Connecticut Court Ignores First Amendment, Blocks Paper From Publishing Article Based On Public Court Document
from the prior-restraint dept
I'm always amazed that there are judges out there who don't appear to understand even the very basics about the First Amendment. And yet, we get cases like this one in Connecticut last week, in which a New Britain Superior Court judge, Stephen Frazzini, apparently had never come across the concept of prior restraint, and ordered an injunction against the Connecticut Law Tribune barring it from publishing an article based on a public court document:Daniel J. Klau, the newspaper's lawyer, said he has already filed an appeal. He and other media law attorneys say this appears to be an extraordinarily rare case of prior restraint on free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. They say that normally pre-publication court orders have been deemed constitutional only in matters of extreme threats to public safety, on the level of national security.Yes, since it involves juvenile court, it's likely part of the issue involved in protecting the privacy of a child. But, again, this was information that was already filed in a public docket. If there was concern about privacy, it should have been dealt with prior to a public filing. To then issue an injunction, barring the publication of an article, is classic prior restraint and is clearly unconstitutional.
Frazzini's oral ruling is currently sealed, but Klau said he is working to have it unsealed. "I am actually under a restraining order about what I can tell my own client. There are some things that I can share," said Klau, of the Hartford office of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter. "What the Law Tribune can say," he said, "is that in a child protection case on the juvenile court docket, the court granted a party's request for an injunction barring the Connecticut Law Tribune from publishing information that it lawfully obtained about the case."
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: connecticut, first amendment, free speech, journalism, prior restraint
Companies: connecticut law tribune
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Also prior restraint to gag the lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) will it make any difference to this judge, ie, will he amend his ruling?
b) will he study the law a little better so as to be able to make 'informed' rulings in the future?
i am doubtful on both counts as judges seem to think that only their word goes at the time, that the people are mostly just inconveniences to be tolerated for as short periods as possible and that but for the people, judges could just sit back, relax and rake in a fortune for doing almost nothing of any value, much like their superiors of the FISC bench
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does “most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights” actually mean? (Nebraska Press Assoc v Stuart(1976)).
What does “most serious and the least tolerable” mean? if it does not mean impeachment—and conviction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if you, and others knew and understood the US Constitution, that all judges are only ALLOWED to occupy their office for life if they use "Good Behaviour" while in the courtrooms.
"Good Behaviour" is doing their duty as it is constitutionally assigned - which they have not been doing, or rarely doing since Roosevelt - and KEEPING their Oaths.
Why would the people need to understand it, and what difference would that make?
It is the people who decide if "Good Behaviour" is being used in the courtroom, and if they decide it is not, they remove that judge. If it applies, they charge and prosecute that judge.
That is one other reason it is important to understand the US Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no "good behavior" limit. There's actually a good chance this is an elected position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's rare only if compared to the who knows how many 'national security letters' - which I call by their proper name: writs of assistance (q.v.) - handed out by NSA, FBI, and various other alphabet agencies, and which are rife (to quote reports) with gag orders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am missing something...
Can someone help me out where this exception is outlined in the Bill of Rights?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I did catch that "Shall make no law"... apparently we have jumped this shark so damn long ago and so damn often no one alive is able to recognize how fucked up we now are.
It is now common for every part of the constitution to be mercilessly shit upon by the president, congress, and courts without redress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am missing something...
1. Freedom of speech is not absolute
2. The laws of the country do not end with the written words. Laws are interpreted by the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Freedom of speech is absolute. That does not mean that you can not be taken to court and sued afterwards for crimes committed such as defamation, etc.
If you are talking about shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, etc; that has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, and everything to do with endangerment of others.
"Laws are interpreted by the courts."
That is incorrect under the US Constitution. The courts gave themselves that "power" which is usurpation and "null and void" under our laws.
The courts are to decide if that particular law FOLLOWS (is in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution and entirely different thing.
US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..."
The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It applies to only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution,
“... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.
It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;...”
By the way, breaking that Oath is at least one felony, is Perjury and it matters not who broke it, and requires their removal from the position they are occupying; all of which still applies but is not enforced while much "color of law", pretend laws are enforced. All laws are REQUIRED by this countries Supreme law to be in "Pursuance thereof" it.
Remember, even though it is mostly ignored, the US Constitution is not only the highest LAW of our land, it defines our government and assigns what powers go to each branch. Those who serve within the different branches are not allowed to decide on their own powers - that is a dictator or monarchy that does that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am missing something...
That's like saying the freedom to murder is absolute, but you can be put in prison for it afterwards.
That is incorrect under the US Constitution. The courts gave themselves that "power" which is usurpation and "null and void" under our laws.
