Pussy Riot brought Chelsea Manning out on stage with them at SXSW

In what surely qualifies as one of the more unexpected opening acts at this year’s SXSW, Russian radical political music collective Pussy Riot opened their set at the festival by revealing a surprise guest: former political prisoner and utter social-media delight Chelsea Manning, who took the stage to briefly talk…

Read more…

In what surely qualifies as one of the more unexpected opening acts at this year’s SXSW, Russian radical political music collective Pussy Riot opened their set at the festival by revealing a surprise guest: former political prisoner and utter social-media delight Chelsea Manning, who took the stage to briefly talk…

Read more...

Chelsea Manning On Live After Prison, Advocacy, And Coder Ethics — SXSW

Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst and whistleblower who was convicted of leaking classified information, talked about re-entering civilian life after spending seven years in federal prison.
In the year since President Obama commuted her 35-year sentence for stealing classified U.S. military files and diplomatic cables and leaking them to WikiLeaks, Manning has resumed her role of public advocacy — declaring her candidacy for the U.S. Senate in…

Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst and whistleblower who was convicted of leaking classified information, talked about re-entering civilian life after spending seven years in federal prison. In the year since President Obama commuted her 35-year sentence for stealing classified U.S. military files and diplomatic cables and leaking them to WikiLeaks, Manning has resumed her role of public advocacy — declaring her candidacy for the U.S. Senate in…

From ‘The Post’ to Donald Trump, the Goverment’s Rocky Battle With the Press (Exclusive Videos)

This is one of a series of stories and videos in which TheWrap explores the background, history and repercussions of the events depicted in the film “The Post,” from the commission and leak of the top-secret Vietnam chronicle the Pentagon Papers to the legal battle over their publication.

As the Trump administration wages a legal battle to stop publication of Michael Wolff’s upcoming book “Fire and Fury,” the new film “The Post” serves as a reminder that this is far from the first administration that has attempted to use the courts to stop coverage it doesn’t like.

The film climaxes on Sunday, June 13, 1971, when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Nixon administration had no legal right to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, the government’s top-secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

For the country, it didn’t much matter. Fighting raged on for another four years at the cost of thousands of American lives. Nor did it prevent deception over future wars, such as the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Also Read: Trump Seeks to Block Publication of Michael Wolff’s Book

But in clearing the way for an unfettered public view of a war that the government had lied about, concluding it was unwinnable despite public assertions to the contrary, the decision made American journalism the big winner.

By ruling for the litigants, The New York Times and The Washington Post, the justices set a high bar for the government to overcome. It ruled that First Amendment rights allowed the press to publish any material so long as it doesn’t pose “grave and irreparable” danger to national security, so stipulated by the Espionage Act of 1917.

The court concluded, “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” The ruling also made it virtually impossible for government to prevent publication of information not illegally acquired by the press.

“It wasn’t the first time the government faced up to the issue of prior restraint,” said Max Frankel, the former executive editor of The New York Times. He was the Times’ Washington bureau chief in March 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst who worked on the report, first made a copy of the papers available.

“But the result was it created conditions for prior restraint that are almost impossible for the government to meet.”

Also Read: Steve Bannon Blasts Donald Trump Jr as ‘Treasonous,’ ‘Unpatriotic’ in New Book

Indeed, over the five decades since the Pentagon Papers case, no challenge to publication has attained such high profile.

At the same time — and this is key for the press — the Court has never addressed whether journalists could be prosecuted for receiving or publishing purloined material. It’s not even clear if a reporter could be punished for just possession of information bearing on national security.

“There hasn’t been another case like the Pentagon Papers,” said Josh Moore, a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “It just doesn’t happen that often.”

And even if it did, it’s difficult to imagine that publishing a comparable report would sustain public attention in today’s sound-byte America. The Pentagon Papers included 7,000 pages of historical analysis and documents in 47 volumes.

“Today, it’s an entirely different landscape,” said Tom Brokaw, the veteran NBC journalist who became the network’s White House correspondent two years after the Paper were published.

“My big concern now is that the Pentagon Papers would be sliced and diced by all the ideological interest groups, making it hard to get a composite picture. It would like looking through a kaleidoscope, with people picking out the color that makes them happy.”

