Assange Deal Sets a 'Chilling Precedent'

The plea deal to free Julian Assange will see him return to Australia without spending time in an American prison, but the WikiLeaks founder's conviction on an Espionage Act charge sets a precedent that some observers find alarming. Three takes on the deal:

• The Guardian editorial board: This is the first conviction for "basic journalistic efforts" under the 1917 Espionage Act, the board notes. It calls the use of the act a "bad and cynical move," since the case involved leaked documents about the Iran and Afghanistan wars that "revealed appalling abuses by the US and other governments, which would not otherwise have been exposed." The Obama administration, the board writes, "correctly identified the chilling effect that spying charges could have on investigative journalism, and chose not to bring them on that basis." Now, "it is possible that future administrations could take this case as encouragement to pursue the press under the Espionage Act," the board writes. "It is likely that an emboldened second Trump administration would do so."

• Charlie Savage, New York Times: The deal sets a "chilling precedent," Savage writes. "For the first time in American history, gathering and publishing information the government considers secret will have been successfully treated as a crime," he writes. "This new precedent will send a threatening message to national security journalists, who may be chilled in how aggressively they do their jobs because they will see a greater risk of prosecution." Savage notes, however, that by taking a deal and not challenging the use of the Espionage Act, legal actions that "might lead to a definitive Supreme Court ruling blessing prosecutors' narrow interpretation of First Amendment press freedoms" have been avoided.
• Noah Feldman, Bloomberg: Feldman calls the deal an "unsatisfying denouement" that leaves key questions about free speech unanswered. He notes that government employees who leak classified information can be prosecuted, while news organizations that make the information public are generally protected by the First Amendment. He writes that Assange, who allegedly agreed to help Chelsea Manning break codes, falls somewhere in the middle, in the "gray area" of people who "cooperate with leakers in some way to facilitate the public release of classified information." "Assange's case was always in the gray area between espionage and protected speech," he writes. "Its outcome hasn't made that gray area any more distinct."

(More Julian Assange stories.)