18 ms·

Assange Hearing Day 14

206 points by k1m 6y ago

acqq 6y ago
For anybody who will again try to argue that he helped hacking and therefore all mistreatment of him is excusable, considering the actual US charges, apparently: "just one of the 18 charges relate to computer intrusion and it carries just 5 years' jail, compared to the 175 years Assange faces if the maximum sentence was awarded." The case is then clearly about 170 years worth of charges, not about hacking (the rest 5 years). And these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Independently of that, in the article is, among other topics, a described testimony about the chronology of how the unredacted documents became public and a reference to the article: https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/trump-schwartz-grenell-wikileaks-extradition-death-penalty/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/trump-schwartz-grenell-wi... Which (a bit chaotically) describes the testimony of Cassandra Fairbanks about what she knows happened in or around White House related to Assange. Interestingly: "The prosecution did not object to the truth of the matter asserted — that Trump officials were directly involved in plans against Assange."
- trevelyan 6y ago
  There has been no evidence he hacked anything. Prosecutor cites him saying, "no luck with that" as evidence he did try instead of evidence he didn't. The conspiracy stuff is also nonsense. Adrian Lamo logs show Manning contacted Assange with intent to leak. It is all selectively-selected and maliciously presented hogwash.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > Prosecutor cites him saying, "no luck with that" as evidence he did try instead of evidence he didn't. Surely it's evidence of intent (to be an accomplice to hacking) though. If you ask someone to provide you with what they think is the combination to a safe that you don't have permission to access, then saying "no luck with that" (after receiving it) could still be valid evidence that you were intending at some point to steal something.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    The definition of conspiracy is just "agreeing to commit a crime in the future". It doesn't matter who initiates a conspiracy. It looks like the record is fairly clear that Assange and Manning discussed what documents Assange would like access to and Manning agreed to provide them. If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question, then there's prima facie evidence of a conspiracy. You can argue that the actual act was not criminal, and so the inchoate offense of conspiracy is also impossible, but it's unclear to me why you think the conspiracy charge, in particular, in nonsensical - could you elaborate?
    - ugopapa 6y ago
      Discussing with sources and encouraging them to leak is standard journalistic practice. It has been discussed extensively during the hearing with the help of several expert witnesses. > If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question If it's so, you have to virtually prosecute every investigative journalist.
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        Not really. Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. Does prosecuting advance the interests of justice? Is this prosecution an efficient use of the limited resources of the prosecutor's office? Given that not everyone is prosecuted, is this prosecution consistent with our own internal standards or rules? How strong is the evidence in the case? How severe was the offense? What is the historical conduct record of the defendant?
- eternalban 6y ago
  My impression of Assange and WL has always been that of the visible aspect of a dissenting clique within the security services of the fabled "international community". The power clique in the West are setting a very clear example to disuade any future asset from accepting the reassurances of protection from a dissenting group. Part of this demonstration naturally includes _blatant_ disregard for "values" and "laws" of the "international community". They are making a point and clearly wish to make a lasting impression.
  - cmehdy 6y ago
    This is the real problem. Whatever Assange did can be judged, but media blackout and turning the process into a joke on everyone really drives home just how little both authorities and the people supposed to relay information are actually caring about everyone but themselves. I have no way to judge one way or another anything about Wikileaks, but when we get a constant unavoidable stream of utter bullshit day-in day-out regardless of the news sources we attempt to check, the complete silence about this says more than a million words.
- leftyted 6y ago
  > The case is then clearly about 170 years worth of charges, not about hacking (the rest 5 years). And these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Why can't it also be about the 5 years? I'm sympathetic to Assange publishing leaks. If wikileaks was just an organization that published, fine. But the government's argument is that Assange was not a "journalist" in that he was actively involved in convincing people to leak, directing hackers to steal secrets, and providing direct assistance to Manning. Those charges sound plausible to me, though not open-and-shut. It should go to trial. 175 years is absurd, but 5-10 seems fine.
  - cmiles74 6y ago
    No charges brought under the US espionage act will ever see anything like a free trial. That is a part of how the espionage act works. "Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, 'basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It’s almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what.'" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >No charges brought under the US espionage act will ever see anything like a free trial. That is a part of how the espionage act works. Given that no journalist has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act[0] in the US, it seems unlikely that Assange will be. That's not a defense of the US or Assange/Wikileaks. Rather it's a statement of fact. While the US government is, and has been, leery of journalistic freedom for quite some time, the courts/juries have repeatedly smacked down attempts to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act. As such, it seems to me that Assange's future (whether or not in a US Federal prison) rests on the ability of US prosecutors to prove that Assange violated the CFAA[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Brandenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Brandenb... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
