Judge ordered the New York Times to return or destroy pertinent records. On Friday, a court in New York state sided with Project Veritas in keeping a restriction on the New York Times from publishing some documents related to the group in place.
The United States Supreme Court ruled with the New York Times and the Washington Post.
- The Times must also surrender or destroy any disputed content in its possession.
- The New York Times had already filed an appeal in the case, but they denied it.
- “We are appealing quickly,” Sulzberger said:
- Project Veritas has been investigated for its possible involvement in stealing a journal from Ashley Biden, President Joe Biden’s daughter.
- Despite this, Wood noted in his judgment that the material in question lacked news value: “A client seeking guidance from its lawyers cannot be a matter of broad interest and public worth and concern.
- According to Project Veritas, they obtained the records unlawfully, which was a violation of attorney-client privilege. “
- The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has backed the Times in the Veritas lawsuit.
- “Today’s verdict in the Project Veritas v. NYT case is a huge lump of First Amendment coal,” Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple tweeted.
The New York Times had already filed an appeal in the case, but they denied it:
The decision by Westchester County State Supreme Court Judge Charles Wood amounts to a prior constraint on the Times, which is an unusual limitation for any newspaper. The Times must also surrender or destroy any disputed content in its possession. The New York Times had already filed an appeal in the case, but they denied it.
Project Veritas, a conservative nonprofit that tries to expose misconduct by the mainstream media and leftist organizations, issued the New York Times for libel for its coverage of the group’s founder, James O’Keefe. The records obtained by the Times, in this case, were created for Project Veritas by attorney Benjamin Barr in connection with the lawsuit.
The New York Times was ordered to hand up any physical papers in the case and delete any electronic copies, as well as “remove such data from the internet and any websites or systems over which they have control,” according to Wood.
“This court has stopped The New York Times from publishing material concerning a significant and important organization that they obtained legally in the normal course of reporting,” remarked Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, citing the law established in the Pentagon Papers case.
His comment alluded to a historic 1971 case in which the Nixon administration attempted to prohibit publishing information based on a massive secret study on the country’s involvement in the Vietnam War that had been classified for decades. The United States Supreme Court ruled with the New York Times and the Washington Post.
“We are appealing quickly,” Sulzberger said:
President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden’s notebook, was stolen, and Project Veritas was examined for its probable participation. Despite this, Wood noted in his judgment that the material in question lacked news value: “A client seeking guidance from its lawyers simply cannot be a matter of broad interest and public worth and concern.”
“Do not utilize the legal memos given by Project Veritas’ lawyer, Benjamin Barr, or information gleaned from those papers in this lawsuit for any purposes whatsoever,” Wood said in his order.
According to Project Veritas, they obtained the records unlawfully, which was a violation of attorney-client privilege. “The New York Times‘ intrusion into Project Veritas’ protected attorney-client relationship is an affront to the attorney-client privilege and the dignity of the judicial process,” added Wood.
Prior restraint is the concept of preventing a newspaper from publishing content, and courts have been mainly sympathetic to the press throughout the years, basing it on the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has endorsed the Times in the Veritas case.
In a statement, Sulzberger said, “This verdict should raise alarms not only for champions of press freedoms but for anybody worried about the risks of government overreach into what the public may and cannot know.”
“Today’s ruling in the Project Veritas v. New York Times case is a tremendous lump of First Amendment coal,” said Erik Wemple, a media critic for the Washington Post.
Check WHyd for more news.