Julian Assange how his case affects the laws of freedom of speech and freedom of press

2. Media Review
According to Guardian, prominent first constitutional academics and campaign
organisations have cautioned that the accusation document charging Julian Assange of unlawful
infringement of US national intelligence is a frontal strike on basic media liberties and may have
a disastrous impact on fundamental practices of reporting (The Guardain, 2019). Authorities in
Virginia's eastern division have issued an allegation against WikiLeaks creator Julian Assange,
which had been sealed since March 2018. It will therefore serve as the foundation for the US
administration's demand that Assange be deported from the UK to Alexandria for prosecution
(COE, 2020).

Scholars and protesters slammed substantial sections of the accusation, claiming that they
contradicted core journalistic operations guaranteed by the US constitution's first amendment.
They claimed that these aspects of the allegations sent warning signals across the globe
(Baspineiro, 2021). According to Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor who produced the
very first comprehensive law analysis on the legal consequences of prosecuting WikiLeaks, the
list of allegations had several extremely risky features that represent a considerable risk to
homeland security journalism. Parts of the prosecution are far too broad and might have a
deterrent impact; therefore should be dismissed (The Guardain, 2019).

According to Carrie DeCell, a senior counsel at Columbia University's Knight First

Amendment Institute, the allegations risk suppressing journalism. She continued on to argue that
the language of the allegation and the accompanying media disclosure from the Department of
Justice revealed that the US administration wanted exactly that outcome. Most of those charges
are completely protected by the first amendment's journalism conduct privileges (The Guardain,
2019).

Assange pushed Manning to disclose data and statistics from US ministries and
organisations as portion of the narrative. It is a core responsibility of media to persuade
informants to share data about state operations that is in the national good. Assange and Manning
made steps to disguise Manning as the reference of the confidential documents disclosures to
Wikileaks as component of the plot (Anderson, 2021). Source confidentiality is a cornerstone of
many journalistic and public safety coverage; without it, individuals might be hesitant to reveal
data, and the press might be helpless to perform its job of keeping authority accountable
(Shattuck and Risse, 2021). The utilisation of the 'Jabber' internet chat programme by Assange
and Manning to coordinate on the collection and transmission of sensitive documents was
element of the sequence. A dropbox is also mentioned in the accusation. Reporters that deal with
dissidents frequently utilise Jabber and Dropbox as interaction platforms (The Guardain, 2019).

Another report of Guardian reflected that a fresh claim in the accusation is that Assange
deliberately assisted Manning in forging a passcode that permitted the US soldiers illegal and
disguised entry to extremely classified military systems. Manning was serving as an information
specialist at a remote operational site outside of Baghdad at the period, in 2010 (The Guardian,
2022). Specialists’ freedom of speech and freedom of press were usually calmer about that
particular allegation, which effectively accused Assange of breaching computer security
regulations – especially the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – in a manner that is not protected
by the first amendment (Baspineiro, 2021). If authorities are successful in producing proof to that
extent above a credible doubt, it is uncommon to elicit widespread dissent.

This stance is reasonable up to a certain extent, as Assange was far from a standard

journalist. His in-depth knowledge of systems, and its exploits, may have distinguished him from
the highly heart-breaking arts graduates who typically climb to prominence in media. He
contributed in establishment of WikiLeaks, back in 2006, a group that focuses on collecting and
disclosing sensitive or confidential data, enraging politicians and companies all across the the
globe (The Guardian, 2022). In 2010, WikiLeaks engaged into one of the greatest collaborations
of the contemporary period in any area (in conjunction with the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le
Monde, the New York Times, as well as other worldwide media companies). It began posting
papers provided by Chelsea Manning, a US military intelligence specialist (Shattuck and Risse,
2021). Wikileaks and Manning were accountable for a plethora of top-notch stories that every
self-respecting journalist should fight (The Guardain, 2019). Nevertheless, these were not the
usual headline that most journalists deal with on a regular basis. They have enormous worldwide
ramifications, changing the global perceptions of the Iraq war and the war against terrorism
(Restrepo, 2021).
3. Literature Review
Assange experienced a US trial for accused espionage and conspiracy to perpetrate cyber
fraud, as well as the risk of a long sentence in the austere US penitentiary regime, wherein
incarceration is frequent in homeland security matters (Arnell, 2021). The District Judge, on the
other hand, did not ground her conclusion on a violation of freedom of press or freedom of
expression. The notion that the Trump government was driven by openly political motives had
no bearing on the decision (Imre, Pjesivac and Luther, 2016).

