{"id":11984,"date":"2022-02-10T21:40:08","date_gmt":"2022-02-10T21:40:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/10\/court-for-now-says-ny-times-can-publish-project-veritas-documents\/"},"modified":"2022-02-10T21:40:08","modified_gmt":"2022-02-10T21:40:08","slug":"court-for-now-says-ny-times-can-publish-project-veritas-documents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/10\/court-for-now-says-ny-times-can-publish-project-veritas-documents\/","title":{"rendered":"Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the prior-restraint?<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

\nWe’ve talked about the hypocrite grifters who run Project Veritas<\/a>, who, even when they have legitimate concerns<\/a> about attacks on their own free speech, ran to court to try to silence the NY Times. Bizarrely, a NY judge granted<\/a> Project Veritas’ demand for prior restraint against the NY Times falsely claiming that attorney-client material could not be published.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe NY Times appealed that ruling and now a court has… not overturned the original ruling, but for now said that the NY Times can publish the documents<\/a>, saying that it will not enforce the original ruling until an appeal can be heard. This is… better than nothing, but fully overturning the original ridiculous ruling would have been much better. Because it was clearly prior restraint. But, at least for now, the prior restraint will not be enforced.\n<\/p>\n

\nStill, the response from Project Veritas deserves separate comment, because it’s just naively stupid:\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\nIn a phone interview on Thursday, Mr. O\u2019Keefe said: \u201cDefamation is not a First Amendment-protected right; publishing the other litigants\u2019 attorney-client privileged documents is not a protected First Amendment right.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nWhile it’s accurate that defamation is not protected by the 1st Amendment, he’s wrong that publishing attorney-client communications is — in most cases — very much protected. He’s fuzzing the lines here, by basically arguing that because Project Veritas is, separately, suing the NY Times, that bans the NY Times from publishing any attorney-client privileged material it obtains via standard reporting tactics.\n<\/p>\n

\nBut that fuzzing suggests something that just isn’t true: that there’s some exception to the 1st Amendment from publishing attorney-client materials. That’s wrong. The attorney-client privilege is with respect to having to disclose certain documents to another party in litigation. If you can successfully show that the documents are privileged, they don’t need to be disclosed to the other party. That’s the extent of the privilege. It has no bearing<\/b> whatsoever on whether or not someone else obtaining those materials through other means has a right to publish them. Of course they do and the 1st Amendment protects that.\n<\/p>\n

\nAnd, I should just note, that considering Project Veritas’ main method of operating is trying to obtain private documents, or record secret conversations<\/b>, it is bizarre beyond belief that Project Veritas is literally claiming that private material has some sort of 1st Amendment protection. Because that seems incredibly likely to come back and bite Project Veritas at a later time. Of course, considering they’re hypocritical grifters with no fundamental principles beyond “attack people with views we don’t like,” I guess it’s not surprising that their viewpoint on free speech and the 1st Amendment shifts depending on who it’s protecting.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\"Hide<\/p>\n
\n

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone\u2019s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.<\/p>\n

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites \u2014 especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.<\/p>\n

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying\/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support<\/a>. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise \u2014 and every little bit helps. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\u2013The Techdirt Team<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Filed Under: 1st amendment<\/a>, attorney-client privilege<\/a>, james o’keefe<\/a>, new york<\/a>, prior restraint<\/a>
Companies: ny times<\/a>, project veritas<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n