Assange is free but the struggle for press freedom and whistleblower advocacy continues

Julian Assange is free but will the government now act on David McBride, Richard Boyle and other whistleblowers?

Julian Assange is finally free, marking the end of a long saga that began in 2010 when WikiLeaks released footage of the United States military killing civilians and journalists in Baghdad – an incident regarded by many as a war crime, which saw no charges laid against anyone involved, except for the people who reported the war crimes: Assange and Chelsea Manning. Throughout Assange’s imprisonment, successive Australian governments displayed varying degrees of indifference to his plight, with some politicians vocally supported his release while in opposition, only to retreat from these positions once in power.

Of particularly note was the stance of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard who claimed in 2010 that Assange was “guilty of illegality” – even though no charges had been laid that stage, and also going on to say that she didn’t have a “great deal of respect” for Assange releasing the scores of material depicting possible war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and believed there was “no moral purpose” behind his actions.

This was indicative of the attitudes of many political leaders and mainstream journalists at the time – and continued for most of the time Assange was in jail – and he was left to languish, facing the possibility of execution in the United States, until a significant shift occurred once Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister. While in opposition, Albanese had campaigned on a platform that included justice for Assange, a promise he continued upon assuming office.

The quiet and slow diplomacy was initially met with skepticism and criticism for its sluggishness, but ultimately proved effective, leading to Assange’s release. Jennifer Robinson, Assange’s legal counsel, highlighted the extensive global support for Assange that played a central role in this outcome, as well as Albanese’s leadership and diplomacy, which she credited as instrumental in securing Assange’s freedom.

This event has reignited discussions about the nature of WikiLeaks’ other disclosures, particularly those that influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Critics argue about the appropriateness of the material released against Hillary Clinton during that campaign, but the core issue remains the public’s right to know about the actions of their governments – we can’t pick and choose or have preferences over the type of material that is released, and whether it was 2010 Baghdad attacks or the 2016 U.S. election, governments and the players within the political system need to be held to account. Assange’s release does not negate the divisive views on his actions; rather, it highlights the complexities of freedom of speech and the press.

When considering the broader implications of Assange’s incarceration, it is crucial to weigh up the effect it may have had on journalism, and the charges and prolonged legal battles faced by Assange highlighted the risks journalists endure when exposing governmental misconduct. While opinions on Assange’s methods and motivations vary widely, the principle that underpins his ordeal is the essential right to hold power to account – a principle that vital to a functioning democracy.

Deep flaws in the U.S. Espionage Act: A call for reform and transparency

The charges against Assange have raised debates about the U.S. Espionage Act and its implications on freedom of the press and the right to information. Originally enacted in 1917 amid fears of communist influence following the Russian Revolution, the Espionage Act was intended to protect national security by preventing the sharing of state secrets with foreign governments. However, its application has often extended far beyond these initial intentions, targeting not just spies but also those perceived as ideological threats to the U.S. government.