pull down to refresh
594 sats \ 18 replies \ @siggy47 25 Jun \ on: Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free news
I'm happy for Assange, and I don't want to take away from the fact that he will soon be free, but the fact that the US gets a guilty plea out of this is bullshit. Leaking national security secrets? The case will now be precedent, and will basically put another nail in the coffin of a free press.
reply
How much does that matter?
- Look at what they did to him without precedent.
- Are plea deals discounted to some degree in subsequent legal arguments?
I had never thought about that second question. It seems to me that jury decisions would carry more weight.
reply
Regarding #1, they didn't need a plea to make his life miserable, it will just make it easier next time.
#2 is more serious. In order to plead guilty, a defendant has to allocute. That means he or she has to admit to specific facts that constitute the crime. Often, a defendant will admit to stuff that they didn't do because they don't want to risk a jury trial. Here, I can't see how Assange can plead guilty based on what I know about the case. I'm pretty sure he didn't steal the docs. So, the prosecution and defense will get together to come up with a version of the facts that a judge believes constitutes the crime. Supposedly respectable news organizations did the same thing Assange did. I can see this case making disclosing information that is embarrassing to the government equate to leaking state secrets. As far as precedent goes, the facts the defendant admits to that constitute a crime can be used in future cases. Also, defendants waive their right to appeal as a condition of a guilty plea, so a higher court won't review it.
reply
“Allocution”
reply
So, what happens if the next person in a similar case insists on going to trial?
How does precedent factor in when a jury is making the decision?
reply
It's complicated and depends on many things, so I can't give a quick answer. Worst case scenario is that this case weakens the Pentagon Papers case as precedent :
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/us/pentagon-papers-journalism-leaks.html
That is true, because the Pentagon Papers case set the press free to publish secrets in ways that were unimaginable in 1971.
reply
Sounds like it could impact things like pretrial motions to dismiss.
Is that sort of directionally correct?
reply
reply
Yeah, I didn’t appreciate the significance initially.
reply
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of allowing The New York Times and The Washington Post to continue publishing the classified Pentagon Papers[1]. Key points of the ruling include:
-
The Court rejected the Nixon administration's attempt to block publication, stating the government failed to meet the "heavy burden" required to justify prior restraint of the press[3][4].
-
The decision upheld the newspapers' First Amendment right to publish the classified information without risk of government censorship or punishment[3].
-
The ruling was made quickly, just two weeks after the case was filed, with a brief per curiam opinion accompanied by separate opinions from each justice[4].
-
Several justices, including Potter Stewart and Byron White, emphasized that an informed citizenry and critical public opinion were essential checks on executive power in matters of national defense and foreign affairs[3].
-
The Court determined that the government's claims of potential harm to national security were not sufficient to overcome the presumption against prior restraint of the press[4].
This landmark decision reaffirmed the core First Amendment principle of press freedom to criticize the government and serve as a check on abuses of power[5].
Sources
[1] The Pentagon Papers case today - Harvard Law School https://hls.harvard.edu/today/the-pentagon-papers-case-today/
[2] Court Rules for Newspapers, 6-3 - Flashback: This Month in History https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flash/july/pent71.htm
[3] New York Times Co. v. United States - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
[4] Pentagon Papers | The Free Speech Center - MTSU https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/pentagon-papers/
[5] New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case) https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/new-york-times-co-v-united-states-the-pentagon-papers-case
reply
reply
reply
reply
Freedom isn’t always free
reply