>>demarq+yf
Why wouldn't they be? Assange is an enemy of the state. Not "of the administration", but "the state", in total. The FBI is known to keep lists on and engage in attacks against what they perceive as enemies of the state. It's logical to assume that they might still do so.
They probably won't break down your door for commenting on Assange though. They'll have some other pretense, an anonymous tip about drugs maybe.
>>luckyl+ug
There are probably too many people commenting about Assange for them to do that, although ironically if enough people assume without evidence that they'll get swatted for talking about assange, then that will no longer be true.
>>whatsh+ij
That's true, but that's true for any and all issues of that kind, isn't it? Had everyone under Stalin stood up to him, nobody would've been murdered in the Gulags.
>>luckyl+Zm
Well, it was pretty obvious that Stalin was murdering people, so in that case it was fear of the known, instead of fear of the speculated. That fear due to speculation would be what allows the speculated fear to come to pass, is the particular irony I am highlighting.