- IndySun 6y ago
  The list on Shadowproof site is useful. https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assange-trial-upset-by-media-blackout/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assa...
- iooi 6y ago
  > doing obviously a journalistic work I don't think it's "obviously" journalistic work. Consider how little was redacted, the timing of the leaks, and the blatant bias.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  >these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Why is it that you think Wikileaks is 'obviously a journalistic work'? I really do struggle with this idea, and I would prefer what follows to be considered in the spirit of engagement on this question, rather than a defense of the prosecution or a general opposition to Assange. What prior examples of journalism are characterized by undifferentiated, unedited, mass dissemination of third-party documents? I accept that many focal cases of journalism have revolved around disclosure of government secrets that have revealed malfeasance, and that many journalists have needed to work with government sources to get access to privileged information in order to write those stories. But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature. If the theory is that this is a new kind of journalism, I think that theory calls for discussion on its own merits. I am initially very unconvinced that 'X is secret therefore X is newsworthy and leaking documents on X is journalism' is sustainable.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature. The blog post, and the facts, seem to give the lie to your argument. IIUC (and this was, presumably, the point of much of the testimony related in the blog post) Wikileaks kept the government documents encrypted and provided redacted versions to news organizations for publication and analysis. That the journalist from The Guardian (his name escapes me at the moment) and not Assange/Wikileaks published a book which provided the decryption key for the unredacted documents, points to Assange/Wikileaks attempting to control the release of information through a number of journalists, without just dumping it all out onto the 'net. In fact, the testimony relayed in the blog post states that explicitly. As such, I'd argue that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to act as an archive for journalists to use in presenting the leaked documents. If that's actually the case, it's difficult to accept the argument that Wikileaks just dumped everything out there willy-nilly.
IndySun 6y ago
Reading the blog it often comes across as a terrifying tale of Orwellian aggressive state power. Kudos to Craig and all those committed and brave enough to stick with it. It is an internationally important trial for news journalists everywhere. Shame on the so-called mainstream media for completely, wilfully, ignoring the proceedings.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  >>"Shame on the so-called mainstream media" While I think a lot of media bashing is trite, this really does need to be said in this case. "The media" is probably even wrong term. That calls to mind a corporate industry mostly about entertainment. Here, what is wrong is "journalism." Mainstream "journalism" isn't doing its job, even though this story relates directly to stuff of interest to journalism. Confidentiality of sources. Freedom of the press. What happens when journalism upsets powerful people and institutions. etc. Whatever your opinions of Assange himself, the Assange case is setting precedents that will play out over the next generation. Part of the irony here is that I am sure journalists are all following the case. They're just not reporting on it very much.
  - IndySun 6y ago
    Thanks. I chose "so-called" for that very reason. And I agree to adding "journalism" or "news content provider" to more accurately reflect what's going on.
    - dalbasal 6y ago
      I think it might be time to make this distinction again. Journalism, at least in principle, can be held to a journalistic standard, and ethical code even.
  - milesvp 6y ago
    Much of the fourth estate has eroded in the last 15 years as revenues declined for local newspapers. As the fastest shrinking industry for many of those years, they have lost considerable economic leverage to be able to do what we, for the last 70 years, consider journalism. Add to that massive consolidation of the industry that was made possible by changes in legislation in the last 30 years, and you're left with a shadow of what previously existed. News staff have been in sharp decline along with these drops in revenue as well so there's just fewer people to write the stories that might be important, but less popular. And that's not even getting into television journalism. I don't have much first hand about it, but my suspicion there is that the proliferation of cable news led to a similar fall in revenue for the journalism that network news used to be able to support. Worse, is I think the proliferation of cable news started to change news consumption, making it more and more a form of entertainment, and less and less a form of information and contemplation. Then there's the internet... I once believed that the internet would set the world free, by making it easier and easier to gain knowledge. And while, I personally find it easier to gain specific knowledge than ever (even while the average quality drops precipitously), there's just so much information (for lack of a better word) being pushed to us daily that things like long term issues related to whistle blower extradition, just has too much to compete with, even if it may have very serious repercussions. So yeah. Mainstream journalism isn't what it used to be. There's some hope, in that it's easier for an individual to publish content, so more random important topics have a chance to surface. But the noise, there's so much of it that these voices are just drowned out. And, I am really grateful for HN, because the quality of content that bubbles up is quite high (especially in the comments), but I don't ever see the golden age of news journalism coming back.
