Is It Ok To Publish A True Story Meant To Be Private? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I'd bet money that in my lifetime corporations and the mega wealthy are successful in using the courts to stop the press from publishing true information with an obvious public interest.

Anything is possible of course. But from where I see it, with everyone who carries a phone essentially being able to act as a publisher to the world, I think we're moving towards way more transparency and not less. 

 

[FairWarning]

There's no talk because the law is clear and Politico is performing the exact function that a news organization is supposed to perform.

They can't hire or encourage someone to break the law (which is why Julian Assange is in so much trouble and Project Veritas might be), but they can publish almost anything. 

What kind of trouble would Project Veritas face?   I don’t know much about them.

 

[Sand]

Is the Supreme Court immune to FOIA requests?  Honest question....I don't know the answer.

I think that falls under the attorney work product privilege.  When you look through it all makes sense until you get to 9 - that one is   .

The nine exemptions are described below.

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.

Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:

Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)

Attorney-Work Product Privilege

Attorney-Client Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings

7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication

7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source

7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law

7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual

Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

 

[Sand]

I wonder how the SC secures their info. Alito seems like a password on a sticky note under the keyboard type. 

He should just use Hunter's password.  It's... memorable.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What kind of trouble would Project Veritas face?   I don’t know much about them.

They may be implicated in stealing Ashley Biden's diary.

 

[The General]

He should just use Hunter's password.  It's... memorable.

I am hoping they have better data security protocols in place than some random guy. It may be as simple as trust in staff though. I’d be curious what they do. 

 

[BassNBrew]

The Politico / Overturning Roe v Wade story had me thinking about publishers in general. What responsibility, if any, do publishers have in stories like this?

And to be clear. This isn't like a whistleblower type thing where a crime or bad behavior is exposed. That's different. 

I'm talking about something that is meant to be private and somehow becomes seen by those who aren't supposed to see it. 

For a hypothetical example, let's say a staffer in the White House obtained a document that says President Biden plans to step down from office at the end of 2022 because he felt he was unable to adequately perform his job duties. Kamala Harris will assume the presidency even though he has grave concerns about her ability. 

If a publisher were to obtain that document, and they could reasonably deem it to be authentic, like Politico did with the Roe v Wade story, would it be ok for them to publish the story?

In this Roe v Wade story the reporter at Political got to see something that years of understanding on "how things work" said they weren't supposed to see.

Should reporters work to try and uncover things like this?

Should they refuse to publish something like this?

Was it a thing that they said, "If we don't publish it, someone else will so we may as well go ahead?" 

Wondering what other people thought on this.

Edit to add - I'm talking about things that are NOT a threat to National Security,

MT gets information that CMac's had a setback with his hamstring in practice that isn't publicly released.  Should he adjust his rest of season projections and should you publish them?

 

[Joe Bryant]

MT gets information that CMac's had a setback with his hamstring in practice that isn't publicly released.  Should he adjust his rest of season projections and should you publish them?

Yes. That feels a bit different though as the NFL system is set up so teams are required to publish that type of information on Injury Reports. It's part of the system. 

For my example of if a reporter managed to obtain information that was meant to be intensely private that would be devastating to Democrats election chances, how would you vote in the options in the poll?

 

[The Commish]

I think that falls under the attorney work product privilege.  When you look through it all makes sense until you get to 9 - that one is   .

The nine exemptions are described below.

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.

Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:

Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)

Attorney-Work Product Privilege

Attorney-Client Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings

7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication

7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source

7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law

7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual

Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

This??
 

Attorney work product privilege permits attorneys to withhold from production documents and other tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for another party or its representative. See: Fed. R. Civ. P. § 26(b)(3). As with attorney-client privilege, work product privilege does not protect underlying facts.

See also: Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).

However, work product privilege may be overcome if there is a substantial need for materials to prepare the case and the opposing party cannot reasonably obtain their substantial equivalent by other means. For instance, if there is no contemporaneous record and no witnesses to interview, the court may not provide work product privilege.

Work product privilege may be waived when an attorney discloses the work product to a third party in a way that creates a significant likelihood that an adversary or potential adversary in the anticipated litigation will obtain it. See U.S. v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006). This is based on the idea that opposing counsel should not be able to prepare a case on borrowed wits, and only disclosures of work product that are inconsistent with the adversarial system of litigation are contrary to the purposes for which work-product is granted.

I'd need help connecting those dots.

 

[BassNBrew]

Yes. That feels a bit different though as the NFL system is set up so teams are required to publish that type of information on Injury Reports. It's part of the system. 

For my example of if a reporter managed to obtain information that was meant to be intensely private that would be devastating to Democrats election chances, how would you vote in the options in the poll?

I voted yes probably.  No if it has to do with their kids, yes if it’s a material fact for example 

In the example I directed to you I would say yes. That said, maybe you have the info before the required reporting period by the NFL or maybe you have HIPPA protected info.  I might draw the line if MT paid an insider to get info first and you published it.  
 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I might draw the line if MT paid an insider to get info first and you published it.  

Thanks Buddy. That's a big area I don't think is talked about as much. And maybe it won't have to be when publishers can always go to the "protected sources" thing. 

It's definitely interesting. 

 

[johnnycakes]

Didn't the Pentagon Papers kind of set the precedent for this kind of thing?  

The Pentagon Papers was the name given to a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. As the Vietnam War dragged on, with more than 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam by 1968, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg—who had worked on the study—came to oppose the war, and decided that the information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be available to the American public. He photocopied the report and in March 1971 gave the copy to The New York Times, which then published a series of scathing articles based on the report’s most damning secrets.

In the now-famous case of New York Times Co. v. United States, the Times and the Washington Post joined forces to fight for the right to publish, and on June 30 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the government had failed to prove harm to national security, and that publication of the papers was justified under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press.