[belorn]

I googled "assange paranoid 2012", and first hit was https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-c...

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?"

[patejam]

To be clear, I wasn't arguing either way. I was just saying that a single poster on this site is not a way to get a feel for how common an opinion was back then. Your link is a much better start.

And for some reason having that opinion got my original post flagged and collapsed by default, even though I have a positive score...

[belorn]

I don't know why it was flagged but it could be mod intervention in regard to a discussion about tptacek.

As for the link, I mostly made a lazy search just to provide a link to "news articles, politicians, political pundits". If there was multiple people on HN claiming he was not going to get charged by the US then I would expect to see similar opinion outside HN. I thus tested the theory.