Monthly Archives: September 2022

Arizona State University

Michael Scott

A lawsuit filed by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)and some local media outlets is challenging the constitutionality of a new Arizona law, which prevents people from filming police within 8 feet of the officer.

There is an exception for people who are themselves the subject of the police action. The groups suing argue it violates the First Amendment rights of those who want to record what the police are doing and those who want to see what police are doing.

Without an injunction, the law will take effect later this month.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich, by the way, says he will not defend the law in court. In filings, he said itd be up to county prosecutors, not his office, to decide whether or not to pursue charges, so those offices should be the ones defending the law. Both the Maricopa County Attorney and Sheriffs offices have also said they will not defend the law or oppose the request to block it from taking effect.

Michael Scott says the law seems to be aimed at addressing a challenge police officers face: giving them the space to do what they need to do without undue interference or obstruction. But Scott also says that competes with another legitimate interest the public hasthe ability to observe and record what police are doing.

Scott is a former police officer and a clinical professor in Arizona State Universitys School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

The Show spoke with him to learn about the conflict.

More here:
Law preventing police filming struggles to balance First Amendment with space for officers' duties - KJZZ

So what does the First Amendment have to say about pronouns? That is the question posed by a couple of recent lawsuits. In one, a professor is suing Southern Utah University for compelling him to use they/them pronouns when referring to a nonbinary student. In another, a Kansas school district is paying $95,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a teacher who was forced to use students preferred pronouns against her wishes.

The Kansas settlement means good news for the Utah professor, right? Well, not so fast. The two lawsuits are different enough that one may not have much sway in the other.

In the Kansas case, the teacher objected not only to the schools policy requiring her to use the preferred pronouns, but also to the policy that required her to effectively conceal the students preference when addressing parents. The policy required her to use the students legal name when talking with parents. Pamela Ricard, the teacher, argued that the policy conflicted with her deeply held religious beliefs. Ricard referred to a student as Miss despite the students preferred use of he/him pronouns. Ms. Ricard believes God assigns gender at birth and any policy requiring her to use language that is different from the students biological sex actively violates Ms. Ricards religious beliefs. In this instance, the school district decided to avoid the fight and paid up.

But that doesnt mean Southern Utah will do the same. In that case, as far as I can tell, theres no religious exception. The professor just contends that the Universitys mandate on pronoun usage violates his First Amendment right to call people by whatever pronoun he chooses. As a public employee, Richard Bugg, the professor, has First Amendment protection. But its not unlimited. As an employer, Southern Utah can impose workplace rules that limit speech. For example, a public employee cant harass fellow employees and avoid discipline by relying on the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows public employees to speak out on political topics and otherwise engage in discussions around public controversies.

That will be the issue in the Southern Utah suit if it gets to trial. Does the use of pronouns when addressing a student constitute speech on a public controversy? Id say no and Southern Utah should be allowed to enforce its policy. But, as is obvious, I am not the judge.

Excerpt from:
Pronouns and the First Amendment - Lexology

Dahlia Lithwick will give a lecture in the Osher Lifelong Learning Auditorium on Sept. 15 addressing Supreme Court decisions, such as Roe v. Wade and the separation of church and state.

Dahlia Lithwick, an award-winning journalist, writer, and lawyer, is speaking at Florida Atlantic University on Sept. 15 in celebration of Constitution Day. Her goal is to educate the community about Supreme Court decisions, such as Roe v. Wade and the separation of church and state, all of which impact First Amendment freedoms.

FAU students, faculty, and staff can attend the event at the Osher Lifelong Learning Auditorium for free with their FAU ID. The first 200 tickets claimed will come with a copy of Lithwicks book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America, which attendees will have the opportunity to get signed at the event. FAU students, faculty, and staff can get tickets at http://www.fauevents.com, and members of the public can get tickets for $25 by making an account.

Director of the School of Communication and Multimedia Studies (SCMS), Carol Mills, believes Lithwick will help continue the tradition of the SCMS selecting journalists who are knowledgeable on the issues of freedom of the press. The school is responsible for selecting the keynote speaker, and for this year, the school chose Lithwick.

Although students may enter college thinking primarily about their career trajectory, they should also be preparing to be civically engaged citizens in a democratic society, Mills said. Events like Constitution Day, and the Breezeway Dialogue Series, help all students become more aware of the key issues and concerns that shape our world.