somesortofsystm 6y ago
This is an utter farce of a trial. How any UK or US politician can stand up now, and call for sanctions against Russia or China or Iran .. beggars belief. These are the sorts of charades we have been programmed to despise when we see it in our 'enemies' societies, when it happens - but when we are doing it, there is some moral stance that makes it acceptable. The rule of law is being eroded right before our eyes. Oh yeah. I forgot about what was done to Habeus Corpus. We are really, really fucked.
- lyrr 6y ago
  100% agreed. Even those among us that have for years recognised the hypocrisy of the West in condemning practises in other countries which they themselves implement, this trial of Assange is so explicit in nature that it's quite unsettling. There was an understanding that this type of thing was a line that a liberal democratic Western nation simply would not cross.
  - somesortofsystm 6y ago
    Well, imho, that line seems to have been wiped away on 9/11. The USA has made so many enemies, it is now behaving like the cornered rat in a cage, i.e. just like its enemies. No government which supports this behavior, should be allowed to sit another democratic session.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >No government which supports this behavior, should be allowed to sit another democratic session. What are you suggesting? Should NATO invade the US and depose the "illegitemate" government? Perhaps the US military itself should stage a coup? Good luck with that.
      - somesortofsystm 6y ago
        There is a great deal of evidence to indicate the US military already did stage a coup, yo. Can't get away with genocide unless you're in control, i.e. YEMEN.
bitexploder 6y ago
Without making any judgment on the merits of the Assange case and the proceedings, one fact has become increasingly clear to me. Assange has tried to play politics and has been burned. He had a very clear bias in what he leaked and the political systems are now flexing their might to make an example of him. I disagree with this process, it does not feel like any sort of "justice". I also strongly disagree with Assange's politics and how he aimed to manipulate the American political system with the help of powerful enemy states. Ultimately, he dabbled in state secrets and was a willing puppet for Russia and other states. Regardless of the fairness of it, he had to imagine he was playing with fire and may get burned. You simply don't delve into promoting one a political agenda, publicly, with the help of an enemy state and not expect some sort of blowback.
- yohannparis 6y ago
  Even if you play with a foreign power, does that means they should throw out of the windows their laws and due process? This trial puts the U.S.A. and U.K. in a bad light. Government plays with fire to gather intelligence every day. But if they are caught by journalism, they will use their political power to muffle it. Seems obvious but unfair. If you cannot question the activities of your government, therefore it is your government?
  - unreal37 6y ago
    The answer is "of course, of course." If you convince an American military person to hack into a computer system and leak you files, and conspire with the Russians to release other hacked files to make the American military and political class look bad, you'll be having a bad decade or two. Of course.
    - sixQuarks 6y ago
      What is the proof that he “convinced” someone to hack into the military?
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
jphoward 6y ago
I can absolutely see Netflix making a smash hit docudrama about this trial. I'm not being facetious; miscarriages of justice really do capture the public's imagination, if they're able to hear the story told in an interesting way. Add in to the fact that this is a political thriller, and it's a recipe for success. And you 100% know Assange will have 0 qualms with selling the rights, and extensive phone calls from prison.
- dontcarethrow2 6y ago
  Yes, let's make this into a movie, imagine all the $$ we can get and normalize the masses to this farce. At this point I wouldn't find it hard to believe it was on the pros column of why we gave up on human rights. We get more Hollywood, yaaaay!
  - dontcarethrow2 6y ago
    Can't edit because Im a troll, but in my haste I forgot to leave out, I'm not happy with that because Hollywood is what got us here. You don't even need to add anything to this story, only take away and censor.
    - youareignorant 6y ago
      Yeah the decline of the republic is because of jews. YAWN.
  - chance_state 6y ago
    I think this is overly cynical. There are TONS of Netflix shows focusing on wrongful conviction and other legal system injustice, and they're a huge hit.
zyxzevn 6y ago
Reporting about crimes should never be a crime. It is that simple.
- corin_ 6y ago
  Vaguely speaking I agree, but it's not really that simple. Should reporting about crime be fine if you need to illegally access a document that proves the crime happened? What if to get the info you need to murder many people, should that still be legal because you're doing it for the sake of reporting on a crime? Unless you think the second is just as acceptable. suddenly it's less simple and you need to plan for all the possible ways that various laws might be broken in an entirely ethical task of reporting about a much bigger crime.
- ecf 6y ago
  No but working with a foreign government to distribute documents obtained via foreign espionage in an attempt to influence an election should always be illegal.
- ezoe 6y ago
  Be careful what you wish for. By your logic the government can trespass your house to find a crime... or planting a evidence.
metadatabad 6y ago
This person is a true hero and it is sick what the state is doing to him.

