Julian Assange Wins High Court Victory in Case Against Extradition To US (theguardian.com) 111
Julian Assange has won a victory in his ongoing battle against extradition from the UK after judges at the high court in London granted him leave to appeal. From a report: Two judges deferred a decision in March on whether Assange, who is trying to avoid being prosecuted in the US on espionage charges relating to the publication of thousands of classified and diplomatic documents, could take his case to another appeal hearing. Assange had been granted permission to appeal only if the Biden administration was unable to provide the court with suitable assurances "that the applicant [Assange] is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same first amendment [free speech] protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed."
Legal argument on Monday focused on the issue of whether Assange would be allowed first amendment protections. Assange's team did not contest the assurance around the death penalty, accepting that it was an "unambiguous executive promise." Assange has been indicted on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse, exposing him to a maximum 175 years in prison, over his website's publication of a trove of classified US documents almost 15 years ago.
Legal argument on Monday focused on the issue of whether Assange would be allowed first amendment protections. Assange's team did not contest the assurance around the death penalty, accepting that it was an "unambiguous executive promise." Assange has been indicted on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse, exposing him to a maximum 175 years in prison, over his website's publication of a trove of classified US documents almost 15 years ago.
1A (Score:3)
From TFA:
âoethat the applicant [Assange] is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same first amendment [free speech] protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposedâ.
That seems significant as it affirms that, at least in this case, the First Amendment applies to foreigners acting outside of US territory.
It needs to go further though. They should have guarantees not just about the death penalty, but about other penalties that would be illegal in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a CCP shill be interested in the extent of US law regarding extraditions?
China doesn't extradite people to the US. And if it did, China has the death penalty, and many other forms of punishment that amount to torture, so that wouldn't be an issue either.
Re:1A (Score:5, Funny)
China has the death penalty, and many other forms of punishment that amount to torture, so that wouldn't be an issue either.
it's nice that china and the us have something in common for a change. maybe there is still a glimpse of hope for understanding and cooperation? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, "There seems to be a State-sanctioned policy aimed at purposefully inflicting severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, which may well amount to torture."
See: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press... [ohchr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Just a stupid person making a stupid comment. As you nicely demonstrate, not even the basic facts match.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh don't be a knobcheese.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, certainly not everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and he ain't one.
I've been arguing with him recently enough about China that you can see it in my posting history, and I still think you're being an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
He did claim recently that China isn't our enemy and is not really even bad, and he and practically parroted the CCP line on what they're doing to the Uyghurs. So fuck him. Or her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it's you.
Re: (Score:3)
That seems significant as it affirms that, at least in this case, the First Amendment applies to foreigners acting outside of US territory.
Are you seriously suggesting that what a British court says can dictate how American law is applied in American courts?
Re:1A (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, obviously it can, because the British court controls the fate of Assange. If the US cannot satisfy the British court that Assange will get a fair trial and not be mistreated, they won't hand him over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the US attempts to kidnap Assange from a British prison, the British might have rather more to say than a few cross words. There is an election coming up, and 52% of the population is convinced of Rule Britannia and absolute unequivocal sovereign rights.
I'm not suggesting physical conflict, but it will enrage the nationalists and they're more than capable of stirring up trouble of some sort.
It would also hand Trump an easy victory, which Biden won't want.
No, nobody is going to seriously consider that, at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Under the terms of the extradition treaty, yes. If they don't, then people don't get extradited there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what extradition law is about. This isn't surrender as per a EAW. Extradition requires principles such as dual criminality, where what they're charged with has to be a crime in both the sending and receiving state, and speciality, where the subject can only be charged with the pre-agreed-upon list of charges. Extradition involves a high degree of sovereignty of the sending state, vs. EAW which is more like handing off a criminal in the US who fled across state lines.
Re:1A (Score:5, Informative)
Are you seriously suggesting that what a British court says can dictate how American law is applied in American courts?
That's the crux of the surviving argument, actually.
Nations do exactly that all the time when it comes to extradition. These limits are the norm, not the exception. Normally the bounds are specified through international treaties and there's little debate over them beyond verifying the treaties will be followed. In this case it's sadly been shown to be highly likely the international treaties will be broken, so it qualifies for the extra reviews.
In this case it happens to be an Australian man. While he was living and working outside of American territory and not subject to American laws, he broke American law, published documents critical of the government (including documentation of likely war crimes). Now the US wants to extradite him for violating laws he almost certainly wasn't subject to, with documented threats that he will be punished far more extreme than British law allows.
