The title of the legislation and the motive of the legislation may help to understand ambiguities in the text but that has no relevance to what’s actually written in the law. It’s the law, whether it fits the heading or not and whether it fits the principal motivation or not.
If you write an Act titled, “Talk Like a Pirate Day Act” that formally declares that Talk Like a Pirate Day is a Federal holiday, but within the text of the act it has sections for legalizing gambling in Federal bases, removes the Federal death penalty, and increases funding to the IRS - well then those things will all become law when the Act passes so long as it’s clear that everyone in Congress was aware of the full contents of the Act, that the President was aware of it, and that they all voted and signed based on that knowledge.
That said, I was writing a patent application once. When I did that, I tried to think of all of the other methods for achieving the same aim as the one that I intended to create. I didn’t just write down my own implementation and assume that no one would ever imagine a different way to achieve the same end result. And, likewise, I tried to use generic terms over specific terms. If I could say, “information exchange mechanism” instead of “bluetooth” then my patent would be more secure against competing technologies. I don’t want to lose my patent because someone invents the “snagtooth” protocol and that’s such a major improvement on the technology that everyone converts over to it in under 12 months.
If I was writing an act to stop espionage, I might think of ways that people might try to use obfuscation, cover stories, subcontracting, and other means of avoiding responsibility for their spycraft. And I would try to write the act to counter all of this. I don’t want a narrow, cartoon character version of a spy to be the only plausibly applicable target of my law. It shouldn’t only capture a KGB agent who dresses up in black, breaks into a government facility, and cracks open a safe full of secret documents.
It would make sense to try and create as generic a version of a “spy” as possible. It’s just (for example) anyone who gains access to information and grants that access to a foreign adversary.
You have a very generous view of early 20th century American political institutions. I have no doubt whatsoever that the original intent of the law was precisely to intimidate journalists (among others) who might be critical of the government and its actions.
Which isn’t to say that I think Assange is a journalist, or that I have an opinion on his guilt or innocence, only that I have a much dimmer view of civil liberties protections circa-1918 than you do.
I mean, shoot, the Espionage Act of 1917 is the basis for the infamous “fire in a crowded theater” approach to free speech. Infamous because the man being prosecuted under the Act had done no such thing: he had merely distributed leaflets opposing conscription (opening with these most subversive lines: “Long Live the Constitution of the United States - Wake Up, America! Your Liberties Are in Danger!”–yikes! A real threat to national security, don’t you think?). An incredibly tame act of dissent by our contemporary standards. And yet that is precisely the sort of conduct which the government sought to prosecute, and which the Supreme Court itself gave judicial sanction to.
I don’t disagree with the two above posts. Not really. But I’ll try and add to my point.
I think my point was more things can be written in 1917 and not really used for why they were written, and decades later, “revived” and used for conduct that is currently happening (ie., it’s easier to leak this type of info now). A progressive prosecutor might see something he thinks criminal or want to stop (pure leaking to a journalist…not “spying”) but with no real traditional crime to charge it, and go find a crime to charge the leaker with. If we could find out how often and what year people were charged with “retention” espionage act crimes for leaking, I think that would be helpful. I haven’t found an exhaustive list, but it’s my understanding that starting with Obama, and later Trump, greatly ramped up espionage retention crimes for “leaking” to journalists that were not really charged prior. Adding this in, but the NYT article below suggests current technology just makes it easier to prosecute (eg, there’s an electronic paper trail).
I agree with your post, but I believe the Espionage Act has been modified over the years and those “seditious” espionage crimes that were abused are long gone. What’s left is what I’m calling the traditional spying part. Here is NYT article - What Is the Espionage Act and How Has It Been Used? (I’m not sure if it’s paywalled).
[Later] In 1918, a set of amendments prohibited speech considered disloyal or abusive to the United States.
“There were rampant abuses,” Mr. Zaid said. “There were tons of First Amendment violations. It didn’t take them long to realize that was ridiculous and unacceptable.”
Those sedition amendments were repealed in 1921, and courts later invalidated convictions under those measures. Congress last modified the law in 1950, and since then, the act has not been significantly revised.
From what I could see of the cases cited in that law review article, a majority of SCOTUS has never held that noncitizens have First Amendment rights. Clearly the author believes they do (or should), and there is certainly an argument to be made for it, but I am aware of no such definitive holding.
I would think the real foot in the door (so to speak) to some basic rights protections is not the first amendment, but the fourteenth via the fifth. Specifically on the right of persons to due process. So the question isn’t really whether Assange has baseline first amendment rights, but rather whether he can be deprived of liberty for what would be protected speech.
It’s not a civil rights issue, but a criminal due process rights issue. It may be, for example, that he could be deported from the US for mere speech or political activities (because in the immigration context, the US federal government is essentially unrestrained, except to the extent it might restrain itself by statutes—which can be repealed or amended at will), but that he cannot be subject to criminal sanctions under US law any more so than a US a citizen would, because due process and other constitutional protections have been extended to non-citizens subjected to the criminal justice system.
Russian artist Andrei Molodkin claims to have gathered 16 masterpieces worth more than £42m and says he will destroy with an “extremely corrosive” substance strong enough to turn the art into debris [if Julian Assange dies in prison]…
The article says “If Assange is released alive, the art will be returned to their owners.” Who are these owners? Are they aware what this guy is going to do?
I will be saying here that I look at this guy from the same point of view that I look at quite a few things Russia (and before that, the USSR) has done: loudly announcing that they were going to do something terrible/had an unstoppable warmachine/whatever, and later on, when it was time to walk the walk instead of just talk the talk, being unable to deliver.
I’m too lazy to look it up, but ISTR “Lord Haw Haw” a guy named Bill Joyce was tried (and hanged) by the Brits after WWII and he wasn’t even a limey citizen. If you piss off the right people, legalities are barely an inconvenience.
As I understand it, yes. The art is all donated. And the underlying political message is “In our time, to destroy art is much more taboo than destroying the life of people.”
It’s not anti-death penalty, it’s anti-imprisonment. He is quoted as saying he will destroy the artwork if Assange dies in prison. That’s not the same as saying if he’s executed. People die of natural causes in prison all the time.
Right, was going to say. The only way to guarantee he dies a free man is for him to be let free, like, immediately, and never again be subjected to imprisonment.
Can’t help but think, if the circles of power wanted to “eliminate” Assange, as apparently many of his supporters claim to fear, he’d have been “taken care of” by now.
I’m sorry but if Pfc Manning took what was coming to her, so can Julian.
Not the same. Pfc Manning leaked information: when she was removed from information, the leaks stop. Julian Assange heads a leaking organization. It’s reasonable to expect that the Australian citizen would be locked up in a US Supermax indefinitely. So the examples are very different.
Yes, the leaking organization was Russia’s cats paw. Yes, Assange was a rude inhabitant of the Ecuadorian embassy. This doesn’t contradict my point that Assange faces stiff imprisonment for the head of a media organization, albeit a not especially competent one.
I approve of this artwork, along with most criticisms of Assange.