206 points by k1m 6y ago

acqq 6y ago

For anybody who will again try to argue that he helped hacking and therefore all mistreatment of him is excusable, considering the actual US charges, apparently: "just one of the 18 charges relate to computer intrusion and it carries just 5 years' jail, compared to the 175 years Assange faces if the maximum sentence was awarded." The case is then clearly about 170 years worth of charges, not about hacking (the rest 5 years). And these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Independently of that, in the article is, among other topics, a described testimony about the chronology of how the unredacted documents became public and a reference to the article: https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/trump-schwartz-grenell-wikileaks-extradition-death-penalty/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/trump-schwartz-grenell-wi... Which (a bit chaotically) describes the testimony of Cassandra Fairbanks about what she knows happened in or around White House related to Assange. Interestingly: "The prosecution did not object to the truth of the matter asserted — that Trump officials were directly involved in plans against Assange."

trevelyan 6y ago
There has been no evidence he hacked anything. Prosecutor cites him saying, "no luck with that" as evidence he did try instead of evidence he didn't. The conspiracy stuff is also nonsense. Adrian Lamo logs show Manning contacted Assange with intent to leak. It is all selectively-selected and maliciously presented hogwash.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > Prosecutor cites him saying, "no luck with that" as evidence he did try instead of evidence he didn't. Surely it's evidence of intent (to be an accomplice to hacking) though. If you ask someone to provide you with what they think is the combination to a safe that you don't have permission to access, then saying "no luck with that" (after receiving it) could still be valid evidence that you were intending at some point to steal something.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  The definition of conspiracy is just "agreeing to commit a crime in the future". It doesn't matter who initiates a conspiracy. It looks like the record is fairly clear that Assange and Manning discussed what documents Assange would like access to and Manning agreed to provide them. If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question, then there's prima facie evidence of a conspiracy. You can argue that the actual act was not criminal, and so the inchoate offense of conspiracy is also impossible, but it's unclear to me why you think the conspiracy charge, in particular, in nonsensical - could you elaborate?
  - ugopapa 6y ago
    Discussing with sources and encouraging them to leak is standard journalistic practice. It has been discussed extensively during the hearing with the help of several expert witnesses. > If it is criminal for Assange to obtain/receive/disclose the documents in question If it's so, you have to virtually prosecute every investigative journalist.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      Not really. Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. Does prosecuting advance the interests of justice? Is this prosecution an efficient use of the limited resources of the prosecutor's office? Given that not everyone is prosecuted, is this prosecution consistent with our own internal standards or rules? How strong is the evidence in the case? How severe was the offense? What is the historical conduct record of the defendant?
eternalban 6y ago
My impression of Assange and WL has always been that of the visible aspect of a dissenting clique within the security services of the fabled "international community". The power clique in the West are setting a very clear example to disuade any future asset from accepting the reassurances of protection from a dissenting group. Part of this demonstration naturally includes _blatant_ disregard for "values" and "laws" of the "international community". They are making a point and clearly wish to make a lasting impression.
- cmehdy 6y ago
  This is the real problem. Whatever Assange did can be judged, but media blackout and turning the process into a joke on everyone really drives home just how little both authorities and the people supposed to relay information are actually caring about everyone but themselves. I have no way to judge one way or another anything about Wikileaks, but when we get a constant unavoidable stream of utter bullshit day-in day-out regardless of the news sources we attempt to check, the complete silence about this says more than a million words.
leftyted 6y ago
