> (II) You're establishing GP's point, which is that a special law was needed for extradition in this case.
I beg to differ. A law was needed to establish jurisdiction and a crime just like a law is required for every such case. If you commit a similar crime on Australian soil, it's only illegal because a law exists to make it so (rightly).
> Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US?
My point is that every "right" in the US constitution is not absolute or without exceptions. Every single one. The above is a thought experiment to prove that. Put another way: the First Amendment is not a blanket defense. In procuring a story that you publish, you will reach a limit on your actions beyond which you've committed a crime and the First Amendment won't shield you from that.
Like... that's just obvious.
So what particular circumstances lead to a journalist committing a crime is irrelevant. The point is that there is a line, not what the particular line is.
I beg to differ. A law was needed to establish jurisdiction and a crime just like a law is required for every such case. If you commit a similar crime on Australian soil, it's only illegal because a law exists to make it so (rightly).
> Can you provide reference to the claim that (5) is squarely a (federal) crime in the US?
My point is that every "right" in the US constitution is not absolute or without exceptions. Every single one. The above is a thought experiment to prove that. Put another way: the First Amendment is not a blanket defense. In procuring a story that you publish, you will reach a limit on your actions beyond which you've committed a crime and the First Amendment won't shield you from that.
Like... that's just obvious.
So what particular circumstances lead to a journalist committing a crime is irrelevant. The point is that there is a line, not what the particular line is.