{"id":139400,"date":"2019-08-05T12:00:44","date_gmt":"2019-08-05T11:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=139400"},"modified":"2020-02-18T07:28:13","modified_gmt":"2020-02-18T07:28:13","slug":"judges-ruling-throws-huge-spanner-into-us-extradition-proceedings-against-assange","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2019\/08\/judges-ruling-throws-huge-spanner-into-us-extradition-proceedings-against-assange\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge\u2019s Ruling Throws Huge Spanner into US Extradition Proceedings against Assange"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Image via YouTube<\/p><\/div>\n

31 Jul 2019<\/em> – A US judge has ruled that WikiLeaks<\/em><\/a> was fully entitled to publish the Democratic National Congress (DNC) emails, which means no law was broken. The ruling is highly significant as it could impact upon the US extradition proceedings against WikiLeaks<\/em> founder Julian Assange<\/a>, as well as the ongoing imprisonment of whistleblower Chelsea Manning<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n

On 30 July, federal judge John G. Koeltl ruled<\/a> on a case<\/a> brought against WikiLeaks<\/em> and other parties in regard to the alleged hacking of DNC emails and concluded<\/a> that:<\/p>\n

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC\u2019s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them \u2018secret\u2019 and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, if WikiLeaks<\/em> is subject to prosecution, then every media outlet in the world would be. The judge argued that<\/a>:<\/p>\n

[T]he First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Significantly, the judge added<\/a> that it\u2019s not criminal to solicit or \u201cwelcome\u201d stolen documents, and how<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Important win<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jen Robinson, a member of Assange\u2019s legal team, described the judge\u2019s ruling as an \u201cimportant win for free speech\u201d:<\/p>\n

\n

An important win for free speech: we have won our motion to dismiss for @wikileaks<\/a> in the @DNC<\/a> lawsuit against #Assange<\/a>, WikiLeaks et al over the 2016 US election publications on First Amendment grounds. Full judgment: https:\/\/t.co\/SZmyLd1Z83<\/a> Key passages: pic.twitter.com\/Kq6dJkuSIc<\/a><\/p>\n

— Jen Robinson (@suigenerisjen) July 31, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n