Also Read: Steven Spielberg’s ‘The Post’ Trailer: Watch Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks Speak Truth to Power (Video)

The concept of prior restraint first came before the Supreme Court in 1931, in a case involving a Minneapolis publisher, J.M. Near, who reported that local officials were associated with gangsters. An injunction halted publication. But the Court ruled that prior restraint violated the First Amendment, a precedent that precluded the government, with rare exceptions, from censoring or banning material prior to publication.

The Pentagon Papers echoed that decision, making it “the gold standard problem that many presidents would like to mess with,” said Jane Hall, a professor of journalism and media studies at American University in Washington.

Still, the rulings in Near and later the Pentagon papers case did little to discourage other authorities from trying to hide or control stories on government activities.

A few examples:

• In 1961, several publications printed stories about the planned Bay of Pigs invasion by U.S. forces in Cuba, despite strong efforts by the Kennedy administration to prevent publication.

• A year later, the Kennedy administration imposed controls over material given to the press in the weeks leading to the Cuban missile crisis. The government controlled the flow of information and the movements of reporters.

• In 1975, the Los Angeles Times learned that a CIA-built vessel, the Glomar Explorer, was searching for a sunken Soviet submarine. The U.S. government tried to block publication by refusing to respond to the Times’ Freedom of Information Act request. Officials refused to confirm or deny both the search and its effort to block publication, until both facts were finally confirmed in 1977.

• In 1976, a judge in a Nebraska murder case instituted a “gag order” on trial participants. In Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, the Supreme Court overruled that order as a form of prior restraint that had no true applicability when events occur in public.

• In February 1979, President Carter’s Department of Energy secured a temporary injunction against The Progressive magazine to halt publication of an article titled “The H-Bomb Secret: To Know How is to Ask Why.” It purported to explain how the bomb was made, based on public information. The government dropped its objections after learning that similar information had been published in two other outlets. The Progressive published its story later in the year.

Also Read: Scarborough Unloads on Trump: ‘The Truth Does Not Matter’ Is Now White House Policy (Video)

Even with the advantages afforded journalists by the Near and Pentagon Papers cases, administrations have continued pushing news organizations to stop or delay publication. It is routine, Frankel said, that on matters that bear on national security or intelligence, officials argue that publishing certain material could be harmful to the nation.

One of the more recent incidents involved The New York Times’ decision to withhold publishing a story about the Bush administration’s secret warrantless wiretapping program. It was ready to run in late 2004, just ahead of the November elections. But pressure from the White House, which included a meeting between President George W. Bush and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., led to a 13-month delay.

The story finally ran as the deadline approached for a book from one of the reporters on the story, James Risen, who had included the material in “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.”

Almost a decade later, in 2013, that delay cost the Times a major scoop: When Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, was ready to leak classified information about secret global surveillance programs, he bypassed the Times and instead chose The Guardian and The Washington Post. Both won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the stories they ran.

In recent years, the 100-year-old Espionage Act is more likely to be used against leakers than leakees. The Obama administration charged eight people with leaking national security information, including Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

The Trump administration, no fan of what it terms the “fake news” media, has charged Reality Winner, a former intelligence specialist, with leaking a report about Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Also Read: Federal Contractor Named Reality Winner Arrested for NSA Leaks, Twitter Goes Wild Over Her Name

But prosecuting those who disseminate leaks has become all the more difficult, Feldstein said, because of the proliferation of digital media.

“Technology has rendered draconian implications of publishing obsolete,” he said. “Years ago with newspapers, an injunction could literally stop the presses. Now, with people like Julian Assange, you hit ‘send,’ making it impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.”

Beyond its benefits for journalism, the case of the Pentagon Papers had another lasting impact. In trying to discredit Ellsberg after his leaks, President Nixon ordered a band of loyalists — later known as the White House Plumbers — to find a way to obtain damaging information that would hurt Ellsberg’s credibility. To carry out that mission, they broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office.

While the Plumbers found nothing useful, they tried again nine months later, this time breaking into the Democrat National Committee headquarters at the Watergate apartment complex.