Lithwick is a senior editor at Slate, where she has been writing since 1999 and has also been published by The New York Times, Harpers, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The New Republic, and Commentary. She is also the host of Amicus, Slates award-winning biweekly podcast about the law and the Supreme Court. She also frequently appears as a commentator on MSNBC.

Dahlia Lithwick is a perfect person [for this event], I would say because she is one of the foremost journalists and commentators covering the Supreme Court today, said journalism professor and event organizer Ilene Prusher.

She hopes that people who attend this event will have an easier time being able to connect the dots between Supreme Court decisions and how they will impact First Amendment freedoms.

[Lithwicks] knowledge of [law] is simply extraordinary. She has an incredible knack for being able to break down legal issues that are both understandable and engaging, Prusher said.

As of late, Lithwick has taken a dim view of the direction the current Supreme Court has taken in regard to personal freedoms.

Published on Slates website, Lithwick says, As the conservative supermajority that controls the Roberts court careens through the remainder of this term, take note of which types of people deserve privacy and spiritual dignity, and the right to be let alone, and which do not.

Lithwick and her staff did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.

Jessica Abramsky is a contributing writer for the University Press. For more information on this article or others, you can reach Jessica at [emailprotected]

See more here:
Award-winning journalist and lawyer to speak at FAU on First Amendment freedoms for Constitution Day - University Press

Under the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS will receive a staggering $45.6 billion to bolster tax enforcement. That means substantially more manpower for criminal prosecutions, civil judgments, and above all, more audits.

Unfortunately, with this great power comes no accountability. Thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision, any IRS agentas well as almost every other federal officerwho goes rogue and abuses their power cant be sued for violating the Constitution.

In Egbert v. Boule, Robert Boule, who owned a bed-and-breakfast, said he was thrown violently against an SUV by Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert. After Boule filed a formal complaint with the Border Patrol, Egbert contacted the IRS, which promptly audited the innkeeper. That audit, Boule claimed, was retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights.

WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 07: The U.S. Capitol Building, photographed during a series of amendment ... [+] votes, also called "vote-a-rama, on the Inflation Reduct Act at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday, Aug. 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Though the Supreme Court was split on whether Boule could sue Egbert for excessive force (the majority ruled he couldnt), the court unanimously agreed there is no cause of action for Boules First Amendment retaliation claim. As a result, any disgruntled or thin-skinned government employee is free to weaponize the IRS with impunity.

Egbert shines a spotlight on a devastating loophole in government accountability. Had Egbert worked for a sheriffs department or a police department, Boule could have sued under a federal law that authorizes civil rights lawsuits. Codified today as Section 1983, this law dates all the way back to 1871, when Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act to crack down on horrific assaults and lynchings in the former Confederacy.

But federal officers were not included (and still arent). At the time, this omission made sense. Local and state lawmen were either deliberately indifferent or active participants in many of the atrocities committed in the Reconstruction South.

Meanwhile, federal law enforcement had a minimal presence in 1871. Two of the then largest federal policing agencies, Customs and the Postal Service, collectively had fewer than 130 special agents and investigators on their payroll. And throughout the 19th Century, federal courts routinely ordered rogue federal officers to pay damages to those they had wronged, since that was often the victims only recourse.

Times have changed. The federal government now employs over 132,000 law enforcement officers across more than 80 different agencies. Though the vast majority work for either the Justice Department or the Department of Homeland Security, federal law enforcement agents can also be found at the EPA, FDA, NASA, and the National Institutes of Health. But since they are still inexplicably exempt from Section 1983, federal agents are effectively given blanket immunity from constitutional lawsuits.

Partly in response, in 1971, the Supreme Court recognized a limited cause of action that allowed Fourth Amendment lawsuits against federal officers. Named after the plaintiff in the case, Webster Bivens, who was manacled and strip searched by federal narcotics agents, Bivens actions have helped countless victims vindicate their rights.

But since 1980, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to extend Bivens (11 times, according to Justice Clarence Thomas). Ensuring victims would have a legal remedy against federal misconduct became a disfavored judicial activity. This contempt for Bivens culminated in Egbert v. Boule, which saw the High Court dramatically tilt the already tipped scales of justice further in favor of the federal government.

Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas declared that federal courts are not competent to authorize a damages action against any Border Patrol agent, regardless of their conduct. For all other federal officers, under Egbert, courts must now reject any Bivens claim if there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy. That includes even the mere potential for inappropriate consequences.

