Tag: prior restraint

Posted on

OA696: In Which James O’Keefe Pretends to Be A Journalist

Today, Liz and Andrew visit the strange world of James O’Keefe and his agitprop outfit, Project Veritas. Along the way we’ll learn about a bunch of cases, the law of prior restraint, and much, much more!

Notes
Project Veritas $22 million
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/272894856

Federal Docket O’Keefe v. Twitter
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59899639/okeefe-iii-v-twitter-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

NY Appellate docs – O’Keefe v. Twitter
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=OihBJQsmc7aFb4qIIdOKeA==

Liz ATL on O’Keefe-CNN
https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/project-veritas-gonna-sue-twitter-for-defamatory-section-230-censorship-and-first-amendment-assault-or-something/

Project Veritas Docket (00813)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61377333/parties/in-re-search-warrant-dated-november-5-2021/

Project Veritas Board of Directors
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/statement-from-the-project-veritas-board-of-directors/

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Posted on

OA396.5 BONUS Episode: Will You Be Able To Read John Bolton’s Book?

Today’s bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton’s tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn’t give money to John Bolton. He’s still a scumbag.)

We begin, however, with a quick Andrew Was Right! in that PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241!

Then, it’s time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why!

After that, it’s time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton’s book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why.

No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there’s lots and lots of great content!

Patreon Bonuses

All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief!

Appearances

None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Although the plea agreement isn’t available, this Ars Technica article is a good timeline of PG&E’s criminal activities; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241!
  2. Click here to read the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee.
  3. You can read the Supreme Court’s decision in Snepp v. U.S. 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the decision in the Pentagon Papers case, and also read the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the U.S. against Bolton. Injunctive relief is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  4. Finally, check out the NSA’s pre-publication procedures.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

OA156: Conor Lamb & Pennsylvania Recounts

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss Congressman-elect Conor Lamb’s victory in Tuesday’s PA-18 special election and whether the Republicans will be able to recount the results.

After that, Andrew walks through the history of prior restraint under the First Amendment in light of a recent Nevada decision denying the request of the family of one of the Las Vegas massacre victims to suppress his autopsy report… and what that might mean for friend of the show Stormy Daniels.

That segues into another Q&A segment where we tackle Yet More Of Your Stormy Questions; this time relating to (1) choice of law and (2) whether Stormy can simply buy back the settlement for $130,000.

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to “send a message.”  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Thomas discussed the political implications of the Lamb election on Episode 128 of Serious Inquiries Only.
  2. We discussed con artist Jill Stein’s “recounts” way back in Episode 25 of this show, and the Pennsylvania order denying standing is here.  You can also read up on Pennsylvania’s Election law, Title 25, Chapter 14.; we specifically discussed §§ 3154(g) (mandatory recounts); 3261-63 (voluntary recounts); and 3459 (bonding requirement).
  3. The key case for prior restraint is New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971); you can also read the Nevada Supreme Court opinion.
  4. Please also check out David Michael’s new podcast, The Quorum!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download