New Jersey judge orders Trentonian not to publish stories

[Dick Whitman]

Said judge can kindly **** off.

N.J. judge orders newspaper to stop publishing articles

 

[YankeeFan]

Said judge can kindly **** off.

N.J. judge orders newspaper to stop publishing articles

Why did it it take a specific court order? Wouldn't publishing something like this already have been illegal?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why did it it take a specific court order? Wouldn't publishing something like this already have been illegal?

It depends on the state statute.

-30-

 

[Ace]

That's a strange case. So one parent of the 5-year-old who had hard drugs on him twice at school had the complaint and wanted a story written?

I wonder what the state agencies are trying to cover up. I doubt very much that they are concerned that the kid's privacy will be breached.

These agencies tend not to fair well when a light is shined on them.

 

[Ace]

Why did it it take a specific court order? Wouldn't publishing something like this already have been illegal?

Apprently the judge thinks so. Score one for Evil ... You guys are going to have to go to the Supreme Moderators to settle it now.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It's a really odd story, because it seems so obvious that this is a textbook case of illegal prior restraint that it causes me to think, "What can I be missing here?" Presumably the judge went to law school. Presumably he practiced law. Presumably he attended sixth grade.

What is going on here?

 

[YankeeFan]

Apprently the judge thinks so. Score one for Evil ... You guys are going to have to go to the Supreme Moderators to settle it now.

Nope. Evil doesn't get a win on this one.

I spelled this out from the beginning:

They might not give you access to court records, but without a specific court order, that doesn't mean the media can't report on a case, including naming the defendant.

As the article points out, it's extremely rare.

It's temporary. Let's see if the new judge makes it permanent (for now).

Either way, it will likely be struck down by a higher court, as these tyoes of orders have been rejected by the SCOTUS in the past.

Judicial orders that impose a “prior restraint” on a news organization, prohibiting it from publishing articles on a specific topic, are extremely rare in the United States and have been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court several times, including in a case concerning the most closely held national secrets. In that landmark 1971 decision, New York Times Co. v. United States, the justices declined a request from President Richard Nixon’s administration to bar The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing stories based on the Pentagon Papers, a classified study of the Vietnam War.

But, that's why I mentioned a "specific court order" earlier. A judge can make any damn ruling they want, and until it's overturned, it stands.

 

[Ace]

So if you were the Trentonian and the judge issued an injunction barring you from reporting on this case, what would you do?

 

[Dick Whitman]

And what the ****?

George White, executive director of the New Jersey Press Association, said the group had not taken a position on the case.

 

[YankeeFan]

So if you were the Trentonian and the judge issued an injunction barring you from reporting on this case, what would you do?

You follow the court order until you get it overturned.

 

[Dick Whitman]

So if you were the Trentonian and the judge issued an injunction barring you from reporting on this case, what would you do?

Tell him kindly to go **** himself.

 

[Ace]

You follow the court order until you get it overturned.

Interesting. I don't think many papers would take that stance.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Nope. Evil doesn't get a win on this one.

I spelled this out from the beginning:



As the article points out, it's extremely rare.

It's temporary. Let's see if the new judge makes it permanent (for now).

Either way, it will likely be struck down by a higher court, as these tyoes of orders have been rejected by the SCOTUS in the past.

Judicial orders that impose a “prior restraint” on a news organization, prohibiting it from publishing articles on a specific topic, are extremely rare in the United States and have been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court several times, including in a case concerning the most closely held national secrets. In that landmark 1971 decision, New York Times Co. v. United States, the justices declined a request from President Richard Nixon’s administration to bar The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing stories based on the Pentagon Papers, a classified study of the Vietnam War.

But, that's why I mentioned a "specific court order" earlier. A judge can make any damn ruling they want, and until it's overturned, it stands.

And you have been wrong from the beginning.
I spelled out my argument. I pointed out the state statutes.
I have actual/real experience, you know reporting - including court reporting; dealing with prosecutors and judges, complaints and trials to back it up.
Even won some awards.
You?

I know what I am talking about.
You?

I made my case. Believe it or not. I don't care.
Unlike others on these boards, I'm not going to go 'round and 'round hashing and rehashing arguments. I don't do that.
I made my points and I am moving on.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And you have been wrong from the beginning.
I spelled out my argument. I pointed out the state statutes.

What state statute bars newspapers from publishing the names of criminal defendants?

I don't care if you won the ****ing Pulitzer.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Never stated that.
We're were talking about juveniles.
It's with regard to juveniles. Juvenile. Defendants.
There are statutes that bar naming juveniles.

 

[YankeeFan]

And you have been wrong from the beginning.
I spelled out my argument. I pointed out the state statutes.
I have actual/real experience, you know reporting - including court reporting; dealing with prosecutors and judges, complaints and trials to back it up.
Even won some awards.
You?

I know what I am talking about.
You?

I made my case. Believe it or not. I don't care.
Unlike others on these boards, I'm not going to go 'round and 'round hashing and rehashing arguments. I don't do that.
I made my points and I am moving on.

#Awesome

 

[YankeeFan]

Never stated that.
We're were talking about juveniles.
It's with regard to juveniles. Juvenile. Defendants.
There are statutes that bar naming juveniles.

What do we call this? A triple down?

Did you go back and read the links you provided yesterday? The ones that said the opposite of what you thought they said?

I know one thing, your awards weren't for reading comprehension.

 

[Dick Whitman]

There are statutes that bar naming juveniles.

Which ones?

 

[Songbird]

Just watched this Lou Grant episode yesterday dealing with acquisition of personal information.

In this case, Rossi acquired it via illegal channels when the pillhead broke into the doctor's office and raided his files.

 

[YankeeFan]

Which ones?

He's an award winning journalist, who knows what the **** he's talking about.

Why would you question him? Just take his word for it.