![]() The Times reported the matter only after the gag order was lifted, apparently with the government’s consent. The magistrate court docket remains under seal.Ĭontemporaneous with CNN’s report, the New York Times reported that it too had been subject to subpoenas for reporters’ emails logs and, since March 3, 2020, a gag order which prevented the Times’ top executives from disclosing the matter even to the executive editor. However, it was not until June 2021 that CNN was permitted to report the matter to the general public. In late January, however, the government softened its position, reduced the scope of the document subpoena, and loosened the gag order to allow the reporter at issue to be involved in the document production called for in the subpoena. Several days after the inauguration of the Biden Administration, the government again moved for reconsideration. At a hearing on December 16, 2020, the district court found the subpoena was overbroad. In November 2020, TimeWarner appealed the subpoena, but apparently not the gag order, to the district court. ![]() The court granted the motion for reconsideration and ordered TimeWarner to comply with the original subpoena and gag order. In response, the government filed a motion for reconsideration and attached an ex parte sealed affidavit, which again Time Warner could not view. ![]() In October 2020, the magistrate judge granted WarnerMedia’s motion to require the government to limit the scope of the subpoena, but the gag order apparently was not challenged or vacated. ![]() The news organization did not have the opportunity to respond until top executives were served with a subpoena and an order not to communicate about the matter with anyone other than corporate counsel, not even the reporter whose communication records were the subject of the subpoena. In July 2020, the government sought and obtained from a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia a subpoena and a gag order on CNN’s parent company, WarnerMedia, through ex parte filings. The CNN and New York Times gag orders were secretive in the application process as well as in the resulting orders. 501, 508 (1984), CNN/WarnerMedia and the New York Times In criminal proceedings, openness “enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.” Press-Enterprise Co. Without the “sunlight” of public disclosure of the facts in criminal investigations and prosecutions, the fair administration of justice by government prosecutors and the courts is put at risk of neglect or abuse. Gag orders, sealing orders, and other protective orders within the court’s purview implicate the First Amendment rights of parties and their attorneys to comment on proceedings, the rights of news organizations to gather and disseminate news implicating the public’s right to know and defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Simultaneously with the subpoenas for email logs of targeted reporters, gag orders were issued by the court which prevented top executives from disclosing even the existence of the investigation or the subpoenas to the public or even their own reporters.Īs compelling as the story is regarding the government’s investigation of news organizations is its use of court-issued gag orders to prevent public disclosure or discussion of legal proceedings and the effect that gag orders have on the administration of criminal justice. Department of Justice sought and obtained gag orders against CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, their attorneys and executives, related to criminal investigations regarding leaks of national security secrets. Security experts say tactics used by those far-right influencers can be understood as stochastic terrorism.ĭrennen notes that some members of the LGBTQ+ community who have chosen financial gain and alleged grift over the support of their community seem to be backpedaling recently.It was recently revealed that the U.S. “So something we saw a lot of in the last year was people like Gays Against Groomers, people like Libs of TikTok saying, ‘Look at this drag event that’s happening here, this is so upsetting, this is a threat to children.’ And then the Proud Boys picked up on that message and showed up to disrupt the events," she says. And it allows them to speak to different audiences ,” Ari Drennen, LGBTQ program director at Media Matters, tells The Advocate. “It’s this whole extended universe of conspiracy theories and hate. Leatherwood and Michell have one thing they do well, Media Matters reports: The duo and groups like theirs are excellent at lifting money from people willing to support this bigotry.Įxperts say it’s the mean-spiritedness that’s the point.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |