4 ms·

> That is why journalism is protected in the US by the First Amendment. Jettison that and one can no longer claim to live in a free society... US officials ini

> That is why journalism is protected in the US by the First Amendment. Jettison that and one can no longer claim to live in a free society... US officials initially pretended that they were not seeking to prosecute the Wikileaks founder for journalism – in fact, they denied he was a journalist. Uhh. This article obsesses slightly about Journalist vs Not but they aren’t a class that gets special protection under the US Constitution. There is no category of privilege or freedom based on that status and they are not registered by any central authority that authorizes the benefits of its protection. The First Amendment protects any jerk with an opinion and a printing press, in the style of Thomas Paine, and any collaborators. Legally, the question of whether Assange is a journalist is basically immaterial.

jagged-chisel 6y ago
Indeed. The journalist interviews, researches (using available materials, uses proper requests to obtain available materials), produces an article or story. A journalist who commits, or encourages or facilitates others to commit, crimes in the pursuit of their goals is still a criminal.
- k1m 6y ago
  > A journalist who commits, or encourages or facilitates others to commit, crimes in the pursuit of their goals is still a criminal. This is exactly what the prosecution tried to say, but it's not that easy. Did you read the testimony of investigative journalist Nicky Hager: '[Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information? 'Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.' https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-13/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Hager is admitting to criminal activity, not saying it's not criminal.
    - dangoor 6y ago
      The source that gave the material to the journalist is the one breaking the law, not the journalist who is given and disseminates the information.
      - falcolas 6y ago
        Protecting the source is aiding a criminal, which is also a crime. And thus, in the interest of checks and balances, journalists should be shielded from prosecution.
        croes 6y ago
        You just criminalized Whistelblowers. If it's a crime to make a crime public, than the definition of crime is all wrong.
        falcolas 6y ago
        Perhaps that's why whistleblowers are given so many special protections. If what they did was perfectly legal, a lot of the extra protections wouldn't be necessary. If you're in the CIA, for example, you can't blow the whistle legally, at all. You'll always be breaking some law (security clearance, most often).
k1m 6y ago
> Legally, the question of whether Assange is a journalist is basically immaterial. Legally, maybe so, but if he's being prosecuted based on activity that many other journalists engage in, that clearly should be seen a huge threat. Cook and others have argued that there was a reluctance to prosecute on those grounds because the prosecution feared it would generate too much media outrage. Craig Murray in one of his pieces suggested that he thinks that due to the lack of media interest in the case, the prosecution have now been emboldened to pursue him however they like.
friendlybus 6y ago
The original conflict was when Assange ran wikileaks, the US accused him of running a foreign intelligence agency and could prosecute him differently. Assange argued he was a journalist not an intelligence agency.
apexalpha 6y ago
>Uhh. This article obsesses slightly about Journalist vs Not but they aren’t a class that gets special protection under the US Constitution. There is no category of privilege or freedom based on that status and they are not registered by any central authority that authorizes the benefits of its protection. The First Amendment protects any jerk with an opinion and a printing press, in the style of Thomas Paine, and any collaborators. There has ALWAYS been the unwritten rule that media outlets are not charged under the espionage act, as they were doing their civic duty reporting on stuff the government doesn't want reported. You can say about Assange what you want but it's undeniable he is only the PUBLISHER, and not the one who stole the docs. The fact that he is charged for publishing is a line that the US Govt is crossing, and that's why it's significant.
- kube-system 6y ago
  > undeniable he is only the PUBLISHER isn't that exactly what is being contested?
  - apexalpha 6y ago
    Yes, that's the line they are now crossing.
thrwmawy295201 6y ago
> The First Amendment protects any jerk with an opinion and a printing press Does the First Amendment even apply to Julian Assange? He is a citizen of Australia as far as I am aware.
- nwallin 6y ago
  The 1st Amendment applies to US citizens and non-citizen US permanent residents. It does not apply to foreign nationals. AFAIK Assange is not and was not a US permanent resident, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to him. That being said, it would be difficult to convince me that the actions of Assange and Wikileaks rise to the level of espionage. None of what I've seen would indicate that he's actually done that.
  - robocat 6y ago
    The 1st amendment doesn’t specify citizenship? Also it restricts the government, so only really applies to wherever the US has jurisdiction? https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/things-you-need https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/things-you-need - see item 3. Disclaimer: I know nothing about the 1st amendment, but nwallin’s claims just sound weird.
- heimatau 6y ago
  This is actually a very fair point. Not sure why we don't have news outlets pointing this very critical point.
- kube-system 6y ago
  The US Constitution doesn't apply to any citizens, actually. It doesn't grant rights to anyone, it defines what the US government can and cannot do.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  I believe the argument was something like if the US wants to extradite him and charge him under their own laws theoretically FA would get in the way. If he were run through Canada/UK/Aus courts you wouldnt see the same argument.

