Canada More Or Less Admits Its Copyright Reform Plan Is Driven By US, Following DMCA Exemption Rulings

Judge Bars Reporter From Publishing Legally Obtained Factual Info, Saying She Doesn't Care If It Violates First Amendment

from the wow dept

Tue, Jul 27th 2010 7:34am — Mike Masnick

Found via the Citizen Media Law Project is a report about how The National Law Journal was barred from publishing information it had obtained legally in reporting about a dispute between a law firm and one of its former clients about fees. According to The National Law Journal, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff signed a temporary restraining order barring it from publishing the material the reporter had found out, specifically saying that The National Law Journal could not name the government agency that was involved in a "regulatory inquiry" into one of the participants in the lawsuit. When the NLJ reporter pointed to the First Amendment, the judge allegedly replied that she did not care:

"If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it." She said the court's interest in maintaining the "integrity" of its docket trumped the First Amendment concern.

Not surprisingly, the Journal is looking to appeal this ruling, but it really makes you wonder what the judge was thinking.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s 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.

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 — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

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. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, national law journal, reporting

95 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Kevin (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:49am

Im thinking......
That she wasn't thinking except about her dinner reservations. I can see her performing the ever popular face-palm maneuver once she thought about what she had said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FreemonSandlewould, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:50am

Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
when "liberals" are involved you can expect very little liberal thinking of the type that created the constitution.

"Liberals" only care about the bill of rights when they can increase the power of the state which is almost never.

They are fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ReallyEvilCanine, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:55am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  Bad troll. No cookie. Was that really the best you could do?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lonewriter (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
    I thought they were right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tailsnae, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:55am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  *Facepalm*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  DC is considered more liberal than MA or CA? Really?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- J Mig III, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  Usually I ignore comments like this. But, may I respond with a quote... "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- designerfx (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  republicans are better how, exactly?
  
  both sides are fools. probably 75% of the politicians we have are an embarassment to the term and only are in office to serve their lobby.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
    I think your estimate is a little low.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
    "both sides"
    
    There's the mating call of the mushy-middler again. Your lame attempt at trying to ingratiate yourself to the Internet Cool Kids has failed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DS, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
      No kidding, it's 100% or Nothing. It's you either love Jesus, or you Hate America™. Amirite?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Free Capitalist (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
      There's the mating call of the mushy-middler again.
      
      I see the problem here. Chances are you are new to the site, and are mistaking political agnosticism with some kind of veiled partisan play.
      
      Most often I have found no love for left, right, or especially middle being espoused here, certainly not by Mike.
      
      In other words: you probably won't find many donkey vs. elephant vs. assaphant reindeer games going on here. There are plenty of "traditional politically oriented" sites out there. If it must be left or right, pick Fox or CNN and go have a blast. But please try not do confuse universal implication and suspicion with "moderates".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BearGriz72 (profile), 28 Jul 2010 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
        Demoplican Assaphant FTW!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:15am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  0/10
  Learn to troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:54am
  
  Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
  Well, that settles it then. This was all due to liberals. I had no idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:51am

The Constitution...
...is really more of a guideline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: The Constitution...
  You mean like the code in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? Well, we all know how that ended, don't we?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - slander (profile), 28 Jul 2010 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re: The Constitution...
    Captain Obvious is obvious...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:57am

Put it on the web along with the name of the judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:01am
  
  Re:
  You mean "Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff"? It says her name in the linked article. Judges' names generally aren't secret.
  
  I, of course, do not know which agency.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:59am

I hope the ACLU does something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  The judge will probably order the ACLU lawyers shot. A mental evaluation is in order.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stuart, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Is there any way for us to get rid of this judge AND shoot ACLU lawyers?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, clearly you would need several extended clips....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - imbrucy (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If only. If someone can pull off both they deserve a medal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, that's a great attitude. Good to know you hate freedom in the name of your personal beliefs, and are willing to threaten violence over it.
      
      Enjoy prison.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DS, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, that's a great attitude. Good to know that you hate any form or sarcasm or empty rhetoric and are willing to threaten the loss of freedom over it.
        
