Connect with us

Published

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.

Continue Reading

World

‘At least 59 killed’ in Gaza after Israeli military opens fire near aid centre and carries out strikes

Published

on

By

'At least 59 killed' in Gaza after Israeli military opens fire near aid centre and carries out strikes

At least 59 Palestinians have reportedly been killed after the Israeli military opened fire near an aid centre in Gaza and carried out strikes across the territory.

The Red Cross, which operates a field hospital in Rafah, said 25 people were “declared dead upon arrival” and “six more died after admittance” following gunfire near an aid distribution centre in the southern Gazan city.

The humanitarian organisation added that it also received 132 patients “suffering from weapon-related injuries” after the incident.

The Red Cross said: “The overwhelming majority of these patients sustained gunshot wounds, and all responsive individuals reported they were attempting to access food distribution sites.”

The organisation said the number of deaths marks the hospital’s “largest influx of fatalities” since it began operations in May last year.

The IDF has said it fired “warning shots” near the aid distribution site but it was “not aware of injured individuals” as a result.

It said in a statement: “Earlier today, several suspects were identified approaching IDF troops operating in the Rafah area, posing a threat to the troops, hundreds of metres from the aid distribution site.

“IDF troops operated in order to prevent the suspects from approaching them and fired warning shots.”

Palestinians mourn a loved one following the incident near the aid centre. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Palestinians mourn a loved one following the incident near the aid centre. Pic: Reuters

Mother’s despair over shooting

Somia Alshaar told Sky News her 17-year-old son Nasir was shot dead while visiting the aid centre after she told him not to go.

She said: “He went to get us tahini so we could eat.

“He went to get flour. He told me ‘mama, we don’t have tahini. Today I’ll bring you flour. Even if it kills me, I will get you flour’.

“He left the house and didn’t return. They told me at the hospital: your son…’Oh God, oh Lord’.”

Asked where her son was shot, she replied: “In the chest. Yes, in the chest.”

Somia Alshaar, pictured with her daughter, says her son was shot dead. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Somia Alshaar, pictured with her daughter, says her son was shot dead. Pic: Reuters

‘A policy of mass murder’

Hassan Omran, a paramedic with Gaza’s ministry of health, told Sky News after the incident that humanitarian aid centres in Gaza are now “centres of mass death”.

Speaking in Khan Younis, he said: “Today, there were more than 150 injuries and more than 20 martyrs at the aid distribution centres… the Israeli occupation deliberately kills and commits genocide. The Israeli occupation is carrying out a policy of mass murder.

“They call people to come get their daily food, and then, when citizens arrive at these centres, they are killed in cold blood.

“All the victims have gunshot wounds to the head and chest, meaning the enemy is committing these crimes deliberately.”

Israel has rejected genocide accusations and denies targeting civilians.

Boys cry following the incident near the Rafah aid centre. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Two boys mourn their brother at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis. Pic: Reuters

‘Lies being peddled’

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the controversial US and Israeli-backed group which operates the distribution centre near Rafah, said: “Hamas is claiming there was violence at our aid distribution sites today. False.

“Once again, there were no incidents at or in the immediate vicinity of our sites.

“But that’s not stopping some from spreading the lies being peddled by ‘officials’ at the Hamas-controlled Nasser Hospital.”

The Red Cross said its field hospital in Rafah has recorded more than 250 fatalities and treated more than 3,400 “weapon-wounded patients” since new food distribution sites were set up in Gaza on 27 May.

Read more:
‘At least 798 killed’ at Gaza aid points
’10 children killed’ waiting for Gaza health clinic to open
Israel says permanent ceasefire ‘questionable’

Palestinians inspect the wreckage of a gas station destroyed in an Israeli airstrike in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza Strip, Saturday, July 12, 2025. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
Image:
Palestinians inspect the wreckage after an Israeli airstrike in Deir al Balah. Pic: AP

It comes after four children and two women were among at least 13 people who died in Deir al Balah, in central Gaza, after Israeli strikes pounded the area starting late on Friday, officials in Al Aqsa Martyrs hospital in the territory said.

Fifteen others died in Israeli airstrikes in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, according to Nasser Hospital.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has not responded to a request for comment on the reported deaths.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Israeli has been carrying out attacks in Gaza since Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people and took 251 hostages on 7 October 2023.

Hamas still holds 50 hostages, with fewer than half of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in ceasefire agreements or other deals.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, more than half of them women and children, according to Gaza’s health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count.

US President Donald Trump has said he is closing in on another ceasefire agreement that would see more hostages released and potentially wind down the war.

But after two days of talks this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there were no signs of a breakthrough.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The latest fatalities in Gaza comes as a 20-year-old Palestinian-American man was beaten to death by settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Friday, the Palestinian Health ministry said.

Sayafollah Musallet, also known as Saif, was killed during a confrontation between Palestinians and settlers in Sinjil, north of Ramallah, the ministry said.

A second man, Hussein Al-Shalabi, 23, died after being shot in the chest.

Mr Musallet’s family, from Tampa Florida, has called on the US State Department to lead an “immediate investigation”.

A State Department spokesperson said it was aware of the incident but it had no further comment “out of respect for the privacy of the family and loved ones” of the reported victim.

