10 ms·

An Unprecedented Attack on Press Freedom

199 points by dontcarethrow2 6y ago

zaroth 6y ago
So why are the media ignoring it? I assume it’s because Wikileaks’ mission came under question because their leaks benefited the wrong side. Assange was a hero up until right about then. Then he was a criminal.
- philjohn 6y ago
  Wasn't it that they were teasing leaks from both sides ... and then never carried through?
- BEEdwards 6y ago
  They were heros until they picked sides. They picked sides because the FSB threatened to kill them, so it was a good call for not dying, but it does entirely invalidate their mission. https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks-we-could-destroy-you/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileak...
- api 6y ago
  I was among those who lost respect for him at that time. It was clear to me that he was a supporter of the fascist movement that swept across the tech and hacker culture in the early to mid teens, and that he biased his leaks accordingly. He and many of his followers were probably swept up in that wave of stupid male insecurity bullshit that 4chan shat out starting in 2012. Fascism and totalitarian Communism are the two great utopian death cults of the 20th century. Anyone who supports either of these in any serious and substantial way should absolutely be “cancelled.” I agree that there has been more attention toward cancelling the fascist side, but that is because they were ascendant. Those who actually believe in freedom generally find themselves opposing the totalitarian left or the totalitarian right depending on which side is presenting a threat at a given time. If the totalitarian left rises again, then the focus will have to change to destroying that. I’ve heard it put this way: true libertarians sound like conservatives when the far left is rising and like liberals when the far right is rising. That is because we have to fight every utopian totalitarian grift that comes along.
  - mpfundstein 6y ago
    so we just throw out free speech and freeedom of choice with the bath water?
    - api 6y ago
      They would do the same if they got into power. Let me split hairs. I am not convinced that Assange deserves everything he is getting, but it is really hard for me to care. The parent post was about why nobody cares, and I answered it truthfully.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      What do you mean by “freeedom of choice” in this context?
  - mindslight 6y ago
    > I’ve heard it put this way: true libertarians sound like conservatives when the far left is rising and like liberals when the far right is rising. That is because we have to fight every utopian totalitarian grift that comes along. I definitely end up this way talking to friends. My politics are always othered for not parroting their party line, generally whatever nascent groupthink is setting the stage for some future corporate-totalitarian push. But you've seriously got to apply this insight to your own lead off assertion: > It was clear to me that he [Assange] was a supporter of the fascist movement that swept across the tech and hacker culture in the early to mid teens, and that he biased his leaks accordingly Your claim that the right-totalitarian side was ascendant in the "early to mid teens" has more to do with your own perspective, seemingly ignoring the overarching societal tone of left authoritarianism (led by the White House). IMO the rise in red flavored thinking was driven by dissent, and I say this as someone with generally blue biases.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Who is the "red menace" here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
  - 6y ago
- ben_w 6y ago
  > So why are the media ignoring it? A better question is: why is the media telling you that the media is ignoring it? In addition to this link, Google news is showing me[0] these headlines: • “My ringside view in the case of Julian Assange” - Evening Standard, 1 day ago • “George Christensen calls on Australia to lodge formal protest over treatment of Julian Assange” - The Guardian, 1 day ago • “Julian Assange will spend Christmas in prison as judge will decide on January 4 whether to extradite WikiLeaks found to the US on espionage charges” - Daily Mail, 1 day ago • “Assange ‘forced’ those behind war crimes ‘to look in the mirror,’ now faces revenge, John Pilger tells RT” - RT, today • “Julian Assange 'acutely troubled' that unredacted documents made public, court hears” - Press Gazette, 3 days ago • “Shooting of unarmed civilians in Iraq 'would have remained a secret but for Julian Assange'” - Evening Standard, 3 days ago • “US intelligence sources discussed poisoning Julian Assange, court told” - The Guardian, 2 days ago And that’s just the first page of results; subsequent pages show it being covered by The Intercept, The Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, Sky News, Deutsche Welle, and a lot more I’ve never heard of. [0] caveat: I’m in Berlin and explicitly chose UK results, because The Independent is a UK newspaper; choosing USA results gives me a differently list of recent results from a different set of publishers, but the point is the same
  - 1MachineElf 6y ago
    Perhaps it is because many people expect their public officials to echo the stories in the media, and the silence of those leaders is percieved as a media silence.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Not at all. Pro-profit media is simply reporting, as is profitable, that there's no mention or arguments from the media anymore about the issues regarding war crimes, without explaining why.
