This piece originally appeared at .
What to make of the indictment of Julian Assange?
The Justice Department hasn鈥檛 crossed the line that many feared it would: It hasn鈥檛 charged Julian Assange for publishing truthful information about matters of public concern. That kind of prosecution would have been unprecedented in the nation鈥檚 history and would have opened the door to criminal investigations of other publishers. Instead, the indictment accuses Assange of having conspired with Chelsea Manning to hack a government database. Hacking government databases isn鈥檛 protected by the First Amendment, and it isn鈥檛 a legitimate part of investigative journalism.
But the indictment is troubling nonetheless. It characterizes as 鈥減art of鈥� a criminal conspiracy journalistic activities that are not just lawful but essential to press freedom. And there is reason to be concerned that the charge of 鈥淐onspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion鈥� that was unsealed today may not be the Justice Department鈥檚 final word on the matter. There are already reports that the government expects to bring additional charges against Assange once his extradition has been completed.
It鈥檚 not clear that the Justice Department will be able to establish a conspiracy to violate the hacking statute, as some . Though Assange allegedly agreed to help Manning crack a password, cracking that password apparently wouldn鈥檛 have allowed Manning to access more files than she could already access鈥攐nly to access the same set of files under a different username. A few years ago, the Obama administration considered filing charges against Assange but ultimately . From this indictment, we can guess at some of the difficulties that might have led it to abandon the effort.
If the Justice Department had filed an indictment focused more narrowly on the alleged hacking, none of this would warrant much comment. The Justice Department would present its evidence; Assange would defend himself; and few people would raise concerns about the prosecution鈥檚 implications for press freedom. The problem is that the indictment seems to have been drafted not just to justify the prosecution of Assange but to tar legitimate journalistic activities by association with Assange鈥檚 alleged crime.
The indictment characterizes everyday journalistic practices as part of a criminal conspiracy. Cultivating a source, protecting a source鈥檚 identity, communicating with a source securely鈥攖he indictment describes all of these activities as the 鈥渕anners and means鈥� of the conspiracy. The Justice Department says that Assange and Manning communicated using an encrypted chat service, but most national-security journalists communicate with sources using encrypted channels. It says that Assange and Manning 鈥渢ook measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure,鈥� but taking measures to protect their sources鈥� identities is something that national-security journalists do all the time, for good reason. It says that Assange created 鈥渁 special folder on a cloud drop box of Wikileaks鈥� to allow Manning to share files with him, but many major news organizations use SecureDrop and other similar software to allow sources to share files with them securely.
This is to say that much of what the Justice Department characterizes as the 鈥渕anners and means鈥� of criminal conspiracy is just ordinary, everyday, and constitutionally protected journalism. In fact so much of the indictment is dedicated to describing legitimate journalism that a reader can鈥檛 help but wonder whether the Justice Department believes the alleged hacking was necessary to support an indictment here, or just sufficient.
The indictment is troubling for another reason, too. While Assange wasn鈥檛 charged with violating the Espionage Act鈥攖he World War I-era law that criminalizes unauthorized dissemination of 鈥渘ational defense information鈥濃�攖he indictment states that the purpose of the conspiracy for which he was charged was to violate the Espionage Act. This raises the question whether this indictment is just an opening salvo aimed at easing the path for extradition, with more substantial charges to be added later. It鈥檚 striking that after years of characterizing Assange as an agent of a hostile intelligence service, and worse, the U.S. government has now charged him only with trying, unsuccessfully, to crack a password.
We knew before this indictment that the current administration was threatening a more aggressive stance toward investigative journalism. James Comey, who was then the FBI director, a February 2017 meeting during which President Trump complained to him about leaks of classified information. Comey told the president that he was 鈥渆ager鈥� to identify the leakers and 鈥渨ould like to nail one to the door as a message.鈥� Evidently Trump wasn鈥檛 satisfied. An appropriate response, Trump told Comey, would involve 鈥減utting reporters in jail.鈥�
This indictment doesn鈥檛 cross that line. But no one should be celebrating this shot across the bow of press freedom.
