Connect with us

Published

1 year ago

on

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been imprisoned in London for nearly five years, pending extradition to the United States so he can be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act by publishing classified information. Since that amount of time behind bars is about the same as the four-to-six-year prison term that Justice Department lawyers have said Assange would be likely to serve if convicted, you might think the Biden administration would be ready to reconsider this case, especially since it poses an alarming threat to freedom of the press. Instead, the U.S. government’s lawyers are back in London for yet another hearing, which Assange’s attorneys describe as a last-ditch attempt to block his extradition.

Recognizing the First Amendment implications, the Obama administration declined to prosecute Assange for obtaining and disclosing confidential State Department cables and military files leaked by former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2010. After all, leading news organizations in the United States and around the world had published stories based on the same documents, and those acts of journalism likewise could be construed as felonies once this precedent was established. So could the routine practices of reporters who cover national security, which commonly involves divulging information that the government prefers to keep secret.

Despite those concerns, the Trump administration decided that Assange should be locked up for doing things thatThe New York Times et al. do on a regular basis. All but one of the 17 counts in Assange’s latest federal indictment relate to obtaining or disclosing “national defense information,” which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Theoretically, Assange could face 160 years in prison for those counts alone, although the government’s lawyers say it probably would be more like the amount of time he already has served in the United Kingdom. Manning herselfwho, unlike Assange, violated the terms of her government employmentreceived a 35-year sentence but was released after seven years thanks to Barack Obama’s commutation.

“Some say that Assange is a journalist and that he should be immune from prosecution for these actions,” John Demers, then the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, told reporters after the Assange indictment was announced in May 2019. “The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy and we thank you for it. It is not and has never been the department’s policy to target them for reporting.” There is no need to worry, Demers suggested, because Assange is “no journalist.”

This line of argument misconstrues the “freedom…of the press” guaranteed by the First Amendment, which applies to mass communication generally, not just the speech of people whom the government deigns to recognize as journalists. Demers’ assurance is similar to the reasoning that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently applied in counterintuitively concluding that treating journalism as a crime is not “obviously unconstitutional.”

That case involved Priscilla Villarreal, a Laredo, Texas, gadfly and citizen journalist who was arrestedin 2017 for violatingSection 39.06(c) of the Texas Penal Code. Under that previously obscure law, a person who “solicits or receives” information that “has not been made public” from a government official “with intent to obtain a benefit” commits a third-degree felony, punishableby two to 10 years in prison.

Texas defines “benefit” as “anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage.” According to the arrest affidavits, the “benefit” that Villarreal sought was a boost in Facebook traffic. Section 39.06(c) defines “information that has not been made public” as “any information to which the public does not generally have access” that is also “prohibited from disclosure” under theTexas Public Information Act. The arrest affidavits did not address the latter requirement at all.

Like the Espionage Act, Section 39.06(c) purportedly criminalizes common reporting practicesin this case, obtaining information about a public suicide and a fatal car accident from a “backchannel source” at the local police department. Writing for the 5th Circuit majority in Villarreal v. Laredo, Judge Edith Jones did not try to hide her disdain for Villarreal, an independent, uncredentialed journalist who files her unfiltered reports on Facebook instead of publishing vetted and edited stories in a “mainstream, legitimate” news outlet.

“Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism,” Jones wrote. “That is inappropriate. She could have followed Texas law, or challenged that law in court, before reporting nonpublic information from the backchannel source. By skirting Texas law, Villarreal revealed information that could have severely emotionally harmed the families of decedents and interfered with ongoing investigations. Mainstream, legitimate media outlets routinely withhold the identity of accident victims or those who committed suicide until public officials or family members release that information publicly. Villarreal sought to capitalize on others’ tragedies to propel her reputation and career.”

Although Jones implies that Villarreal’s arrest was prompted by concern for “the families of decedents,” Villarreal plausibly argued that it was actually punishment for her outspoken criticism of local law enforcement agencies. In any case, there is no First Amendment exception for reporting that might offend or disturb people. And Jones’ characterization of Villarreal’s work as “capitaliz[ing] on others’ tragedies to propel her reputation and career” is an apt, if cynical, description of what many journalists do, even when they work for “mainstream, legitimate media outlets.” Jones apparently is unfamiliar with the bread and butter of local news organizations and has never heard the expression, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

The seven dissenting judges saw the situation differently. “If the First Amendment means anything,” Judge James C. Ho wrote in a dissent joined by five of his colleagues, “surely it means that citizens have the right to question or criticize public officials without fear of imprisonment.” Judge James E. Graves Jr. likewise complained that “the majority opinion will permit government officials to retaliate against speech while hiding behind cherry-picked state statutes.”

Judge Stephen A. Higginson noted that Thomas Paine, who wrote “the pro-independence pamphlet that historian Gordon Wood describes as ‘the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era,'” was, like Villarreal, a “citizen-journalist.” Upholding “the text of the Constitution, as well as the values and history that it reflects,” he said, “the Supreme Court guarantees the First Amendment right of engaged citizen-journalists, like Paine, to interrogate the government.” Jones, by contrast, presumably would view Paine as disreputable, since he did not work for a “mainstream, legitimate media outlet.”

