Creature report gif3/18/2024 ![]() The Oregonian/OregonLive was not provided a copy of the motion.Īs one of the paper’s editors points out, this is some bullshit. She filed a sealed motion late Thursday with the court, asking in the title of the motion that “inadvertently disclosed” documents be returned. She subsequently asked The Oregonian/OregonLive to return them and the news organization declined. The attorney, Laura Salerno Owens, who represents the plaintiffs in the case, sent a file of documents to a news reporter on Jan. ![]() Nonetheless, here we are, as Matthew Kish reports for The Oregonian, which is the current recipient of a blatantly unconstitutional court order.Ī federal judge on Friday ordered The Oregonian/OregonLive not to publish information from documents it obtained last week from an attorney in a high-profile sex discrimination lawsuit against Nike and told the news organization to return or destroy the records. It should have nothing to do with the recipient, especially when it’s clear it was a mistake, rather than an attempt to bypass a court order. That really should only be a problem for the person who handed over the documents. Someone screwed up and handed journalists documents that were still under seal in ongoing litigation. As much as litigants dread hearing a judge call an argument “novel,” judges should be similarly wary of having one their own described the same way. Prior restraint is pretty easy to recognize.Īnd yet, every so often, a judge decides to rewrite the First Amendment from first principles. A ton of precedent has been established that firmly limits what the government can do to stop someone from saying something (and, less often, to force someone to say something). ![]() First Amendment principles are nothing new. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |