NYT opposes gag order against SBF ahead of trial

Author: Mike Dalton, CryptoSlate; Compiler: Song Xue, Jinse Finance

On August 3, The New York Times objected to the temporary and potential future gag orders imposed on former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, who Indicted on multiple felony charges for alleged mismanagement and eventual collapse of the exchange.

**The New York Times said in a court filing that court orders restricting speech must follow legal standards. It added that any such order would have to protect the public’s First Amendment right to know about FTX’s collapse, calling it “a scandal that has robbed the economy of billions and hurt countless members of the public.”

The New York Times argues that restrictions on speech, especially for non-legal professionals like Bankman-Fried, should be scrutinized more closely than restrictions on legal counsel.

To do so, the company invoked two legal provisions. First, it cites a rule on orders against legal counsel. The rule states that attorneys and law firms should not release information if it could interfere with a fair trial or cause bias.

Another rule applies only to non-lawyers, and courts can issue orders controlling speech when any speech “may interfere with the defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.” The New York Times claimed that the restrictions would only be permitted if the rights of the defendants were threatened — but that does not appear to be the case, as Bankman-Fried chose to share the information voluntarily.

The New York Times expresses further objections

Additionally, The New York Times disputed the government prosecutor’s statement. The government previously said the defendant, Bankman-Fried, had the right to speak to the media, but he could only speak in his own defense. The New York Times claimed that, regardless of the relevant terms, it was “not the standard.”

The New York Times clarified that their coverage of Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, the subject of the FTX scandal, was purely informative and had no intention of influencing the case. It said the public had a legitimate interest in Ellison’s actions, which was unrelated to the case against Fried because Ellison admitted to being involved with FTX.

The New York Times only cares about gag orders. It did not say directly whether its reporting would have influenced witnesses or potential jurors, and whether it would have warranted revoking Bankman-Fried’s bail, as prosecutors have suggested.

Others have expressed similar objections to keeping the case secret. Inner City Press said documents on the matter should not remain sealed. Legal scholar Laurence H. Tribe also opposed any gag order in a recent filing.