5 ms·
They don't know. If they found out (via a leak, not via doing something explicitly illegal themselves like hacking), they would be allowed to publish the name e
by xxpor 4y ago
They don't know. If they found out (via a leak, not via doing something explicitly illegal themselves like hacking), they would be allowed to publish the name even with the current court order. Basic 1st amendment precedent.
- londons_explore 4y agoKinda odd that they care so much then - like it's probably just some rich friends of SBF who were happy to put money up for an old friend, but didn't want their names plastered all over the news.
- xxpor 4y agoCan't know until you find out though.
- adamsmith143 4y agoOld friend? The guys 20-something. How does he have "old friends" that can spring $250M for him overnight?
- acrispino 4y agoHe's out on a personal recognizance bond. Nobody put up $250M
- tedunangst 4y agoIsn't the point of journalism to find out what's happening instead of making assumptions about what's probably happening?
- jimscard 4y agoThat’s exactly what’s at the core of the request — if it was some rich friends of SBF, maybe they’d be happy to gift him the money — but the requirement is that the invidividuals providing the sureity be sufficiently at arm’s length that they would be able to influence him not to flee - so that they could get their money back. For all we know at this point, they could be co-conspirators.