Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
from the prior-restraint? dept
We've talked about the hypocrite grifters who run Project Veritas, who, even when they have legitimate concerns about attacks on their own free speech, ran to court to try to silence the NY Times. Bizarrely, a NY judge granted Project Veritas' demand for prior restraint against the NY Times falsely claiming that attorney-client material could not be published.
The NY Times appealed that ruling and now a court has... not overturned the original ruling, but for now said that the NY Times can publish the documents, saying that it will not enforce the original ruling until an appeal can be heard. This is... better than nothing, but fully overturning the original ridiculous ruling would have been much better. Because it was clearly prior restraint. But, at least for now, the prior restraint will not be enforced.
Still, the response from Project Veritas deserves separate comment, because it's just naively stupid:
In a phone interview on Thursday, Mr. O’Keefe said: “Defamation is not a First Amendment-protected right; publishing the other litigants’ attorney-client privileged documents is not a protected First Amendment right.”
While it's accurate that defamation is not protected by the 1st Amendment, he's wrong that publishing attorney-client communications is -- in most cases -- very much protected. He's fuzzing the lines here, by basically arguing that because Project Veritas is, separately, suing the NY Times, that bans the NY Times from publishing any attorney-client privileged material it obtains via standard reporting tactics.
But that fuzzing suggests something that just isn't true: that there's some exception to the 1st Amendment from publishing attorney-client materials. That's wrong. The attorney-client privilege is with respect to having to disclose certain documents to another party in litigation. If you can successfully show that the documents are privileged, they don't need to be disclosed to the other party. That's the extent of the privilege. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not someone else obtaining those materials through other means has a right to publish them. Of course they do and the 1st Amendment protects that.
And, I should just note, that considering Project Veritas' main method of operating is trying to obtain private documents, or record secret conversations, it is bizarre beyond belief that Project Veritas is literally claiming that private material has some sort of 1st Amendment protection. Because that seems incredibly likely to come back and bite Project Veritas at a later time. Of course, considering they're hypocritical grifters with no fundamental principles beyond "attack people with views we don't like," I guess it's not surprising that their viewpoint on free speech and the 1st Amendment shifts depending on who it's protecting.
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, attorney-client privilege, james o'keefe, new york, prior restraint
Companies: ny times, project veritas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Initially read as "... the hypogriff critters who run Project Veritas, who ..."
I need new spectacles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are not careful, you could come to griffin that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
for all of their huffle and puffing you'd think they have a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They believe in the conservative idea of “free speech”, which is “free speech for me but not for thee”. They’re not capable of shame or guilt or remorse; pointing out their hypocrisy will only embolden them.
They are sociopaths, and they don’t care who they hurt in their quest for fame and glory (and the shitloads of money to be made by grifting gullible right-wingers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"They believe in the conservative idea of “free speech”, which is “free speech for me but not for thee”. They’re not capable of shame or guilt or remorse; pointing out their hypocrisy will only embolden them."
That's the progressive idea of free speech.
Seems to be the Techdirt idea of free speech as well.
"If it's not the government doing it, it's not censorship!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a court has... not overturned the original ruling, but for now said that the NY Times can publish the documents, saying that it will not enforce the original ruling until an appeal can be heard.
So um, am I an idiot for wondering what happens when the NY Times publishes the documents and a court rules in favor of the original ruling?
What would be the recourse then? Because if that's what happens, it'd be like trying to unfuck a pregnant woman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think Mike misread the meaning of the judicial order. On the surface it looks like a go-ahead, but if you stop and think about it for a second, it's a back-handed way of enforcing the injunction without violating the law.
"We're not going to enforce this injunction until after an Appellate ruling, but if the ruling is valid and you published the material, you're going to have to answer as to why you violated the injunction"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah I had look hard to find the exact order.
Mike showing his bias citing the NYT in a case pertaining to the NYT. There were otehr sources with their own reporting like The Hill but Mike intentionally went with the most biased and one sided source possible. You will also notice that this time around while mike uploaded the actual ruling for US to read on the lower courts order Mike did no such thing here. He intentionally keeps the actual ruling hidden from his audience and instead posts only the NYT, who are a party to the case spin on it.
Just when I think Mike cant go any lower the find a way to dig down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 1: Get sued by Project Veritas
Step 2: Have the FBI raid their offices so you can get all of their attorney-client documents outside of normal discovery
Step 3: FBI hands over the documents to the New York Times
Step 4: The New York Times claims innocence even though they colluded with the FBI to get those documents
Step 5: Techdirt shrugs at the illegal actions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your claim is objectively true? Remember to cite credible sources of information instead of Project Veritas and their right-wing media brethren.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is not the standard of proof
As said before the standard of proof to obtain a protective order is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in our judicial system and only comes into play in criminal cases.
The standard of proof in obtaining a protective order is reasonable belief. Its actually the complete inverse of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable belief standard of proof is more than satisficed by the NYT's own reporting of information that they admit came from sources in the DOJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who gives a fuck what you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People more important than you thats for sure. The Mike's of the tech world need to go. The GoFundMe faisco was the last straw. These professional wonks like Mike advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal for them to redirect donations. This is one of the major problems in Big Tech very few of the "experts" are actually experts. They just got their foot in the door first. Mike isn't qualified to be talking about what should or should not be in ToS. It isn't 1997 anymore ToS are now legal contracts. Mike isn't a contract lawyer or a lawyer of any kind.