The District Court case focused on Assange's fragile psychological state and the
possibility that his confinement in a US institution would put him in danger of attempting suicide
(Ross, 2020). According to the court, Assange's brilliance allowed him to get over any suicide-
prevention precautions instated by US imprisonment officials. As a result, his deportation was
deemed burdensome due to his psychological state and was denied. The relief felt by Assange
and his admirers was transitory (Ali and Kunstler, 2019). The government promptly indicated its
desire to appeal, as directed by the US Department of Justice. Its petition to the High Court has
now been completed (Shattuck and Risse, 2021).

Assange's attorneys debated whether to cross-appeal sections of the verdict that ruled

against him, so the court dispute might drag on for a long time. When the reasons for appealing
were sufficiently debatable, the judgment on request to appeal was fair. If an appeal is filed, the
government must persuade the High Court that the District Judge was incorrect or that a new
problem or bit of proof could have driven them to an alternative conclusion. In both instances,
the debate centred on Assange's psychological health and the danger of suicide in the US
incarceration environment (Restrepo, 2021).

The accusation of conspiracy to undertake cyber breach levelled down concerns about
freedom of press and made it extremely challenging for Assange to claim that his rights to free
speech were in jeopardy. If Assange's defence team files a cross-appeal, the questions before the
High Court could be far broader (Anderson, 2021). Issues raised by proponents of freedom of the
press might be handled here. One of the reasons that was initially dismissed was one founded on
freedom of expression. This might be presented to the High Court in the hopes of preventing his
rendition based on this. Reporters and writers on both ends of the Atlantic, and even beyond,
could definitely be reassured by such a breakthrough (Fenster, 2019).
 However, the Assange case might result in an international precedence that provides
reporters and editors with some immunity based on their right to freedom of speech. That right
has yet to be recognised in international legislation (Head, 2021). Judges have acknowledged the
right to be devoid of cruelty and inhumane treatment, the right to dignity for personal and
familial life, and the right to a fair hearing as sufficient grounds to prevent deportation. If that
happens, judges will very certainly be forced to conduct a proportional analysis, in which the
impact on freedom of speech and expression is evaluated against the common interest in
extradition (Thompson, 2021). While this does not ensure protection, it does make quite an
assertion more plausible.

Free speech supporters were concerned that Assange would be charged with breaking the
Espionage Act by revealing sensitive material received from Manning (Arnell, 2021). Journalists
frequently publish classified information obtained from sources, and Assange's trial would have
heightened worries that reporters may suffer identical penalties. The court, on the other side,
could choose not to accept Assange's freedom of speech as an argument in his favour (Imre,
Pjesivac and Luther, 2016). Within this scenario, the law does not change. In the future, the US
regulations on espionage and cyber invasion may be used identically, and there might be no UK
extradited precedence to challenge (Ross, 2020).

For the time being, this threat could be more obvious than authentic: initially, the scope
of Wikileaks' revelations may not be reproduced, and second, the Biden government may be
hesitant to undertake a journalist or publishing company through criminal punishments in the
years ahead, if only to sustain goodwill between the media (Ali and Kunstler, 2019).
Nonetheless, reporters and editors must keep a careful watch on the issue since the outcome of
the future High Court ruling will determine whether freedom of speech plays a part in extradition
legislation (Shattuck and Risse, 2021).

In terms of impact of Assange’s case on laws of freedom of speech and freedom of press,
it has been unveiled that in England and Wales, Assange's actions might be considered criminal.
As a result, the nation do not believe that the simple reality that accusations are being filed in the
United States proves that they are being presented in malicious intent (Restrepo, 2021). This
reasoning seems to be predicated on the assumption that Assange's activities would have violated
section 5 of the United Kingdom's Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1989, which relates to people,
particularly journalists, who are not the initial leaker of material. This makes people who reveal
classified information that are harmful and which they knew, or had favourable grounds to think,
would be harmful, criminals (Anderson, 2021). The US administration makes an analogous
statement, claiming that even under US legislation; a freedom of speech protection may not
always support confidential details, even though it is in the community interest (Fenster, 2019).
The Assange revealed resources that no implicated reporter or editor would have revealed when
WikiLeaks authored its entire database of 251,000 hidden US diplomatic ties without
declassifying reference identities (Head, 2021). The aforementioned claim has prompted the US
government to accuse Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act, which was meant to prosecute
spies, not reporters or journalists.