The courts are to decide if that particular law FOLLOWS (is in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution and entirely different thing.
That's just semantics. Regardless of how you describe it, the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether a law is constitutional or not, which necessarily includes deciding what the Constitution means. One cannot determine whether a law complies with the Constitution without first coming to an understanding of what the Constitution means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Uh, yes it is. Obviously you can be sued for defamation, but the fact that a person, legal or natural, can abridge your right to freedom of speech in this manner still doesn't give the US Government the same power.
2. The laws of the country do not end with the written words. Laws are interpreted by the courts.
Actually, no. Courts might sometimes need to interpret certain parts of laws, such as a defence of fair use in a copyright infringement case, but their main role is to uphold the laws as they exist, not to interpret them into entirely new ones. Simples!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am missing something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Anything can be justified with your logic.
So... just what you do you stand for anyways? No wait... let me ask this instead... if you are okay with the destruction of any of these rights for "pragmatism", then what standing to you have when any... and I mean ANY of your rights are violated too.
Lets make it clear... you are intellectually corrupt... no doubt about it and you are far inferior to the intellectual giants that form our system of government, for even they... predicted the failure of this very government when enough of YOUR type pervade this nation.
You deserve no liberty at all sir! NONE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am missing something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am missing something...
It's not my logic. It's simply reality. You are demanding that I agree to expect something that is simply and obviously impossible without modifying the Constitution. If there is any intellectual bankruptcy here, it is yours for insisting that reality and basic logic is nothing but a rhetorical device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Yep. It's not easy, but then, nothing worth doing is. Example: IPR. It's often used to stifle unwanted speech and the balance is between whether or not you have the right to complain about bad service using the logo of the offending company in your post or article.
You do, that was settled years ago, but it doesn't stop them trying. On the flip side, rightsholders are entitled to a monopoly on the right to make a profit from IPR, but it was only ever meant to be temporary. Now they've arrogated property rights to themselves and their monopolies, bringing a new set of competing rights into play.
Sometimes the best thing you can be is pragmatic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
NOTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION CONTRADICTS ITSELF, nothing.
The Bill of Rights was added to give MORE PROTECTION to our natural rights. To make clear that they are above and beyond governmental authority. That is why they are "teaching" what you were taught. Basically if the people are too ignorant of what those who serve within our governments are allowed to do, what is protected for them FROM those who serve in government, they can tell you anything and you will believe it.
In the 1943 Supreme Court Case of West Virginia Board of Education Vs. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, Justice Robert H Jackson said the following: “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcomes of no elections.”
Proving you incorrect:
"This is most evident in the bill of rights. Rigidly enforcing one term means that you have to violate a different term"
Preamble to the Bill of Rights: "... THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. ..."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The six protections against government encroachment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance.
Remember the ONLY branch allowed to write laws (legislation) is the legislative branch. It is a power forbidden to the executive and judicial branches.
Where is the contradictions?
4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. The people have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them PROTECTED from those who serve within our governments.
This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause.
This is only as valid as the judge is not corrupt. There have been cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
These amendments are not a grant of right, but solely limitations put on those who serve within our governments to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their listed (enumerated) powers.
No conflict here either. So I would guess that you are referring to the 2nd Amendment. If so, you are incorrect there also.
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So let me expand your education a bit more. The Militia IS "We the People". Our governments were forbidden to have standing armies and law enforcement, they were to use the Militias when needed.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it's the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”
James Madison: “... large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
Joel Barlow American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: "… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.
Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”
Nunn vs. State:'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.
Let me know if you would like to learn more. May I recommend some books and reading material?
"Constitution Denied", Michael LeMieux
Any be Dr. Edwin Vieira - free partial here (http://oathkeepers.org/oath/wp-content/uploads/Dare-Call-It-Treason-21.pdf)
Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist papers.
Hillsdale College, the oldest in our nation, offers some free online Constitutional courses here: https://online.hillsdale.edu/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Unless your comment has less to do with being correct, but just spreading disinformation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am missing something...
Really??? Examples of such please.
not sure what Constitution you have been reading, but the Bill of Rights is quite simple in its expression of rights. the only contradictions are what courts have created in convoluted interpretations over the years.
What saddens me is that the newspaper even cares to comply. Publish it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am missing something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they understand it very well. They just hold it in contempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we had not been fighting for all these decades, you would own nothing, and the fight would already have been over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, whenever the government wants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the immortal words...
"Mr. Law Dog, 'cause law don't go around here."
I think many judges (and police) forget their place and let the power go to their heads. They forget they are there to PROTECT the law... not BE the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Documents created by public employees with public funds on public time are "secret." Documents created by private individuals and businesses using private funds are required to be publicly disclosed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]