Assange’s critics, including some professional journalists, have proposed a similar distinction, arguing that he does not deserve the First Amendment’s protection because he is not a “real” journalist. But whatever you might think of Assange’s opinions, his tactics, or the care he exercised in publishing classified material, that distinction is not grounded in the Constitution and will not hold in practice.

The editors and publishers of The New YorkTimes,The Guardian,Le Monde,Der Spiegel, andEl Pas recognized as much in 2022, when they urged the Justice Department to drop the case against Assange. In ignoring that advice, the Biden administration seems bent on establishing a dangerous precedent that replaces the First Amendment’s guarantee with the whims of prosecutors.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Politics

Wes Streeting denies Labour has made ‘mistakes’ with ‘unpopular’ policies despite poor local election results

Published

3 hours ago

on

May 4, 2025

By

Wes Streeting denies Labour has made 'mistakes' with 'unpopular' policies despite poor local election results

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has defended “unpopular” policies such as the cut to the winter fuel allowance despite Labour’s poor performance at the local elections.

Mr Streeting denied the government had made any mistakes when asked whether the policy was partly to blame for the party losing 189 council seats less than a year since the General Election.

Since coming into government last July, Labour has enacted a number of policies that were not in its manifesto.

These include means-testing winter fuel payments for pensioners, increasing employers’ national insurance contributions and slashing £5bn from the welfare bill.

Asked what mistakes his government had made so far that had led to its drubbing at the ballot box, Mr Streeting told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “Well, we will make plenty of mistakes.”

Politics latest: Lucy Powell ‘right’ to apologise for grooming gangs comments

Pressed again on whether he believed “mistakes” had been made, the health secretary replied: “No. When we made those choices, we knew they would be unpopular. And we knew that they would be opposed.

“The reason we made those choices is because we genuinely believe they’re the right choices to get the country out of the massive hole it was left in. And right across the board. Whether it’s the NHS, whether it’s schools, whether it’s prisons, whether it’s our defence and security, whether it’s crime and policing, there were enormous challenges facing this country when we came in.

“And we’ve had to make big and sometimes unpopular decisions so that we can face those challenges and deal with them. People might thank us if we just kind of go for the easy but we want to make the right choices.”

Some Labour MPs have urged the government to change direction, with one telling Sky News the cut to winter fuel was a “catastrophic error” that must be “remedied” if the party is to see any improvement in public opinion.

Others have warned that in courting Reform voters, the party risks fracturing its coalition of voters on the left who may be tempted by the Liberal Democrats and Green Party.

However, in the aftermath of the local elections, Sir Keir Starmer suggested the poor results meant he needed to go “further and faster” in delivering his existing agenda.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Inside Reform’s election success

The real victor to emerge from Thursday’s local elections was Reform UK, which won control of 10 councils and picked up 677 council seats largely at the expense of the Conservatives in the south.

However, Reform also won the Runcorn by-election from Labour by just six votes, as well as control of Doncaster Council from Labour – the only local authority it had control of in this set of elections – in a significant win for Nigel Farage and his party.

The Reform UK leader declared that two-party politics was now “finished” and that his party was now the official “opposition” to Labour.

Asked whether the results meant that Labour would now treat Reform as “your most serious opposition”, Mr Streeting said: ” I certainly do treat them as a serious opposition force.”

“As I say, I don’t know whether it will be Reform or the Conservatives that emerge as the main threat,” he added.

“I don’t have a horse in that race, but like alien versus predator, I don’t really want either one to win.”

Read more:
Reform’s mission to ‘remoralise’ young people
Reform has put the two traditional parties on notice

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reform UK are ‘fighting force’

Tory Party chairman Nigel Huddleston said Reform UK was not just a protest party and that Mr Farage was “a force in British politics”.

He told Trevor Phillips: “But the one thing about Nigel Farage is, and we’re seeing this again and again and again, he is a populist.

“He is increasingly saying everything that anybody wants to hear. He’s trying to be all things to all men.”

“We are establishing ourselves as a credible alternative government based on sound conservative principles and values and our values and our principles, and therefore our policies, will define the future of our party,” he added.

Continue Reading

Environment

It’s back: Hyundai IONIQ 5 qualifies for $7,500 tax credit – again!

Published

3 hours ago

on

May 4, 2025

By

It's back: Hyundai IONIQ 5 qualifies for ,500 tax credit – again!

The Hyundai Ioniq 5 Is Eligible For The $7,500 Federal Tax Credit Again

The Hyundai IONIQ 5 got a raft of upgrades and sporty, rally-focused XRT trim level for 2025 – but the biggest upgrade for the Made in America Hyundai might be this: the 5 has regained eligibility for the full $7,500 federal EV tax credit!

Despite being assembled at Hyundai’s Georgia meta plant for the last four month, the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 was nowhere to be found on the EPA’s list of rebate-eligible vehicles. But that was then – with a fresh updated to the list coming online May 1st, Hyundai’s new-age electric hot hatch is back in the rebate game.

