5 ms·

That's a very uncomfortable thing for his defenders to focus on. Much more convenient for them is to present him as a journalist and frame the discussion around

That's a very uncomfortable thing for his defenders to focus on. Much more convenient for them is to present him as a journalist and frame the discussion around freedom of speech/the press.

refenestrator 5y ago
It's not uncomfortable at all from where I'm sitting, I had thought we settled this with Ellsburg and the pentagon papers. Assange had no clearance and took no oaths regarding this information. Converting "working with a source" into "conspiracy to access an information system" because the files were on a computer instead of in a drawer should fail the smell test.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >I had thought we settled this with Ellsburg and the pentagon papers. Ellsberg's charges were dismissed because of gross government misconduct, that doesn't settle anything.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    That hinges on the extent to which Assange personally exfiltrated documents. NYT vs US established that its totally OK to publish documents you receive. They're trying to make Assange a 'conspirator' in the exfiltration for working with Manning. Apparently the extent of his alleged direct involvement was receiving a password hash but not actually cracking or doing anything with it: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...
pydry 5y ago
He likely did try to help access the data. It's not uncomfortable at all to admit that. The idea that this is espionage (what he is being charged with) is ludicrous. This is an uncomfortable topic for his detractors. Even more uncomfortable given that Obama worried it was unconstitutional and criminalized journalism. If this happened to a Russian citizen in Russia finding evidence of Russian war crimes not one of his detractors would argue that he was guilty.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  He's being charged with a bunch of stuff. Offering to help Manning crack passwords and encouraging them to dig deeper is the uncomfortable bit for his supporters. I agree that the espionage charges are ridiculous and dangerous for actual investigative journalists.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >is the uncomfortable bit for his supporters. If you say so.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  What then is espionage and how does it differ from actively participating in the theft of classified information? (for the sake of argument, assume that Assange actually did do things like crack password hashes) i.e. what is the differentiator that makes Assange innocent of espionage and would make someone else guilty?
  - pydry 5y ago
    Exfiltrating classified tactics, techniques or technology for the purpose of supplying a rival power with a tactical advantage would be a good working definition. Whatever definition is used if it includes leaking war crimes to the public and youre ok with that you are signing up to putting the pieces in place for a fascist dictatorship. That is not an exaggeration.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > Exfiltrating classified tactics, techniques or technology for the purpose of supplying a rival power with a tactical advantage would be a good working definition. Not particularly good, IMO: Knowledge of what resources you have where seems pretty damn important, and that's neither "tactics, techniques or technology" AFAICS. > Whatever definition is used if it includes leaking war crimes to the public and youre ok with that you are signing up to putting the pieces in place for a fascist dictatorship. This ever so conveniently ignores the crux of the matter, namely that he (at least according to his accusers) leaked so much more than just "war crimes". > That is not an exaggeration. Given the above, it's a huge exaggeration.
criddell 5y ago
Like Carl Sandburg said, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts."
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Seventeen of his eighteen charges are clearly about the freedom of the press, as they are entirely about what he published. Only one arguably isn't, and even that can be argued is also a violation of a free press.
h0l0cube 5y ago
Outlawing the the theft (and publication) of classified information in the public interest puts investigative journalists in a difficult place. One could say it's a 'keystone' of free press and, hence, democracy.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  So are journalists allowed to break any law they want in the pursuit of a story, or is it limited to computer hacking? To be clear, I have no problem with the publication part. But to frame investigative journalism as being dependent on criminal activity to survive is ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    > ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law. That's a little hyperbolic. I'm certain it's possible to do so within the law, but when it comes to corruption or cover-ups at a government or corporate level, there's simply no other way for a journalist to do their work without leaks. This requires some protection by the law, and once such protection is taken away, it would be nigh-on impossible to get it back. There may be some legal peculiarities about JA's case that make him different from a journalist in some way - IANAL - but I worry that even a technical distinction would be unfair, as he has uncovered much that is of public interest.
    - cookie_monsta 5y ago
      And I 100% agree that whistleblowers need protection, as do journalists. This isn't about legal peculiarities. When Assange was offering help to crack passwords and encouraging Manning to access unauthorized material, he wasn't being a whistleblower or a journalist. He was conspiring to commit a crime. He knew that. He'd already been charged with hacking as a teenager. It was a choice he made having weighed up the risks and benefits.
      - 5y ago
SerLava 5y ago
The way they charged Assange is blatantly criminalizing the act of journalism

