54 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Jun \ parent \ on: Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free news
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?
write
preview
this territory is moderated
163 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 25 Jun
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
54 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Jun
Sounds like it could impact things like pretrial motions to dismiss.
Is that sort of directionally correct?
reply
90 sats \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 25 Jun
Yes. I guess my real point is that the Assange case could have reaffirmed the Pentagon Papers case and discouraged this government intimidation of journalists in the future.
reply
154 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 25 Jun
Yeah, I didn’t appreciate the significance initially.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 25 Jun
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:
  1. 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].
  2. The decision upheld the newspapers' First Amendment right to publish the classified information without risk of government censorship or punishment[3].
  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].
  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].
  5. 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