Turner Wright7 hours agoNY Times defends article on Caroline Ellison: The public has a ‘legitimate interest’The media outlet claimed the public and press had a right to receive information on a “central participant in a financial scheme that defrauded investors of billions of dollars.”1149 Total views4 Total sharesListen to article 0:00NewsJoin us on social networksThe New York Times has submitted a filing in the criminal case against former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried, arguing the court should defend First Amendment rights by allowing certain parties to provide information to members of the media.

In an Aug. 2 letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, NYT vice president and deputy general counsel David McCraw expressed concerns about the gag order placed upon Bankman-Fried and what participants in his criminal trial were allowed to say to journalists. On July 20, The New York Times published an article revealing details of former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison’s private journals, including her professional and personal relationship with SBF.

McCraw argued that since Bankman-Fried was a “non-lawyer,” the standard for imposing a gag order aimed at preventing harm to other parties connected to the criminal case was stricter than for lawyers. As Judge Kaplan removed language from the order, suggesting it wasn’t necessary to prevent “interfer[ing] with a fair trial,” the NYT claimed the public and members of the Fourth Estate had a right to receive information according to the First Amendment.

“While the current round of motion practice was prompted by a Times article about Caroline Ellison, and the Government argues that the article was part of Defendant’s effort to interfere with the trial, that overlooks the public’s legitimate interest—independent of this prosecution—in Ms. Ellison and her activities at her cryptocurrency trading firm,” said McCraw. “She has confessed to being a central participant in a financial scheme that defrauded investors of billions of dollars—a scheme that was not detected by government regulators and law enforcement agencies until the public’s money had disappeared.”

He added:“It is not surprising that the public wants to know more about who she is and what she did and that news organizations would seek to provide to the public timely, pertinent, and fairly reported information about her.”

Lawyers for Bankman-Fried turned over documents connected to the NYT interview — seemingly including Ellison’s journals — to the court on July 27. The judge in SBF’s criminal case could reach a decision on Aug. 3 as prosecutors push to have his $250-million bail revoked, claiming the interview was intended to intimidate Ellison and affect her testimony.

Related:Was Sam Bankman-Fried behind a scam project?

Since his arrest and indictment in December 2022, Bankman-Fried has returned to the New York courthouse several times to address issues related to his bail conditions, which largely require him to stay in his parents’ California home. He is already barred from using messaging apps, virtual private networks and certain technology.

Justice Department officials announced on July 27 that they expected to drop the charge concerning violations of campaign finance against SBF due to the conditions of the extradition agreement with the Bahamas. (Bankman-Fried was originally arrested in the island nation before being transferred to U.S. custody.) The former FTX CEO still faces 12 criminal counts, which will be spread across two trials scheduled for October 2023 and March 2024.

Magazine:Deposit risk: What do crypto exchanges really do with your money?# Media# Court# Sam Bankman-Fried# RegulationAdd reactionAdd reactionRelated NewsHow to track and report crypto transactions for tax purposesGerman political parties split on how to regulate increasing AI adoptionHow will Bitcoin halving affect BTC price, and is DeFi dead?Sam Bankman-Fried’s brother planned to buy island and prep for apocalypse: court filingFTX’s Bankman-Fried seeks gag order for all witnesses in criminal caseProposed gag order in SBF’s criminal case under review, citing attempt to ‘influence public opinion’