Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A New York state appeals court freed the New York Times to publish documents concerning the conservative activist group Project Veritas, putting on hold a lower court ruling that alarmed First Amendment advocates.In an order made public on Thursday, the Appellate Division in Brooklyn stayed a December ruling https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/judge-orders-new-york-times-return-project-veritas-internal-memos-2021-12-24 that blocked the Times from publishing memoranda from an in-house Project Veritas lawyer, and required the newspaper to turn over or destroy the memos.

Critics described the Westchester County Supreme Court’s Justice Charles Wood ruling as an unconstitutional precedent restraint. Project Veritas stated that memos were protected by attorney client privilege.

Wood’s decision will be upheld, but Thursday’s order won’t stand.

Elizabeth Locke was a Project Veritas lawyer. She said that she was happy the court rejected the Times’ “overreaching” request to vacate its ruling and that it was certain it would conclude Veritas had “violated Veritas’ substantial rights by acquiring attorney-client privilege materials during ongoing litigation.”

The Times has welcomed the decision. Danielle Rhoades Ha, spokeswoman for the Times stated that “the use of prior restraint in order to stop newsgathering und block the publication newsworthy journalism” was against the Constitution. “It is not appropriate for libel litigants to be permitted to use the litigation they have filed to silence media coverage about them.”

Project Veritas, led by James O’Keefe has employed what critics consider deceptive techniques to expose liberal media bias.

The Times acquired the undisputed memos as part of coverage about a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into Project Veritas’ involvement in the theft of Ashley’s diary.

Project Veritas protested against a Nov. 11 Times piece that used memos and called it an attempt at embarrassment of a litigious opponent.

Times is being sued by the group for defamation in relation to a September 2020 article that described a video about Minnesota voter fraud.

Wood concluded the disputed memos weren’t a matter for public concern. He also stated that stopping coverage wouldn’t unconstitutionally limit the Times journalistic freedoms.

The newspaper’s editorial board called his ruling dangerous https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/24/opinion/project-veritas-new-york-times.html, saying courts should not tell media how to report the news.

Since 1971, The Times has not been subject to any prior restraint.

It is defending against unrelated defamation claims by former Alaska governor and Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, at a trial https://www.reuters.com/world/us/sarah-palin-testifies-she-felt-powerless-against-new-york-times-2022-02-10 nearing its conclusion in Manhattan federal court.