What Assange being freed means

Editor's note: Bradley Blankenship, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Prague-based American journalist, political analyst, and freelance reporter. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has just been released following a stunning plea deal between the journalist and U.S. authorities. While this development should be a relief to anyone concerned with press freedom, the Biden administration's handling of the case is nothing short of disgraceful.

On Tuesday, Assange flew from the UK to a U.S. territory in the Pacific for a brief court appearance. The next day, he became a free man and returned to his native Australia as a beacon of hope in an otherwise tumultuous situation. 

This deal is undeniably a lifeline for Assange, who has endured severe health issues during his five years in Belmarsh prison, following seven years of asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It also conveniently spares the Biden administration from the potential embarrassment of losing the extradition battle in the UK high court and sidesteps the risk of the Assange case becoming a polarizing election issue.

But this was not a win for press freedom. Indeed, the worst-case scenario has been avoided, and journalists everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief that this resolution didn't come through a court ruling. A plea deal lacks the official precedent-setting power of a conviction and subsequent appeals court ruling – decisions that could have compelled future courts to rule against journalists in similar cases.

However, the charge the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) forced Assange to plead guilty to for his freedom is profoundly concerning: conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. This law targets those who "receive and obtain" documents connected with the national defense and "willfully communicate" them "to persons not entitled to receive them" – which, in Assange's case, means the public. This so-called "crime" is one that journalists at major outlets across the U.S. commit almost daily.

While future courts may not easily cite DOJ v. Assange, the guilty plea could still serve as a dangerous precedent. It could embolden future federal prosecutors with a vendetta against the press, leading them to view this case as a successful model. News outlets' legal teams may now fear that routine journalistic activities could invite prosecution under what was once clearly protected by the First Amendment.

This is not entirely abstract. Future U.S. administrations could prosecute journalists given the precedent set by this guilty plea by a publisher under the Espionage Act. Former U.S. President Donald Trump, for instance, has openly called the press "enemies of the people" on the campaign trail, a point which is often highlighted by Democrats. It is ridiculous that the White House would gift future administrations such a powerful weapon to undermine American democracy.

It's for these reasons that it is impossible to laud the Biden administration for the outcome of this case. They could have dismissed this case three years ago upon taking control of the DOJ. Every major civil liberties and human rights group in the nation repeatedly urged them to do so. They could have dismissed it today, with Assange having served the same amount of prison time, but they instead chose to reaffirm in court that they consider obtaining and publishing secret government documents a crime.

Some folks will maintain that Assange got what he deserved or that he wasn't actually a journalist. This is often a reflexive reaction to the uncomfortable truth that the Assange campaign will necessarily impact countless others in the media. While WikiLeaks and Assange alienated Democratic voters by pushing leaked Democratic National Committee and campaign emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign before the 2016 election, the issue is far more fundamental than petty politics and also did not have anything to do with 2016.

It is to be hoped that this is only a slight aberration. But it is almost certain that it will not be. Power must be checked by accountability to be reasonably and responsibly managed. With this precedent, future DOJs will be able – and thus have the incentive – to criminalize ordinary journalistic activities.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)