The Constitutional Rubicon of an Assange Prosecution


On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Legal_battles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States "Porn", of essentially all types, in the US at least, excluding child / murder / non-consent varieties, is legal First Amendment. Therefore, "intel porn", to date not even resulting in same above, is legal. In fact, US intel porn has documented the illegal opposite by the actors... willful "Collateral" Murder, among other murder, rape by govt employee warfighters while in uniform, complicitous, conspiritous, illegal and non-consensual actions by government, spying, hacking, theft, etc. Perhaps US govt can go get fucked raw in film porn, be stupid and catch disease outed in tabloid porn, and wither and die in the news porn. All legal ;) "Wikileaks..." "is simply about releasing classified information to damage the United States of America." Two faced... look at US releasing to "damage" other countries, alter relative positions, foment issues, even lying IQ1 WMD, etc. "call us before they publish classified information" "is there anything about this that’s going to... jeopardize government" "media outlets that work in partnership with the U.S. government and are willing to self-censor based on official claims... are journalists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint Prior Restraint... just another tool government uses to keep its, and its favors... power, secrets and control over others. Also secret courts, etc. And... "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" Panic? Really? Whatever. Instead of foisting P.R., teach effective p2p emergency situation management techniques to everyone.

From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
With links: https://www.justsecurity.org/40672/constitutional-rubicon-assange-prosecutio...
As stated in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger "Antiwar protests during World War I gave rise to several important free speech cases related to sedition and inciting violence. In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an antiwar activist did not have a First Amendment right to advocate draft resistance.[3][4] In his majority opinion, Justice Holmes introduced the clear and present danger test, which would become an important concept in First Amendment law; but the Schenck decision did not formally adopt the test.[3] Holmes later wrote that he intended the clear and present danger test to refine, not replace, the bad tendency test.[5][6] Although sometimes mentioned in subsequent rulings, the clear and present danger test was never endorsed by the Supreme Court as a test to be used by lower courts when evaluating the constitutionality of legislation that regulated speech. Jim Bell

On 05/09/2017 03:00 PM, jim bell wrote:
The Espionage act assumes that "a clear and present danger" would be the reason for the charges, and the test for it would be of a different sort than crying FIRE in a crowded theater or an antiwar protest scenario, because, as seen with the vilification of Phillip Agee, they claim it causes immediate danger to national security intelligence operations and personnel. Not hypothetical or potential danger. If you look at the page it has a link to the author's twitter. If you use twitter you might want to contact her for clarification. Rr
participants (3)
-
grarpamp
-
jim bell
-
Razer