Author: Mike Dalton, CryptoSlate; Translation: Song Xue, LianGuai
On August 3rd, The New York Times opposed the temporary and potential future gag orders imposed on Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of FTX, who has been accused of multiple serious crimes related to alleged mismanagement and eventual collapse of the exchange.
The New York Times stated in a court filing that any court order restricting speech must adhere to legal standards. It added that any such order must protect the public’s right to know about the collapse of FTX under the First Amendment, calling it “a scandal that deprived billions of dollars from the economy and harmed countless members of the public.”
The New York Times argued that restrictions on speech, particularly those targeting non-legal professionals like Bankman-Fried, should be subject to stricter scrutiny compared to restrictions on legal counsel.
- Triggering a wave of Ethereum futures ETF applications? Listing seven Ethereum futures ETF filing companies
- Four years after its financing, CoinList, the co-founder of the new project Eco, launches the Currency Experiment.
- LianGuai Daily | Base Mainnet will be open to the public on August 9th; HashKey Exchange has been approved to provide services to retail investors.
To support its argument, the publication cited two legal provisions. Firstly, it referenced a rule concerning orders against legal counsel. The rule states that information should not be released if it may interfere with a fair trial or create bias.
The second rule applies specifically to non-attorneys, where a court may issue an order controlling speech when any speech “might interfere with the defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.” The New York Times claimed that such restrictions should only be allowed if the defendant’s rights are genuinely threatened, which does not appear to be the case as Bankman-Fried chose to voluntarily share information.
The New York Times further expressed opposition.
In addition, The New York Times objected to the government prosecutors’ statement. The government had previously stated that the defendant, Bankman-Fried, has the right to speak to the media, but only for his own defense. The New York Times claimed that regardless of the relevant terms, this is “not the standard.”
The New York Times clarified that its reporting on Caroline Ellison, the CEO of Alameda Research and a central figure in the FTX scandal, was purely for informational purposes and not intended to influence this case. It stated that the public has a legitimate interest in Ellison’s actions, which are unrelated to the case against Bankman-Fried, as Ellison has admitted involvement in FTX’s affairs.
The New York Times is solely concerned with the gag orders. It does not directly state whether its reporting would affect witnesses or potential jurors and whether it is worth revoking Bankman-Fried’s bail, as suggested by the prosecutors.
Others have expressed similar objections to the sealing of documents related to this case. Inner City Press stated that the documents should not remain sealed. Legal scholar Laurence H. Tribe also opposed any gag orders in a recently submitted document.
Like what you're reading? Subscribe to our top stories.
We will continue to update Gambling Chain; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!
