Court Tells Journalist Barrett Brown He And His Lawyers Can't Talk To The Press Any More
from the that's-insane dept
We just wrote about the ridiculousness of Barrett Brown's case, in which he's been in jail and facing a very long sentence mainly for copying a URL from one place to another, but also because the feds have been seeking a media gag. Tragically, the court has now granted that gag order. Neither Brown nor his legal team is allowed to speak to the media:No person covered by this order shall make any statement to members of any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet (including, but not limited to, bloggers), or other media organization about this case, other than matters of public record, that could interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice Defendant, the Government, or the administration of justice....This gag order seems somewhat ridiculous. The idea that having Brown or his legal team talking to the press would somehow unfairly bias the jury in his case is ridiculous. It's perfectly reasonable to expect Brown and his legal team to try to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the case, and the only purpose of this sort of gag order is to silence the press and keep the story from getting the kind of attention it deserves, as yet another example of prosecutorial overreach by the DOJ.
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: barrett brown, bias, free speech, gag order, journalism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Definition of Media
This is a court statement that Television, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, AND Internet (including, but not limited to bloggers) are all media (by the words or other media, suggesting that all the previous are part of media). Maybe this will finally put to rest statements like "Bloggers are not journalists". Since this is an official court stance, it can be called into other court cases as being "on the record". Perhaps Senator Feinstein needs to expand her Shield law (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130807/13153224102/sen-feinstein-during-shield-law-debate-real-j ournalists-draw-salaries.shtml) to include all of the above. Otherwise, the courts need to drop Internet (including but not limited to bloggers) from their order.
You can't have it both ways. Either bloggers are journalists or they are not. You can't have them be journalists when it suits your purpose, but when it doesn't suit your purpose, suddenly they aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of Media
You forget, changing definitions to suit the argument and hypocrisy are politician specialties, they very well do believe they should get to have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition of Media
He went out of his to include bloggers. How is that incidental?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition of Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of Media
reporters, etc should have no rights SUPERIOR to all of us nobodies: they are acting as OUR proxies, therefore, they have the SAME rights as each of us as individuals have, and vice versa...
in effect, we are ALL 'reporters' as citizens, only: there are some people (AND corporations) who act (supposedly) on OUR BEHALF as proxies for getting/disseminating information, attending meetings/pressers/ etc, that is IMPOSSIBLE for all of us regular citizens to make time to do...
we ALL have the same rights The They (tm) are trying to eliminate for both citizens AND citizens-as-reporters; it is of a piece...
as far as i'm concerned, there is NO RIGHT/mechanism THE STATE has to dissuade, discourage, or criminalize the gathering and reporting of facts WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO... it is only because we live in a specialized society, that we have some citizens doing the work for us which we ALL would ordinarily have the right to do, period, period, period...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
WE ALL get access to public documents, NOT JUST reporters; WE ALL get access to public meetings, etc, NOT JUST reporters; WE ALL enjoy 'shield laws', 'protecting sources', etc 'rights', NOT JUST reporters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition of Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And check off another box in the 'Is your country a police state/dictatorship?' list
Looks like the DoJ learned their lesson from cases like Swartz's, that if you're going to railroad someone into a verdict of your choosing, things go much easier if the public is kept in the dark about the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And check off another box in the 'Is your country a police state/dictatorship?' list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phreespeech is phor phools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phreespeech is phor phools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Phreespeech is phor phools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Phreespeech is phor phools
If it wasn't for Techdirt, would we ever have heard of PIPA and SOPA before they came to public attention? I doubt it.
My point is, on paper you may well be correct, but in practice, that's gone. What we've got is an illusion, and even that's beginning to fade as the realities of living in a police state kick in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Phreespeech is phor phools
If it wasn't for Techdirt, would we ever have heard of PIPA and SOPA before they came to public attention? I doubt it.
My point is, on paper you may well be correct, but in practice, that's gone. What we've got is an illusion, and even that's beginning to fade as the realities of living in a police state kick in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Phreespeech is phor phools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost like North Korea except they let their people know they don't give a fuck about them or their rights.. If they fight them they'll be murdered along with their entire family for pissing off "dear leader".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret laws, secret hearings, secret courts, secretly gathered intel whitewashed via other channels, secret rulings, all done in the most 'transparent' way possible.
Don't you dare point out to the public that this case is about someone posting a URL and the massive overreaction to punish someone we had a hardon over!
This is where we are today.
They ignored the law in RojaDirect, Dajaz1, MegaUpload.
They piled on charges against people who spoke out about the witch hunt against them.
And now your no longer allowed to say anything that might make people question the legal system and its enforcers.
This is not democracy, this is not how the legal system was designed to operate, this is a Government hellbent on bullying anyone that might make them look bad with the truth.
Maybe the real solution would be for the Government to stop doing all of this shit that makes them look like the dictators they threaten to bomb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gee wiz, it must be ok then.
Do you have one example of a situation where a gag order makes sense? Not simply because it happens all the time, but a reasonable rational for hiding court proceedings from the public. I can't think of any, but then I'm not an expert like yourself. btw, what percentage of all court cases are subjected to gag orders - I'm curious what constitutes "all the time".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The proceedings are a matter of public record; those are explicitly excluded from this gag order, and I assume all others as well.
