I agree with the headline point (it's more a matter of navigating laws than technology), but I'm not as sure about the argument that Assange ought to be forced to choose between not using the protections of various jurisdictions, or choosing one and submitting to its laws fully.
Isn't avoiding that precisely what anyone with sufficient power does in today's globalized world? Large corporations purposely site different activities in different jurisdictions to take advantage of each jurisdiction's benefits and avoid each jurisdiction's pitfalls, as the company's self-interest dictates. Why can't Assange try to engage in the same sort of jurisdictional arbitrage, living in one country, running servers in another, accepting mail in a third, etc.? If there's something inherently objectionable about that (because it shows a sort of divided loyalty and game-playing), then it's far more people than just Assange who are guilty of it.
I agree with your comment about jurisdictional arbitrage (lovely phrase). Look at Google, Microsoft, and Linkedin using Ireland as a tax haven. Not only do they play arbitrage, they flex their economic muscle by telling Ireland, if you raise corporate taxes (above the current 12.5%) we'll leave. Instead, Ireland cuts the pay of all govt employees.
Isn't avoiding that precisely what anyone with sufficient power does in today's globalized world? Large corporations purposely site different activities in different jurisdictions to take advantage of each jurisdiction's benefits and avoid each jurisdiction's pitfalls, as the company's self-interest dictates. Why can't Assange try to engage in the same sort of jurisdictional arbitrage, living in one country, running servers in another, accepting mail in a third, etc.? If there's something inherently objectionable about that (because it shows a sort of divided loyalty and game-playing), then it's far more people than just Assange who are guilty of it.