        Enjoy the view from your very tiny high horse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - lonewriter (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you are a moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lonewriter (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      good idea.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skout (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:01am

One more judge to be removed from duty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:01am

Wow! Menopause? This ruling seems like quite the brain fart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  Mental pause?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. V, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:04am

Judge says you, Criminal says I...
I think this Judge should be handed her walking papers. She has obviously (KNOWINGLY and VAGRANTLY) forsworn her oath to uphold the constitution, so she needs to be put out to pasture...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
  No, she violated the constitution in time of war. TREASON!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
  "She has obviously (KNOWINGLY and VAGRANTLY)"
  
  I knew a vagrant judge once. He had to keep slamming his gavel down and call for order because everyone kept complaining about the stench.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DS, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:53am
    
    Re: Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
    Wasn't that the guy who kept moving from one courtroom to another?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
  interval has a point. I think you mean flagrantly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:06am

I bought a judge on eBay
America, best justice money can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- VoicesInMyHead (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:18am
  
  Re: I bought a judge on eBay
  America hasn't had a Justice System in decades... All we have left is a convoluted Legal System.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:09am

And what was that about absolute power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liquid (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:13am

Its a temporary restraining order
The only thing that I find incredible about this is whole thing is how the judge spoke on her ruling. It seems that everyone else is looking at it that way as well. To be honest I don't really see how this breaks the first amendment anyways in this case as it was only a temporary restraining order. Which means that it will be lifted at some point, and the reporter can print the story till their hearts content.

Obviously the story isn't all there as to who requested the restraining order, and why. If those facts were known in this little blurb then no one would be acting acting all butt hurt over what the judge had said, and why she said it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ElSteevo (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:20am
  
  Re: Its a temporary restraining order
  Liquid is correct; Time, place and manner restrictions can be made which do not violate the First Amendment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:36am
    
    Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
    Liquid would probably be more correct if the judge hadn't gone out of her way to acknowledge that it's likely she's turning the constitution on its head and she just didn't care. This violates her very reason for holding her position.
    
    It would be as if, as a technology service provider, I told a customer, "Look, it might fly in the face of the contract we signed, but I'm going to light your server on fire because this guy over here told me to."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Liquid (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
      @Dark Helmet
      
      I do agree with you that it was wrong, and I apologize if I did not word my first comment specifically to that degree. That was what I thought was incredible about her ruling in the first place. That a judge would in fact speak in such a manor as to blatantly she didn't give a $*!7 about first amendment rights. To me, and most certainly all of you see that as an ethical issue as it clearly shows in this case that she didn't rule in an unbiased manor. At least that is how I took it on how she worded her reasoning for blocking the reporter on his comment about his first amendment right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Fair enough, and actually I see how my logic was flawed. I assumed that because this woman was a judge, her stating that she was probably going against the Constitution meant that was likely the case.
        
        Now that I think it through, I can see that this judgey woman is a complete and utter knob, so my assumption may well be incorrect....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Liquid (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        actually you logic wasn't flawed in anyway. You were right. It's just my wording didn't state what my mind was thinking. I blame my retarded hands they have a mind of their own some times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
      First, Judge Bartnoff likely ruled this way because the TRO can be undone, but if she allowed the information to be published, that act could not be undone. The case can then be decided on the merits without the outcome becoming moot.
      
      Second, her statement regarding the first amendment definitely sounds bad. However, I've heard judges say similar crazy-sounding things, often in response to the attorney being a total dick. It would be interesting to hear what lead up to her statement.
      
      She did not say it was "likely" that the TRO violates the first amendment - not sure how anyone read that into her statement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        ""If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it.""
        
        That statement ONLY makes sense if she thinks it's true. Otherwise, why say it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Because the attorney said, "But your honor, this flies in the face of 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence!" Obviously we don't really know.
        
        I just don't see how everyone knows what she was thinking based on one sentence recited by the party she ruled against.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        "Because the attorney said, "But your honor, this flies in the face of 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence!" Obviously we don't really know."
        
        Well, the theory is that, being a judge, this woman...you know...knows the law. So if the attorney said that, why wouldn't her immediate response be something along the lines of "No it doesn't, you cock sandwich! Stop being stupid or I'll cram my gavel into your urethra sideways!"?
        
        Unless, of course, said attorney was likely correct....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Because some people will always argue until presented with something to which there is no argument, for instance "I said so and don't care why you disagree."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        I'm the director and I want the sun to rise in the north!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sean T Henry (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Stick a magnet to your compass and point it in a way to make it true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 28 Jul 2010 @ 6:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        "No it doesn't, you cock sandwich! Stop being stupid or I'll cram my gavel into your urethra sideways!"
        
        Funniest thing I have heard all day!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChronoFish (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
      "..."If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it."...."
      
      I found the ruling to not be all that exceptional. Basically a gag order until the trial was over - at least that's how I interpreted it.
      