If nations were different they would be automatically rejected. If we were talking about an American man accused of violating China's social policy laws forbidding people of speaking ill against the government, that the American had signed on to Chinese sites to download documentation about likely Chinese crimes against the Uyghur people going to reeducation camps, the US wouldn't even bother with hearings for extradition. If we were talking about an American accused of violating Russia's laws against speaking ill of their military, that the American had signed on to Russian sites to download information about likely Russian military war crimes, the US wouldn't even bother with hearings for extradition.
When nations agree to extradition it is quite common for bounds to be placed on them, including limiting the crimes they can be prosecuted for. The nation may allow extradition explicitly for money laundering and at the same time explicitly forbid charges for political dissent or penalties beyond the limits for those crimes in their country of origin. So if an original country has a limit of 15 years of prison for a crime but the extraditing country has a 30 year limit, a condition of the extradition may be the maximum punishment may be no more than 15 years of prison.
So yes, because of a pattern of abuses by the US government, it is both normal and appropriate for a court to dictate how a foreign law (in this case American law) will be applied to an extradited defendant (in this case an Australian national in an American court).
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries insist on similar conditions when asked to extradite someone, if they don't just deny the extradition all together. That's a good thing. You wouldn't want to be extradited to Saudi Arabia for drinking beer, would you?
Re: 1A (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is true that if they successfully extradite him, prosecutors could go beyond the terms specified in the extradition order.
The US could throw him into a prison and claim he committed suicide while security cameras were disabled and guards weren't around, or file charges for additional crimes (which has already been declared as their intention).
HOWEVER, the political consequences could be severe. Extraditions are done through international treaties. In this case they'd be violating both the order an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1A (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, that would be the literal reading of 1A. The Constitution governs the government, it doesn't impose any restrictions on who the government is acting on or where.
The Constitution is NOT, and never has been, about the American people. It is about what the American people decided the government should be able to do.
Re:1A (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, but look at e.g. Guantanamo. Indefinite imprisonment without charge, torture, all done by a branch of the US government, on a US military base.
One of Assange's concerns is that he would be rendered to such a place, with no legal rights.
Re: (Score:1)
You're high roading on this? Under what law is he being extradited? You're not supposed to extradite for political offenses or for political motives, and this is obviously for both political motives and political offenses. On one hand you're arguing the morality of holding him for years, and on the other you're arguing that morally you are protecting the man for a safe trial. What Assange did, is what journalists do. They tried the same arguments against Daniel Ellsberg and those writing articles about t
Re: (Score:2)
For all the UK's faults, it doesn't extradite people when their human rights are at risk. So no death penalty, no torture. And we define torture a lot more broadly than the US does, e.g. it includes things like solitary confinement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: 1A (Score:2)
First Amendment Protections (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is sending a text message enough to be considered to committing the crime in a country even if you are not physically there?
When both countries have laws against the content/purpose of the text message, the answer is unambiguously yes. Even when only one country has a law against what was sent, the answer might still be yes. Any other answer would simply enable criminal activity by making it legal as long as it was routed through another country.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws against espionage and computer misuse have to be balanced against free speech rights, otherwise the government can just store everything on a computer and label it protected to make whistleblowing and journalism impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws against espionage and computer misuse have to be balanced against free speech rights, otherwise the government can just store everything on a computer and label it protected to make whistleblowing and journalism impossible.
It is a tough balancing act; but I think it can be done. First Amendment protections are designed to prevent the government from exercising prior restraint, but are not a get out of jail free card for the results of your exercising your First Amendment right. To me, a journalist who publish information received by a tipster should be protected, even if the person providing the information committed a crime in obtaining it or sending it to the journalist; directing someone to get information risks crossing
Re: (Score:2)
To me, a journalist who publish information received by a tipster should be protected, even if the person providing the information committed a crime in obtaining it or sending it to the journalist; directing someone to get information risks crossing the line into criminal conspiracy.
Generally correct, but knowledge matters. If the journalist had (prior) knowledge that obtaining the info. required a crime then the journalist might be criminally liable (conspiracy, aiding & abetting, etc.???) even without actually directing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you commit cross-border crime, you very much are subject to the laws of the state in which the crime occurred, regardless of whether you were physically there at the time.
Now, whether you'll actually get extradited is a much more complicated question.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is good news overall and I'm happy to see Assange get a win, but reading what the British Court was wanting assurances for was kinda weird.