For Nixon, that didn’t turn out so well.

Check out the full interview with Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron and legendary Poster reporter/editor Bob Woodward by clicking here.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Behind ‘The Post’: A Pentagon Papers Timeline (Exclusive Videos)

Inside ‘The Post’: Portraits of Washington Post Greats Martin Baron, Bob Woodward and More (Photos)

‘The Post’ Producer Amy Pascal on What Happens in a World of ‘Women Not Speaking Up’

This is one of a series of stories and videos in which TheWrap explores the background, history and repercussions of the events depicted in the film “The Post,” from the commission and leak of the top-secret Vietnam chronicle the Pentagon Papers to the legal battle over their publication.

As the Trump administration wages a legal battle to stop publication of Michael Wolff’s upcoming book “Fire and Fury,” the new film “The Post” serves as a reminder that this is far from the first administration that has attempted to use the courts to stop coverage it doesn’t like.

The film climaxes on Sunday, June 13, 1971, when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Nixon administration had no legal right to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, the government’s top-secret history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

For the country, it didn’t much matter. Fighting raged on for another four years at the cost of thousands of American lives. Nor did it prevent deception over future wars, such as the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But in clearing the way for an unfettered public view of a war that the government had lied about, concluding it was unwinnable despite public assertions to the contrary, the decision made American journalism the big winner.

By ruling for the litigants, The New York Times and The Washington Post, the justices set a high bar for the government to overcome. It ruled that First Amendment rights allowed the press to publish any material so long as it doesn’t pose “grave and irreparable” danger to national security, so stipulated by the Espionage Act of 1917.

The court concluded, “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” The ruling also made it virtually impossible for government to prevent publication of information not illegally acquired by the press.

“It wasn’t the first time the government faced up to the issue of prior restraint,” said Max Frankel, the former executive editor of The New York Times. He was the Times’ Washington bureau chief in March 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst who worked on the report, first made a copy of the papers available.

“But the result was it created conditions for prior restraint that are almost impossible for the government to meet.”

Indeed, over the five decades since the Pentagon Papers case, no challenge to publication has attained such high profile.

At the same time — and this is key for the press — the Court has never addressed whether journalists could be prosecuted for receiving or publishing purloined material. It’s not even clear if a reporter could be punished for just possession of information bearing on national security.

“There hasn’t been another case like the Pentagon Papers,” said Josh Moore, a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “It just doesn’t happen that often.”

And even if it did, it’s difficult to imagine that publishing a comparable report would sustain public attention in today’s sound-byte America. The Pentagon Papers included 7,000 pages of historical analysis and documents in 47 volumes.

“Today, it’s an entirely different landscape,” said Tom Brokaw, the veteran NBC journalist who became the network’s White House correspondent two years after the Paper were published.

“My big concern now is that the Pentagon Papers would be sliced and diced by all the ideological interest groups, making it hard to get a composite picture. It would like looking through a kaleidoscope, with people picking out the color that makes them happy.”

The concept of prior restraint first came before the Supreme Court in 1931, in a case involving a Minneapolis publisher, J.M. Near, who reported that local officials were associated with gangsters. An injunction halted publication. But the Court ruled that prior restraint violated the First Amendment, a precedent that precluded the government, with rare exceptions, from censoring or banning material prior to publication.

The Pentagon Papers echoed that decision, making it “the gold standard problem that many presidents would like to mess with,” said Jane Hall, a professor of journalism and media studies at American University in Washington.

Still, the rulings in Near and later the Pentagon papers case did little to discourage other authorities from trying to hide or control stories on government activities.

A few examples:

• In 1961, several publications printed stories about the planned Bay of Pigs invasion by U.S. forces in Cuba, despite strong efforts by the Kennedy administration to prevent publication.

• A year later, the Kennedy administration imposed controls over material given to the press in the weeks leading to the Cuban missile crisis. The government controlled the flow of information and the movements of reporters.

• In 1975, the Los Angeles Times learned that a CIA-built vessel, the Glomar Explorer, was searching for a sunken Soviet submarine. The U.S. government tried to block publication by refusing to respond to the Times’ Freedom of Information Act request. Officials refused to confirm or deny both the search and its effort to block publication, until both facts were finally confirmed in 1977.