> The case is then clearly about 170 years worth of charges, not about hacking (the rest 5 years). And these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Why can't it also be about the 5 years? I'm sympathetic to Assange publishing leaks. If wikileaks was just an organization that published, fine. But the government's argument is that Assange was not a "journalist" in that he was actively involved in convincing people to leak, directing hackers to steal secrets, and providing direct assistance to Manning. Those charges sound plausible to me, though not open-and-shut. It should go to trial. 175 years is absurd, but 5-10 seems fine.
- cmiles74 6y ago
  No charges brought under the US espionage act will ever see anything like a free trial. That is a part of how the espionage act works. "Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, 'basically any information the whistleblower or source would want to bring up at trial to show that they are not guilty of violating the Espionage Act the jury would never hear. It’s almost a certainty that because the law is so broadly written that they would be convicted no matter what.'" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >No charges brought under the US espionage act will ever see anything like a free trial. That is a part of how the espionage act works. Given that no journalist has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act[0] in the US, it seems unlikely that Assange will be. That's not a defense of the US or Assange/Wikileaks. Rather it's a statement of fact. While the US government is, and has been, leery of journalistic freedom for quite some time, the courts/juries have repeatedly smacked down attempts to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act. As such, it seems to me that Assange's future (whether or not in a US Federal prison) rests on the ability of US prosecutors to prove that Assange violated the CFAA[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Brandenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#Brandenb... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
IndySun 6y ago
The list on Shadowproof site is useful. https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assange-trial-upset-by-media-blackout/ https://shadowproof.com/2020/09/21/guide-to-journalists-assa...
iooi 6y ago
> doing obviously a journalistic work I don't think it's "obviously" journalistic work. Consider how little was redacted, the timing of the leaks, and the blatant bias.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
>these charges are all the "Espionage Act" charges for a non-US person doing obviously a journalistic work outside of the US. Why is it that you think Wikileaks is 'obviously a journalistic work'? I really do struggle with this idea, and I would prefer what follows to be considered in the spirit of engagement on this question, rather than a defense of the prosecution or a general opposition to Assange. What prior examples of journalism are characterized by undifferentiated, unedited, mass dissemination of third-party documents? I accept that many focal cases of journalism have revolved around disclosure of government secrets that have revealed malfeasance, and that many journalists have needed to work with government sources to get access to privileged information in order to write those stories. But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature. If the theory is that this is a new kind of journalism, I think that theory calls for discussion on its own merits. I am initially very unconvinced that 'X is secret therefore X is newsworthy and leaking documents on X is journalism' is sustainable.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >But this is "access to secrets is sometimes needed to best write a story that's in the public interest". Wikileaks, on the other hand, seems to stake out the position that "access to secrets is in the public interest". There is no focus on story, only on disclosure, and that doesn't seem to be journalistic in nature. The blog post, and the facts, seem to give the lie to your argument. IIUC (and this was, presumably, the point of much of the testimony related in the blog post) Wikileaks kept the government documents encrypted and provided redacted versions to news organizations for publication and analysis. That the journalist from The Guardian (his name escapes me at the moment) and not Assange/Wikileaks published a book which provided the decryption key for the unredacted documents, points to Assange/Wikileaks attempting to control the release of information through a number of journalists, without just dumping it all out onto the 'net. In fact, the testimony relayed in the blog post states that explicitly. As such, I'd argue that Assange/Wikileaks attempted to act as an archive for journalists to use in presenting the leaked documents. If that's actually the case, it's difficult to accept the argument that Wikileaks just dumped everything out there willy-nilly.