I say 'weird' only because not just the first but the whole Bill of Rights would not pertain to Assange since he's not a U.S. citizen anyway. Which while before, but especially after 1868 the U.S. judicial system including the Supreme Court has affirmed many times in various civil rights cases and others that the Bill of Rights only pertains to "All persons
Pointless. (Score:1)
The constitution is clear that the first amendment applies to all people, not just citizens.
The prosecution is clear that this is not a first amendment issue, first amendment doesn't protect non-speech related crimes (or "crimes" depending on whether you think aiding the hacking of computer systems should be a crime).
This is a hollow victory, more like a procedural delay.
Re: (Score:1)
The prosecution is clear that this is not a first amendment issue, first amendment doesn't protect non-speech related crimes
Please explain how this is not a first amendment issue when the information was only sought so that it could be disseminated in a way that informed and educated. Use words small enough that we can believe that you understand them.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment protects what you say, it says nothing about how you acquire information. He's not being prosecuted for the things he said, he's being prosecuted for the acquisition of information. Specifically for aiding the exfiltration of the information.
If there was prosecution about what was said / shared (an actual first amendment information) we'd be talking about all of Wikileaks along with several news outlets, but we're not.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The defence may not be so clear about it not being a 1st amendment issue, and may wish that to be considered in court.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The constitution is clear that the first amendment applies to all people, not just citizens.
In what part of the Constitution does it specify that it applies to non-citizens? The very preamble lays out that the whole purpose is for the benefit of American citizens:
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Nothing in that implies that Constitutional protections are for outsiders. Further, numerous sections of the Constitution make it clear that rights are citizenship based, especially in Article IV ("The Citizens of each state shall...")
Re:Pointless. (Score:4, Informative)
In what part of the Constitution does it specify that it applies to non-citizens?
False interpretation. Put it on its head, in what part of the constitution does it specify that it applies to citizens? I didn't say only citizens. I said "citizens" at all. The First amendment is not about you, it's about the government. It doesn't grant you any rights, it restricts the right of the government and doesn't discriminate those rights between citizens and non-citizens (or in fact even use those words).
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
You need to go back to civics school. "Ourselves" isn't citizens, but rather the rights of all people in the country subject to governing.
Re: (Score:2)
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
You need to go back to civics school. "Ourselves" isn't citizens, but rather the rights of all people in the country subject to governing.
The 14th Amendment makes it pretty clear that rights, how they're recognized and enforced under the law, are from beginning to end based on status of citizenship:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
It then goes on to clearly state that citizenship is the hinge upon which legal protection and enforcement hangs:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileg
Re: (Score:2)
So all the government has to do is pass a law nullifying your citizenship and you have no rights?
Re: (Score:2)
The 14th Amendment makes it pretty clear
The 14th Amendment makes it pretty clear that it doesn't cover the 1st Amendment, since the 1st amendment isn't a privilege or immunity of anyone or anything, but, and let me repeat this for the really fucking slow people in class: A restriction on what the *government* can do, not a right granted to the people.
We're talking about the 1st. Please pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
You say it's clear, but there seem to be all sorts of excuses and get outs that have applied historically.
You know things like defining people as not people so the constitution didn't apply, or whatever fucked excuses they used to justify torture and indefinite detention at gitmo, and so on.
The prosecution might be arguing against the first amendment, but you know that's their job to show he's guilty of a crime. Whether he is allowed to argue that he's not guilty because of the first is up to the judge to d
Re: (Score:2)
You say it's clear, but there seem to be all sorts of excuses and get outs that have applied historically.
Not there isn't, because ... *sigh* again, the 1st Amendment is not about people. It is about government who governs them. The exceptions carved out against people are incredibly narrow and successfully have been only restricted to people who are not governed by the united states government. I.e. the only time the 1st has been excluded from a non-citizen is if that citizen entered the country illegally. This is well established in case law.
The prosecution might be arguing against the first amendment, but you know that's their job to show he's guilty of a crime.
No it's not. The prosecution's job currently is to show he's accused
Re: (Score:2)
Not there isn't, because ... *sigh* again, the 1st Amendment is not about people. It is about government who governs them.
This is literally the case with every amendment. They are meant to be restrictions on what the government can do to people.
