5 ms·

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 expr

by 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.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      I agree there. There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer to "people of the several States" because that is the wording used elsewhere, or whether the absence of the qualifier is intentional and significant, in which case "people" should be interpreted more broadly.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer Yes, quite; there's room for reasonable disagreement about whether the first amendment protects the rights of assembly and petition only for citizens, for any subjects, or for anyone generally. But the protections for speech and the press (ie the ones actually relevant to Assange) have no such qualification. If they were prosecuting him for, say, standing in front of a government building yelling "Down with the NSA!", the fact that he's not a citizen would arguably be in any way relevant.
- johnchristopher 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. Isn't it because the preamble begins with `We the people of the united states [..]` ? > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    The constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non citizens. It's all about the instructions of how a government works, and what limits the government has.
    - johnchristopher 6y ago
      I don't know what to make of that statement. The constitution has plenty of articles dealing with citizen's rights. What am I missing ?
      - iso1210 6y ago
        There's stuff about voting specifics I think, what specifically are you thinking of?
        johnchristopher 6y ago
        Article 4, section 2 `The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.` but that is not what's important: 1. Why do you say the constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non-citizens when some articles are about them and their rights ? 2. Why do you disagree that the preamble establishes that the document is from and about the people of the united states (and doesn't apply to non-US people/citizens) ?
ebcode 6y ago
Yet non-Americans do seem to enjoy being prosecuted for breaking USA laws. Looks like the USA has unilaterally decided that it is now the One World Government we've all been dying for. We should also prosecute China for breaking our federal minimum wage laws.
- strstr 6y ago
  Extradition treaties are voluntarily agreed to by both countries. If you are British or American and don’t like the consequences of this treaty, I encourage you to contact relevant politicians and tell them to renegotiate the treaty. I believe the right treaty is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_tr...
  - thefounder 6y ago
    Reminds me of the recent U.S. diplomat’s wife that got away with murder in Britain and several other such cases(U.S murderers not being prosecuted). The extradation treaties do not work the way you think they do. They big guy always has the last say regardless of what the treaty says.
    - strstr 6y ago
      I’d argue that’s continued failure of the extradition treaty, and part of why it’s hard to craft them. You can’t make it too easy to extradite, but you also don’t want it to be too hard. I’m not sure what the right carve out would be to avoid extradition of journalists for comparatively trivial charges. A full blown journalistic exception seems too far, but I don’t know what the right line is instead.
      - thefounder 6y ago
        >> I’d argue that’s continued failure of the extradition treaty, and part of why it’s hard to craft them. Not really. If it were the other way around the murderer would have been in police custody regardless of its status(i.e the wife of a diplomat). It just that the small guy cherises the relationship with the big guy too much to upset it.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> non-US persons don’t enjoy any of the rights of the US constitution This is a very common misconception. In most cases, the Bill of Rights protects any person anywhere from the US government. There's no mention of citizenship in the Bill of Rights, and the 1st Amendment forbids the federal government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." There's no geographic or citizenship qualification.
- krapp 6y ago
  Where in the Constitution does it state that its language should be read as inclusive of non-US persons unless explicitly stated otherwise?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    The part where it uses the word "person" without a qualifier such as "who is a american citizen"? Where in the Constitution does it state that its language should be read as exclusive of non-US persons unless explicitly stated otherwise?
    - krapp 6y ago
      It doesn't specify either way, that's the problem. It's not a modern legal document with precise terms defined, it's written in sometimes intentionally vague 18th century prose, so either interpretation is equally valid as far as the text alone is concerned.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        If it says "citizen" in one place, and "person" in another where it could as easily have said "citizen", elementary logic dictates that "person" does not imply "citizen". Saying otherwise is a brazen attempt to muddy clear water. The framers were not stupid. They knew what they were writing. If they had meant "citizen", they knew how to write it.
        6y ago

