A New York judge upheld his order for The New York Times to return documents obtained about communications between conservative activist group Project Veritas and the group’s lawyers.
In his Friday ruling, Justice Charles Wood ordered The Times to immediately return all physical copies of its Project Veritas documents and destroy any electronic copies of the newspaper, as they were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Wood also argued that The Time’s story about the documents was not of ‘common interest and value and concern to the public’.
AG Sulzberger, publisher of The Times, said the news outlet would seek a stay of the decision and appeal it based on the First Amendment.
“This decision should sound the alarm not only for advocates of press freedom, but for anyone concerned about the dangers of the government to what the public may and may not know,” Sulzberger said in a statement.
A New York judge ordered the NY Times to return all files it received regarding communications between Project Veritas and their attorneys. Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe sues The Times for defamation against far-right media outlet
The Times leadership said they would appeal the decision and warned it would set a dangerous precedent against press freedom.
Justice Charles Wood of New York argued that The Time’s story about Project Veritas was not new.
‘In defiance of the law laid down in the Pentagon Papers case, this judge has restrained The Times from publishing information about a prominent and influential organization that was legally obtained in the ordinary course of reporting.’
The judge’s order comes as part of a defamation lawsuit filed against The Times by Project Veritas leader James O’Keefe.
The group came under federal investigation in connection with the alleged theft of the diary of President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley, which the group considered publication but never did. The group admitted to being in possession of the diary at some point, but claimed it was later handed over to the authorities.
Excerpts from the diary were published by a right-wing website, National File, which said they were provided by a frustrated employee of a media outlet that had been handed over to them. Project Veritas has denied any connection to the publication of the diary.
It has protested on November 11 new York Times The article, which was taken from a memo by a Project Veritas lawyer, and to describe how the group operates a ‘grey area between investigative journalism and political espionage’ to explore how federal laws are enforced Was using their lawyers. How far can its deceptive reporting practices go before they are infringed. ,
O’Keefe and the group have been heavily criticized for allegedly using deceptive tactics, which he describes as liberal media bias.
Project Veritas attorney Elizabeth Locke said: ‘Today’s ruling confirms that the New York Times’ behavior was irregular and out of bounds of law.
“The court’s thoughtful and well-researched opinion is a First Amendment victory for all journalists and reaffirms the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship,” Locke said.
Ashley Biden (right), 40, is the only daughter of President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill. An employee of Project Veritas was accused of leaking her diary to an alt-right website
The New York Times published this article on November 11, claiming that the Justice Department had leaked documents to the newspaper regarding Project Veritas allegations.
This September 2020 New York Times report prompts Project Veritas to file defamation suit
O’Keefe and Project Veritas have alleged that The Time’s story is nothing more than a smear campaign against the group.
Following Friday’s ruling, O’Keefe said, ‘The Times is so blind to his hatred of Project Veritas that he injures himself as a result of everything he does.’
The group was suing over 1 September 2020 many times An article describing a video that was released said the alleged voter fraud was linked to the campaign of US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat.
The New York Times reported that the allegations in the video: ‘were made through unidentified sources and without any verifiable evidence.’
Media critics have outraged Wood’s decision because they argue it threatens press freedom.
Washington Post media critic Eric Wemple called the decision “a monstrous lump of First Amendment coal.”
Wemple wrote, ‘There are many surprising aspects to this decision, but what struck me most was the part where Judge Charles Wood tried to argue that the November 11 NYT story was by no means new. Because the documents were ho-hum. Twitter.
Theodore Boutras Jr., a lawyer representing the media outlets, told many times The verdict was ‘off base and dangerous’.
“This is a serious, unprecedented intrusion on the news gathering and the news gathering process,” Mr Boutras said.
‘The particular danger is that it allows one party to sue a news organization for defamation, then to obtain a gag order against the news organization banning any additional reporting. This is the ultimate chilling effect.’
Media critic Eric Wemple was among those concerned about the precedent of Justice Charles Wood’s decision for press freedom.
Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, previously said that Wood’s November 18 order to halt the newspaper set a ‘dangerous precedent’, while the newspaper said the courts were only ‘probably’ to protect national security. . Rarely’ can find acceptable prior restrictions.
The New York Times had not faced any prior sanctions since 1971, when the Nixon administration unsuccessfully attempted to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers detailing US military involvement in Vietnam.
A lawyer for O’Keefe also accused the Justice Department of informing The New York Times of recent raids on current and former employees, while federal prosecutors suggested that the group’s legal communications may also have been leaked.
The FBI this month raided O’Keefe’s New York home and the homes of others associated with Project Veritas, confiscating two of O’Keefe’s cell phones and other items.
A few days later, The New York Times published a report based on a memo from the group’s attorney, revealing their legal advice on the group’s use of false identities and covert filming, a tactic abandoned by most modern journalists.
Later that day, a federal judge ordered the DOJ to stop extracting data from the phones, a day before O’Keefe’s legal team requested an independent party to oversee a review of the confiscated devices. . ,