The exceptions carved out against people are incredibly narrow and successfully have been only restricted to people who are not governed by the united states government
Apart from not being that narrow, this is something of a problem for Assange given he's not governe
Assange deserves every possible appeal (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, he should get a fair trial in an OPEN court and the opportunity to fully defend himself. Prior to the Iraq wars, a US whistleblower could expect a fair trial in a standard US court. But right around the Bush era, we (stupidly) passed laws giving the government the power to declare a trial “relevant to national security” and suddenly it becomes a military trial, where the defendant is absolutely hamstrung. Witness what the government did to Manning.
Oh, and then there’s the fact that we totally torture people when it really suits us.
Assange should get every possible appeal and chance to defend himself. And the UK is right to be just a ttttttaaaadd skeptical of US assurances that Assange will be fairly treated.
That all being said, hey, Assange, buddy, you thought you could play a hard-power espionage game against the current superpower? Man, you are duuummbb. We knocked you around the ring like Tyson sparring with a toddler. You having a good time? You know, our government recently gave you a hint that maybe if you just admit you were wrong, we might let you go back to Australia and live out your remaining years in relative peace. It’s an offer worth considering. But, hey, if you’re enjoying the current game, that’s ok too.
but getting an jury? (Score:2)
but getting an jury?
Re: (Score:1)
While I agree with you in prin
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah Hillary. That's the person who stole a bunch of box files of classified information, hid them in a toilet, tried to cover it up and obstructed the investigation. Lock her up!! #MAGA
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes a Trump can, just the place to get the facts from!
They were not in any kind of secure environment, and while the president can choose when President to declassify documents nicking a bunch of them is not in fact declassifying them.
His staff randomly walked in on the documents. The bathroom is the funny one, but he also kept them in a ballroom.
Your claim about security is just invented.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the FBI has recently admitted to evidence tampering in that case.
1. Nothing was stolen. Trump had every right to declassify and take the documents.
2. Trump kept all the proper agencies 100% informed of what he taking, and where he keeping it.
3. Nothing was hidden in a toilet. The documents were in a safe, in a locked room, with camera surveillance, and heavy security.
Biden, and Hillary, were not president when *they* certainly stole troves of documents. They had no right to declassify. They certainly hid the documents, and Hillary destroyed evidence that under subpoena.
1. Yes Trump is able to declassify documents. However there is a procedure for declassification. He can't just say "Hey these boxes are hereby declassified and I'm taking them home, nevermind the contents".
2. Yes he kept the agencies involved by saying yes I have documents and no I'm not returning them even though the presidential records act says I must.
3. But but but Hillary's emails and Benghazi!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Prior to the Iraq wars, a US whistleblower could expect a fair trial in a standard US court. But right around the Bush era, we (stupidly) passed laws giving the government the power to declare a trial “relevant to national security” and suddenly it becomes a military trial, where the defendant is absolutely hamstrung.
It was already quite bad before then, in one way at least. The Espionage Act (passed in 1917) does not allow for any public interest defense. That is, if you steal government information in order to show the American people that their government has been doing legitimately bad stuff and hiding it from them, information that the American voters really should have, you're just as guilty as if you stole it in order to aid the enemies of the US. I think this is a big problem, and it's one that should be corre
Re: (Score:2)
While what Assange did re Russia was pretty bad, it seems like prosecuting him isn't going to fix the real issues.
Issues like the FBI deciding that a week before the election was the best time to announce a new investigation.
Or that the choice presented to voters was between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that regardless of what Clinton did or did not actually do, the ability of the press to cut through the lies was severely lacking. Worse, many voters seem to now assume that everything that disparage
Re: (Score:2)
suddenly it becomes a military trial, where the defendant is absolutely hamstrung. Witness what the government did to Manning.
As a fellow American, I'm with you on the rest of what you said, but not necessarily with you here. Since you're talking about the trial and how the defense is humstrung, I'll assume you aren't referencing anything related to Manning's confinement or pre-trial treatment, for which there are valid and reasonable complaints, based on what I've heard.
But when it comes to the trial itself, I'm not sure what you're talking about. As a volunteer member of the armed services, Manning was voluntarily subject to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That all being said, hey, Assange, buddy, you thought you could play a hard-power espionage game against the current superpower? Man, you are duuummbb. We knocked you around the ring like Tyson sparring with a toddler.
Uhhh... how exactly have the USA "knocked [Assange] around the ring"?
- Have not yet "caught" him
- Have not yet even started a trial
- Have not been able to punish him in any way whatsoever
- It's only due to another country (UK) "helping out" that Assange is in custody.
