I don’t know… maybe not, but it could be a good way to reach out to the left, since it’s the left that generally supports Assange…
Here is the Guardian’s take:
Also, with regards to the first amendment, it seems that they’re not just talking about his free speech rights, which the article seems to say the US prosecutors were addressing, but his rights as a journalist… maybe @danimagoo has some clarity?
I’d say that a lot of the left thinks this prosecution’s time has passed and is looking like persecution. But that Assange is a creep who should have faced the rape charges against him instead of skipping out.
But most don’t support Assange.
I don’t think there are any First Amendment protections for espionage, either for private individuals, journalists, citizens, or non-citizens. As with all rights, there are limits. It seems that prosecutors are saying he’s welcome to bring that up as a defense, but it would be up to a judge to decide if that’s an allowable defense. That article is saying that prosecutors aren’t giving any assurances, and that’s because they can’t. That’s a question of law, and would be up to the courts, not the prosecutors. But I don’t think he gets anywhere with a First Amendment argument. He might, if he had ended up with those documents through no action on his part, but he didn’t. I’m not saying I think he should be prosecuted, or that what he did was wrong, I am only explaining what I think the law is here.
He has also expressed concern that he will be discriminated against because he isn’t a citizen. I don’t think he needs to be concerned about that. National origin is actually a more protected class that gender in US law. He will have the same rights in court that a citizen would. I actually feel pretty confident about that.
Yeah, that’s what the US prosecutor is arguing, but Assange is saying he’s a journalist leaking important information to the public, not that he’s asking for the leaks to fall under the “free speech” provision? I think that’s what he’s wanting to argue, so I’m not sure there is any room there on that? 
Indeed…
Well free speech rights for the press are also enshrined in the First Amendment. Again, if these documents had just ended up in his lap, I think he would have a better argument. It’d basically be the Pentagon Papers. But he encouraged and conspired with Chelsea Manning to get the documents. I haven’t looked at what, specifically, they’ve charged him with. Have they charged him with conspiracy or solicitation? I should go look that up. Now I’m curious.
Also, the case law concerning the First Amendment is a weak spot for me. We never got around to it in my Con Law class. Easily distracted professors aren’t really a good thing. We ran out of time because people kept asking him questions about his work, which was fascinating, but still….
ETA: This was my Con Law professor. As you can probably tell from that short Wikipedia entry, he has some serious bona fides and has all kinds of stories. I like him a lot. It just sucked that we totally skipped the First Amendment.
Gotcha, so that makes the difference there…
I do find it a bit annoying that he was okay with Manning serving time, but believes that he’s somehow different? But plenty of journalists have latched onto his cause as a just defense of journalistic integrity…
Ooh, Professor Hafetz has a podcast now! Law on Film. I have no idea if it’s any good. I’ll have to check it out, though.
I think the free speech part means no prior restraint. After publication you can still be charged.
“I am bummed that Red Lobster is going away,” Durrant said. “But I get it. There’s not really anything on the menu worth getting other than the Endless Shrimp.
That woman that was living inside the grocery store sign on the roof…
They released the body cam footage from when they told her she had to leave.
It wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. Hopefully the manager stuck to their word and kept her belongings safe until she was able to get them.
And now they’ve come for people names.