• In 1976, a judge in a Nebraska murder case instituted a “gag order” on trial participants. In Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, the Supreme Court overruled that order as a form of prior restraint that had no true applicability when events occur in public.

• In February 1979, President Carter’s Department of Energy secured a temporary injunction against The Progressive magazine to halt publication of an article titled “The H-Bomb Secret: To Know How is to Ask Why.” It purported to explain how the bomb was made, based on public information. The government dropped its objections after learning that similar information had been published in two other outlets. The Progressive published its story later in the year.

Even with the advantages afforded journalists by the Near and Pentagon Papers cases, administrations have continued pushing news organizations to stop or delay publication. It is routine, Frankel said, that on matters that bear on national security or intelligence, officials argue that publishing certain material could be harmful to the nation.

One of the more recent incidents involved The New York Times’ decision to withhold publishing a story about the Bush administration’s secret warrantless wiretapping program. It was ready to run in late 2004, just ahead of the November elections. But pressure from the White House, which included a meeting between President George W. Bush and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., led to a 13-month delay.

The story finally ran as the deadline approached for a book from one of the reporters on the story, James Risen, who had included the material in “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.”

Almost a decade later, in 2013, that delay cost the Times a major scoop: When Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, was ready to leak classified information about secret global surveillance programs, he bypassed the Times and instead chose The Guardian and The Washington Post. Both won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the stories they ran.

In recent years, the 100-year-old Espionage Act is more likely to be used against leakers than leakees. The Obama administration charged eight people with leaking national security information, including Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

The Trump administration, no fan of what it terms the “fake news” media, has charged Reality Winner, a former intelligence specialist, with leaking a report about Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

But prosecuting those who disseminate leaks has become all the more difficult, Feldstein said, because of the proliferation of digital media.

“Technology has rendered draconian implications of publishing obsolete,” he said. “Years ago with newspapers, an injunction could literally stop the presses. Now, with people like Julian Assange, you hit ‘send,’ making it impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.”

Beyond its benefits for journalism, the case of the Pentagon Papers had another lasting impact. In trying to discredit Ellsberg after his leaks, President Nixon ordered a band of loyalists — later known as the White House Plumbers — to find a way to obtain damaging information that would hurt Ellsberg’s credibility. To carry out that mission, they broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office.

While the Plumbers found nothing useful, they tried again nine months later, this time breaking into the Democrat National Committee headquarters at the Watergate apartment complex.

For Nixon, that didn’t turn out so well.

Check out the full interview with Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron and legendary Poster reporter/editor Bob Woodward by clicking here.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Behind 'The Post': A Pentagon Papers Timeline (Exclusive Videos)

Inside 'The Post': Portraits of Washington Post Greats Martin Baron, Bob Woodward and More (Photos)

'The Post' Producer Amy Pascal on What Happens in a World of 'Women Not Speaking Up'

Showtime Backs Chelsea Manning Documentary ‘XY Chelsea’ Across Multiple Platforms – TCA

A documentary on whistle-blower Chelsea Manning, whose struggle with gender dysphoria coincided with a 35-year prison sentence for revealing state secrets, will be released at an unspecified date later this year with Showtime’s backing. The announcement on XY Chelsea was made today by David Nevins, President and CEO, Showtime Networks Inc. at the 2018 Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour.
Shot over two years by filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins and featuring…

A documentary on whistle-blower Chelsea Manning, whose struggle with gender dysphoria coincided with a 35-year prison sentence for revealing state secrets, will be released at an unspecified date later this year with Showtime’s backing. The announcement on XY Chelsea was made today by David Nevins, President and CEO, Showtime Networks Inc. at the 2018 Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour. Shot over two years by filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins and featuring…

Twitter Tracker: Why Trump Retweeted in Defense of His Controversial Pardon

Each day, Variety dissects the inspiration and meaning behind one of President Donald Trump’s tweets. Today’s (re)tweet: Your boss pardoned a traitor who gave U.S. enemies state secrets, he also pardoned a terrorist who killed Americans. Spare us the lecture. https://t.co/90jZcPXYqx — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) August 27, 2017 What’s behind it: While Trump has been tweeting about the magnitude… Read more »