I'm really interested in seeing who advised GoFundMe that they had any legal right based on their ToS to redirect the money they were to hold in trust. Thats a crime. The ToS are moot. ToS cant void law. The problem is that non-experts in the tech world like Mike actually believe they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[credible citation of fact needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 2: Have the FBI raid their offices so you can get all of their attorney-client documents outside of normal discovery
If this happened, then there are all sorts of remedies for it. The problem is that, so far, no evidence of this has been provided. If, at some future point, it is, then there are plenty of serious remedies that can be brought forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The problem is that, so far, no evidence of this has been provided. If, at some future point, it is, then there are plenty of serious remedies that can be brought forth."
By that time, it's far too late to undo the damage that's done.
And you're SERIOUSLY cheering for CONFIDENTIAL Attorney-Client information being STOLEN and shared with someone who's in a lawsuit against the other party?
You better hope that Karma doesn't ever decide to mess with you or anyone who works for you, Mike. Because one day you'll end up in this situation and cry about how it's unfair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
By that reasoning we should never do anything at all and just let things grind to a halt based on unfounded allegations.
You are free to point out where this "cheering" is done or are you just making shit up? What you ignore is that regardless how the information was leaked, as long as NYT wasn't involved, they have a right to publish it. That there is a lawsuit going on is immaterial since the information isn't related to it.
You know, the worst thing about being consistent is that people like you think it's some kind of gotcha that must be punished somehow when in reality it's your inconsistent behavior that's the real problem, you eschew consistency for tribal group-think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Other than their own reporting where the NYT admits that they are being fed information from within the DOJ.
"Federal agents in New York conducted the court-ordered searches on Thursday — one in New York City and one in suburban Westchester County — targeting people who had worked with the group and its leader, James O’Keefe, according to two of the people briefed on the events."
Mike playing fake lawyer again thinking confusing evidence, proof, standard of proof, and burden of proof.
I'm really interested why you have been so silent on GoFundMe trying to steal the trucker money. I wonder if your day job has caught up with you. Is Mike Masnick amongst the "experts" who advised GoFundMe that it would be perfectly legal for GoFundMe to redirect donations it was to hold in trust to other parties?
I know its your "job" Mike but this isn't 1997 anymore. The stakes are much bigger today and you are playing a game you are neither qualified or arguably even legally allowed to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you remember reading the first decision Mike the only thing required to obtain a protective order is a reasonable belief that a party to the case acquired the evidence through means outside of the normal means.
Yes the source is most likely the FBI or someone within the DOJ but this demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it came from the FBI specifically is far beyond what is required for the order.
Again Mike you are not a lawyer. Neither am I but law classes were required for my masters unlike yourself. The difference is I dont get paid for legal advice.
I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
You never had hte legal qualifications do so what yhou do for a living. Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money. As if ToS matter at all as it comes to charitable donations and fraud.
Maybe its time the states started putting the screws to the "Mike Masniks" of the tech world who think practicing law without a license is fun. The California courts treat BigTech with kid gloves. Texas courts will not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you remember reading the first decision Mike the only thing required to obtain a protective order is a reasonable belief that a party to the case acquired the evidence through means outside of the normal means.
The issue is not the rules for a protective order, but rather the rules for prior restraint, which are controlled by the 1st Amendment. You don't get to avoid the 1st Amendment here.
The difference is I dont get paid for legal advice.
Nor do I
I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
Lol, wut?
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
Whatever drugs you've been taking, you should stop.
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
You are really, really, high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 6: Ugly cry while you write a bullet point list of paranoid conspiracy bullshit.
Step 7: ???
Step 8: Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do they (PV) turn a profit (directly or indirectly).
I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't actually know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Only if you count right-wing dark money as revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do they (PV) turn a profit (directly or indirectly)?
I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't actually know...
.
Punctuation can matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's some bloody amazing power the NYT has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 1-x: provide no shred of evidence for any of your wild accusations and act completely surprised when people don't take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they colluded with the FBI
I've heard collusion isn't a crime for 4 years. So pardon me if I just don't give a fuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So your contention is Project Veritas is colluding with the federal government to raid offices of those they are investigating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who is colluding with who?
And for the last how many years have we heard that there is no such law against "collusion"?
And do you have anything that would resemble credible proof that there was any collusion to begin with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember FAST for stroke symptoms
Do you smell toast burning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
colluding
It's not a crime. Trump said so vehemently for 4 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't see how this could backfire on them at all...
'Attorney-client and other similarly private documents are protected and deserve to be treated as such! Now if you'll excuse us we're going to go back to trying to scam and/or trick people into giving us private documents and other information that we can publish to the world.'
If a complete and utter inability to experience shame weren't a requirement to be a modern day 'conservative' I'd imagine each and every one of them would have choked to death from the hypocrisy of their argument here. How dare someone print the private communications of others, that's their business model!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't see how this could backfire on them at all...
