Legal precedent/history for the supposed charges against Julian Assange
<p>It has been reported in the media (e.g. RT, BBC) that the US has requested the extradition of Julian Assange from the UK to stand trial for the charge of conspiracy to intrude into a computer system (I hope I'm getting the wording correctly here).</p>

<p>Now, regardless of other possible charges ("sealed indictments" etc.) - what is the history of journalists/publishers being charged with this offense or similar ones regarding their interaction with sources? Are there binding precedents at the national level? Have any courts considered the constitutionality of such charges in various situations? Or of the means in which the government obtains evidence about seemingly private conversations of journalists and their sources?</p>

<p>Note: This question is about the USA, not the UK.</p>

<p>The PressGazette has a brief but <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/accused-least-59-uk-journalists-arrested-april-2011/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">illuminating article</a> which gives information on :</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...over 64 journalists arrested in the UK between April 2011 and October 2014) including 25 former News of the World journalists and 25 from the Sun.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The majority of these were for unlawfully intercepting communications, intercepting mobile phone voicemail messages without lawful authority, and conspiring to intercept communications, and conspiring to intercept telephone communications - which are directly relevant to the this case.</p>

<p>There have been quite a number more (those were in a 30 month time span) so yes, there is certainly precedent.</p>

<p>Your further questions about constitutionality, and government access to private conversations should, in my opinion, be raised as separate questions.</p>

<p>Whether or not there is precedent for extradition is a separate issue - 2 previous high profile cases (Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon) both ended with no extradition after public pressure and various relevant circumstances including their autism and nationality.</p>

<h2><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ivanov" rel="nofollow noreferrer">United States v Ivanov</a> appears to be directly relevant</h2>

<p>The fact that a person is, or claims to be as in Assange’s situation, a journalist does not give them the right to ignore the law. It is against <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US law</a> to gain (or conspire to gain) unauthorised access to a protected computer system.</p>

united-states precedent journalism