"The Court recognizes that national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman wrote in his 40-page ruling.
"But especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing," he continued.
Friedman is an appointee of former President Clinton.
The Pentagon's policy requires reporters before getting a press badge to sign a contract that department information must be "approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified."
After it was unveiled last fall, many mainstream reporters refused to sign the new policy, and media advocates have condemned it as an attack on press freedom. The Pentagon has suggested outlets are misconstruing the new rules and that it is legal.
The New York Times and one of its reporters, Julian Barnes, launched a lawsuit over the policy in December.
Friedman's ruling agrees with them that the Pentagon violated the First Amendment's press protections, finding the policy imposes unreasonable and viewpoint-discriminatory
restrictions.
The judge ruled the policy is also too vague in violation the Fifth Amendment's due process protections.
"In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist's" badge, the judge wrote. "It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials."
He added, "'sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants.'"
In its lawsuit, the Times alleged that the Pentagon policy changes gave it carte blanche to banish reporters and news outlets over coverage it deemed as unfavorable, violating the Constitution's free speech and due process protections.
The Pentagon policy states that publishing sensitive information "is generally protected by the First Amendment" but that soliciting any such information could mark a reporter as a "security or safety risk."
With the new rules, Defense officials had "unfettered" discretion to revoke press passes, allowing them to impose "viewpoint-based" press restrictions banned by the Constitution, the Times alleged.
The Times along with every other major news organization refused to sign the Pentagon's new terms and surrendered their passes in mid-October.
The walkout meant that for the first time since the Eisenhower administration, no major U.S. television network or publication had a permanent presence in the Pentagon. It also left a new press corps consisting of right leaning and pro-Trump outlets and media personalities.
Read the full report from Zach Schonfeld at TheHill.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment