PDA

View Full Version : tPF Assange/Wikileaks Situation -vs- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713



DGUtley
04-13-2019, 08:00 AM
We are in a very interesting situation. We have: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.
President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of The New York Times to print the materials.

Now, we have the Assange/Wikileaks situation. The government claims that Wikileaks assisted Manning in the theft. Should that make a difference? Does that make it spying? Should it? What is the difference between gathering news and spying?

Is this an attack on the free press?
Is this a legitimate attack on the free press?
Is this an attack on spies?
Remember, Manning was let go.

I have marked this as a tpf thread to keep the trolls away -- you know who you are.

25789

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 08:24 AM
I would think a journalist actively participating in stealing classified documents is not protected conduct. They can accept the material. They can publish the material. But not steal the material.

DGUtley
04-13-2019, 08:46 AM
Pete, I think that's the argument. Once it gets into assisting in taking, it's spying?

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 09:06 AM
Pete, I think that's the argument. Once it gets into assisting in taking, it's spying?

Maybe not technically spying (for Assange). But illegally attempting to break into a secured IT system.

Don29palms
04-13-2019, 09:17 AM
I would think a journalist actively participating in stealing classified documents is not protected conduct. They can accept the material. They can publish the material. But not steal the material.

I would think that assisting in the stealing would be an accessory to the crime. If a person assist in a bank robbery by driving a person to and from the bank but never goes into the bank is still guilty of bank robbery.

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 09:21 AM
I would think that assisting in the stealing would be an accessory to the crime. If a person assist in a bank robbery by driving a person to and from the bank but never goes into the bank is still guilty of bank robbery.
Correct.

Sergeant Gleed
04-13-2019, 11:12 AM
I would think a journalist actively participating in stealing classified documents is not protected conduct. They can accept the material. They can publish the material. But not steal the material.
By publishing the material they are actively participating in the theft.

That court decision was like telling a charity thst they in no trouble if a bank robber donates his haul and they don't have to return the money.

Everyone goes on and on about this decision as if the court made the correct ruling. And most of thst is fueled because the morons view Assange as some kind of cult hero and not as the dangerous criminal he is.

Sergeant Gleed
04-13-2019, 11:13 AM
Maybe not technically spying (for Assange). But illegally attempting to break into a secured IT system.

So, we never call espionage ring - leaders "master spies"?

Sergeant Gleed
04-13-2019, 11:14 AM
Pete, I think that's the argument. Once it gets into assisting in taking, it's spying?

So...rhe police do not arrest fences and "reciever of stolen goods" is not a real crime?

MisterVeritis
04-13-2019, 12:22 PM
By publishing the material they are actively participating in the theft.
You err.


That court decision was like telling a charity thst they in no trouble if a bank robber donates his haul and they don't have to return the money.
It is not like that at all.


Everyone goes on and on about this decision as if the court made the correct ruling. And most of thst is fueled because the morons view Assange as some kind of cult hero and not as the dangerous criminal he is.
The US Constitution is the correct ruling.

The government's case against Assange hinges on the government's allegation that Assange helped Manning break a password.

MisterVeritis
04-13-2019, 12:23 PM
Pete, I think that's the argument. Once it gets into assisting in taking, it's spying?
Assange is being charged with assisting hacking.

MisterVeritis
04-13-2019, 12:25 PM
I would think that assisting in the stealing would be an accessory to the crime. If a person assist in a bank robbery by driving a person to and from the bank but never goes into the bank is still guilty of bank robbery.
"Can you break this password?"
"I think I still have a brute password attack program, sure."
"Thanks."

If I help you determine a password have I broken a law?

alexa
04-13-2019, 12:58 PM
From what I've read in the past, the government's case is exceedingly thin.

If it ever comes to trial, I think Assange will walk.

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 01:00 PM
You need to pay attention and stop repeating stuff you have been corrected on.

Fix your statement below and move on.


By publishing the material they are actively participating in the theft.