That's a very uncomfortable thing for his defenders to focus on. Much more convenient for them is to present him as a journalist and frame the discussion around freedom of speech/the press.

refenestrator 5y ago

It's not uncomfortable at all from where I'm sitting, I had thought we settled this with Ellsburg and the pentagon papers. Assange had no clearance and took no oaths regarding this information. Converting "working with a source" into "conspiracy to access an information system" because the files were on a computer instead of in a drawer should fail the smell test.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>I had thought we settled this with Ellsburg and the pentagon papers. Ellsberg's charges were dismissed because of gross government misconduct, that doesn't settle anything.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  That hinges on the extent to which Assange personally exfiltrated documents. NYT vs US established that its totally OK to publish documents you receive. They're trying to make Assange a 'conspirator' in the exfiltration for working with Manning. Apparently the extent of his alleged direct involvement was receiving a password hash but not actually cracking or doing anything with it: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...

pydry 5y ago

He likely did try to help access the data. It's not uncomfortable at all to admit that. The idea that this is espionage (what he is being charged with) is ludicrous. This is an uncomfortable topic for his detractors. Even more uncomfortable given that Obama worried it was unconstitutional and criminalized journalism. If this happened to a Russian citizen in Russia finding evidence of Russian war crimes not one of his detractors would argue that he was guilty.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
He's being charged with a bunch of stuff. Offering to help Manning crack passwords and encouraging them to dig deeper is the uncomfortable bit for his supporters. I agree that the espionage charges are ridiculous and dangerous for actual investigative journalists.
- pydry 5y ago
  >is the uncomfortable bit for his supporters. If you say so.
colechristensen 5y ago
What then is espionage and how does it differ from actively participating in the theft of classified information? (for the sake of argument, assume that Assange actually did do things like crack password hashes) i.e. what is the differentiator that makes Assange innocent of espionage and would make someone else guilty?
- pydry 5y ago
  Exfiltrating classified tactics, techniques or technology for the purpose of supplying a rival power with a tactical advantage would be a good working definition. Whatever definition is used if it includes leaking war crimes to the public and youre ok with that you are signing up to putting the pieces in place for a fascist dictatorship. That is not an exaggeration.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Exfiltrating classified tactics, techniques or technology for the purpose of supplying a rival power with a tactical advantage would be a good working definition. Not particularly good, IMO: Knowledge of what resources you have where seems pretty damn important, and that's neither "tactics, techniques or technology" AFAICS. > Whatever definition is used if it includes leaking war crimes to the public and youre ok with that you are signing up to putting the pieces in place for a fascist dictatorship. This ever so conveniently ignores the crux of the matter, namely that he (at least according to his accusers) leaked so much more than just "war crimes". > That is not an exaggeration. Given the above, it's a huge exaggeration.

criddell 5y ago

Like Carl Sandburg said, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts."

boomboomsubban 5y ago

Seventeen of his eighteen charges are clearly about the freedom of the press, as they are entirely about what he published. Only one arguably isn't, and even that can be argued is also a violation of a free press.

h0l0cube 5y ago

Outlawing the the theft (and publication) of classified information in the public interest puts investigative journalists in a difficult place. One could say it's a 'keystone' of free press and, hence, democracy.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
So are journalists allowed to break any law they want in the pursuit of a story, or is it limited to computer hacking? To be clear, I have no problem with the publication part. But to frame investigative journalism as being dependent on criminal activity to survive is ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  > ignoring decades of groundbreaking, hard hitting reporting done completely within the bounds of the law. That's a little hyperbolic. I'm certain it's possible to do so within the law, but when it comes to corruption or cover-ups at a government or corporate level, there's simply no other way for a journalist to do their work without leaks. This requires some protection by the law, and once such protection is taken away, it would be nigh-on impossible to get it back. There may be some legal peculiarities about JA's case that make him different from a journalist in some way - IANAL - but I worry that even a technical distinction would be unfair, as he has uncovered much that is of public interest.
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    And I 100% agree that whistleblowers need protection, as do journalists. This isn't about legal peculiarities. When Assange was offering help to crack passwords and encouraging Manning to access unauthorized material, he wasn't being a whistleblower or a journalist. He was conspiring to commit a crime. He knew that. He'd already been charged with hacking as a teenager. It was a choice he made having weighed up the risks and benefits.
    - 5y ago

SerLava 5y ago

The way they charged Assange is blatantly criminalizing the act of journalism