4 ms·

> "According to WikiLeaks, witness statements submitted to the court by US prosecutors on Saturday argue that Assange does not enjoy First Amendment protections

> "According to WikiLeaks, witness statements submitted to the court by US prosecutors on Saturday argue that Assange does not enjoy First Amendment protections because he is not a US citizen and because the amendment allegedly does not protect speech made outside the United States.” Isn’t this another way of saying US legal protections don’t apply to people who aren’t American, and aren’t physically present in America (or under its jurisdiction)? I feel like this would be the case for other countries, too: free speech laws that protect Americans in America wouldn’t protect them in China or Australia or Kenya, and Kenyans, Australians and Chinese citizens outside of the US aren’t protected by US law, either.

yorwba 7y ago
If US law doesn't grant protection to Assange because he's neither a US citizen nor physically present in America, then it also shouldn't be possible to prosecute him for things he did while neither a US citizen nor physically present in America.
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  This is something I've always found confusing about the entire situation - Assange is an Australian citizen who did something in Iceland, yet the USA is applying its laws to him. Granted he obtained US intelligence from a US citizen, but how is this his problem? I find it hard to understand how this is possible.
- chinesempire 7y ago
  Not to defend US justice system, but Assange allegedly jeopardized US national security, which is in the interest of US to protect. If Assange was in a country that had no treaties with US, say for example Iran, he could avoid extradition easily, not so easily if there are strong agreements on both parties like UK and US have. There are reasons why he wasn't in Iran or Afghanistan, one of them is that his life would be in more danger there than in any western court. If Assange was extradited from Sweden, the country he escaped from, which is still an European country, he had the certainty that he could not be sentenced to the death penalty, that's a non-negotiable option if US ask for extradition from EU. UK will not be EU anymore starting from 1st of February 2020.
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  What you have to remember about big public cases like these is that it's often something very specific that someone is being tried for. In the Assange case the charge is "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion." The US is asking the UK to be a friend and arrest this person and then send them to a place where the laws apply so they can be punished for what they are accusing him of: "Prosecutors accused Assange of conspiring with Chelsea Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst in Iraq in 2010, to crack a Defense Department computer password for accessing a vast trove of classified U.S. military and diplomatic material that subsequently was disclosed through WikiLeaks." So just think of it like this: The US, UK and Australia are all "friends." The US thinks someone from Australia who was living in the UK did something that the US defined as bad. The US wants him to face trial for that and the only place to do that is in the US, so can their friends in the UK please send him along.
UI_at_80x24 7y ago
Thin edge of the wedge. Extend that line of thinking to the internet. If I post a message on a forum, and that server is not located on USA soil then it can easily be argued that the speech did not occur in the US. 'From whence the voice was heard.' HN appears to be primarily populated with like-minded individuals; so of course we will all point out the technical inaccuracies of my point, and will quickly follow-up with 'That won't happen here'. The same righteous indignation a few years ago would occur if anybody would have suggested that kids were separated from their families and forced into cages when people entered at the southern border . This is not the era where kind, just, reasonable people are making or enforcing policies.

yorwba 7y ago

If US law doesn't grant protection to Assange because he's neither a US citizen nor physically present in America, then it also shouldn't be possible to prosecute him for things he did while neither a US citizen nor physically present in America.

chadcmulligan 7y ago
This is something I've always found confusing about the entire situation - Assange is an Australian citizen who did something in Iceland, yet the USA is applying its laws to him. Granted he obtained US intelligence from a US citizen, but how is this his problem? I find it hard to understand how this is possible.
chinesempire 7y ago
Not to defend US justice system, but Assange allegedly jeopardized US national security, which is in the interest of US to protect. If Assange was in a country that had no treaties with US, say for example Iran, he could avoid extradition easily, not so easily if there are strong agreements on both parties like UK and US have. There are reasons why he wasn't in Iran or Afghanistan, one of them is that his life would be in more danger there than in any western court. If Assange was extradited from Sweden, the country he escaped from, which is still an European country, he had the certainty that he could not be sentenced to the death penalty, that's a non-negotiable option if US ask for extradition from EU. UK will not be EU anymore starting from 1st of February 2020.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
What you have to remember about big public cases like these is that it's often something very specific that someone is being tried for. In the Assange case the charge is "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion." The US is asking the UK to be a friend and arrest this person and then send them to a place where the laws apply so they can be punished for what they are accusing him of: "Prosecutors accused Assange of conspiring with Chelsea Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst in Iraq in 2010, to crack a Defense Department computer password for accessing a vast trove of classified U.S. military and diplomatic material that subsequently was disclosed through WikiLeaks." So just think of it like this: The US, UK and Australia are all "friends." The US thinks someone from Australia who was living in the UK did something that the US defined as bad. The US wants him to face trial for that and the only place to do that is in the US, so can their friends in the UK please send him along.

UI_at_80x24 7y ago

Thin edge of the wedge. Extend that line of thinking to the internet. If I post a message on a forum, and that server is not located on USA soil then it can easily be argued that the speech did not occur in the US. 'From whence the voice was heard.' HN appears to be primarily populated with like-minded individuals; so of course we will all point out the technical inaccuracies of my point, and will quickly follow-up with 'That won't happen here'. The same righteous indignation a few years ago would occur if anybody would have suggested that kids were separated from their families and forced into cages when people entered at the southern border . This is not the era where kind, just, reasonable people are making or enforcing policies.