US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amendment Rights

Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by bumby on Friday January 24, 2020 @08:42AM (#22138097)

>If I write an article critical of the US government while outside the US, do I have constitutional protection against US retribution?

If you are a citizen, yes. If you are not, there’s at least some precedent that the answer is no.

I’m curious to your perspective on the subtle difference in wording. What does this difference impart legally? To me it feels like a distinction without a difference

Edit: after having my morning coffee, I realized an important distinction is when the U.S. citizen is considered a combatant. See Anwar al-Awlaki, where the government stated, "We do not believe that al-Aulaqi's U.S. citizenship imposes constitutional limitations that would preclude the contemplated lethal action", although it looks like the specific details about their opinions on his 4th amendment rights were not clear due to redaction. [1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/legal...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by i_dont_know_ on Friday January 24, 2020 @10:01AM (#22138813)

Someone has linked to a really nice legal review somewhere up in the comments, so my question is mostly answered now... but to answer your question about what I see as a difference in wording above:

If the law said "All citizens have the right to express their opinion" then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is OK.

If, on the other hand, the law said "Congress will not make any laws restricting the expressing of opinions" (closer in wording to what we have) then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is no longer OK.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by bumby on Friday January 24, 2020 @10:13AM (#22138891)

Thanks for clarifying. In addition to your point, it sounds to me that the clarification is already built into the specific wording, since the Bill of Rights doesn't use the word "citizen" as you previously stated.

[ Parent | on HN ]