"'Attorney-client and other similarly private documents are protected and deserve to be treated as such! Now if you'll excuse us we're going to go back to trying to scam and/or trick people into giving us private documents and other information that we can publish to the world.'"
So now you're against Wikileaks and Edward Snowden?
They do/did the same thing as Veritas.
Are you against the guys behind the Pentagon Papers? They did the same thing.
Are you against actual investigative journalism? Because that's what actual journalists do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't see how this could backfire on them at all...
4 minutes before you posted the above you seemed to be incensed by what you are now defending.
Btw, real journalists doesn't manipulate source-material and take things out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What do you have to hide bro?
Are you actually ugly crying right now? It's what shit ass trolls do.
See I can do that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"ran to court to try to silence the NY Times."
The NY Times is in a lawsuit against Project Veritas and then publishes attorney-client information, you stupid hack.
This is called "Conflict of Interest".
If the NY Times had any ethics at all, they wouldn't have published it and would have attacked the FBI for what they did.
GamerGate was right in 2014. Journalism needs a strong code of ethics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Were you actually crying when you wrote this?"
"GamerGate ..."
That's just fucking pathetic. Even more pathetic than trying to dress up a concentrated harassment effort as a public outcry about journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White supremacists won't admit to the hypocrisy
https://archive.ph/ibCUU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The issue is not the rules for a protective order, but rather the rules for prior restraint, which are controlled by the 1st Amendment. You don't get to avoid the 1st Amendment here."
The first Amendment isn't more important than the 6th Amendment. No right is more important than any other. Everyone has a right to counsel and within that right is the right to confidentiality. You cant have true counsel if you are afraid to speak freely with your counsel.
In cases like this the court has to weigh public interest and non-aggression. Who is the aggressing party here? Which party aggressed on the rights of the other? The NYT. Under our basic principle of non-aggression the NYT loses because they are the aggressor on the others rights.
Then there is the question of public interest. As in the original motion the NYT couldn't find a single case where a protective order against a news outlet filed by a private party against a new organization that had privileged attorney client communication was not granted. The NYT could only point to cases where the party petitioning for the order was the government or a quasi-government actor like a government contractor.
The 11th circuit was quite clear in the Noriega case. When CNN wanted to publish Noriega's attorney client communications. That was affirmed by the SCOTUS when it denied CNN's motion for a stay. If CNN is not allowed to publish Noriega's, who had been President of Panama, attorney client communications than NYT is isn't allowed to O'Keefe's.
"I think that with the coming criminal investigations of GoFundMe and all the "expert advisors" who are now facing criminal investigation for conspiracy to commit fraud, yourself and those like you AKA Generation X talking heads who got their foot in the tech door early really need to take a step back and think.
Lol, wut?
Its going to catch up to all the "Mike Masniks" who advised GoFundMe that it was perfectly legal "under their ToS" to keep the money.
Whatever drugs you've been taking, you should stop."
I don't think you understand how insightful your comments are to the state of Big Tech. There are a lot of generation X that and older millennials that work in Big Tech like yourself as consultants who are unqualified and clueless. You just got there early when it was the wildwild west.
Yeah you got ToS to be considered legal contracts but you aren't a lawyer. So you really aren't qualified anymore to be giving professional about how a ToS should be written. I'm not saying it was you definitively that advised GoFundMe to commit a crime. But I have my suspicion. You haven't committed on the issue and its a very Mike Masnick kind of argument that came from GoFundMe.
Mike you are the type of person who would argue that a ToS can authorize a Big Tech company like GoFundMe to commit wire fraud. That is of course not true. Anyone who has had a first year law class can tell you that no contract can violate public policy but you haven't had a first year law class yet you advise on legal matters. "Well I've been doing this since the 90s." Yeah when ToS weren't legal contracts. The moment they became legal contracts you and those like you were no longer qualified.
Google just lost a major case in Arizona over incognito mode violating wire tapping law. Texas just opened an investigation of Meta for violation of their privacy statutes. This is happening all over the country and its guys like you that are the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again: Who gives a fuck what you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just to be clear, nothing in this laughable word salad has anything to do with how anything in the law actually works. And, I have never worked for GoFundMe, and I don't advise companies on legal issues, and I personally think GoFundMe's original plan was clear wire fraud and have no idea why they would do that.
But, really, you're incredibly ignorant of basically everything. And you should maybe stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They did it because their ToS said they could do it. This is one of the biggest problems in BigTech right now. It was the fundamental issue in the Arizona google just lost over incognito mode. Google really believed and argued in court that because their ToS said so they could gather information when they were not a party to the conversation despite that being illegal in Arizona and almost every state in the Union. I cant think of state that allows third parties to the electronically record/monitor etc. conversations they are not a party to but I'm not going to check the law in all 50 state and territories.
BigTech believes that their ToS are a law unto themselves that trump actual law.
When you write articles saying 'ToS have to be ambiguous because "bad actors"' you are a part of the problem because ambiguous contracts are not legal contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]