In any event, Mr. O'Keefe -- a long time right-wing political spying creeper, and a well-known fraudster. . . is about to see his short trip in the Sun. . . draw to an embarrassing close. He cannot stop real journalists from publishing -- not here in America. At most, he may collect damages, but only after the fact (of publishing) -- if the reporting is libelous, or otherwise violates local law. He will be unable to prove any of that. So. . . he loses, and soon -- thus (a very cogent Cahill, Gordon six pager, on how the law actually works, here):
. . .Project Veritas’s proposed remedy is, under well-settled law, an unconstitutional prior restraint on journalism. Project Veritas argues only that a statute, CPLR 3103(c), permits that prior restraint no matter what the Constitution says. That, of course, is not how the law works.
Prior restraints on journalism bear a “heavy presumption of constitutional invalidity,” National Broadcasting Co. v. Cooperman, 116 A.D.2d 287, 290 (2d Dep’t 1986), and are “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). Not surprisingly, the only cases to address the clash between the First Amendment’s near-total ban on prior restraints and the attorney-client privilege unequivocally hold that prior restraints are not permitted, even when the material at issue is protected by the attorney-client privilege. See, e.g., Nicholson v. Keyspan Corp., 836 N.Y.S.2d 501 (Table), 2007 WL 641414, at *6 (Sup. Ct. of Suffolk Cnty. Feb. 28, 2007). . . .
Onward, but this dime-store hood will be run out of court -- federal and state. . . and perhaps liable for $750,000 in opposing counsels' legal fees. . . to the NYT. And that will make me smile, and smile. . . widely.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment