7 ms·

A crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations. I made that example to make it clearer,

A crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations. I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar. The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars. Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
- africanboy 6y ago
  > Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press What Assange is accused of is not that. > Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context. It doesn't. Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that. Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent. Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints) Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.
    - africanboy 6y ago
      I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is. I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote. I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of! Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car" The crime is not driving, is helping other criminals to commit the crime. Which is what Assange is accused of. He's not accused of running hashcat. Even if he did the decryption with pen and paper and failed he would be an "accessory to the crime" (allegedly, because he's only accused of doing it) To put it in other words, he is accused of being > a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. Regardless of the crime, the simple fact that he (allegedly) helped is a crime.
      - h_anna_h 6y ago
        Sure but I don't know how this is relevant to what I said. > Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car" Driving in a bank robbery is different to basically just doing some calculations. It might be a crime but it should not be one. Regardless though I would claim that even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.
        africanboy 6y ago
        Driving is driving Doing some calculations is doing some calculations Driving for bank robbers or doing some calculations for the mob can be a crime, if driving or doing calculations was helping them to commit a crime and you knew it. > even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free. That's your opinion. I'm not saying you are wrong in principle, but that's not how law works.
        6y ago
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    I don't want to try and change your opinion on Assange's actions, many journalist have said the "I'll help" you see as a problem is a routine procedure, but you clearly disagree. A crime still isn't just a crime though. A less ambiguous example, unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime, yet no journalist has been charged for it.
    - africanboy 6y ago
      I'm honestly expressing no opinion on Assange's actions. "I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime). What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant. The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequence doesn't make it legal. A crime is a crime by the law, the court has to decide if you either committed it or not (regardless if you did it for real, if the court can prove you did it, you did it). That doesn't mean that killing a baby and downloading an episode of a TV show illegally is the same thing, it means that if I helped you to download the content and you are accused of downloading that content and the court can prove it, I am accessory to the crime even if people routinely get by. > unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime Are you referring to this? > Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.
      - Talanes 6y ago
        >What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal. Unless you are just immediately releasing all documents you receive unedited, you will have to retain them for a period first. Would a journalist raided the second before he could click publish be committing a crime, while a second later he would not be committing a crime and have never been committing a crime.
Closi 6y ago
Don't get too downhearted by the downvotes. I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say. I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism. Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).
- chillwaves 6y ago
  Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    I don't see why journalists should have some sort of special protection that should not apply to the "peasants".
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      seems like a function of their role in the 4th estate as the watchdogs of government. In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.
      - h_anna_h 6y ago
        I would say that they should, both the protestor and the journalists should be treated with respect. Even then though, a non-journalist that is not a protestor should be able to cover a protest just as well as professional journalists can. > as the watchdogs of government. More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.
antihero 6y ago
If justice had any say we wouldn't be blowing up civilians with helicopters and laughing about it.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars. Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.

africanboy 6y ago
> Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press What Assange is accused of is not that. > Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context. It doesn't. Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that. Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent. Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints) Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is. I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote. I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of! Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car" The crime is not driving, is helping other criminals to commit the crime. Which is what Assange is accused of. He's not accused of running hashcat. Even if he did the decryption with pen and paper and failed he would be an "accessory to the crime" (allegedly, because he's only accused of doing it) To put it in other words, he is accused of being > a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime. Regardless of the crime, the simple fact that he (allegedly) helped is a crime.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      Sure but I don't know how this is relevant to what I said. > Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car" Driving in a bank robbery is different to basically just doing some calculations. It might be a crime but it should not be one. Regardless though I would claim that even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.
      - africanboy 6y ago
        Driving is driving Doing some calculations is doing some calculations Driving for bank robbers or doing some calculations for the mob can be a crime, if driving or doing calculations was helping them to commit a crime and you knew it. > even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free. That's your opinion. I'm not saying you are wrong in principle, but that's not how law works.
        6y ago
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  I don't want to try and change your opinion on Assange's actions, many journalist have said the "I'll help" you see as a problem is a routine procedure, but you clearly disagree. A crime still isn't just a crime though. A less ambiguous example, unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime, yet no journalist has been charged for it.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    I'm honestly expressing no opinion on Assange's actions. "I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime). What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant. The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequence doesn't make it legal. A crime is a crime by the law, the court has to decide if you either committed it or not (regardless if you did it for real, if the court can prove you did it, you did it). That doesn't mean that killing a baby and downloading an episode of a TV show illegally is the same thing, it means that if I helped you to download the content and you are accused of downloading that content and the court can prove it, I am accessory to the crime even if people routinely get by. > unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime Are you referring to this? > Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      >What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal. Unless you are just immediately releasing all documents you receive unedited, you will have to retain them for a period first. Would a journalist raided the second before he could click publish be committing a crime, while a second later he would not be committing a crime and have never been committing a crime.

Closi 6y ago

Don't get too downhearted by the downvotes. I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say. I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism. Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).

chillwaves 6y ago
Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  I don't see why journalists should have some sort of special protection that should not apply to the "peasants".
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    seems like a function of their role in the 4th estate as the watchdogs of government. In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      I would say that they should, both the protestor and the journalists should be treated with respect. Even then though, a non-journalist that is not a protestor should be able to cover a protest just as well as professional journalists can. > as the watchdogs of government. More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.

antihero 6y ago

If justice had any say we wouldn't be blowing up civilians with helicopters and laughing about it.