The New York Times opposes the imprisonment of SBF: The ruling violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

ChainCatcher message, The New York Times wrote to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan stating that The New York Times opposes the imprisonment of SBF, as this action violates the First Amendment rights of the public to obtain information about financial scandals protected by the U.S. Constitution.

The New York Times pointed out that SBF's provision of his ex-girlfriend Caroline Ellison's private diary to The New York Times was considered by the judicial department as an attempt to interfere with the trial, but this overlooks the public's legitimate interest in Ellison and her activities at the cryptocurrency trading company. The public has the right to know more about her identity and actions, and news organizations will strive to provide timely, relevant, and fair reporting to the public. Article 23.1 of the Constitution will provide appropriate protection and balance of interests for the free speech of relevant witnesses. Imprisonment restrictions on SBF can only be imposed when permitted by the First Amendment and Rules 23.1(a) and (h).