403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
The New York Times Launches Legal Case Against Pentagon
(MENAFN) The New York Times initiated a second legal case against the Defense Department on Monday, contesting media access limitations at the Pentagon introduced under the Trump administration.
The complaint, submitted by The New York Times alongside its correspondent Julian Barnes, identifies the department, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, spokesperson Sean Parnell, and senior official Timothy Parlatore as defendants in the matter.
According to the filing, the regulation requiring all journalists to enter the Pentagon while accompanied by an escort constitutes "blatant retaliation" against the Times "not only for their editorial viewpoint but also for vindicating their constitutional rights in litigation."
The lawsuit further argues, "The interim policy is patently retaliatory, utterly unreasonable, and manifestly arbitrary and capricious. Defendants adopted it as a means to thwart a district court order and to punish The Times both for its editorial viewpoint and its successful suit vindicating its constitutional rights."
The statement referred to the administration’s latest policy as an attempt to circumvent a previous judicial ruling that had declared earlier press restrictions unconstitutional and incompatible with freedom of speech protections.
In March, Federal Judge Paul Friedman determined that the Pentagon’s restrictions targeting journalists violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
The complaint, submitted by The New York Times alongside its correspondent Julian Barnes, identifies the department, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, spokesperson Sean Parnell, and senior official Timothy Parlatore as defendants in the matter.
According to the filing, the regulation requiring all journalists to enter the Pentagon while accompanied by an escort constitutes "blatant retaliation" against the Times "not only for their editorial viewpoint but also for vindicating their constitutional rights in litigation."
The lawsuit further argues, "The interim policy is patently retaliatory, utterly unreasonable, and manifestly arbitrary and capricious. Defendants adopted it as a means to thwart a district court order and to punish The Times both for its editorial viewpoint and its successful suit vindicating its constitutional rights."
The statement referred to the administration’s latest policy as an attempt to circumvent a previous judicial ruling that had declared earlier press restrictions unconstitutional and incompatible with freedom of speech protections.
In March, Federal Judge Paul Friedman determined that the Pentagon’s restrictions targeting journalists violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any
responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos,
licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues
related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Comments
No comment