  - purple-again 6y ago
    This isn’t enough information to decide if the media is ignoring the story. Back in the age of print newspapers a common trick was front page above the fold story on Monday morning that was not true followed up by a one paragraph retraction on page 14 in Saturday’s paper. The modern day digital equivalent is harder to determine and I am not aware of any service attempting to do so. The news companies have solid analytics on how their websites are used. For each of those articles linked were they on the front page? Did the user have to scroll down to a section where stories are only clicked on by 2% of users? Did the story remain linked on the front page of the website for 1 hour or for 2 days? Is the contents of the link the same as the contents was when it was first published? It’s entirely possible that the reach of all of those articles you linked above could be measured in the 10’s of people rather than the millions. Most people don’t search for news on a topic. They visit Fox/CNN or whatever their preferred source is and consume what is presented to them.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So why are the media ignoring it? They aren't, media industry organizations have been hyping this story. And media outlets have been full of hyperventilating editorial and opinion articles on it. And, weirdly, also pushing the “the media is ignoring it” narrative, which as bizarre self-referential media metanarratives go, is a doozy. > I assume it’s because Wikileaks’ mission came under question because their leaks benefited the wrong side. Wikileaks had very little support outside of the far left fringe even before they became overtly part of the Russian influence operation in 2016 so, yeah, when they became a tool of the Russians supporting the American hard right they lost a lot of that; the mainstream media, of any leaning, never really supported them but is, nevertheless, hyping the media freedom angle in the Assange case.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    They didn't lose the Left by publishing Hillary and the DNC's dirty laundry. The Left was pissed off about the DNC favoring Hillary over Bernie, and the leaked emails confirmed their suspicions. But WikiLeaks did lose a lot of support among Democrats - particularly those on the right of the party who favored Hillary. A lot of people mistake "the Democratic party" for "the Left."
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > But WikiLeaks did lose a lot of support among Democrats They never had any tangible support among mainstream Democrats, even of the progressive faction, so they had nothing to lose there; the only thing they had to lose—and contrary to your claims they did lose some (but not all, the left fringe isn't a unitary hive mind) was on the left fringe. I suppose you are probably mistaking concern for the content of the early leaks with support for Wikileaks, but those aren't even approximately the same thing.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        Bernie supporters aren't fringe. Treating them as one was one of the reasons Hillary lost.
insickness 6y ago
The American press is ignoring this story because it's not a political hot button for either side of the political aisle. Wikileaks helped Trump tremendously during his election by releasing info on Hillary. And now the Trump administration is pursuing this prosecution.
- branweb 6y ago
  I'm no media expert but this seems like a plausible explanation. Increasingly the American press seems to be less about "disclosing important news to people so they can judge what is happening in the world" as the article says and more about monetizing echo-chambers.
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  The plan to prosecute Assange began before Trump was elected. We all know that the majority of people working in government now are from prior administrations. If Trump directly tried to stop it, then he'd have to weather more inconvenient headlines about Trump-Russia conspiracy. If he indirectly tried to stop it, then we'd have more anonymously sourced leaks and whistleblowers. Either approach would lead to the house Democrats demanding another investigation. The American people would be embroiled in another impeachment debate. Biden and Harris would be making hardline statements about severe punishment for Assange, and it would hurt the Trump campaign goal of being the "Law & Order" side. The least risky thing Trump can do is allow the government to proceed with the prosecution & then try to get a deal in for him.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But American outlets have been covering in the story, in the sense that they're writing articles about it and assigning reporters to follow its progress. And many of those outlets have gone on record saying Assange is being treated badly and shouldn't be prosecuted. It seems to me that the only thing the American press disagrees with the author on is the degree of hype that's warranted. They think the case is worth covering, but disagree that it's "an unprecedented attack on press freedom", "a crucial tipping point", "their future is wrapped up in his fate".
Capira 6y ago
BTW: Last week a German doctor got arrested at Speakers’ Corner in London for speaking to more than 30 people.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- haunter 6y ago
  A german doctor who is a known coronavirus skeptic and it was a rally against the lockdown.
  - Capira 6y ago
    So? Remember democracy?
ykevinator 6y ago
Not sure why the censors haven't flagged this