For his part, Justice Neil Gorsuch would have overturned Bivens entirely, rather than offer false hope to victims. After all, if the only question is whether a court is better equipped than Congress to weigh the value of a new cause of action, surely the right answer will always be no.

Hamdi Mohamud spent two years in federal prison after a local police officer framed her for a crime ... [+] she did not commit.

Less than a week later, Gorsuchs words were already ringing true. The High Court refused to hear the cases of Kevin Byrd, a Texas small business owner who had a gun pulled on him by a U.S. Department of Homeland Security agent, and Hamdi Mohamud, a Somali immigrant who was thrown in jail for over two years on the baseless accusations of a St. Paul police officer deputized as a US Marshal.

Even though both cases involve garden-variety Fourth Amendment claims that had long been authorized by Bivens, Kevin and Hamdi had their Bivens claims thrown out by lower federal courts, simply because the offending officers were federal employees.

By failing to reverse the rulings made by the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, the Supreme Court has effectively rendered Bivens a dead letter in the 10 states governed by those circuits (Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas), according to the Institute for Justice, which represents both Hamdi and Kevin.

Without action from Congress, federal agents canand willcontinue to act with impunity. Thankfully, there is already a bill pending. Re-introduced last December by Reps. Hank Johnson and Jamie Raskin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Bivens Act would codify Bivens and overturn Egbert.

Unlike the Inflation Reduction Act and other mammoth bills that dominate the Hill, the Bivens Act is refreshingly short and sweet. The entire bill would add just five words (of the United States or) to Section 1983, a reform that would finally authorize civil rights lawsuits against federal officers. If enacted, the bill would ensure that federal agents dont have any extra protections their state and local counterparts lack.

Despite the clear urgency for the Bivens Act, the bill has languished in both chambers; it hasnt even received a hearing. With the Supreme Court adamant that only Congress can hold federal agents accountable, this lethargy is inexcusable.

Read the original here:
With Just Five Words, Congress Can Rein In IRS And Other Federal Agents - Forbes

Updated at 11:50 a.m. ET on September 7, 2022

Fox News is in legal trouble. The media giant is facing lawsuits from two voting-machine companies over segments it aired with Donald Trump surrogates parroting the former presidents made-up allegations that the 2020 presidential election had been thrown by compromised voting machinesinsinuations that Trumps own advisers told him did not hold water.

Defending their client, Fox Newss attorneys have relied heavily on free-speech doctrines established by the 1964 landmark Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivanspecifically, the standard of actual malice. This standard says that when it comes to public figures, a speaker must know their statements are false or display reckless disregard for whether the statements are true in order to meet the requirement for defamation. In that particular case, the Montgomery, Alabama, public-safety commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued The New York Times over an ad it had published calling for donations on behalf of the civil-rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Although the ad made some factual errors regarding the police department Sullivan oversaw, the Court ruled that the Times was not liable, because the purpose of the First Amendment was to guarantee that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that such debate may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

This standard has protected the right of Americans of all political persuasions to make absurd, hyperbolic, and sometimes even false statements about their political leaders. This is how it should be. The bar is not unreachable, but it is justifiably high in order to protect public criticism of powerful people. Following former President Trumps calls to open up our libel laws, gutting the free-speech protections of Times v. Sullivan has become a right-wing cause, presumably because some conservatives imagine that the fake-news liberal media will be swiftly bankrupted for saying mean things about the smart and handsome Mr. Trump. But the Fox News lawsuits show that conservatives enthusiasm for gutting Times v. Sullivan would leave right-wing media outlets more vulnerable than perhaps they appreciate.

Read: Do you speak Fox?

In a dissent last year, the conservative federal judge Laurence Silberman called for Times v. Sullivan to be overturned, complaining that the Times and The Washington Post are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets and adding that nearly all televisionnetwork and cableis a Democratic Party trumpet. This is false, but even if it were true, one strains to see what relation it has to defamation law. Like most frustrated news consumers, Silbermans complaints regarding the mainstream press are about framing, emphasis, and story selectionnot facts.

Silbermans position is nevertheless shared by some very powerful people. Three years ago, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should overturn New York Times v. Sullivan and rethink the actual-malice standard. That case was a particularly compelling one for his point: It involved a woman who had sued Bill Cosby for libel after the disgraced comedians lawyer accused her of lying about being assaulted by Cosby. The Court declined to take the case, leaving in place a lower-court decision in Cosbys favor on the grounds that the plaintiff had become a limited-purpose public figurea term describing an otherwise private citizen who finds themselves at the center of a public controversyand that the attorneys statements therefore did not meet the actual-malice standard.

