>although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason. You know you can look stuff up instead of forming world views on so much misundersta

>although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason. You know you can look stuff up instead of forming world views on so much misunderstanding. >Remember that saying: Yes, people have been making the slippery slope fallacy for millennia with all sorts of catchphrases. And for millennia the extreme end is extremely rarely ever reached. People invoke such hand wavy feel good stuff when they don't have an actual argument based on evidence. "It's just common sense!" "Think of this children" "First they came for..." Assange is charged not with being a journalist, or publishing classified materials, but with actively recruiting and convincing people to break laws so he could get such materials. If true, he deserves jail. If you believe in journalism, then should support prosecuting those that violate journalistic ethics and laws, otherwise you are helping weaken protections for journalists. Here's [1] the original indictment. It's pretty damning if true. Among other things, it claims Assange helped crack password on SIPRNET, which I suspect they have solid evidence for, otherwise any lawyer in a trial will get that thrown out. If true, that is worth prison for pretty much anyone, especially a foreign national that is cracking passwords to obtain classified material so he can publish it. There are at least two superseding indictments you can also read on the internet, but the first is still the main reason he is being extradited. One of the superseding indictments claims Assange directed hacker groups which places to hack for Assange (CIA and NSA and even the New York Times). If this part is true, Assange is not a journalist - he is directing hackers to attack government and journalists. Again, if the govt does not have solid evidence of these claims, it will get tossed in court. If they have evidence, Assange should stand trial. The way to have this play out is a trial - jurors and judges and lawyers can see the evidence and decide. Plus the content of the trial will be public record (unless there's classified stuff, in which case judges still oversee those details). All this hand waving silly slippery slope nonsense, to protect someone who seems quite likely to have violated reasonable laws, is hanging your hat on the wrong case. So keep using extreme claims and arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny - people will simply dismiss you and your arguments. Or understand the nuance and make more defensible, fact supported arguments - then you may persuade someone. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...