To extend the above discussion, another investigation contemplated that the possibility of
Julian Assange's deportation has far-reaching ramifications for individual freedoms. The
conviction poses serious concerns about the safety of people who release secret material in the
community cause, such as those who uncover civil liberties breaches (Thompson, 2021). The
claims against Julian Assange, as well as the crimes detailed in the accusation, are broad and
imprecise, and most of them involve actions at the heart of independent reporting in Europe and
far beyond. As a result, granting Julian Assange's deportation on this ground could limit freedom
of press, perhaps hindering the press's ability to fulfil its role as a source of knowledge and a
regulatory body in democratic nations (Arnell, 2021). Moreover, any deportation to a position
where the individual is at danger of abuse or brutal or barbaric punishment would be in violation
of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has been claimed that Julian
Assange's confinement circumstances in the US, as well as the anticipated penalty he would face,
constitute a serious threat to the laws of freedom of speech as well as freedom of press (Imre,
Pjesivac and Luther, 2016).

Several academics and civil liberties supporters believe that the issue in this legal dispute
is not simply Assange's deportation and particular human liberties, but that the British
authorities' final judgement can have an immediate influence on the position of reporters across
the globe (Ross, 2020). It would eventually stand as a message to anybody who attempts to
disclose sensitive material that openly challenges the activities of authorities including the US
administration, perhaps leading to self-censorship (Ali and Kunstler, 2019). They concluded that
inasmuch as the press's duty is to examine and disclose facts of national significance, notably
when it concerns significant human liberties breaches, the media is on indictment in Britain
(Shattuck and Risse, 2021).
References

Arnell, P., 2021. Julian Assange extradition: freedom of British media to expose US state secrets
is at stake.[Newspaper article].

Imre, I., Pjesivac, I. and Luther, C.A., 2016. Governmental control of the Internet and
WikiLeaks: How does the press in four countries discuss freedom of expression?.
International Communication Gazette, 78(5), pp.385-410.

Ross, G., 2020. Espionage, the First Amendment, and the Case Against Julian Assange.
International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 33(4), pp.747-767.

Ali, T. and Kunstler, M.R. eds., 2019. In Defense of Julian Assange. New York: OR Books.

Shattuck, J. and Risse, M., 2021. Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities in the United States:
Freedom of Speech and Media.

Restrepo, D.J., 2021. Modern Day Extradition Practice: A Case Analysis of Julian Assange.
Notre Dame J. Int'l Comp. L., 11, p.138.

Anderson, P.D., 2021. Privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful: the cypherpunk
ethics of Julian Assange. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(3), pp.295-308.

Fenster, M., 2019. 'Bullets of Truth': Julian Assange and the Politics of Transparency.
Forthcoming in" Cultures of Transparency: Between Promise and Peril"(Abingdon, UK:
Routledge), University of Florida Levin College of Law Research Paper, (19-12).

Head, M., 2021. Julian Assange, David Hicks and Whether Citizens Have Rights to Diplomatic
Protection. Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity, 8(2).

Thompson, E., 2021. Press Freedom and the Espionage Act: A Critical Juncture. Wash. UJL &
Pol'y, 66, p.185.
The Guardain, 2019. Julian Assange's charges are a direct assault on press freedom, experts
warn. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-charges-press-
freedom-journalism> [Accessed 28 May 2022].

COE, 2020. Julian Assange should not be extradited due to potential impact on press freedom
and concerns about ill-treatment. [online] Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at:
<https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/julian-assange-should-not-be-extradited-
due-to-potential-impact-on-press-freedom-and-concerns-about-ill-treatment> [Accessed
28 May 2022].

Baspineiro, R., 2021. Julian Assange and the trial against press freedom. [online] Brasil de Fato.
Available at: <https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2021/01/11/julian-assange-and-the-trial-
against-press-freedom> [Accessed 28 May 2022].

The Guardian, 2022. Extraditing Julian Assange would be a gift to secretive, oppressive regimes
| Peter Oborne. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/20/extradite-julian-assange-
investigative-journalism-wikileaks> [Accessed 28 May 2022].