Each day, Variety dissects the inspiration and meaning behind one of President Donald Trump’s tweets. Today’s (re)tweet: Your boss pardoned a traitor who gave U.S. enemies state secrets, he also pardoned a terrorist who killed Americans. Spare us the lecture. https://t.co/90jZcPXYqx — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) August 27, 2017 What’s behind it: While Trump has been tweeting about the magnitude... Read more »

Chelsea Manning Blasts Trump’s Transgender Military Ban: ‘Sounds Like Cowardice’

Chelsea Manning, who was pardoned by Barack Obama in January, is responding to Donald Trump’s ban on transgender people in the United States military. “So, biggest baddest most $$ military on earth cries about a few trans people but funds the F-35? Sounds like cowardice #WeGotThis,” she tweeted Wednesday morning.

Also Read: Trump Bans Transgender People From US Military ‘In Any Capacity’

so, biggest baddest most $$ military on earth cries about a few trans people ???? but funds the F-35? ???? sounds like cowardice ???????????? #WeGotThis

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) July 26, 2017

Since her initial tweet on the matter, she has been responding to replies. “Militaries, esp. U.S., have always been a social experiment just as much as a fighting force its how it got so bloated #WeGotThis,” she said in an additional tweet. While some thanked Manning for her inspiration and courage, others were less than kind. “Go find a hole, crawl deep inside it, stay there,” one said, to which Manning responded “never,” along with the grinning and double heart emojis.

Also Read: Twitter Reacts to Trump’s Transgender Military Ban: ‘Don’t Take Us Backwards’

militaries, esp. U.S., have always been a social experiment just as much as a fighting force ???? its how it got so bloated ???? #WeGotThis ???????????? https://t.co/HtNa54AeSP

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) July 26, 2017

remember, its love and inspiration that gives us our courage ???????????? https://t.co/4YW3QV9d8p

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) July 26, 2017

im not “giving” you hope ☺️ you already have it ???????? https://t.co/TDruIASn8q

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) July 26, 2017

Also Read: That Time Trump Vowed to Be Better on LGBT Rights Than Hillary Clinton (1 Year Ago)

so not only do you want to ban trans people, now you want to throw us in prison ?? sounds familiar ???? https://t.co/11s6C7VUS8

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) July 26, 2017

#WeGotThis ???????????? https://t.co/gAeUG2WxUF

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) July 26, 2017

never ???????? https://t.co/keIZ2DhyOi

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) July 26, 2017

Trump announced the ban on Twitter Wednesday morning, citing medical expenses as a driving force for the decision. As CNN pointed out, a 2016 Rand Corp. study found that transgender people serving in the military would have a “minimal impact” on health care costs.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

Barack Obama commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence in January for her 2010 conviction for a leak about U.S. military and diplomatic activities. Hers was the longest sentence ever imposed in the U.S. for a leak conviction. A transgender woman, Manning was forced to serve her time in a men’s prison.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Chelsea Manning Explains Why She Leaked Classified Documents to WikiLeaks (Video)

Chelsea Manning Instagrams Post-Prison First Pic: ‘#HelloWorld’

Chelsea Manning Leaves Prison Today – And Documentary ‘XY Chelsea’ Already in the Works

Did President Trump Parrot Fox News Report on Chelsea Manning?

Chelsea Manning, who was pardoned by Barack Obama in January, is responding to Donald Trump’s ban on transgender people in the United States military. “So, biggest baddest most $$ military on earth cries about a few trans people but funds the F-35? Sounds like cowardice #WeGotThis,” she tweeted Wednesday morning.

Since her initial tweet on the matter, she has been responding to replies. “Militaries, esp. U.S., have always been a social experiment just as much as a fighting force its how it got so bloated #WeGotThis,” she said in an additional tweet. While some thanked Manning for her inspiration and courage, others were less than kind. “Go find a hole, crawl deep inside it, stay there,” one said, to which Manning responded “never,” along with the grinning and double heart emojis.