by strstr 6y ago

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.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    I agree there. There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer to "people of the several States" because that is the wording used elsewhere, or whether the absence of the qualifier is intentional and significant, in which case "people" should be interpreted more broadly.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > There have also been some arguments about whether "people" without any qualifier should refer Yes, quite; there's room for reasonable disagreement about whether the first amendment protects the rights of assembly and petition only for citizens, for any subjects, or for anyone generally. But the protections for speech and the press (ie the ones actually relevant to Assange) have no such qualification. If they were prosecuting him for, say, standing in front of a government building yelling "Down with the NSA!", the fact that he's not a citizen would arguably be in any way relevant.
johnchristopher 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. Isn't it because the preamble begins with `We the people of the united states [..]` ? > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- iso1210 6y ago
  The constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non citizens. It's all about the instructions of how a government works, and what limits the government has.
  - johnchristopher 6y ago
    I don't know what to make of that statement. The constitution has plenty of articles dealing with citizen's rights. What am I missing ?
    - iso1210 6y ago
      There's stuff about voting specifics I think, what specifically are you thinking of?
      - johnchristopher 6y ago
        Article 4, section 2 `The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.` but that is not what's important: 1. Why do you say the constitution has nothing to do with citizens or non-citizens when some articles are about them and their rights ? 2. Why do you disagree that the preamble establishes that the document is from and about the people of the united states (and doesn't apply to non-US people/citizens) ?

ebcode 6y ago

Yet non-Americans do seem to enjoy being prosecuted for breaking USA laws. Looks like the USA has unilaterally decided that it is now the One World Government we've all been dying for. We should also prosecute China for breaking our federal minimum wage laws.

strstr 6y ago
Extradition treaties are voluntarily agreed to by both countries. If you are British or American and don’t like the consequences of this treaty, I encourage you to contact relevant politicians and tell them to renegotiate the treaty. I believe the right treaty is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_tr...
- thefounder 6y ago
  Reminds me of the recent U.S. diplomat’s wife that got away with murder in Britain and several other such cases(U.S murderers not being prosecuted). The extradation treaties do not work the way you think they do. They big guy always has the last say regardless of what the treaty says.
  - strstr 6y ago
    I’d argue that’s continued failure of the extradition treaty, and part of why it’s hard to craft them. You can’t make it too easy to extradite, but you also don’t want it to be too hard. I’m not sure what the right carve out would be to avoid extradition of journalists for comparatively trivial charges. A full blown journalistic exception seems too far, but I don’t know what the right line is instead.
    - thefounder 6y ago
      >> I’d argue that’s continued failure of the extradition treaty, and part of why it’s hard to craft them. Not really. If it were the other way around the murderer would have been in police custody regardless of its status(i.e the wife of a diplomat). It just that the small guy cherises the relationship with the big guy too much to upset it.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

> non-US persons don’t enjoy any of the rights of the US constitution This is a very common misconception. In most cases, the Bill of Rights protects any person anywhere from the US government. There's no mention of citizenship in the Bill of Rights, and the 1st Amendment forbids the federal government from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." There's no geographic or citizenship qualification.

krapp 6y ago
Where in the Constitution does it state that its language should be read as inclusive of non-US persons unless explicitly stated otherwise?
- a1369209993 6y ago
  The part where it uses the word "person" without a qualifier such as "who is a american citizen"? Where in the Constitution does it state that its language should be read as exclusive of non-US persons unless explicitly stated otherwise?
  - krapp 6y ago
    It doesn't specify either way, that's the problem. It's not a modern legal document with precise terms defined, it's written in sometimes intentionally vague 18th century prose, so either interpretation is equally valid as far as the text alone is concerned.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      If it says "citizen" in one place, and "person" in another where it could as easily have said "citizen", elementary logic dictates that "person" does not imply "citizen". Saying otherwise is a brazen attempt to muddy clear water. The framers were not stupid. They knew what they were writing. If they had meant "citizen", they knew how to write it.
      - 6y ago