      While her response was probably dis-tasteful, I found it more angry/sarcastic than literal.
      
      I can envision on of the lawyers objecting and become borderline argumentative and the judge coming back and basically saying "stuff it - that's my ruling - now sit down and shut up".
      
      Of course I'm taking it out of context - but then it's brought to us out of context.
      
      -CF
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:22am
  
  Re: Its a temporary restraining order
  No doubt, techdirt only reports opinion. Who needs facts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
    We all know it's (probably) temporary, but that is not the topic of this discussion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dementia (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
    Duh! Techdirt reports nothing. Mike posts things he finds worthy of discussion and we discuss. Are you new here, or just another anonymous cowards who thinks his $.02 is really worth that much? And before anyone says anything else, I know how much my opinion is worth, which means it only has value for me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 12:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
      My opinion is no more valuable than yours or Mike's, never said it was.
      
      Also, I really hate to argue symantics but here is an excert of the definition of 'report' from dictionary.com:
      
      1. an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like, usually as the result of observation, inquiry, etc.: a report on the peace conference; a Medical report on the patient.
      2. a statement or announcement.
      3. a widely circulated statement or item of news; rumor; gossip.
      4. an account of a speech, debate, meeting, etc., esp. as taken down for publication.
      
      Like I said, techdirt reports Mike's opinion, call it reporting, call it posting, call it blogging, whatever, same thing. Why is it a problem for you if I happen to agree with Liquid?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChrisB (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Ah, quoting from the dictionary. Brings back fond memories of every grade 7 report I wrote.
        
        You forgot the pheonetic spelling to really cap off your argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Actually, I spelled semanics wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Twice. Semantics has a "t" in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
        Ha Ha
        
        My typing skills are tops today.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:25am
  
  Re: Its a temporary restraining order
  TRO can be made permanent, but that is not the is issue at hand. A judge halted a legally obtained story from being published, and even mentioned her "throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it." There is no way around the fact that this was not handled as it should have been.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Liquid (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:00am
    
    Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
    Yes the TRO can be made permanent after the fact yes, but that would have go to another hearing or trial depending on who serious it was. I really do not see something of this nature becoming permanent as it would set a whole new precedent on this issue. More companies would start putting restraining orders on all news media to keep them from reporting on them whether it is in a good light or bad.
    
    I don't think a judge is ready, and willing to go that extra 1000 miles to set such a precedent. Since such a think would kill the First Amendment completely.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom The Toe, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:13am

Re:Judge says you, Criminal says I...
"She has obviously (KNOWINGLY and VAGRANTLY)..." I think the word you are looking for is Flagrantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:20am
  
  Re: Re:Judge says you, Criminal says I...
  Maybe she did it while holding a sign that read 'Will judge for food'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: Re:Judge says you, Criminal says I...
  Ah ...Mr. V was correct. This judge could be
  -One who lives on the streets and constitutes a public nuisance-
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
In New Hampshire, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:47am

Google yields FDA
Could the association they can't name be the FDA? Looking up POM Wonderful, yields a warning letter to POM Wonderful on the first google results page: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm202785.htm.
Or, are they being investigated by more than one agency? Or, is the law firm being investigated as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:49am
  
  Re: Google yields FDA
  "Or, are they being investigated by more than one agency? Or, is the law firm being investigated as well?"
  
  Moot question. In the world of the Echelon network and ACTA, EVERYONE is investigated at all times....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:52am

Sekrit Agency?
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm202785.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chucklebutte, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:59am

Judges...
just as worthless and useless as the laws they try to enforce!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:59am

Don't judge the judge too harshly
She was also the judge that dismissed the stupid case about the missing pants.

But yes, she may have screwed up a bit with this ruling.

Of course, gov folks routinely laugh at FOIA requests, so there's precious little respect for inconvenient laws anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:23am

There are so many relevant facts missing from the miniscule summary provided that it is well nigh impossible to understand the issues presented. Thus, criticism of the judge seems premature, and to call for removal/resignation plainly a visceral and inadequately informed reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 7:41pm
  
  Re:
  The issue presented is that the judge claimed she was perfectly fine with ignoring 80 years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence.
  
  Are you?
  
