The New York Times Opposes Imprisonment of SBF on the Grounds of Upholding the First Amendment of the US Constitution

Odaily Planet Daily News "The New York Times" wrote to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and stated that the "New York Times" opposed the imprisonment of SBF because this behavior violated the First Amendment right of the US Constitution to protect the public from information about financial scandals. The New York Times pointed out that SBF’s provision of ex-girlfriend Caroline Ellison’s private diary to The New York Times was considered by the Justice Department as part of an attempt to interfere with the trial, but this ignored the public’s legitimate interest in Ellison and his activities at the cryptocurrency trading company — independent of this prosecution. She has admitted to being a central player in a financial scam that defrauded investors of billions of dollars -- a scam that government regulators and law enforcement agencies didn't discover until the public's money disappeared. The public wants to know more about who she is and what she's doing, and it's not surprising that news organizations would strive to provide the public with timely, relevant, and impartially reported information about her, as The New York Times has done in its reporting. Of course, the parties may well choose not to speak to the media in the future, but if they choose to do so, Rule 23.1 provides the appropriate safeguards and balance of interests. The New York Times respectfully requests that any such restrictions be imposed only as permitted by the First Amendment and Rule 23.1(a) and (h). As previously reported, the U.S. Department of Justice said in a document late Thursday that Sam Bankman-Fried's defenders did not deny that he shared the diaries of former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison with The New York Times, so he should be "detained pending trial." ". "The record here demonstrates that defendant (SBF) was not merely exercising his constitutional right to free speech in good faith, but that he undertook a covert operation designed to improperly discredit a witness who appeared in court and to adversely influence a jury," the document states. "