Utlimately, yes. And it varies from state to state. https://www.rcfp.org/journals/the-news-media-and-the-law-win...

Any American "standards" for what a journalist is or isn't isn't really applicable to an international defendent, which Assange is, yeah?

If so, then you must admit that America is imposing it's own (subjective and ever-changing, depending on the parties in power) view on the international theatre and that's where the concern starts to get exacerbated.

Assange broke US law, encouraging the theft of classified intel belonging to the US and then publishing it. It doesnt matter where Assange was geographically when he did so.

Example if I were to hack a foreign gov't or company's computers while residing in the US and being on US soil at the time, I would still be breaking that country's laws and could be arrested and extradited to that country.

This is an agreement many countries have with one another. Assange broke US law and therefore could be tried in a US court.

> encouraging the theft of classified intel belonging to the US and then publishing it.

Actually the order is the opposite: he received intel which had already been stolen - which is legal, see New York Times Co. v. United States - and then encouraged Manning to search for any more stuff, but never received anything more.

>then encouraged Manning to search for any more stuff

So, he did in fact encourage the theft of classified info?! Doesnt matter if it didnt produce any results. There was still intent. Secondly, do you think Manning is the first he tried that with? Don't be naive.

I was just clarifying.

I could make you a huge list of US persons that have broken international laws and laws in other countries that have not been extradited and never will.

Yes. Isn't that something that ultimately the courts will have to decide?

> Isn't that something that ultimately the courts will have to decide?

Why would they need to decide that?

Are there laws which only apply to journalists, or don't apply to journalists?

All those links seem on first look to say ‘they need to follow all laws like anyone else would’. Was there something specific?

I think people think there’s some kind of special legal status of being a journalist, like a police officer or something. I’m not sure that’s the case.

The gov't can arrest you any time they want for any reason they'd like. Courts ultimately decide whether or not it was lawful. To answer your question. also...

"Under the First Amendment, laws "abridging the freedom...of the press" are invalid. Most states also have their own laws in place which protect reporters from having to disclose their sources and, in certain cases, unpublished materials. Some states have even included "free press" provisions in their state constitutions." ~ https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-a-journalist-be-force....

You can try and call yourself a journalist but you will need a court to uphold it.

You are free to believe whatever youd like but I choose to live in reality... Assange is no journalist.

“As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable” -- Ninth Circuit, deciding that a blogger count as "press", in Obsidian v. Cox.

Your link doesn't in any way support the distinction you're making, because the issue is who counts as "press", not whether the press has some rights.

So no.

Not only is he not a journalist, he actively encouraged others to steal and disseminate classified information. That is a crime in this country and most, if not all, other countries I would imagine.

Having a website doesn't make you a journalist. Calling yourself a journalist didn't make it so. Courts will have to decide that I suppose.

He's not even a US citizen. Why should he face our laws? Should American woman be extradited to Saudi Arabia for not following their laws? Should American citizens be extradited to North Korea, or China, for exposing their government secrets? It's extremely authoritarian for the United States to do this. It's not only an attack on free speech, it's the United States applying it's laws to everyone in the world.

Also, it doesn't matter if he's a journalist or not. It's an attack on freedom of the press or freedom of speech either way.

Actually we have extradition treaties/agreements with many countries so yes if an American were to break the law of another country that country could in fact ask to have that person arrested and extradited.

We do, but isn't that typically when the law was originally broken in the country they are to be extradited to? Not overseas? I'm also aware this isn't the first time the U.S. has done this sort of thing, but it's still very authoritarian.

So... let me get this straight. Youre alright with a foreign national stealing or encouraging the theft of classified US intel and publishing as long as it didnt happen on US soil? Further, youre alright with Americans being exposed and/or killed b/c of it? Because, you know, though it was a crime against the US, it was perpetrated by a foreign national of foreign soil?

That's beside the point. I don't think the person in that example should face charges in the U.S., no. (But maybe they should in their own country, and obviously any murderers should be brought to trial in their own country)

I, like the government, would disagree with you on that. Obviously youre entitled to that opinion.

>Further, youre alright with Americans being exposed and/or killed b/c of it?

There's no evidence of this. Since the leaks were about embarrassing unprosecuted US military murders of civilians arguably it saved lives by driving them to be more careful.

There is no evidence of this that you are aware of.

>There's no evidence of this. Since the leaks were about embarrassing unprosecuted US military murders of civilians arguably it saved lives by driving them to be more careful.

this is absolute nonsense

> There is no evidence of this that you are aware of.

Then if the prosecutors are unable to present said evidence, should he be free to go?

Is there evidence that you are aware of?

Does there need to be? No. An E-3 isn't in the position to know whether it will or won't and its pretty fucking arrogant to assume that risk. Do you know that it saved lives? No you don't. You couldnt, and whether it did or did not, it wasn't Manning's call to make.

That's what I figured. Not all of us are American sycophants, so yes, more than the word and reputation of the American military is needed.

>He's not even a US citizen. Why should he face our laws

Because he allegedly spied on our country. That gives us the right to charge him.

If someone plots to murder someone but does it over the Internet, should they be immune from legal action?