IndySun 6y ago

Reading the blog it often comes across as a terrifying tale of Orwellian aggressive state power. Kudos to Craig and all those committed and brave enough to stick with it. It is an internationally important trial for news journalists everywhere. Shame on the so-called mainstream media for completely, wilfully, ignoring the proceedings.

dalbasal 6y ago
>>"Shame on the so-called mainstream media" While I think a lot of media bashing is trite, this really does need to be said in this case. "The media" is probably even wrong term. That calls to mind a corporate industry mostly about entertainment. Here, what is wrong is "journalism." Mainstream "journalism" isn't doing its job, even though this story relates directly to stuff of interest to journalism. Confidentiality of sources. Freedom of the press. What happens when journalism upsets powerful people and institutions. etc. Whatever your opinions of Assange himself, the Assange case is setting precedents that will play out over the next generation. Part of the irony here is that I am sure journalists are all following the case. They're just not reporting on it very much.
- IndySun 6y ago
  Thanks. I chose "so-called" for that very reason. And I agree to adding "journalism" or "news content provider" to more accurately reflect what's going on.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    I think it might be time to make this distinction again. Journalism, at least in principle, can be held to a journalistic standard, and ethical code even.
- milesvp 6y ago
  Much of the fourth estate has eroded in the last 15 years as revenues declined for local newspapers. As the fastest shrinking industry for many of those years, they have lost considerable economic leverage to be able to do what we, for the last 70 years, consider journalism. Add to that massive consolidation of the industry that was made possible by changes in legislation in the last 30 years, and you're left with a shadow of what previously existed. News staff have been in sharp decline along with these drops in revenue as well so there's just fewer people to write the stories that might be important, but less popular. And that's not even getting into television journalism. I don't have much first hand about it, but my suspicion there is that the proliferation of cable news led to a similar fall in revenue for the journalism that network news used to be able to support. Worse, is I think the proliferation of cable news started to change news consumption, making it more and more a form of entertainment, and less and less a form of information and contemplation. Then there's the internet... I once believed that the internet would set the world free, by making it easier and easier to gain knowledge. And while, I personally find it easier to gain specific knowledge than ever (even while the average quality drops precipitously), there's just so much information (for lack of a better word) being pushed to us daily that things like long term issues related to whistle blower extradition, just has too much to compete with, even if it may have very serious repercussions. So yeah. Mainstream journalism isn't what it used to be. There's some hope, in that it's easier for an individual to publish content, so more random important topics have a chance to surface. But the noise, there's so much of it that these voices are just drowned out. And, I am really grateful for HN, because the quality of content that bubbles up is quite high (especially in the comments), but I don't ever see the golden age of news journalism coming back.

somesortofsystm 6y ago

This is an utter farce of a trial. How any UK or US politician can stand up now, and call for sanctions against Russia or China or Iran .. beggars belief. These are the sorts of charades we have been programmed to despise when we see it in our 'enemies' societies, when it happens - but when we are doing it, there is some moral stance that makes it acceptable. The rule of law is being eroded right before our eyes. Oh yeah. I forgot about what was done to Habeus Corpus. We are really, really fucked.