Learn More 吃瓜直播 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
National Security
Aclu Urges House Committee To Remove Dangerous Anti-dissent Provision From Tax Bill. Explore Press Release.吃瓜直播 Urges House Committee to Remove Dangerous Anti-Dissent Provision from Tax Bill
WASHINGTON 鈥� In an apparent effort to aid President Trump鈥檚 discriminatory clamp down on free speech, Republicans on the House Ways & Means Committee have snuck a dangerous anti-dissent bill into their massive, new tax package. This provision, formerly known as H.R. 9495, would grant the executive branch the power to effectively shut down any non-profit organization 鈥� including news outlets, universities, and civil liberties groups 鈥� by accusing them of 鈥渟upporting terrorism鈥� and using that accusation to suspend their tax-exempt status without any real due process. It was defeated last year, yet extreme politicians are now trying to resurrect it once again. Mark-up of the tax bill will begin in the House Ways & Means Committee at 2:30 p.m. ET today. The following is a statement from Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel with the 吃瓜直播: 鈥淲e've already seen the Trump administration falsely conflate students protesting in support of Palestinian rights with Hamas, deport immigrants to an El Salvadorian prison without due process, and detain students thousands of miles away from their loved ones for criticizing U.S. foreign policy. It is not a stretch to imagine how this bill could be used to pressure universities to shut down student groups, scare human rights organizations away from working with vulnerable communities, and further stifle dissent in this country. The Ways & Means Committee must strip this provision from the tax bill before it heads to the floor.鈥� -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Mahmoud Khalil To Appear In Louisiana Immigration Court On May 22. Explore Press Release.Mahmoud Khalil to Appear in Louisiana Immigration Court on May 22
WHAT: One day after the Columbia University commencement ceremony where Mahmoud Khalil was supposed to be walking with his peers, Mr. Khalil will instead be attending his immigration court hearing in Jena, LA. Virtual access is not guaranteed, but there are approximately 20 seats in the courtroom. Mr. Khalil鈥檚 legal team has requested the court grant either virtual or in-person access to interested press and public who wish to view these proceedings. The immigration court judge has not ruled on the motion. Following the hearing, his lawyers will be available for questions. WHEN: Thursday, May 22 (Exact timing yet to be announced) WHERE: Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center (830 Pine Hill Road, Jena, Louisiana) BACKGROUND: On March 8, the Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian human rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1400 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility 鈥� ripping him away from his wife and legal counsel. While stuck in detention, he was forced to miss the birth of his first child. It later came out that they did not have a warrant. At his last immigration hearing in April, in what appeared to be a pre-written decision, a judge ruled that Mr. Khalil was removable under U.S. immigration law 鈥� despite a lack of evidence. In May, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey鈥檚 decision that Khalil鈥檚 case should be heard in New Jersey, where he was located when his habeas petition was filed. A decision on bail is outstanding. -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
R眉meysa 脰zt眉rk To Be Freed From Detention As Case Proceeds. Explore Press Release.R眉meysa 脰zt眉rk To Be Freed From Detention as Case Proceeds
BURLINGTON, Vt. 鈥� A federal court today ordered the release of R眉meysa 脰zt眉rk, a former Fulbright scholar and current Tufts University Ph.D. student researching child development. This comes more than six weeks after the Trump administration arrested and detained her because of an op-ed she co-authored in The Tufts Daily. With this ruling, she will be able to return to her Massachusetts community and continue her studies while the case proceeds. 鈥淚 am relieved and ecstatic that R眉meysa has been ordered released. Unfortunately, it is 45 days too late. She has been imprisoned all these days for simply writing an op-ed that called for human rights and dignity for the people in Palestine. When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?鈥� said Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law. 鈥淚 am thankful that the courts have been ruling in favor of detained political prisoners like R眉meysa. The public plays an important role in upholding our constitutional rights. Please continue to speak up for democracy and civil rights in every space including our elected offices, our universities, and our halls of justice.鈥� Ms. 脰zt眉rk, who has not been accused of any crime, was taken by plainclothes ICE agents in Somerville, Massachusetts on March 25. For nearly 24 hours, Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 attorney was unable to locate her as ICE quickly and quietly moved her to three separate locations in three different states 鈥� including Vermont 鈥� before sending her to Louisiana. 鈥淔rom the moment a swarm of ICE agents abducted Ms. 脰zt眉rk in broad daylight, the government has spared no effort to evade accountability and deny her due process. Today, the court delivered reprieve and justice 鈥� for Ms. 脰zt眉rk, who should not have spent even one minute incarcerated, let alone the six weeks she has endured in deplorable conditions at an ICE detention center in Louisiana,鈥� said Mudassar Toppa, staff attorney at CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic at CUNY School of Law. 鈥淢ake no mistake, the government tried to punish Ms. 