EDITORIAL: Judge's order against The New York Times cannot stand

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Dec. 31—The language is clear and unambiguous: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

In practice, that means that with very few and exact exceptions, no one in government can tell a newspaper what to print. No one — not the president or a senator, or an agency bureaucrat or a sitting judge.

Yet that is just what Justice Charles D. Wood of the New York State Supreme Court did in an order issued just before Christmas, as he prohibited The New York Times from publishing documents the paper has obtained regarding Project Veritas, a right-wing activist group.

The order represents an unprecedented violation of the First Amendment and the idea of a free and independent press. It cannot be allowed to stand.

There's little comfort in the fact that Justice Wood's order already has been partially lifted. A New York state appeals court on Tuesday lifted the portion of the order requiring The Times to turn over or destroy the documents in question.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/editorial-judges-order-against-york-111600489.html

[Stuart G]

1. I guess the judge doesn't know the meaning of ...".NO."....

..It won't be allowed to stand.. NO is still NO...

Judge is too stupid to know the meaning of the word...NO...

This will go to a higher court, and be overruled.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. The order in this case is poorly reasoned and needs to be overturned

[YP_Yooper]

3. Only problem is

it was apparently ill-gotten, so it's not a straightforward 1st A issue.

Maybe a better tact would have been to print everything first in one big dossier (instead of just a sample that alerted PV), and then challenge P Veritas to sue - knowing all along there was truth behind it?