Judge Orders Newspaper To Delete Article, Newspaper Reminds Judge That It's In The US And The 1st Amendment Exists

from the welcome-to-america dept

Mon, Jun 1st 2015 4:54am — Mike Masnick

This seems to happen all too often, but a local judge has forgotten about the whole 1st Amendment thing. Last week, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca ordered the Bergen Dispatch to take down a news article. The article was about a specific family court case, involving custody of a child. It's not surprising that there might be some concern over privacy rights in such cases, but even so, that does not allow a judge to flat out order a newspaper to take down an article -- even more so when the order came out of a closed hearing where no one from the newspaper was even present. In response, the Bergen Dispatch posted a fairly snarky article that reiterates some of the details from the case, and concludes with this wonderful paragraph:

While the Bergen Dispatch reviews its options we have confirmed that Bergen County does currently remain part of the State of New Jersey and that currently New Jersey is still part of the Union of states that is governed by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As such, Bergen County citizens continue to enjoy the right to freedom of speech and the right to a free press.

Informed of this little tidbit of information, the judge has since vacated the original order, but it's still astounding that it had to go that far in the first place.

Full DK Order 05282015 (PDF)Full DK Order 05282015 (Text)

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: 1st amendment, bergen dispatch, censorship, jane gallina-mecca, new jersey, prior restraint

33 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

jilocasin (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 5:30am

You have to admire how this particular judge went out of her way, not only to disregard the First Amendment, but to cite a completely inapplicable law as the basis for her order.

From the linked article:

“As far as we can tell from the Order, the court made no findings of fact and appears to have issued the order in a summary proceeding. --- Notably, the only authority cited for the action was N.J.S.A. 9:8-1 et seq. This section is currently listed as the Following: “Chapter 8. Orphan Asylums; Guardianship and Indenture of Children [Repealed].”

I wonder, did she truly not know the law she was referencing, or cynically thought that no one would look it up.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  perhaps she viewed herself as above the law and that her desires supercede the rights of everyone else
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    The surprising thing is that she didn't haul the paper before her before rescinding the order.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    TechDirt seriously needs a Sad but True button.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 2 Jun 2015 @ 6:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      [Sad but true]
      
      This will have to do, DannyB.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jimmy, 2 Jun 2015 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't most judges?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  I went to the New Jersey web site and tried to look up 9:8-1. The law appears to skip from 9:7-7 to 9:10-1.
  
  So, yeah. The law is not currently on the books, whatever it was. And even if it WAS on the books, it would be unconstitutional to use it this way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Seems she might have meant 9:6-8.10 (a statute that covers the confidentiality of child abuse reports), but that's one heck of a typo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Larry Velasco, 2 Jun 2015 @ 6:23pm
  
  Re: Stupidity
  This person is typical of the type of junk they are turning out at law schools of today. Just like online courses. The industry is being ruined by online schools. PERIOD. This Judge should be DISBARRED.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Law student (not US), 6 Jun 2015 @ 7:47am
  
  Re:
  When I had to do court observation in first year, the judges' citations were either highly abbreviated (just referring to the roman numeral for the sub-sub-number (e.g referring to clause 1 b iii as just "3") and relaying on everyone knowing what he meant from context) or entirely irrelevant (he referred to a clause about sentencing donors for a guy who was 40+, and to one about mitigating factors which were utterly inapplicable).
  
  I get the strong impression that judges at lower levels tend to rely on making decisions based on general principles and just throw citations in as a nod to proper procedure, and rely on the fact that no-one is going to appeal their decisions and that the court reporter will fix their citations before reporting the case.
  
  (The barristers weren't much better: one cited evidence which entirely contradicted his position, and wasn't caught out until the judge remembered what the original evidence was a few minutes after he finished talking; one started making counterproductive arguments until the judge told him to shut up; a few of them made totally nonsense citations; and one of them got a citation right and then misread it so that it favoured her, she hesitated while reading it too, so I think she must have misread it, decided to use it, and then noticed what it actually said.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 5:31am

Fascists of America!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:53am
  
  Re:
  Fascists Without Borders!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 5:33am

Sounds to me like the judge is a secret Nazi. LOLS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 5:53am

Stay classy New Jersey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:00am

this judge is making decisions on cases? really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geno0wl (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:10am