That court decision was like telling a charity thst they in no trouble if a bank robber donates his haul and they don't have to return the money.

Everyone goes on and on about this decision as if the court made the correct ruling. And most of thst is fueled because the morons view Assange as some kind of cult hero and not as the dangerous criminal he is.

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 01:01 PM
From what I've read in the past, the government's case is exceedingly thin.

If it ever comes to trial, I think Assange will walk.
Probably.

alexa
04-13-2019, 01:04 PM
I think Sweden is looking at reopening the rape investigation now that he's out.

That may be a bigger problem for him.

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 01:06 PM
I think Sweden is looking at reopening the rape investigation now that he's out.

That may be a bigger problem for him.
Sweden has some extreme laws regarding consent. Males would be served well to get before and after signed consents just in case a girl later changes her mind.

MisterVeritis
04-13-2019, 01:08 PM
Sweden has some extreme laws regarding consent. Males would be served well to get before and after signed consents just in case a girl later changes her mind.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply convert to Islam? It seems to be a stay out of jail FREE card.

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 01:45 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to simply convert to Islam? It seems to be a stay out of jail FREE card.
The Swedes like other Nordic nations are rethinking their generous social welfare programs because of the influx of Muslims.

Peter1469
04-13-2019, 01:59 PM
Assange's arrest was designed to make sure he didn't press a mysterious panic button he said would bring dire consequences for Ecuador. (https://www.thisisinsider.com/assange-arrest-ecuador-prevent-alleged-panic-button-2019-4)

Interesting theory, however, why would Assange need to hit a panic button- his capture was broadcast to the world. For free.


Julian Assange's arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London (https://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-arrested-by-uk-police-ecuador-revokes-asylum-2019-4) was carried out in a specific way to prevent him from pressing a mysterious panic button he said could bring dire consequences for Ecuador, its foreign minister said.
The WikiLeaks founder was carried out of the Ecuadorian Embassy (https://www.businessinsider.com/video-julian-assange-arrested-uk-police-removed-ecuador-embassy-2019-4) in London's Kensington district on Thursday morning by a group of British police officers. Ecuador had earlier revoked his political asylum, alleging repeated bad behavior during his almost seven-year stay.


During this stay, Assange is accused of threatening Jaime Merchan, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, with activating some kind of panic button that would bring down the embassy if he were arrested or felt in danger.


The claim was made by Ecuador's foreign minister, Josť Valencia, in a speech Thursday to the country's National Assembly, according to the Associated Press (https://www.apnews.com/072664ed80b34b68bc7ca5b3d2845030) and Reuters (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ecuador-assange-moreno/from-skateboards-to-spying-assange-arrest-followed-drawn-out-dispute-with-ecuador-idUKKCN1RO02A).

Don29palms
04-13-2019, 04:48 PM
"Can you break this password?"
"I think I still have a brute password attack program, sure."
"Thanks."

If I help you determine a password have I broken a law?

If you know the password is to be used to hack into a computer that is not yours you are an accessory to the hacking so yes you have committed a crime.

MisterVeritis
04-13-2019, 05:40 PM
"Can you break this password?"
"I think I still have a brute password attack program, sure."
"Thanks."

If I help you determine a password have I broken a law?

If you know the password is to be used to hack into a computer that is not yours you are an accessory to the hacking so yes you have committed a crime.
The right answer to my scenario is "no."

Do I have an obligation to determine if you, the one asking for my help, intend to commit a crime after I help you?

If I see an individual struggling to change a flat tire by the side of a road and I help him change the tire am I guilty of helping him rob the bank if I did not determine that the one I helped was on his way to rob a bank when he got the flat tire?

Tahuyaman
04-15-2019, 12:54 AM
I would think a journalist actively participating in stealing classified documents is not protected conduct. They can accept the material. They can publish the material. But not steal the material.
Wikileaks is not journalism. But then journalism doesn't really exist any more.