Julian Assange Extradition: US Win Can Be the Death Knell for Press Freedom

The UK ruling would undermine the role of journalists across the world in bringing governments to account.

In this 2019 file photo, buildings are reflected in the window as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is taken from court.

(Photo: AP)

It was a cruel twist of irony. It was Human Rights Day. It was the day when two journalists, Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, were honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize for defying the governments of the Philippines and Russia, respectively, to report news that officials find inconvenient.

It was the same day that a court in London ruled that the extradition of the controversial Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, to the United States is legal. It was also the second day of the Summit on Democracy held by US President Joe Biden. But it was a horrific day for press freedom.

Isolation in Maximum-Security Prison

Referring to the secret documents published on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by Assange, Matthias von Hein, editor of DW wrote: “Those documents prove the US committed war crimes. Yet, so far, no one has been held accountable. Instead, a vendetta has been unleashed against the journalist to whom the world owes those revelations. Numerous organizations have campaigned for Assange's release: Amnesty International; Reporters Without Borders; Human Rights Watch, and the International Federation of Journalists with its 600,000 members worldwide.”

He added, “They are all witness to his suffering, his isolation in a maximum-security prison. And they see the danger his persecution poses to press freedom worldwide. Authoritarian regimes are already deflecting condemnation of their treatment of critical journalists by pointing to Assange.”

In fact, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and a coalition of 25 press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights organisations wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney-General Merrick Garland in October, stating:

"As we explained in our earlier letter, journalists routinely engage in much of the conduct described in the indictment: speaking with sources, asking for clarification or more documentation, and receiving and publishing official secrets. News organizations frequently and necessarily publish classified information in order to inform the public of matters of profound public significance."

The letter said, “We appreciate that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting bona fide national security interests, but the proceedings against Mr Assange jeopardize journalism that is crucial to democracy. In our view, a precedent created by prosecuting Assange could be used against publishers and journalists alike, chilling their work and undermining freedom of the press.”

Dodging the Real Argument

Having interviewed Assange several times over the years, mostly at the famous Frontier Club in London, I have no doubt that Assange has emerged as one of the most controversial whistleblowers of present times, hailed by supporters as a fearless campaigner for press freedom and denounced by critics as self-aggrandising and reckless. But the current High Court judgment, which is bound to be challenged by Assange’s team, if upheld, could have severe ramifications for journalists and their sources. Regarding the judgment, Amnesty International iterated: “If upheld, it would undermine the key role of journalists and publishers in scrutinising governments and exposing their misdeeds would leave journalists everywhere looking over their shoulders.”

Notably, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s words while honouring the two journalists, ring loud: “They are representatives of all journalists who stand up for this ideal in a world in which democracy and freedom of the press face increasingly adverse conditions. Free, independent and fact-based journalism serves to protect against abuse of power, lies and war propaganda.”

At a time when trust in mainstream media and government institutions continues to plummet, Assange, for many, has come to symbolise the fight to protect freedoms.

Even in January, when Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against extradition, she rejected allegations that Assange was on trial for political reasons or that he would be denied a fair trial in the United States. However, she said Assange was likely to be a suicide risk if held in “near-total isolation” in a US prison.

Responding to that judgment, Assange’s biographer, Andrew Fowler, had said that the judge’s ruling “sends a chill through journalism”. He said, “Essentially, it showed that what journalists do for a living is seen by British courts to be a criminal act. It sends a chill through journalism. And to say it’s his mental health that stands in the way is a way of dodging the real argument – and the argument is that every journalist is now on alert that anything they do ... they can be picked up off the streets, charged by the US and extradited to the US on any charges the US wants to bring.”

Criticism Against HC Ruling

There has been a stream of criticism against the High Court ruling. Assange’s former PR representative, Richard Hillgrove, said via an email, “This has served the purpose of illuminating all of the global voices of freedom to the authorities. ‘If this can happen to Assange for simply exposing the truth, then it could happen to me for publishing a leaked document.’ At the same time, it has created a petrifying and chilling example to the global journalistic community – crushing investigative journalism worldwide.”

Although Assange is not a traditional publisher, there is apprehension within established media publishers that charging him under the Espionage Act for publishing government secrets could be a slippery slope, in which more mainstream outlets are similarly prosecuted.

A lot will now depend on Home Secretary Priti Patel’s decision following the High Court order. There is precedence that the British government has not always been so receptive to US requests for extradition.

In 2018, the US gave up appealing a decision by a court in the UK to oppose the extradition of British security researcher Lauri Love to face charges of allegedly breaching the computer networks of a number of American government agencies.

Another British hacker, Gary McKinnon, was not extradited for accessing US government computers in 2012, after a 10-year legal battle, because he was considered “seriously ill”. Former British Prime Minister Theresa May, who was then Home Secretary, made the decision not to extradite McKinnon.

(Nabanita Sircar is a senior journalist based in London. She tweets at @sircarnabanita. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)