Family Court
A lot of the Constitution doesn't really apply to family court(like the right to an attorney, right to a speedy trial, ect). It is completely amazing what people get away with in family court.
Apparently this stupid judge forgot that the first amendment still does apply in the real world though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:38am
  
  Re: Family Court
  Yeah, it's not hard to understand what happened. Family court tends to be a nightmare of judges just doing whatever the hell they want and people being stuck dealing with it. She probably forgot there was a real world at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Larry Velasco, 2 Jun 2015 @ 5:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Family Court
    Check the background of this dip-shit Judge. See where her views lie.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Burkhardt (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: Family Court
  Mainly because the rights you state are criminal rights, not civil ones. In ANY civil case you do not have the right to a speedy trial or a right to an attorney.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Geno0wl (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Family Court
    That would be correct.
    And Civil cases are where lawyers make the REAL money. In fact in family courts lawyers have been shown to purposefully drag out cases for the sole purpose of dragging out fees.
    It is disgusting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rebrad (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 6:38am

Constitution?
Progressives don't think the United States Constitution applies to them or their actions. What is surprising is that the Bergen Dispatch isn't in lock-step with it's fascist brothers in the MSM. The Bergen Dispatch and the people behind it will be severely punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:47am
  
  Re: Constitution?
  "Progressives don't think the United States Constitution applies to them or their actions."
  
  Yeah because no right-wing conservative ever held such beliefs or said the Constitution is "just a god-damned piece of paper" or initiated anything like the Patriot Act. That was all liberals. Actually, it was all Obama, for the last 50 years even.
  
  Do you people even listen to yourselves? You spew ridiculous statements like this the kind you would never accept from the other side. The dissonance is astonishing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - minijedimaster (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 7:55am
    
    Re: Re: Constitution?
    Let me get you some cheese for that whine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re: Constitution?
    Don't you know? Obama is actually an immortal time travel from another galaxy. That's why he had to fake his birth certificate. His overall goal is to turn the entire planet into a resort for his fellow aliens where people will exist to serve the guests and be their dinner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re: Constitution?
    The Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate when it was first passed. (Although, to be fair, the NSA just ignored anything that was supposed to limit them in that act, such as the word "relevant".)
    
    There are good people and bad people in both political parties. There are unprincipled people who will portray themselves as having whatever beliefs they think will get them into power, and there are people who sincerely hold their beliefs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: Constitution?
  The judge is a conservative.
  As rebrad proves, cons are idiots.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re: Constitution?
    She has a hyphenated last name, so she MUST be a liberal!
    
    No, wait, her last name is Mecca, so she MUST be a terrorist!
    
    I'm so confused...
    
    How about she's just an idiot because she doesn't know the law or the constitution.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 8:05am

Hopefully this complete failure to understand the law will draw much more focus on this court.
Strike 1 - Whats this first amendment crap.
Strike 2 - I'll just cite random laws, that do not apply and no longer exist.
Strike 3 - I'll just have hearings and not allow people to be represented and demand they kowtow to my demands.

It would appear that this Judge needs a refresher course in the law, and given some of the information out there about this case and how long it has languished raises serious concerns about that entire court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 1 Jun 2015 @ 12:30pm

New Jersey judge?
I suppose he was appointed by Governor Christie? No one else would appoint a judge so deficient in knowledge of Constitutional principles. Oh, there is Brownback in Kansas, Walker in Wisconsin, ... Never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian Vance, 2 Jun 2015 @ 11:01am

Question
And this man is a judge?

Google "Two Minute Conservative" for brevity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 2 Jun 2015 @ 9:55pm
  
  Re: Question
  I kinda suspect, given the judge's name is Jane, that the judge isn't a man at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andre Jackson, 4 Jun 2015 @ 11:59pm

HIgh
She needs to come off her "high horse".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SBVA (profile), 26 Jan 2019 @ 11:43am

Crooked Judge
Never before have I been in front of a judge who didn’t understand the laws, and simply made shit up as she went along. The woman even goes as far as to change court transcripts after fucking up decisions which are not predicated on fact nor law. Literally and figuratively, who plays favourites with attorneys that she has a prior relationship with. Chris Christie, your poor judgement never ceases to amaze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]