- It's down to the UK judges whether or not to extradite him
So... tell me more about this super power that the USA has used like a knockout Tyson punch on Assange? I see... nothing. Not a single thing the US has so far done to him. And if it we
Re: (Score:2)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not discussing any sort of morality here. That’s a different discussion. This is about nasty below-the-belt geopolitical shenanigans. Assange declared his hate for us, threw his hat in with Russia, and became a thorn i
No jursidiction (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminder once again that the US has no jurisdiction over Julian Assange. He is not a US citizen, and his actions did not take place within US territory.
The idea that one country may impose its laws on everyone in the world, no matter what their citizenship nor where they are, is absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
So if someone hacks your bank account from overseas, not a crime unless it's a crime in that country?
Re: (Score:3)
So if someone hacks your bank account from overseas, not a crime unless it's a crime in that country?
Exactly. That is the essence of international law, and the reason why countries sign international treaties to recognise the list of crimes they have in common with each other.
Extradition is based entirely on that principle, on order to respect the Rule of Law - that you can only be judges in terms of acts that are illegal in the jurisdiction and time where you do those actions.
Of course, tyrannies are not concerned with such petty details as they have no respect with the rule of law and the human right to
Re: (Score:1)
The OP argument is incorrect, the problem with this case is not that Assange is not a US citizen or resident, the problem is that he never promised anyone, any employer or any agency to keep any of their secrets. If I find a binder with information that is classified by some 3 letter agency, I may decide to disseminate it (very likely) and I should never be prosecuted by anyone for this, because it was not my job, not my promise, I wasn't in a position where I was supposed to keep it a secret.
I will take it
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an issue for the judge or jury.
John J Mearsheimer: free Assange (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, if he paid the guy to break the law to get the info, or otherwise helped him, that could indeed be a serious issue, and claiming you were outside the country is as irrelevant as claiming you were outside the country as you lob bomblets over the border.
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "... claiming you were outside the country is as irrelevant as ..."
Then, following your "insight", we can charge the President of USA for espionage to Spain... right?
I mean, he ordered to his "workers" (security, defense, etc.) to use the massive data collection that (IMHO is criminal and ilegal) is stored at USA servers from millions of Spaniards...
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "... claiming you were outside the country is as irrelevant as ..."
Then, following your "insight", we can charge the President of USA for espionage to Spain... right?
I mean, he ordered to his "workers" (security, defense, etc.) to use the massive data collection that (IMHO is criminal and ilegal) is stored at USA servers from millions of Spaniards...
If the data is stored on US servers then Spanish law would be irrelevant since all actions would take place in the same country and be subject to its laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Some US spies were actually caught in Spain on a operation. Spanish police picked them up a few years ago, not sure what happened but I expect they were returned to the US at some point.
Also the US has been found to have hacked European servers in the past, so that would be a crime that happened on European soil.
Re: (Score:2)
Some US spies were actually caught in Spain on a operation. Spanish police picked them up a few years ago, not sure what happened but I expect they were returned to the US at some point.
Of course, in Spain Spanish law applies.
Also the US has been found to have hacked European servers in the past, so that would be a crime that happened on European soil.
If you consider the location of the server determines which laws apply, a notion I agree with, then data on non-US citizens that resides on a US server is only subject to US laws, and things such as EU privacy and data collection laws do not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
That is in fact the case, data gathered entire in the US is beyond the reach of EU privacy laws. The issue is companies that do the collection in the EU, and then want to move the data to the US. The EU wants EU citizen's rights to remain in force, and has made that a condition of exporting the data in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
That is in fact the case, data gathered entire in the US is beyond the reach of EU privacy laws. The issue is companies that do the collection in the EU, and then want to move the data to the US. The EU wants EU citizen's rights to remain in force, and has made that a condition of exporting the data in the first place.
And that's when things get complicated. For example:
What constitutes data collection in the EU vs US? Company X has a US website and no presence in the EU, but EU citizens can sign up.If the company is in the US, server in the US, do US laws override the EU's? Practically, there isn't much the EU could do, but a number of companies block EU IP address from their site to avoid any issues. A VPN will fix that; but it just complicates the issue of where are you.
Does access constitute transfer? If a company
Re: (Score:2)
If they have no business interests in the EU then they can safely ignore EU law... Unless they think they might want to expand to the EU one day, in which case they might find that data they previously collected becomes subject to those rules.
