|
|
|
|
|
by patejam
2590 days ago
|
|
Ok. Why does that make their singular beliefs relevant? I'd expect the poster I was responding to to link news articles, politicians, political pundits, etc. to show it was a not a commonly held belief that he'd face such charges. Not some prolific poster on a niche tech forum. |
|
Titled Definition of paranoia: supporters of Julian Assange. Feel free to read the text in the contest of today's news.
"More pertinently, Greenwald and the rest of Assange's supporters do not tell us how the Americans could prosecute the incontinent leaker. American democracy is guilty of many crimes and corruptions. But the First Amendment to the US constitution is the finest defence of freedom of speech yet written. The American Civil Liberties Union thinks it would be unconstitutional for a judge to punish Assange... From the 1970s, when the New York Times printed the Pentagon Papers, to today's accounts of secret prisons and the bugging of US citizens, the American courts "have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information". Maybe the authorities could prosecute Assange for alleged links with hackers. I don't know – unlike Assange, I cannot see the future. But why would they bother to imprison him when he is making such a good job of discrediting himself?"