The Israeli military said the confrontation broke out after Palestinians threw rocks at Israelis, lightly injuring them.

Continue Reading

Environment

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

Published

on

By

This new wireless e-bike charger wants to be the future of electric bikes

Forget fumbling with cables or hunting for batteries – TILER is making electric bike charging as seamless as parking your ride. The Dutch startup recently introduced its much-anticipated TILER Compact system, a plug-and-play wireless charger engineered to transform the user experience for e-bike riders.

At the heart of the new system is a clever combo: a charging kickstand that mounts directly to almost any e‑bike, and a thin charging mat that you simply park over. Once you drop the kickstand and it lands on the mat, the bike begins charging automatically via inductive transfer – no cable required. According to TILER, a 500 Wh battery will fully charge in about 3.5 hours, delivering comparable performance to traditional wired chargers.

It’s an elegantly simple concept (albeit a bit chunky) with a convenient upside: less clutter, fewer broken cables, and no more need to bend over while feeling around for a dark little hole.

TILER claims its system works with about 75% of existing e‑bike platforms, including those from Bosch, Yamaha, Bafang, and other big bames. The kit uses a modest 150 W wireless power output, which means charging speeds remain practical while keeping the system lightweight (the tile weighs just 2 kg, and it’s also stationary).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

TILER has already deployed over 200 charging points across Western Europe, primarily serving bike-share, delivery, hospitality, and hotel fleets. A recent case study in Munich showed how a cargo-bike operator saved approximately €1,250 per month in labor costs, avoided thousands in spare batteries, and cut battery damage by 20%. The takeaway? Less maintenance, more uptime.

Now shifting to prosumer markets, TILER says the Compact system will hit pre-orders soon, with a €250 price tag (roughly US $290) for the kickstand plus tile bundle. To get in line, a €29 refundable deposit is currently required, though they say it is refundable at any point until you receive your charger. Don’t get too excited just yet though, there’s a bit of a wait. Deliveries are expected in summer 2026, and for now are covering mostly European markets.

The concept isn’t entirely new. We’ve seen the idea pop up before, including in a patent from BMW for charging electric motorcycles. And the efficacy is there. Skeptics may wonder if wireless charging is slower or less efficient, but TILER says no. Its system retains over 85% efficiency, nearly matching wired charging speeds, and even pauses at 80% to protect battery health, then resumes as needed. The tile is even IP67-rated, safe for outdoor use, and about as bulky as a thick magazine.

Electrek’s Take

I love the concept. It makes perfect sense for shared e-bikes, especially since they’re often returning to a dock anyway. As long as people can be trained to park with the kickstand on the tile, it seems like a no-brainer.

And to be honest, I even like the idea for consumers. I know it sounds like a first-world problem, but bending over to plug something in at floor height is pretty annoying, not to mention a great way to throw out your back if you’re not exactly a spring chicken anymore. Having your e-bike start charging simply by parking it in the right place is a really cool feature! I don’t know if it’s $300 cool, but it’s pretty cool!

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

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Shameful’ that black boys in London more likely to die than white boys, says Met Police chief

Published

on

By

'Shameful' that black boys in London more likely to die than white boys, says Met Police chief

It is “shameful” that black boys growing up in London are “far more likely” to die than white boys, Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark Rowley has told Sky News.

The commissioner told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips that relations with minority communities “is difficult for us”.

Sir Mark, who came out of retirement to become head of the UK’s largest police force in 2022, said: “We can’t pretend otherwise that we’ve got a history between policing and black communities where policing has got a lot wrong.

“And we get a lot more right today, but we do still make mistakes. That’s not in doubt. I’m being as relentless in that as it can be.”

He said the “vast majority” of the force are “good people”.

However, he added: “But that legacy, combined with the tragedy that some of this crime falls most heavily in black communities, that creates a real problem because the legacy creates concern.”

Sir Mark, who also leads the UK’s counter-terrorism policing, said it is “not right” that black boys growing up in London “are far more likely to be dead by the time they’re 18” than white boys.

“That’s, I think, shameful for the city,” he admitted.

The Met Police chief’s admission comes two years after an official report found the force is institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Police chase suspected phone thief

Baroness Casey was commissioned in 2021 to look into the Met Police after serving police officer Wayne Couzens abducted, raped and murdered Sarah Everard.

She pinned the primary blame for the Met’s culture on its past leadership and found that stop and search and the use of force against black people was excessive.

At the time, Sir Mark, who had been commissioner for six months when the report was published, said he would not use the labels of institutionally racist, institutionally misogynistic and institutionally homophobic, which Casey insisted the Met deserved.

However, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who helped hire Sir Mark – and could fire him – made it clear the commissioner agreed with Baroness Casey’s verdict.

After the report was released, Sir Mark said “institutional” was political language so he was not going to use it, but he accepted “we have racists, misogynists…systematic failings, management failings, cultural failings”.

A few months after the report, Sir Mark launched a two-year £366m plan to overhaul the Met, including increased emphasis on neighbourhood policing to rebuild public trust and plans to recruit 500 more community support officers and an extra 565 people to work with teams investigating domestic violence, sexual offences and child sexual abuse and exploitation.

Watch the full interview on Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips from 8.30am on Sunday.

Continue Reading

Trending