[dinergy]

That he threatened federal agent(s)? That he knowingly claimed to be part of a [mostly] criminal hacking group? That he knowingly and willfully obstructed an investigation?

He did stupid, illegal things, and honestly it sounds like he got off pretty light, to me.

[sroerick]

Have you heard his "threats" against federal agents?

God forbid journalists protect their sources.

https://wikileaks.org/Assange-statement-on-the.html

[tptacek]

His own sentencing allocution --- which was, to say the least, not a weak-kneed cowtowing to the DOJ to minimize his sentencing --- admitted fully to those threats and blamed them on withdrawal from Paxil and Suboxone. The threatening videos and tweets were the most unambiguous regret he expressed. Regrets he expressed moments before haranguing the DOJ, at length, for their misconduct during the case.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>Regrets he expressed moments before haranguing the DOJ, at length, for their misconduct during the case.

Is that supposed to make a difference?

[tptacek]

Yes, but not the way you think it does: my point is just that he wasn't admitting to random things to kowtow to the court and minimize his sentence. The majority of the allocution is accusatory, combative, and unrepentant. And, good for him for being honest. But it follows logically that things he did admit in the allocution, he was admitting sincerely.

[PhantomGremlin]

tptacek previously linked[1] to Brown's threats, but it was a screenshot. Here's a partial transcription:

   Brown called FBI Special Agent [RS] a "fucking
   chicken shit little faggot cocksucker"

   Brown stated "when I say [RS's] life is over,
   I don't say I'm going to kill him, but I am
   going to ruin his life and look into his fucking
   kids"

   Brown stated "I"m armed, that I come from a military
   family, that I was taught to shoot by a Vietnam Vet
   and by my father a master hunter ... I will shoot
   all of them and kill them if they come"

Sorry. Those are hardly the words of an objective "journalist". Law enforcement generally frowns upon threats of personal violence against them and against their children. Like it or not, this is settled law. You don't get a free pass about this stuff.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8932468

[tptacek]

First Amendment law makes this murky. A legally actionable threat has to be "true": credible, specific, intended to convey actual fear to its target. Even if it's to a federal agent.

[harry8]

https://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&site=&source=hp&q=d... One law for all, evenly applied.