mellosouls 6y ago
Far more important, however, in converting Assange from being portrayed as a heroic fighter against state secrecy into a figure beyond the pale, were the allegations of rape made against him in Sweden in 2010. It's extraordinary the power of even absurd allegations as those to ruin a man's life.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  Rape allegations are the ideal way to slander any man. As they hinge on the alleged victim's consent, which resides entirely within their mind, they are near impossible to disprove when thrown by a determined, malicious opponent. Even when they are indeed disproved, they still leave a long lasting stain. Whether Assange committed a sexual crime or not, it is incontrovertible that accusing him of one was the most effective and least risky way to discrete him. It wouldn't even have required any lying accuser either; manipulating a pissed off lover into reframing their relationship with him as less consensual than it was at the time would be a rather simple exercise for a spymaster.
  - HashingtheCode 6y ago
    Allegations are enough in this new left world order to destroy a man's life. Evidence and due process is irrelevant.
  - sleepysysadmin 6y ago
    In 2018, Sweden made their rape laws significantly worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden No threats, coercion, or violence need to be involved. You must have explicit consent for every sexual encounter. Not just intercourse. So, if you do something sexual but you failed to get her to sign a contract. She later reports the sexual encounter as not having the signed contract. You are a rapist going to prison.
  - torified 6y ago
    Some presidents seem to have done ok, even with some pretty damn horrible accusations (much much much worse than the ridiculous crime that Assange was accused of). Read it for yourself: https://www.ericschwartzman.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/child-abuse-assualt-battery-1.pdf https://www.ericschwartzman.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/c...
strstr 6y ago
A more minor detail of the piece: “The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, says that non-Americans like Assange do not enjoy First Amendment rights to free expression.” This is used to imply that the US does not respect press freedom. While that might be true (personally don’t think it particularly is), non-US persons don’t enjoy any of the rights of the US constitution. There are different laws in different places. Assange should enjoy the British Rights to freedom of the press/expression, whatever those are (or the rights relevant to wherever he was).
- MereInterest 6y ago
  That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case. If I look at the text of the first amendment, for example: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This doesn't say anything about whose freedom of speech, only that Congress may not abridge it. The existence of the freedom of speech is taken as a given, regardless of whose speech it is. The restriction is on Congress to not be able to abridge that freedom of speech, no matter who holds it.
  - lakeWater 6y ago
    The first sentence in the preamble of the Constitution is “We the People of the United States.” The “people” I believe is referring to the ones mentioned here.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > abridging the freedom [...]; or the right of the people That pretty clearly attaches "the people" as a qualifier only on the right to assemble and petition the government for redress, and not on the freedom of speech or the press. I'm not sure how you purport to parse that as "abridging the freedom of speech of the people", even if we do grant that "the people" refers only to citizens, rather than all subjects.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Assange is being charged under a century-old law passed in order to criminalize dissent to US participation in WWI. I came across this randomly during my pandemic reading (The Great Influenza, about the Spanish Flu of 1918). It was really shocking to read how thoroughly the US government suppressed speech during WWI - it's not something I was at all aware of before. The Espionage Act is almost certainly unconstitutional, though it's still on the books. Ever since the Vietnam War, there's been a tacit understanding that the government will only use the law to go after government employees who leak information, but that the government won't prosecute the people who publish the information. With this prosecution, the Trump administration is breaking that understanding. The precedent is being set that whenever a newspaper publishes, "Sources tell us..." or "According to documents viewed by...," they're opening themselves up to criminal prosecution.
- 859a48cd782e 6y ago
  > a century-old law passed in order to criminalize dissent to US participation in WWI Christopher Hitchens references that in the opening of his defense of free speech: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY?t=2 https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY?t=2
drummer 6y ago
Here is why the press is quiet about this attack: "There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, […]. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. […] If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. […] The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon […]. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. […] They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, journalist for The New York Times, 1880

