Judge Bars Reporter From Publishing Legally Obtained Factual Info, Saying She Doesn't Care If It Violates First Amendment
from the wow dept
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.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Im thinking......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
"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 ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
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 ]
Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
Learn to troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well it is in DC the most "liberal" area of the nation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Constitution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Constitution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Constitution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I, of course, do not know which agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Enjoy prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Enjoy the view from your very tiny high horse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge says you, Criminal says I...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
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 ]
Re: Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge says you, Criminal says I...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bought a judge on eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I bought a judge on eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
That statement ONLY makes sense if she thinks it's true. Otherwise, why say it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
Funniest thing I have heard all day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
You forgot the pheonetic spelling to really cap off your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
My typing skills are tops today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a temporary restraining order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its a temporary restraining order
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 ]
Re:Judge says you, Criminal says I...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Judge says you, Criminal says I...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Judge says you, Criminal says I...
-One who lives on the streets and constitutes a public nuisance-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google yields FDA
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 ]
Re: Google yields FDA
Moot question. In the world of the Echelon network and ACTA, EVERYONE is investigated at all times....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sekrit Agency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't judge the judge too harshly
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
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 ]
Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt comments going downhill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NLJ
I suspect that she is planning on the issue being overcome by events before the appeal is resolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More to the story...
"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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: pay attention
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 ]
Re: Re: pay attention
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mind readers
Who cares what she was thinking? I care about what she said and what she did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]