these specific charges for the reasons I've outlined. On the other end, can you cite either true legal opinion, or better yet case law, showing conspiracy charges sticking against a journalist in a whistleblower situation?
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        The Obama DoJ isn't a legal precedent in any way. Can I show case law? No - either way. IANAL, and I am not aware of any cases in which the question came up that are specifically against a journalist in a whistleblower situation. There probably is case law that says that conspiracy to commit theft is a valid charge for actions similar to this. The question, then, is whether "but press" is a valid get-out-of-jail-free card (literally) for this kind of action. I'm pretty sure the answer is no, just like the answer would be no for outright burglary by the press. That's how I think the symmetry between "X" and "conspiracy to X" works. But as I said, IANAL.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    No, “the press” in “freedom of the press” is the printing press, not the institutional media. It protects the right to print and distribute information; it's the “in print” extension of the right to speech, needed because the 18th Century norm was for print to be more tightly regulated than speech itself, so it would not without explicit listing be clear that free speech extended to expression in print. It is not a get-out-of-generally-applicable-crimes free card for people engaged in media-related activity.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      Lollllzzz I would love to read a legal opinion that freedom of the press only applies to literal physical printing presses.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        That would be amusing, but that's not what I said. I said that's what he word “the press” refers directly to, not the modern usage of the term for the institutional media; what it applies to is publishing and distribution on a fixed form (rather than ephemeral speech). What it doesn't apply to is violations of otherwise-valid laws to gather information that is intended for publication.
        monocasa 7y ago
        Cite a legal opinion backing up what you're saying.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        ... says the guy who's been throwing around claims without citing legal opinions all over this thread. (Though in fairness, I've been doing it too...)