So why are the media ignoring it? I assume it’s because Wikileaks’ mission came under question because their leaks benefited the wrong side. Assange was a hero up until right about then. Then he was a criminal.

philjohn 6y ago
Wasn't it that they were teasing leaks from both sides ... and then never carried through?
BEEdwards 6y ago
They were heros until they picked sides. They picked sides because the FSB threatened to kill them, so it was a good call for not dying, but it does entirely invalidate their mission. https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileaks-we-could-destroy-you/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/11/01/russias-fsb-to-wikileak...
api 6y ago
I was among those who lost respect for him at that time. It was clear to me that he was a supporter of the fascist movement that swept across the tech and hacker culture in the early to mid teens, and that he biased his leaks accordingly. He and many of his followers were probably swept up in that wave of stupid male insecurity bullshit that 4chan shat out starting in 2012. Fascism and totalitarian Communism are the two great utopian death cults of the 20th century. Anyone who supports either of these in any serious and substantial way should absolutely be “cancelled.” I agree that there has been more attention toward cancelling the fascist side, but that is because they were ascendant. Those who actually believe in freedom generally find themselves opposing the totalitarian left or the totalitarian right depending on which side is presenting a threat at a given time. If the totalitarian left rises again, then the focus will have to change to destroying that. I’ve heard it put this way: true libertarians sound like conservatives when the far left is rising and like liberals when the far right is rising. That is because we have to fight every utopian totalitarian grift that comes along.
- mpfundstein 6y ago
  so we just throw out free speech and freeedom of choice with the bath water?
  - api 6y ago
    They would do the same if they got into power. Let me split hairs. I am not convinced that Assange deserves everything he is getting, but it is really hard for me to care. The parent post was about why nobody cares, and I answered it truthfully.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    What do you mean by “freeedom of choice” in this context?
- mindslight 6y ago
  > I’ve heard it put this way: true libertarians sound like conservatives when the far left is rising and like liberals when the far right is rising. That is because we have to fight every utopian totalitarian grift that comes along. I definitely end up this way talking to friends. My politics are always othered for not parroting their party line, generally whatever nascent groupthink is setting the stage for some future corporate-totalitarian push. But you've seriously got to apply this insight to your own lead off assertion: > It was clear to me that he [Assange] was a supporter of the fascist movement that swept across the tech and hacker culture in the early to mid teens, and that he biased his leaks accordingly Your claim that the right-totalitarian side was ascendant in the "early to mid teens" has more to do with your own perspective, seemingly ignoring the overarching societal tone of left authoritarianism (led by the White House). IMO the rise in red flavored thinking was driven by dissent, and I say this as someone with generally blue biases.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Who is the "red menace" here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
- 6y ago
ben_w 6y ago
> So why are the media ignoring it? A better question is: why is the media telling you that the media is ignoring it? In addition to this link, Google news is showing me[0] these headlines: • “My ringside view in the case of Julian Assange” - Evening Standard, 1 day ago • “George Christensen calls on Australia to lodge formal protest over treatment of Julian Assange” - The Guardian, 1 day ago • “Julian Assange will spend Christmas in prison as judge will decide on January 4 whether to extradite WikiLeaks found to the US on espionage charges” - Daily Mail, 1 day ago • “Assange ‘forced’ those behind war crimes ‘to look in the mirror,’ now faces revenge, John Pilger tells RT” - RT, today • “Julian Assange 'acutely troubled' that unredacted documents made public, court hears” - Press Gazette, 3 days ago • “Shooting of unarmed civilians in Iraq 'would have remained a secret but for Julian Assange'” - Evening Standard, 3 days ago • “US intelligence sources discussed poisoning Julian Assange, court told” - The Guardian, 2 days ago And that’s just the first page of results; subsequent pages show it being covered by The Intercept, The Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, Sky News, Deutsche Welle, and a lot more I’ve never heard of. [0] caveat: I’m in Berlin and explicitly chose UK results, because The Independent is a UK newspaper; choosing USA results gives me a differently list of recent results from a different set of publishers, but the point is the same
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  Perhaps it is because many people expect their public officials to echo the stories in the media, and the silence of those leaders is percieved as a media silence.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Not at all. Pro-profit media is simply reporting, as is profitable, that there's no mention or arguments from the media anymore about the issues regarding war crimes, without explaining why.
- purple-again 6y ago
  This isn’t enough information to decide if the media is ignoring the story. Back in the age of print newspapers a common trick was front page above the fold story on Monday morning that was not true followed up by a one paragraph retraction on page 14 in Saturday’s paper. The modern day digital equivalent is harder to determine and I am not aware of any service attempting to do so. The news companies have solid analytics on how their websites are used. For each of those articles linked were they on the front page? Did the user have to scroll down to a section where stories are only clicked on by 2% of users? Did the story remain linked on the front page of the website for 1 hour or for 2 days? Is the contents of the link the same as the contents was when it was first published? It’s entirely possible that the reach of all of those articles you linked above could be measured in the 10’s of people rather than the millions. Most people don’t search for news on a topic. They visit Fox/CNN or whatever their preferred source is and consume what is presented to them.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> So why are the media ignoring it? They aren't, media industry organizations have been hyping this story. And media outlets have been full of hyperventilating editorial and opinion articles on it. And, weirdly, also pushing the “the media is ignoring it” narrative, which as bizarre self-referential media metanarratives go, is a doozy. > I assume it’s because Wikileaks’ mission came under question because their leaks benefited the wrong side. Wikileaks had very little support outside of the far left fringe even before they became overtly part of the Russian influence operation in 2016 so, yeah, when they became a tool of the Russians supporting the American hard right they lost a lot of that; the mainstream media, of any leaning, never really supported them but is, nevertheless, hyping the media freedom angle in the Assange case.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  They didn't lose the Left by publishing Hillary and the DNC's dirty laundry. The Left was pissed off about the DNC favoring Hillary over Bernie, and the leaked emails confirmed their suspicions. But WikiLeaks did lose a lot of support among Democrats - particularly those on the right of the party who favored Hillary. A lot of people mistake "the Democratic party" for "the Left."
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > But WikiLeaks did lose a lot of support among Democrats They never had any tangible support among mainstream Democrats, even of the progressive faction, so they had nothing to lose there; the only thing they had to lose—and contrary to your claims they did lose some (but not all, the left fringe isn't a unitary hive mind) was on the left fringe. I suppose you are probably mistaking concern for the content of the early leaks with support for Wikileaks, but those aren't even approximately the same thing.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      Bernie supporters aren't fringe. Treating them as one was one of the reasons Hillary lost.

