The decision by a Westchester judge barring The New York Times from publishing information about a notorious right-wing organization, Project Veritas, and ordering The Times to destroy information it already had published, has been described as “dangerous,” “outrageous,” “jaw-dropping,” and “unheard of.” Judge Charles Wood’s issuance of a prior restraint on the press—ironically on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case), which held unconstitutional any prior restraint on the press except when publication could result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to the Nation—is unprecedented. But as far as I can tell, no commentator has fully examined the asserted legal and constitutional basis for his decision. Did Judge Wood carefully analyze legal issues correctly? Was his reasoning coherent, logical, and based on a correct application of law? Did he cite legal authority carefully and responsibly?
Some background is necessary. The Times had been reporting on Project Veritas for several years, focusing on its tactics in secretly infiltrating progressive organizations, including the media, to expose liberal bias, and in claiming that its actions were “the stuff of responsible and ethical journalism.” After the Times published a story last September revealing that Project Veritas had used two “deceptive” videos to depict voter fraud in Minneapolis, Project Veritas sued The Times for defamation. In an article last November, Project Veritas and the Line Between Journalism and Political Spying, The Times referred to a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer four years earlier on ways to skirt federal criminal laws when its members—whom the lawyer refers to not as journalists but as “operatives” and “agents”—use undercover tactics to spy on government employees. Judge Wood found that The Times’ publication of the memos violated the attorney-client privilege and necessitated his injunction.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]