Hacker News Reader

Comment by moomin | Hacker News Reader

Obviously we don’t know all the facts here, but since this is linked to the Mueller investigation, we can make an educated guess that this is not to do with anything that occurred before Assange entered Ecuador.

Whilst we know a fair bit about his actions before (for which he was never charged), afterwards gets significantly more obscure but certainly he’s been hanging out with some dodgy characters (including the one mentioned in the article) and appears to have been a sitting accomplice in a plot to destabilise the US.

So, whilst this disclosure is a huge cock-up, there’s no reason to believe any of this has free press or free speech implications.

View on HN

> hanging out with some dodgy characters (including the one mentioned in the article)

> (from the article) The conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1

A publisher talks with their source and get indicted as accomplice in a plot to destabilise the US. This very much a free press issue and is not the first time nor the last time it will happen.

Watergate happened because Woodward and Bernstein was hanging out with the dodgy character Deep Throat. Daniel Ellsberg discussed the release of stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization X. Indictments there would had very real free press or free speech implications, and thankfully we remember history as not destroying the free press those times.

The motion itself [1] has zero reference to the Mueller investigation. It is in fact about Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2242b, which is states that

"Whoever [...] knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life."

The defendant in this case is not Assange, but obviously someone who has some sort of connection with Assange in this matter, as stated in paragraph 5 of the motion. Could it be that it is something just the get him and then slap some additional charges onto him? Sure. But this motion does not tell us that.

[1] https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/179/399086/18919235...

This brings to my mind the suspicuous dating site approced by UN that was used to attack Assange and UN declaration that defended Assange:

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/electio...

He did not "enter Ecuador". Embassies are not extraterritorial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterrit...

That’s interesting, thank you.

> and appears to have been a sitting accomplice in a plot to destabilise the US.

Except that that plot's sole function was publishing documents in the public interest.

If your country can be destabilized by pressmen doing what pressmen do, then your country needs destabilizing. That's the point.

> Except that that plot's sole function was publishing documents in the public interest.

No, it (allegedly, at least) was not.

It's maybe arguable that it was, or if it wasn't that that's all Assange was aware of about it's mechanism of serving it's function, but to the extent that either of those is sufficient to raise a first amendment claim in the first place, it is still a disputable fact claim, which is what we have trials to weigh evidence to resolve.

> So, whilst this disclosure is a huge cock-up, there’s no reason to believe any of this has free press or free speech implications.

well, well... there is a lot of speculation and not a lot of facts in what you say, so far.

> Obviously we don’t know all the facts here, but since this is linked to the Mueller investigation, we can make an educated guess...

But is this linked to the Mueller investigation? I mean, have you read the article?

His "educated guess" are just random guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com