insickness 6y ago

The American press is ignoring this story because it's not a political hot button for either side of the political aisle. Wikileaks helped Trump tremendously during his election by releasing info on Hillary. And now the Trump administration is pursuing this prosecution.

branweb 6y ago
I'm no media expert but this seems like a plausible explanation. Increasingly the American press seems to be less about "disclosing important news to people so they can judge what is happening in the world" as the article says and more about monetizing echo-chambers.
1MachineElf 6y ago
The plan to prosecute Assange began before Trump was elected. We all know that the majority of people working in government now are from prior administrations. If Trump directly tried to stop it, then he'd have to weather more inconvenient headlines about Trump-Russia conspiracy. If he indirectly tried to stop it, then we'd have more anonymously sourced leaks and whistleblowers. Either approach would lead to the house Democrats demanding another investigation. The American people would be embroiled in another impeachment debate. Biden and Harris would be making hardline statements about severe punishment for Assange, and it would hurt the Trump campaign goal of being the "Law & Order" side. The least risky thing Trump can do is allow the government to proceed with the prosecution & then try to get a deal in for him.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But American outlets have been covering in the story, in the sense that they're writing articles about it and assigning reporters to follow its progress. And many of those outlets have gone on record saying Assange is being treated badly and shouldn't be prosecuted. It seems to me that the only thing the American press disagrees with the author on is the degree of hype that's warranted. They think the case is worth covering, but disagree that it's "an unprecedented attack on press freedom", "a crucial tipping point", "their future is wrapped up in his fate".