jagged-chisel 6y ago

Indeed. The journalist interviews, researches (using available materials, uses proper requests to obtain available materials), produces an article or story. A journalist who commits, or encourages or facilitates others to commit, crimes in the pursuit of their goals is still a criminal.

k1m 6y ago
> A journalist who commits, or encourages or facilitates others to commit, crimes in the pursuit of their goals is still a criminal. This is exactly what the prosecution tried to say, but it's not that easy. Did you read the testimony of investigative journalist Nicky Hager: '[Prosecutor] Lewis: You have as a journalist merely been the passive recipient of official information. Presumably you have never done anything criminal to obtain government information? 'Hager: You said “passive”. That is not the way we work. Journalists not only actively work our sources. We go out and find our sources. The information might come in documents. It might come on a memory stick. In most cases our sources are breaking the law. Our duty is to help protect them from being caught. We actively help them cover their backs sometimes.' https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-13/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Hager is admitting to criminal activity, not saying it's not criminal.
  - dangoor 6y ago
    The source that gave the material to the journalist is the one breaking the law, not the journalist who is given and disseminates the information.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      Protecting the source is aiding a criminal, which is also a crime. And thus, in the interest of checks and balances, journalists should be shielded from prosecution.
      - croes 6y ago
        You just criminalized Whistelblowers. If it's a crime to make a crime public, than the definition of crime is all wrong.
        falcolas 6y ago
        Perhaps that's why whistleblowers are given so many special protections. If what they did was perfectly legal, a lot of the extra protections wouldn't be necessary. If you're in the CIA, for example, you can't blow the whistle legally, at all. You'll always be breaking some law (security clearance, most often).

k1m 6y ago

> Legally, the question of whether Assange is a journalist is basically immaterial. Legally, maybe so, but if he's being prosecuted based on activity that many other journalists engage in, that clearly should be seen a huge threat. Cook and others have argued that there was a reluctance to prosecute on those grounds because the prosecution feared it would generate too much media outrage. Craig Murray in one of his pieces suggested that he thinks that due to the lack of media interest in the case, the prosecution have now been emboldened to pursue him however they like.

friendlybus 6y ago

The original conflict was when Assange ran wikileaks, the US accused him of running a foreign intelligence agency and could prosecute him differently. Assange argued he was a journalist not an intelligence agency.

apexalpha 6y ago

>Uhh. This article obsesses slightly about Journalist vs Not but they aren’t a class that gets special protection under the US Constitution. There is no category of privilege or freedom based on that status and they are not registered by any central authority that authorizes the benefits of its protection. The First Amendment protects any jerk with an opinion and a printing press, in the style of Thomas Paine, and any collaborators. There has ALWAYS been the unwritten rule that media outlets are not charged under the espionage act, as they were doing their civic duty reporting on stuff the government doesn't want reported. You can say about Assange what you want but it's undeniable he is only the PUBLISHER, and not the one who stole the docs. The fact that he is charged for publishing is a line that the US Govt is crossing, and that's why it's significant.

kube-system 6y ago
> undeniable he is only the PUBLISHER isn't that exactly what is being contested?
- apexalpha 6y ago
  Yes, that's the line they are now crossing.

thrwmawy295201 6y ago

> The First Amendment protects any jerk with an opinion and a printing press Does the First Amendment even apply to Julian Assange? He is a citizen of Australia as far as I am aware.

nwallin 6y ago
The 1st Amendment applies to US citizens and non-citizen US permanent residents. It does not apply to foreign nationals. AFAIK Assange is not and was not a US permanent resident, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to him. That being said, it would be difficult to convince me that the actions of Assange and Wikileaks rise to the level of espionage. None of what I've seen would indicate that he's actually done that.
- robocat 6y ago
  The 1st amendment doesn’t specify citizenship? Also it restricts the government, so only really applies to wherever the US has jurisdiction? https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/things-you-need https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/page/things-you-need - see item 3. Disclaimer: I know nothing about the 1st amendment, but nwallin’s claims just sound weird.
heimatau 6y ago
This is actually a very fair point. Not sure why we don't have news outlets pointing this very critical point.
kube-system 6y ago
The US Constitution doesn't apply to any citizens, actually. It doesn't grant rights to anyone, it defines what the US government can and cannot do.
friendlybus 6y ago
I believe the argument was something like if the US wants to extradite him and charge him under their own laws theoretically FA would get in the way. If he were run through Canada/UK/Aus courts you wouldnt see the same argument.