Not One, But TWO Esteemed Amici Weigh In On The NY State Appeal -- In "Veritas" Suit To Impose A "Prior Restraint" -- On A Free Press: NYT

As it seems that one of the newest hard right tactics. . . is to sue to prevent press coverage that these jokers disfavor. Even so, as ineffectual as it has been, it has become common: Candace Owens (lost); Sarah Palin (lost), an obscure Tennessee backwater (failed) and shortly Tangerine and O'Keefe, too will have lost.

And so, two esteemed First Amendment groups, one here in Illinois (with which I am affiliated, as a disclosure of interest -- ever since Tangerine started threatening journalists in early 2018), and one in DC (arguably the preeminent one of reputable associated newspapers) -- have each filed very solid briefs about what the local GOP elected judge in Westchester, New York got wrong, in deciding to impose a prior restraint.

The first one attaches over 240 pages of the full text of several of the US Supremes' precedents -- all of which are directly on point. It is literally a free symposium on the law, here.

But do read both -- if you wish to see truthful reporting (even about sensitive political matters) continue. The below is from the first one; the link to the second is here, as well.

. . .The facts of this case starkly illustrate why prior restraints on news reporting are so disfavored. See CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1994) (“Even where questions of allegedly urgent national security or competing constitutional interests are concerned, we have imposed this most extraordinary remedy only where the evil that would result from the reportage is both great and certain and cannot be mitigated by less intrusive measures.”). . . .

Here, Project Veritas is using its defamation lawsuit against the Times to obtain a broad order restraining the Times from reporting on materials obtained independent of that lawsuit (in which no discovery has even occurred) and concerning matters that are unrelated to the allegedly defamatory articles.

The implications of such a scenario are staggering and clearly inconsistent with the First Amendment. . . . there are myriad examples of high-profile news reports that relied on privileged information obtained by reporters in the normal course of newsgathering, outside the discovery process -- including groundbreaking reports on the Pandora and Panama Papers, internal Facebook practices, and the tobacco industry.

The rule crafted by the lower court here would provide a roadmap for precisely how individuals or organizations could go about suppressing coverage perceived as unfavorable: by suing a news organization and then co-opting the discovery process to secure a protective order against dissemination of unrelated material they claim is subject to an evidentiary privilege, even if it is obtained outside of discovery. . . .

The Times will, to a certainty. . . prevail. As we earlier reported, it is already free to publish the materials at issue here, now -- and (only if a later court so finds) pay damages, should they be proved, from its truthful reporting. This local elected GOP judge cannot stop any of that. Onward.

नमस्ते