Capira 6y ago

BTW: Last week a German doctor got arrested at Speakers’ Corner in London for speaking to more than 30 people.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
haunter 6y ago
A german doctor who is a known coronavirus skeptic and it was a rally against the lockdown.
- Capira 6y ago
  So? Remember democracy?

ykevinator 6y ago

Not sure why the censors haven't flagged this

mellosouls 6y ago

Far more important, however, in converting Assange from being portrayed as a heroic fighter against state secrecy into a figure beyond the pale, were the allegations of rape made against him in Sweden in 2010. It's extraordinary the power of even absurd allegations as those to ruin a man's life.

himinlomax 6y ago
Rape allegations are the ideal way to slander any man. As they hinge on the alleged victim's consent, which resides entirely within their mind, they are near impossible to disprove when thrown by a determined, malicious opponent. Even when they are indeed disproved, they still leave a long lasting stain. Whether Assange committed a sexual crime or not, it is incontrovertible that accusing him of one was the most effective and least risky way to discrete him. It wouldn't even have required any lying accuser either; manipulating a pissed off lover into reframing their relationship with him as less consensual than it was at the time would be a rather simple exercise for a spymaster.
- HashingtheCode 6y ago
  Allegations are enough in this new left world order to destroy a man's life. Evidence and due process is irrelevant.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  In 2018, Sweden made their rape laws significantly worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden No threats, coercion, or violence need to be involved. You must have explicit consent for every sexual encounter. Not just intercourse. So, if you do something sexual but you failed to get her to sign a contract. She later reports the sexual encounter as not having the signed contract. You are a rapist going to prison.
- torified 6y ago
  Some presidents seem to have done ok, even with some pretty damn horrible accusations (much much much worse than the ridiculous crime that Assange was accused of). Read it for yourself: https://www.ericschwartzman.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/child-abuse-assualt-battery-1.pdf https://www.ericschwartzman.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/c...

strstr 6y ago

A more minor detail of the piece: “The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, says that non-Americans like Assange do not enjoy First Amendment rights to free expression.” This is used to imply that the US does not respect press freedom. While that might be true (personally don’t think it particularly is), non-US persons don’t enjoy any of the rights of the US constitution. There are different laws in different places. Assange should enjoy the British Rights to freedom of the press/expression, whatever those are (or the rights relevant to wherever he was).

MereInterest 6y ago
That's something that I don't entirely understand. There is the consistent argument that the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, doesn't make any guarantee toward non-US persons. Except, I don't think that's actually the case. If I look at the text of the first amendment, for example: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This doesn't say anything about whose freedom of speech, only that Congress may not abridge it. The existence of the freedom of speech is taken as a given, regardless of whose speech it is. The restriction is on Congress to not be able to abridge that freedom of speech, no matter who holds it.
- lakeWater 6y ago
  The first sentence in the preamble of the Constitution is “We the People of the United States.” The “people” I believe is referring to the ones mentioned here.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > abridging the freedom [...]; or the right of the people That pretty clearly attaches "the people" as a qualifier only on the right to assemble and petition the government for redress, and not on the freedom of speech or the press. I'm not sure how you purport to parse that as "abridging the freedom of speech of the people", even if we do grant that "the people" refers only to citizens, rather than all subjects.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

Assange is being charged under a century-old law passed in order to criminalize dissent to US participation in WWI. I came across this randomly during my pandemic reading (The Great Influenza, about the Spanish Flu of 1918). It was really shocking to read how thoroughly the US government suppressed speech during WWI - it's not something I was at all aware of before. The Espionage Act is almost certainly unconstitutional, though it's still on the books. Ever since the Vietnam War, there's been a tacit understanding that the government will only use the law to go after government employees who leak information, but that the government won't prosecute the people who publish the information. With this prosecution, the Trump administration is breaking that understanding. The precedent is being set that whenever a newspaper publishes, "Sources tell us..." or "According to documents viewed by...," they're opening themselves up to criminal prosecution.

859a48cd782e 6y ago
> a century-old law passed in order to criminalize dissent to US participation in WWI Christopher Hitchens references that in the opening of his defense of free speech: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY?t=2 https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY?t=2

drummer 6y ago

Here is why the press is quiet about this attack: "There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, […]. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. […] If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. […] The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon […]. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. […] They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, journalist for The New York Times, 1880