Re: (Score:2)
No the whole legal arguments are irrelevant, the reason this is happening is the US is big and powerful, the UK are friends. The US wants it to happen and its not in the UK interest to deny the request. The legal arguments are window dressing.
The whole point of this is to send a message to anyone else who dares expose the US wrong doing that you will be punished no matter where you are, well at least if you are in a US allied country.
Re: (Score:1)
As one who has not delved too deeply into the matter, the concern seems to be that the People of the United States were subject to unreasonable search and seizure, without warrant by Oath of office by either the U.S. Government or an Allied country. A violation of the 4th Amendment Rights of the citizens of the United States of A
Re: (Score:1)
Assange actually cracked a password for Manning so she could get access to data she wasn't permitted to access.
So.... yeah. He's guilty AF.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to freedom of speech is one of those rights endowed by your creator
I didn't know evolution grants rights.
Re: (Score:2)
>I didn't know evolution grants rights.
"The right to exist if circumstances permit"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Warranty does not cover asteroid collisions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a circumstance, right there.
Re: (Score:2)
By right of your beating heart.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to freedom of speech is one of those rights endowed by your creator, which precedes the formation of any government, including the United States, which people then form for the purpose of securing those rights. Nobody grants you this right, you just have it.
Your argument is based on the belief there is a creator with the power to endow us with rights. If the people have no belief in a creator, they are free to form a government and decide what rights to grant themselves. Thus, you do not just have this right universally.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not. It it based on the observation rights are not granted to you. Not by the rich. Not by the powerful. Not by democracy.
All those start with the assumption others have the philosophical right to go around granting rights. Why in holy hell would you ever concede that before anything else?
Enjoy your bended knee. Please, sir. May I have the right to free speech?
No. You start from everyone having rights, and then form a government to secure them, giving it powers as necessary to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
You start from everyone having rights, and then form a government to secure them, giving it powers as necessary to do this.
That's now how governments and rights arise. It happened that way once, in the formation of the USA, and that makes for a great example of it actually working. But the vast, vast majority of rights grants and government formations definitely didn't follow that pattern, or anything close to it.
How governments form is usually there's someone strong enough to impose their will upon those who are too weak to refuse. How rights are granted is usually via several rebellion by the later, until they manage to strik
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not. It it based on the observation rights are not granted to you. Not by the rich. Not by the powerful. Not by democracy.
All those start with the assumption others have the philosophical right to go around granting rights.
However, the notion some all powerful being endowed you with rights is equally an assumption that such a being actually exists to do that and a philosophy. You can agree with that premise while still recognizing it is a human construct and thus may not be held by others.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The right to freedom of speech is one of those rights endowed by your creator, which precedes the formation of any government, including the United States, which people then form for the purpose of securing those rights. Nobody grants you this right, you just have it.
Nope. We're talking about legal rights. These rights are part of the legal system.
As such, everybody on the planet has it.
ROFL! Tell that to people in North Korea. No, everybody on the planet does not have a right to free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
natural rights are actually universal. you might disagree with the fundamental premise (*), but that's where our notion of justice comes from and the foundation of any legal rights. if they're respected or not is another issue.
* any rights are just a human figment, a narrative, they don't exist per se.
Re: (Score:2)
natural rights are actually universal.
What matters here are legal rights.
...
* any rights are just a human figment, a narrative, they don't exist per se.
Correct.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters here are legal rights.
in practical terms, of course.
tbh i'm not really sure i understand gp's appeal to natural right, here. i don't even know if us legal right to free speech applies in this case: afaik it does apply to anyone (even a north korean) as long as he exercises his right to speech in us territory, dunno if that is the case with assange (where was he operating from, where was the server, etc?) but for some reason the uk court thinks it is relevant.
then again this is all talk, if he is extradited who cares about rights
Re: (Score:1)
Presumably, there would be no law against criticizing the US by the North Korean government, to legally abridge that right for a North Korean citizen in North Korean territory. The US Law generally prohibits restrictions on speech, and requiring that the speech be don
Re: (Score:2)
They all have it, even if the power hungry deny it. It is simply a violation of their rights.
As with others above, you confuse thugs with guns oppressing you and your rights with having them in the first place.
They are not a gift from anyone. Since some above got confused with the poetic use of "endowed by their creator", I will flat out state they are not a gift from any god, existing or otherwise. You have them even if some god exists and states otherwise.
Clear enough?
Re: (Score:2)