News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amendment Rights. Parent comment

Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by chapium on Friday January 24, 2020 @10:18AM (#22138938)
Sorry, but you are wrong. But that's ok, its a common misconception about constitutional law. The first amendment does carry those restrictions, but it is not the only law affecting those rights. Specifically, the "privileges and immunities" clause from the 14th amendment has extended the 1st amendment to apply to the rights of citizens and has been interpreted as such by the Supreme Court in various cases.

JA is not a US Citizen, and I admit I do not know where that lands him constitutionally speaking.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by awb on Friday January 24, 2020 @10:48AM (#22139230)
But the moment he's tried in a US court or lands in the US presumably he has those rights.

We don't treat tourists under a different Constitution or deny them 1st amendment rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by chapium on Friday January 24, 2020 @11:28AM (#22139673)
Does he? This depends on extradition and not necessarily the 1st amendment.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by monocasa on Friday January 24, 2020 @12:28PM (#22140412)
The extradition request was for normal federal charges where the first amendment pretty clearly applies.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by SllX on Friday January 24, 2020 @10:58AM (#22139330)
The Privileges and Immunities clause isn’t relevant to this discussion, but you’re welcome to make your case that it is.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by lucas_membrane on Friday January 24, 2020 @08:50PM (#22144112)
When I tried to find out what "Privileges and Immunities" meant, IIRC, the Supreme Court had, within a few years after passage of the 14th amendment, defined it narrowly to include the right to travel from place to place, the right to sail the navigable waters of the U.S., and not much else. Has that changed?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by monocasa on Friday January 24, 2020 @10:43AM (#22139191)
Can you cite what case law backs up that reading?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by chapium on Friday January 24, 2020 @11:25AM (#22139625)
Here is an example paper: https://www.krusch.com/real/14th.html
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Department of Justice Argues Assange Has No First Amen... by monocasa on Friday January 24, 2020 @12:24PM (#22140371)
None of that really applies to this situation. It was that originally it wasn't clear if the 1st amendment applied to state governments as well, but the interpretations of that pre 14th amendment were that the state governments could restrict what the first amendment guarantees, and post 14th amendment state governments can't restrict the 1st amendment for citizens.

Assange is being charged with civilian, federal charges, so the citizens only interpretation doesn't really apply.

[ Parent | on HN ]