Trump announced the ban on Twitter Wednesday morning, citing medical expenses as a driving force for the decision. As CNN pointed out, a 2016 Rand Corp. study found that transgender people serving in the military would have a “minimal impact” on health care costs.

Barack Obama commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence in January for her 2010 conviction for a leak about U.S. military and diplomatic activities. Hers was the longest sentence ever imposed in the U.S. for a leak conviction. A transgender woman, Manning was forced to serve her time in a men’s prison.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Chelsea Manning Explains Why She Leaked Classified Documents to WikiLeaks (Video)

Chelsea Manning Instagrams Post-Prison First Pic: '#HelloWorld'

Chelsea Manning Leaves Prison Today – And Documentary 'XY Chelsea' Already in the Works

Did President Trump Parrot Fox News Report on Chelsea Manning?

Chelsea Manning Instagrams Post-Prison First Pic: ‘#HelloWorld’

A day after being released from prison, former Army private and WikiLeaks leaker Chelsea Manning released her first picture on the outside.

The photo was posted on a new Instagram account set up by Manning to show photos of her life after the end of her seven-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth.

Okay, so here I am everyone!! =Phttps://t.co/NuyZlcWfd9#HelloWorld pic.twitter.com/gKsMFTYukO

– Chelsea Manning (@xychelsea) May 18, 2017

Also Read: Chelsea Manning Leaves Prison Today – And Documentary ‘XY Chelsea’ Already in the Works

Manning had been sentenced to 35 years in prison by a military tribunal after she leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 while serving as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army. Then known as Pvt. Bradley Manning, the soldier made headlines after WikiLeaks posted the information, which included evidence of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and emails sent by U.S. diplomats.

Days after being sentenced, Manning came out as transgender and filed a lawsuit through the ACLU after the Army refused to provide treatment for her transition. Manning eventually received hormone therapy and personal items available to other women in the prison, but was still placed in solitary confinement, a punishment she was also forced to undergo while kept in Quantico prior to her trial. Manning attempted suicide twice during her time in prison.

Also Read: Donald Trump Blasts ‘Ungrateful Traitor’ Chelsea Manning

On Jan. 17, Barack Obama announced that Manning would be one of 270 prisoners to receive presidential pardons or sentence commutations as per the tradition of U.S. presidents during their final days in office.

On Wednesday, shortly following Manning’s release, filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins announced at the Cannes Film Festival that he would immediately start filming a new documentary, titled “XY Chelsea,” that would follow Manning’s life after prison.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Chelsea Manning Leaves Prison Today – And Documentary ‘XY Chelsea’ Already in the Works

Did President Trump Parrot Fox News Report on Chelsea Manning?

President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning’s Sentence

A day after being released from prison, former Army private and WikiLeaks leaker Chelsea Manning released her first picture on the outside.

The photo was posted on a new Instagram account set up by Manning to show photos of her life after the end of her seven-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth.

Manning had been sentenced to 35 years in prison by a military tribunal after she leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 while serving as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Army. Then known as Pvt. Bradley Manning, the soldier made headlines after WikiLeaks posted the information, which included evidence of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and emails sent by U.S. diplomats.

Days after being sentenced, Manning came out as transgender and filed a lawsuit through the ACLU after the Army refused to provide treatment for her transition. Manning eventually received hormone therapy and personal items available to other women in the prison, but was still placed in solitary confinement, a punishment she was also forced to undergo while kept in Quantico prior to her trial. Manning attempted suicide twice during her time in prison.

On Jan. 17, Barack Obama announced that Manning would be one of 270 prisoners to receive presidential pardons or sentence commutations as per the tradition of U.S. presidents during their final days in office.

On Wednesday, shortly following Manning’s release, filmmaker Tim Travers Hawkins announced at the Cannes Film Festival that he would immediately start filming a new documentary, titled “XY Chelsea,” that would follow Manning’s life after prison.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Chelsea Manning Leaves Prison Today – And Documentary 'XY Chelsea' Already in the Works

Did President Trump Parrot Fox News Report on Chelsea Manning?

President Obama Commutes Chelsea Manning's Sentence