It’s worth noting that lease customers had been able to access the incentive under some circumstances, but this latest update to the EPA list makes it possible for cash and payment buyers to take advantage of the full Federal incentive, too – as long as they earn less than $300,000 as a married couple filing jointly, less than $225,000 as a head of household, or less than $150,000 as an individual.

With the $7,500 federal tax credit in the equation, you can get a new 2025 IONIQ 5 for somewhere in between $36,575 and $49,475, well under the $80,000 Federal MSRP cap.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Victory lap

As if to celebrate, Hyundai announced that it was taking on the celebrate One Lap of America road rayy and race event in a factory collaboration with the track-focused enthusiasts at Grassroots Motorsports this week with One Lap veterans Andy Hollis and Tom Suddard campaigning a stock, 601 hp 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 N in the Alternative Fuels class.

“After winning our class in a gutted, caged race car last year, we wanted to compete in the best-of-all worlds this year: A vehicle that’s incredibly fast, incredibly comfortable on a road trip, and incredibly capable on a racetrack,” explains Suddard. “Electrification means it’s finally possible to have huge power without huge compromises in a street car, and the IONIQ 5 N promises to pair that huge power with the durability and capability to survive a week of racing.”

One Lap is widely regarded as one of the toughest street-legal motorsports events in the world, pitting amateur and professional drivers alike compete in stock and heavily modified vehicles of every description, battling it out in a series of scored challenges, including timed events at road courses, drag strips, skid pads, and autocross courses.

In between tracks, competitors safely travel thousands of miles around the country, proving the mettle and durability of the vehicles and the teams that drive them. This year, 86 teams from all over the country will compete in 17 scored events over the course of eight days at tracks like Virginia International Raceway and NCM Motorsports Park.

The Tire Rack One Lap of America is currently underway – you can track the Hyundai’s progress here, then let us know what you think of this new tax development in the comments.

SOURCES | IMAGES: Hyundai, One Lap of America; FuelEconomy.gov.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Best of all? Contractors won’t call you unless you give them your number. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Politics

It is ‘feasible’ Nigel Farage could be the next prime minister, says Kemi Badenoch

Published

5 hours ago

on

May 4, 2025

By

It is 'feasible' Nigel Farage could be the next prime minister, says Kemi Badenoch

Kemi Badenoch has admitted it is “feasible” that Nigel Farage could become the next prime minister.

The Tory leader told the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme Mr Farage’s party was “expressing the feeling of frustration that a lot of people around the country are feeling” – but added it was her job to “come up with answers and solutions”.

Asked if it was feasible that Mr Farage could be the next prime minister, she cited how Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had won re-election this weekend.

“As I said, anything is feasible,” she said. “Anthony Albanese: people were writing him off. He has just won a landslide, but my job is to make sure that he [Farage] does not become prime minister because he does not have the answers to the problems the country is facing.”

Politics latest: Lucy Powell ‘right’ to apologise for grooming gangs comments

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Could Nigel Farage be prime minister?

Asked what Mr Farage was doing right, Ms Badenoch said: “He is expressing the feeling of frustration that a lot of people around the country are feeling.

“But he also doesn’t have a record in government like the two main parties do. Now he’s going to be running some councils. We’ll see how that goes.”

Mr Farage was the undoubted winner of Thursday’s local elections, in which 23 councils were up for grabs.

His party picked up 677 council seats and took control of 10 councils.

By contrast, the Conservatives lost 677 council seats as well as control of 18 councils in what was their worst local elections performance on record.

Mr Farage said the outcome spelt the end of two-party politics and that his party was now the official “opposition” to Labour – with the Tories having been rendered a “waste of space”.

Read more:
Reform has put the two traditional parties on notice
‘I get it’: Starmer responds after losing Runcorn by-election

Ms Badenoch said she believed the vote for Mr Farage on Thursday was partly down to “protest” but added: “That doesn’t mean we sit back. We are going to come out fighting.

“We are going to come out with the policies that people want to see, but what we are not going to do is rush out and tell the public things that are not true just so we can win votes.

“This is not about winning elections; this is about fixing our country. Yes, of course, you need to win elections to do that, but you also need a credible plan.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Farage is a force in British politics’

Conservative co-chairman Nigel Huddleston sought to play down the threat from Reform UK, telling Sky News: “When they’re in a position of delivering things, that’s when the shine comes off.”

He told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “The one thing about Nigel Farage is, and we’re seeing this again and again and again, he is a populist.

“He is increasingly saying everything that anybody wants to hear. He’s trying to be all things to all men.”

“We are establishing ourselves as a credible alternative government based on sound conservative principles and values and our values and our principles, and therefore our policies, will define the future of our party,” he added.

Asked whether the results meant that Labour would now treat Reform as “your most serious opposition”, Health Secretary Wes Streeting told Trevor Phillips: ” I certainly do treat them as a serious opposition force.”

“As I say, I don’t know whether it will be Reform or the Conservatives that emerge as the main threat,” he added.

“I don’t have a horse in that race, but like alien versus predator, I don’t really want either one to win.”

Continue Reading

Trending