lyrr 6y ago
100% agreed. Even those among us that have for years recognised the hypocrisy of the West in condemning practises in other countries which they themselves implement, this trial of Assange is so explicit in nature that it's quite unsettling. There was an understanding that this type of thing was a line that a liberal democratic Western nation simply would not cross.
- somesortofsystm 6y ago
  Well, imho, that line seems to have been wiped away on 9/11. The USA has made so many enemies, it is now behaving like the cornered rat in a cage, i.e. just like its enemies. No government which supports this behavior, should be allowed to sit another democratic session.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >No government which supports this behavior, should be allowed to sit another democratic session. What are you suggesting? Should NATO invade the US and depose the "illegitemate" government? Perhaps the US military itself should stage a coup? Good luck with that.
    - somesortofsystm 6y ago
      There is a great deal of evidence to indicate the US military already did stage a coup, yo. Can't get away with genocide unless you're in control, i.e. YEMEN.

bitexploder 6y ago

Without making any judgment on the merits of the Assange case and the proceedings, one fact has become increasingly clear to me. Assange has tried to play politics and has been burned. He had a very clear bias in what he leaked and the political systems are now flexing their might to make an example of him. I disagree with this process, it does not feel like any sort of "justice". I also strongly disagree with Assange's politics and how he aimed to manipulate the American political system with the help of powerful enemy states. Ultimately, he dabbled in state secrets and was a willing puppet for Russia and other states. Regardless of the fairness of it, he had to imagine he was playing with fire and may get burned. You simply don't delve into promoting one a political agenda, publicly, with the help of an enemy state and not expect some sort of blowback.

yohannparis 6y ago
Even if you play with a foreign power, does that means they should throw out of the windows their laws and due process? This trial puts the U.S.A. and U.K. in a bad light. Government plays with fire to gather intelligence every day. But if they are caught by journalism, they will use their political power to muffle it. Seems obvious but unfair. If you cannot question the activities of your government, therefore it is your government?
- unreal37 6y ago
  The answer is "of course, of course." If you convince an American military person to hack into a computer system and leak you files, and conspire with the Russians to release other hacked files to make the American military and political class look bad, you'll be having a bad decade or two. Of course.
  - sixQuarks 6y ago
    What is the proof that he “convinced” someone to hack into the military?
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

jphoward 6y ago

I can absolutely see Netflix making a smash hit docudrama about this trial. I'm not being facetious; miscarriages of justice really do capture the public's imagination, if they're able to hear the story told in an interesting way. Add in to the fact that this is a political thriller, and it's a recipe for success. And you 100% know Assange will have 0 qualms with selling the rights, and extensive phone calls from prison.

dontcarethrow2 6y ago
Yes, let's make this into a movie, imagine all the $$ we can get and normalize the masses to this farce. At this point I wouldn't find it hard to believe it was on the pros column of why we gave up on human rights. We get more Hollywood, yaaaay!
- dontcarethrow2 6y ago
  Can't edit because Im a troll, but in my haste I forgot to leave out, I'm not happy with that because Hollywood is what got us here. You don't even need to add anything to this story, only take away and censor.
  - youareignorant 6y ago
    Yeah the decline of the republic is because of jews. YAWN.
- chance_state 6y ago
  I think this is overly cynical. There are TONS of Netflix shows focusing on wrongful conviction and other legal system injustice, and they're a huge hit.

zyxzevn 6y ago

Reporting about crimes should never be a crime. It is that simple.

corin_ 6y ago
Vaguely speaking I agree, but it's not really that simple. Should reporting about crime be fine if you need to illegally access a document that proves the crime happened? What if to get the info you need to murder many people, should that still be legal because you're doing it for the sake of reporting on a crime? Unless you think the second is just as acceptable. suddenly it's less simple and you need to plan for all the possible ways that various laws might be broken in an entirely ethical task of reporting about a much bigger crime.
ecf 6y ago
No but working with a foreign government to distribute documents obtained via foreign espionage in an attempt to influence an election should always be illegal.
ezoe 6y ago
Be careful what you wish for. By your logic the government can trespass your house to find a crime... or planting a evidence.

metadatabad 6y ago

This person is a true hero and it is sick what the state is doing to him.