El apagón mediático de SBF se vuelve en su contra: el New York Times gana la batalla por la Primera Enmienda

Drama heating up in the SBF trial—New York Times just clapped back at the court’s gag order, and they’re not backing down.

Here’s what went down: SBF’s lawyers tried to muzzle media coverage after the Times published Caroline Ellison’s private journals, revealing her relationship with the former FTX CEO. The prosecution claimed it was witness intimidation. But the Times’ legal team came swinging, arguing the public has a “legitimate interest” in knowing who Ellison is—especially since she admitted to being a central player in a multi-billion dollar fraud that slipped past regulators.

NY Times VP David McCraw’s key argument? The public deserves to know the backstory. “She confessed to defrauding investors,” he wrote. “It’s not surprising the public wants answers.”

The stakes are real:

• SBF faces prosecutors trying to revoke his $250M bail
• He’s barred from messaging apps and VPNs already
• Two trials coming in Oct 2023 and March 2024
• Down to 12 criminal counts (campaign finance charge dropped due to extradition terms)

This sets a huge precedent for crypto cases: Can courts actually silence the press when fraud reaches this scale? The Times is betting the First Amendment wins. Bankman-Fried is betting it doesn’t.