脰zt眉rk for lending her pen to advocacy for Palestinian human rights and the court's decision today is not only a victory for Ms. 脰zt眉rk, but everyone who wishes to advocate for Palestinian human rights without fear of retaliation. We look forward to continuing the legal fight to vindicate all of her constitutional rights.鈥� Ms. 脰zt眉rk has detailed her harrowing night being shuttled across New England with little food after a day of fasting for Ramadan. She describes being shackled by her feet and stomach and then driven to different sites for meetings with unidentified men, some in uniform and some not. One group so unsettled her, Ms. 脰zt眉rk wrote, that she 鈥渨as sure they were going to kill me.鈥� At another stop, she repeatedly asked an officer if she was in physical danger. 鈥淔or 45 days, R眉meysa has been detained in Louisiana 鈥� over 1300 miles from her friends, her community, and her lawyers. During that time, she has suffered regular and escalating asthma attacks. And at the same time, the government has failed to produce any justification for her detention,鈥� said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the 吃瓜直播 of Massachusetts. 鈥淲e are so relieved that R眉meysa will soon be back in Massachusetts, and won鈥檛 stop fighting until she is free for good.鈥� Ms. 脰zt眉rk has suffered six weeks of crowded confinement in Louisiana with hardly any access to fresh air and in conditions that doctors say risk exacerbating her asthma attacks. Whereas her attacks used to last between 5 - 15 minutes, they now can last up to 45 minutes. Recent court filings also describe difficulty receiving appropriate care in detention, including delays to receive medical care and dismissive comments from medical staff. Since the government arrested Ms. 脰zt眉rk, her community at Tufts and around the country have rallied around her. Hundreds of friends, colleagues, and professors, including the president of Tufts University, have sent letters of support to the court detailing Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 dedication to her work and her community. 鈥淩眉meysa can now return to her beloved Tufts community, resume her studies, and begin teaching again. We could not be more delighted,鈥� said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with 吃瓜直播. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling underscores a vital First Amendment principle: No one should be imprisoned by the government for expressing their beliefs.鈥� 鈥淎fter today鈥檚 ruling, R眉meysa can return to her community at Tufts and sleep safely in her own bed. Tomorrow, she can wake up and begin the process of healing from this experience while she finishes her Ph.D. in child development.鈥� said Monica Allard, staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播 of Vermont. 鈥淪pending over six weeks in detention for writing an op-ed is a constitutional horror story. Her release is a victory for everyone committed to justice, free speech, and basic human rights.鈥� 鈥淭he government sent masked, plainclothes agents to kidnap R眉meysa off the street and lock her up for writing an op-ed. She has been a political prisoner for six weeks,鈥� said Sonya Levitova, associate at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. 鈥淣ow that she鈥檚 free and can resume her studies and rejoin her community at Tufts, we look forward to seeing the government in court to vindicate R眉meysa鈥檚 rights in full.鈥� Ms. 脰zt眉rk is represented by Mahsa Khanbabai, the 吃瓜直播, 吃瓜直播 of Massachusetts, 吃瓜直播 of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. For documents and other case information, see here. -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
Religious Liberty
Aclu Moves To Dismiss Lawsuit That Seeks To Punish Non-profit Advocacy Against Religious Activities In Oklahoma Schools. Explore Press Release.吃瓜直播 Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit That Seeks to Punish Non-Profit Advocacy against Religious Activities in Oklahoma Schools
OKLAHOMA CITY 鈥� Today, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against it by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). FFRF sent letters to public schools in Oklahoma objecting to religious activities, prompting State Superintendent Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma Department of Education to file a 鈥淪LAPP鈥� suit seeking to punish its constitutionally protected speech. The state鈥檚 Department of Education has failed to identify any actual violation of law. 鈥淲e are proud of the work we are doing to protect the rights of conscience of public school children in Oklahoma,鈥� said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. 鈥淭his frivolous lawsuit by Ryan Walters seeks to silence FFRF, and we are not going to allow that to happen.鈥� FFRF is represented by the 吃瓜直播 and the 吃瓜直播 of Oklahoma. This 鈥淪trategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation鈥� (SLAPP) seeks to chill the free speech and petition rights of FFRF. SLAPP suits are used to weaponize the legal system to punish and silence constitutionally protected speech. 鈥淎dvocacy organizations have the right to criticize government policy and push for change,鈥� said Megan Lambert, legal director of the 吃瓜直播 of Oklahoma. 鈥淭his lawsuit is just another in a long line of political stunts by OSDE as it seeks to silence and punish dissent. We will vigorously defend FFRF鈥檚 First Amendment rights against the Department鈥檚 abuse of the legal process.鈥� 鈥淥ur client has not violated any law by speaking out against religious activities in Oklahoma public schools,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭his lawsuit has one goal: to chill our client鈥檚 ability to petition the government. This is an abusive legal tactic intended to punish people and organizations for speaking out and fighting back against government policies.鈥� The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The motion can be viewed online here.