Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Schenck lives! UK high court skeptical that Assange's rights would be protected in US trial Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 18:09:50 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 91 Message-ID: Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 20:09:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0022c3f087a0c5e2fc4e2cd1936c05dc"; logging-data="137674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YbvP/C3k9NJ7cyhhXpp8fX3Kx5fcVO6w=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:QQU/yRM2Ylr0WzZy9+Jvj4ZDZ5g= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 5612 Time after time, federal courts have deferred to the administration's invocation of national security interest -- whether in peacetime or in war -- outweighs liberty that Americas not only expect to enjoy but is a civil right in constitutional law. Except when it's not. The government has a nasty history with this, going back almost to the founding with the disgraceful Alien and Sedition Acts at the end of the one-term John Adams administration that were used to punish members of Jefferson's political party. Adams' party was so well aware of what they were doing that the laws sunsetted with the end of the administration so they couldn't be used against them. Wilson, who ran on a political promise to keep America out of what would become WWI, almost immediately reversed course. The war was so unpopular that Congress passed a series of measures restricting Wilson's enemies from criticizing the war. This was the Espionage Act of 1917, together with amendments in the next year called the Sedition Act. Mr. Schenck leafletted, telling men to "know their rights" with respect to the draft. He was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for what anyone else would see as an ordinary act of freedom of the press, a right all Americans are supposed to enjoy. In one of the Supreme Court's most disgraceful opinions, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a much-quoted opinion that tended to be self contradictory but in the end upheld the constitutionality of the criminal conviction with respect to Schenck's actions. Now, this notorious opinion is no longer constitutional law with respect to freedom of the press (and I assume free speech) but the Espionage Act has never been found to be unconstitutional. Julian Assange is an enemy of the state, same as Schenck. He's been indicted under the Espionage Act. (I've never read that he's indicted under other acts.) While there can be much argued that the leaks he's responsible for had legitimate national security implications, a great deal of it was overclassification to avoid embarassment to the military and State Department and, in a few instances, cover up actual wrongdoing. Typically with classified documents, we don't actually know what our enemies already know but we absolutely want to keep Americans from finding out even if our enemies are known to have the information. Assange wants to argue freedom of the press as a defense. He was scheduled to be extradicted to the US later today but the UK highest court finally gave him the right to a hearing to challenge his extradition on the basis that he won't be treated fairly in US court because he's an Australian and not a US citizen, and courts won't grant him his First Amendment rights. I don't buy the argument. The High Court chose not to accept assurances from the US government that his First Amendment claims would be fairly considered because anything a prosecutor says will not bind a court and that he won't be discriminated against as a foreign national. But if the government wants to use a criminal proseuction to scare anyone thinking about causing official embarassment, it doesn't give a damn about nationality. Where's the equal protection argument? What is Assange's argument? The US government doesn't have world-wide jurisdiction (despite the tax code requiring worldwide income be reported whether it's ulimately taxed). The First Amendment applies to publishing in the United States and no where else. Foreign nationals have the right to publish in the United States regardless of physical presence in the United States at time of publishing. There are literally foreign publishers without editorial offices in the United States that publish here. But if Assange has the right to publish in the United States, can he claim the right to publish outside the United States under US law if he's being prosecuted for having published in violation of US criminal law? I have no idea if the government gets to pick and choose that a criminal law applies to acts of publishing outside the United States but basic liberty to publish does not. Here, the United States government claims criminal jurisdiction over US government material has given it the right to follow what became of this material outside of the country. Under this circumstance, does the First Amendment follow? It's so very hypocritical of UK courts to take the right to publish under US law so very seriously given centuries of history of prosecuting publishers and issuing writs against publishing as prior restraint. https://www.reuters.com/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-faces-us-extradition-judgment-day-2024-05-19/