Not that I think this is a good idea, but the order prohibits them from making "any statement... that could interfere with a fair trial". The problem I see with that is it's overly broad - "could" interfere. A lawyer might successfully argue that almost anything could interfere with a fair trial. But if were worded a little better, such as "would be reasonably likely to interfere", then would that be such a big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I thought the proceedings were also hidden, similar to those of the secret courts, otherwise what does a media gag order do for them?
It would be a strange situation if everyone, including the media, is ordered to not talk about something when it is a matter of public record.
I'm not sure how this contributes to a "fair trial".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All the court proceedings, unless specifically put under seal, are a matter of public record. So they could mention any of that to the press, but couldn't say anything else that "could interfere with a fair trial".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've heard they're actually torturing Barrett! It's impossible to prove me wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Watchit on Sep 4th, 2013 @ 9:39pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And; why are people that seek the truth and are interested in bringing to light the wrongs, and yes, crimes of our leaders being persecuted?
Because they can.
Because its easier to go after "little people" than it is to go after real criminals who run the banks, the government, and the military/intelligence industrial complex.
I have to go, I heard a Humvee in the front yard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because there's been another president you consider worse doesn't mean he's not one of the worst. He still is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That said, I thought Bush Jr. was bad and then Obama comes along and really raises the bar. People are getting pretty bipartisan in their disdain for the executive these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Surveys of historians pretty consistently rank Bush Jr. in the bottom quartile of US presidents. What I find strange is that at least one ranks Obama as 15th best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Craig on Sep 4th, 2013 @ 10:31pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this not a first amendment violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this not a first amendment violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regional differences in Gag orders
Given the split between the Districts, at some future time, the standard for the issuance of a gag order will probably have to be reviewed by SCOTUS.
Are there any lawyers here who could comment on what kind of case it would take to get a SCOTUS "cert" on this issue any time soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
Based on the user name, I'm pretty sure that was a joke. Though I admit it's barely (if that) crazier than some things people really believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an alternative response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha
As if I'd ever respect the wishes of tyrants. Not a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha ha
And the second thing you would do is go to jail for contempt of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It does seem a bit odd that you apparently have strong feelings about this case and choose to express them by making snide remarks on a blog, about what the blogger has not done, while not providing any evidence nor reference to what it is that you have done thus demonstrating your superiority complex is warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Other than your opinion, this is based upon what? Extra credit for examples.
Why, when one uses declarative terms, do they need to be an expert?
"circumspection does not resonate"
Apparently bullshit does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Objection: DECLARATIVE
"Circumspection would be more appropriate"
Objection: DECLARATIVE
"circumspection does not resonate"
Objection: DECLARATIVE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I'll merely make note of the fact that you've provided absolutely no evidence that your expertise in matters such as this even exists. All you done is make yourself sound like as ass.
If you have an argument to make, make it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges who should be put into stocks...
It's utter B.S. that this case needs a special gag order when it's of INFINITELY lower impact that the Travone Martin case, which involved an actual DEATH of a human being... not 40+ characters of a URL posted.
But judges are just as corrupt as everyone else in office and don't want their dirty laundry aired either. They don't want people to see the injustice they help to perpetrate for not dismissing ludicrous charges with prejudice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Page from Masnicks book
How's your Google page hit cheque been past few weeks Mick the Nick ??
I guess that's a small price to pay for the power to censor and supress freedom of speech..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once you have the abuse of power in your blood it's hard to break the habit !!!! Right Masnick ???
"This comment HELD FOR CENSORSHIP". MY your ruler Mr Masnick, wielder/abuser of power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are completely full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's ok when mansick gags people he does not agree with, he likes the power, and abuses it when he can, but only to gag comments he does not agree with, or from people he does not like.
That's the lowest form of abuse of power, "Im going to censor EVERYTHING from this person, because he does not believe everything I say, and catches me out lying too often"..
Nice work Masnick, you're children will be so proud.
I'm sure your followers fully support your abuse of freedom of speech and censorship..
I guess the power is more valuable to you than your reputation !!!!..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listen up lawyers...
They will bring the reporters queries to you, you answer the intermediary's questions, they give the answers and other information to the press.
Problem solved, and you followed the letter of the law and the illegal order.
Free speech, freedom of the press - fuck the judge (with a disease ridden, broken glass dildo).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is with Texas and judges?
...but NOOOOoooooOOOooooo! Texas.
(BTW: TechDirt, I know everyone has [Submit] buttons, even whiteOUThouse.gov has a [Submit] button on their "comment" page AND IT IS RATHER irritating to click [Submit], when one is already irritated! justsayin )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, counsel for the two parties generally want partial judges and juries, partial to their cause. The concept underlying gag order is to prevent as much as possible the opportunity for counsel to inject partiality into the process.
Is a gag order appropriate here? Without the benefit of the entire evidentiary record that was before the judge it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at an informed opinion. Because the evidentiary record is generally lacking unless one is sitting in the courtroom hanging on every word and thoughtfully reviewing every piece of evidence presented to the court, using words like tragically and ridiculous should be accompanied with at the very least a brief discussion of the evidence presented to the court when asked to issue a gag order.
While such orders are not the norm, they are not uncommon in cases where counsel or their proxies have demonstrated a willingness to negatively impact the goal of impartiality by what they have been doing outside of the courtroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]