  (Oh, I forgot, you never actually have a specific stance, because that would mean you would have to attempt to defend it. Sorry.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:45am

First Amendment
If a judge, any judge, knowingly violates the first amendment it is grounds for dismissal and disbarment, case closed. Any first year law student know, nothing trumps the Constitution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: First Amendment
  Umm, actually FEMA does, but that's another discussion for another time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pdog1978, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:17am
  
  Re: First Amendment
  Any first year law student would realize that you are not correct, The fact that we have amendments shows that we have things that trump the original constitution. Otherwise it could not be amended.
  
  Of course it has been years since I studied government but I believe thats something the congress can do if enough of them can agree on it of course.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re: First Amendment
    Yes, but those things are included IN the Constitution. No other law can circumvent the Constitution....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pdog1978, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
      No they are not, the amendments are separate to the constitution. Now the ability to amend is covered in the constituion
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Russ (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
        Amendments are part of the Constitution once ratified. There is no precedence (although there may be conflict)between the main clauses and any amendments. Unless of course, the amendment changes one of the main clauses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pdog1978, 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
      No they are not, the amendments are separate to the constitution. Now the ability to amend is covered in the constituion
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex Hagen, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:32am

Techdirt comments going downhill
Wow, the quality of comments on Techdirt sure have gone downhill in the last few years. I guess rampant stupidity is the price of success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JT Draper, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:43am

Judge Bartnoff is, like most lower court judges, drunk with power. As other commenters have noted, no ruling (or law, for that matter) trumps the US Constitution, not even temporarily. The NLJ should have ignored her ruling and forced a showdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russ (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:05am

NLJ
And telling a bunch of Lawyers for the National LAW Journal that they should ignore the First Amendment is going to get instant obedience.

I suspect that she is planning on the issue being overcome by events before the appeal is resolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cybernia (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:06am

More to the story...
After a little googling I found that this case isn't as cut and dry as it appears. Apparently what is at issue here is that while combing through legally obtained documents, the Law Journal came across some documents that were ordered sealed by the judge. Through an error, they weren't. Although I disagree with the ruling, I understand what the judge is talking about.

"The judge said the First Amendment analysis is “very different” when it comes to information the court had ordered sealed."

http://tinyurl.com/2dpnwro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 3:57pm

And that is why 180 year old bitch judges don't have their place anymore in the legal system. Get some young people in there that know how to operate a micro-wave and are not stuck in the pre-industrial boom era. As long as old retards run the country, expect stupid judges to be appointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:03pm
  
  Re:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:10pm
  
  Re:
  "And that is why 180 year old bitch judges don't have their place anymore in the legal system. Get some young people in there that know how to operate a micro-wave and are not stuck in the pre-industrial boom era. As long as old retards run the country, expect stupid judges to be appointed."
  
  Wow. Reading your comment makes me think you must be all of about 13 years old yourself.
  
  I certainly would rather have someone with life experiences and wisdom that comes with age being a judge than some ignorant punk like yourself any day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cybernia (profile), 27 Jul 2010 @ 9:35pm
  
  Re: pay attention
  Sometimes I think I'm invisible on this forum. I rarely post but when I do, I try to look beyond the knee jerk reactions. Go back and look at my post with the subject line "More to the Story." Nobody responded to it because you're all so involved in your own dogma to see anything that might have gray areas.
  
  I disagree with the decision but it is a lot more complicated than Mike let's on. And everyone seems to just go off without trying to find out what the real story is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:11pm
    
    Re: Re: pay attention
    A post at 45 (mine) mirrors your criticism of many, if not the majority, of comments made about this article.
    
    It is in my experience a rare event for a judge to leave the "legal reservation" and strike off in his or her own direction without good reason. Almost invariably such a seeming departure arises because of the facts presented to the court.
    
    Facts count, unless, of course, one finds that the facts do not neatly cabin neatly into the outcome they desire. It is disappointing that so many who comment here appear to follow this intellectually dishonest course.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2010 @ 8:04pm

My first knee thoughts were that the judge had lost her mind but then I reflected on some actions the so call press has taken and I realized that that is one courageous judge to stand up against the press and demand that they respect a court so that a fair trail. may take place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ash Crill, 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:27pm

mind readers
"I just don't see how everyone knows what she was thinking based on one sentence recited by the party she ruled against."

Who cares what she was thinking? I care about what she said and what she did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2010 @ 7:39pm

So how does "If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it." She said the court's interest in maintaining the "integrity" of its docket trumped the First Amendment concern. " translate as the Judge ignoring the consititution? Is the constitution 80 years old? I thought it was older.

Judges can go against presidence and they do it all the time. If they didn't, we wouldn't have to worry about abortion being outlawed (then again, I don't really care about that either)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]