On the other hand, if the government can show that the suspect knows both the password and which specific documents are in the safe—perhaps because the suspect described the safe's contents during an interrogation—then all courts agree that the suspect can be forced to open the safe.
So, for argument’s sake, let’s take Zuckerberg at his word when he says Facebook is taking inspiration from the First Amendment, and instead ask a different question: Does the decision to not fact-check politicians actually embody First Amendment values.
Unlike the previous indictment—which focused narrowly on an apparent offer to help crack a password —the 17 superseding counts focus instead on alleged violations of the Espionage Act. In doing so, the DOJ has aimed a battering ram at the freedom of the press , whether you think Assange is a journalist or not.
In a teleconference with reporters on Monday evening, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said the budget amendment was a "down payment" on what will be needed in future years to fund the program.
Now the UK courts will evaluate the US’s request to send Assange to Virginia to stand trial in federal court for a single felony charge of conspiracy to commit unauthorized access to a government computer, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
If the Trump administration believes that the President's own Twitter account can't infringe on people's free speech rights, then it seems dubious at best to claim that a privately-owned company with no ties to the government can, Citron says.