I do not think it is a loss for freedom of the press, I think it is an opportunity for the courts to define what a journalist actually is, vs. not. Perhaps the courts will side with Assange and we will find that this is First Amendment protected activity. I personally do not believe it is, but I do think that this situation is a bit unique to modern times and is likely to set precedent one way or the other.
Sure, that could happen and be the result out of all this. I think that is jumping to the worst possible conclusion though and the result will be a bit more nuanced than that.
If a Russian citizen exposed evidence that the Beslan massacre of schoolchildren was staged by the government and Putin tossed them in prison under an espionage law that explicitly criminalizes leaks, would you consider that situation "nuanced"?
"Russia also does this. Inconvenient journalists are designated "foreign agents", for instance."
Inconvenient journalists financed from abroad. And "foreign agents" are not imprisoned, they just obligated by the law to remind their readers about this fact.
I think it shows that you can put a lid on foreign journalism by drawing your chequebook. Just add a few indictments from the extradition agreement. The UK courts clearly haven't sided with Assange.
Zeems awfully convenient to label anything that embarrases the government as 'secret national security matter'. The government can literally get away with murder
