Julian Assange Walks Free as a Hero and a Villain

• Julian Assange came under fire in 2010 when he revealed damning actions of the U.S. government and military during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars

• After seeking asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Assange pled guilty in a U.S. court and, in exchange, will serve no further jail time

• The underlying issue pertaining to the constitutionality of Assange’s actions remains unaddressed

The story

In 2006, Julian Assange founded the website Wikileaks, which compiled leaked confidential documents from governments around the world. Then in 2010, he uncovered numerous classified documents revealing controversial actions by the U.S. government.

His findings included the Collateral Murder video showing a U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed civilians and journalists, the Afghan and Iraq war logs detailing military operations and civilian casualties, and the Guantanamo files exposing detainee profiles and assessments. Additionally, Assange released U.S. diplomatic cables that disclosed confidential communications and sensitive information about U.S. foreign policies and relations.

While Assange, an Australian citizen, was pursued by the U.S. government, he resided in the United Kingdom and was wanted on rape charges in Sweden. But Swedish law was not his primary concern: he was worried that the U.S. would request his extradition from Sweden after he published documents received from a former U.S. soldier detailing American activities in the Middle East.

So, in 2012, he secretly entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he remained for seven years until the Ecuadorian government evicted him in 2019 for rude behavior. At that point, he was arrested by the U.K. government. Sweden had dropped the charges, but the U.S. had not. In June 2019, Donald Trump’s Justice Department formally requested his extradition from the U.K.

Legal wrangling began: the U.K. — which does not use the death penalty and views its enforcement as a human rights violation — was concerned that Assange could face execution in America.

Five years later, Assange has accepted a plea deal. In exchange for pleading guilty to “conspiring unlawfully to obtain and disseminate classified information,” he was sentenced to five years in prison, including time already served in the U.K. — meaning he is immediately rendered a free man.

The politics

The Assange saga lasted over a decade. He was prosecuted by the Justice Departments of three presidents — Obama, Trump, and Biden — representing both parties. The case, due to its length and character, shattered traditional political coalitions. It was considered a battle between those who view Assange as a noble truth-teller and others who believe he acted on behalf of foreign security forces, such as Russia’s.

Traditional national security conservatives were outraged by the plea deal. Former Vice President Mike Pence called it “a miscarriage of justice” and regretted that Assange had not been prosecuted “to the fullest extent of the law.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) — a libertarian-minded Republican — was elated, calling Assange’s release a “liberation” and “great news.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), an ally of the GOP’s MAGA wing, agreed with Massie, saying it was “amazing.” Donald Trump has not commented, though he said recently that he’d give “serious consideration” to pardoning Assange if returned to the White House.

Leftist documentarian Michael Moore reacted positively, calling it a “happy day.” Former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard said prosecution “should never have happened.” And while President Biden has not commented, he recently said he was considering dropping the charges against Assange.

Beyond the headlines

Constitutional issues at the core of this case are murky. Assange was charged under the Espionage Act, which hails from 1917 when America was fighting World War I. The act was upheld in a 1919 Supreme Court case, but that case involved prosecuting a socialist for disseminating pamphlets critical of America joining the war, and is widely misunderstood.

A common misunderstanding revolves around the phrase, “You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater,” which, contrary to popular belief, is not a legal restriction. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that speech can be restricted only in cases of inciting “imminent lawless action.”

In Assange’s case, it is unclear whether he should have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. The government claimed that he incited a soldier to obtain and release diplomatic cables, which may have satisfied the Supreme Court’s “imminent lawless action” requirement. However, computer experts were skeptical of some claims, and it is highly likely that this case would have ended up at the Supreme Court, too.

Why it matters

Julian Assange’s 15-year saga provided the public with valuable information about how the U.S. government was fighting wars and created an opinion split on whether he was a hero or a villain. Assange obtained classified information to expose wrongdoings about a nation while its troops were deployed overseas battling terrorists.

Did he compromise the troops’ safety and intentionally turn public sentiment against the government? Or did he heroically expose evil perpetrated by the most powerful government in the world?

As Americans and critical thinkers worldwide decide these questions for themselves, Assange is finally walking free.

While Julian Assange’s legal battles unwind, governments around the world are attempting to censor social media and other forms of speech. Thorny constitutional questions surrounding the Assange case ensure that the battle will continue over where free speech should end.