Enlarge image
Building of the »New York Times« (symbol picture): »This decision should not only alarm all those who are concerned about freedom of the press«
Photo: Gary Hershorn / Corbis via Getty Images
The editor-in-chief of the New York Times, Dean Baquet, described the incident in November as an attack on freedom of the press: a New York court temporarily banned the newspaper from publishing certain materials via the conservative disclosure platform "Project Veritas".
Baquet called the judgment unconstitutional, the newspaper's lawyers took action against it - but that was initially unsuccessful, as it now shows.
more on the subject
"New York Times": US court blocks publications on the conservative disclosure platform "Project Veritas"
A judge of the Supreme Court of Westchester County, Charles D. Wood, upheld the November ruling, it became known on Friday.
And he went one step further: in addition, he now instructed the New York Times to immediately return certain Project Veritas documents to the platform, including certain physical materials that are in the possession of the newspaper.
In addition, all electronic copies of these documents should be destroyed.
According to its own report, the New York Times does not want to accept this.
You want to obtain a suspension of the judgment and contest it, it says there.
The New York Times published an article on November 11 about the journalistic practices of Project Veritas. Under the title "Project Veritas and the Line Between Journalism and Political Spying" (Project Veritas and the line between journalism and political espionage), the article deals with the platform's allegedly questionable research methods. The author refers in several places to confidential information of a lawyer on the platform, which the newspaper had previously leaked.
New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger defended the author's work and sharply criticized the verdict.
In violation of the law, Judge Wood banned the newspaper from publishing information about a prominent and influential organization.
The New York Times received this in the normal course of research and by legal means.
"This decision should not only alarm those who are concerned about freedom of the press," wrote Sulzberger in a statement from which the "New York Times" quoted.
But also those who worried when the state determined what the public was allowed to know and what not.
"Some things are not food for the public"
Judge Wood, on the other hand, rejects the argument that the information is a matter of public interest. "Our smartphones beep and buzz with news all day," he writes according to the newspaper report. Every media company believes that whatever it publishes is of public interest. "But some things are not food for the public, for their consumption and their considerations" - such as lawyer-client communication, as Wood finds in the current case.
Editor-in-chief Baquet had already said after the first verdict: "If a court silences journalism, it leaves its citizens in the lurch and undermines their right to knowledge." The newspaper receives support from other media houses. The Associated Press news agency, for example, has turned to the court and called for the decision not to be enforced. Bruce Brown, executive director of the press rights organization "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press", described the decision as "one of the most serious threats to freedom of the press," according to Reuters.
"Project Veritas" is a group of activists known for working with hidden cameras and hidden identities and engaging journalists in conversations to expose alleged prejudices.
The platform is considered politically conservative, which was also close to the former US President Donald Trump.
In May, the New York Times published research that the group had teamed up with a former British spy during Trump's tenure to take action against alleged "enemies" of the then president.
You can find out more about an investigation by the US Department of Justice against "Project Veritas" here.
The platform is alleged to have allegedly stolen a diary of President Joe Biden's daughter Ashley.
jus