New York Times and the Courts decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law, Thomas wrote. If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we.

In a 2021 case, Thomas reiterated his call for Times v. Sullivan to be overturned and was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who lamented the spread of disinformation on social media and argued that if the actual-malice standard had force in a world with comparatively few platforms for speech, its less obvious what force it has in a world in which everyone carries a soapbox in their hands. Its always interesting to see which contemporary developments originalists decide are relevant to their constitutional interpretations.

Thomass and Gorsuchs arguments are more compelling and sophisticated than Silbermans, but its also clear that Silberman is closer to the mainstream conservative view on the subject, which is that Times v. Sullivan should be overturned in order to discipline the liberal media.

Joshua A. Geltzer and Neal K. Katyal: The true danger of the Trump campaigns defamation lawsuits

The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace, Silberman wrote. And when the media has proven its willingnessif not eagernessto so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press power. Again, this is an editorial, not legal, analysis, an expression of desire to punish the press for its misbehaviora rather ironic frame for a so-called defense of free speech. None of Silbermans concerns, to the extent you take them seriously, would be addressed by overturning Times v. Sullivandiverging ideological interpretations of the same facts would persist without a stronger liability shield. In Britain, where there is no actual-malice standard, major media outlets are widely considered to be more explicitly aligned by ideology and hardly free of distortions.

The irony of Trumps complaints about the permissiveness of American libel law, and right-wing jurists support for gutting the actual-malice standard, is that many conservative media outlets would suffer without itperhaps more than the mainstream press outlets they hope to bring down. Those institutions would survive. But all the right-wing shitposters calling for the medias downfall? Might not be so great for them.

The loss of the concept of a limited-purpose public figure would make things very hard for outlets and personalities who thrive on finding new targets for opprobrium. Beyond the legal trouble facing Fox News, the parents of a child murdered in the Sandy Hook massacre recently successfully sued Alex Jones, the far-right proprietor of Infowars who counts Trump among his admirers, after he alleged that the incident was a false flag operation orchestrated by the government. The verdict was taken in conservative circles as an attack on free speech, notwithstanding the insistence that it should be easier to sue the media for saying things that are false. In 2020, a federal judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit against the Fox News host Tucker Carlson filed by a woman who claimed to have had an affair with Trump. Carlson accused her of extortion on his show, but the judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that the host is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in exaggeration and non-literal commentary.

The actual-malice standard has enabled the creation of an alternate universe of conspiratorial disinformation about political figures conservatives opposesuch as the birther myths around Barack Obama and the dark, elaborate fantasies concocted about the Clintons. In plain English, conservative media have gotten used to being able to say outrageous things without any adverse legal consequences and have built devoted audiences under the umbrella of this protection. Tens of millions of Americans trust and believe the things they hear from these outlets, viewing nonconservative media sources as untrustworthy. These outlets have abused that trust by consciously misleading the population about serious matters, such as the risks of the coronavirus pandemic and the origins of the Capitol riot. Again, this is their First Amendment right, however infuriating their conduct might be.

David French: Free speech for me but not for thee

Even with the current high standard, somesuch as Jonesstill face legal consequences for their actions. But without that standard, conservative outlets that engage in similar conduct would be much more likely to face legal threats. On the other hand, if Britain offers any example, mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post would survive Times v. Sullivans demise. These organizations can afford strong legal representation and, crucially, maintain much stricter rules about what they publish. That does not make them infallible or above criticism, and it doesnt mean that they never make libelous errors. But their institutional standards ensure that the overwhelming majority of the time, their coverage is rooted in facts. Many of their detractors in the right-wing press are much more reliant on, to use a technical term, bullshit.

Overturning Times v. Sullivan would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on free speech. We can infer this simply from the era before Times v. Sullivan, during which public officialsmany of them segregationistsused libel law to stifle criticism of their official conduct, a practice that weighed heavily on the unanimous majority in Sullivan. Fox Corporations chief executive is suing an outlet in Australia that has been critical of the networks coverage of the 2020 election, taking advantage of the absence of speech protections it is eagerly availing itself of in the United States. This is how good legal representation works, but it also reflects an approach to free speech that is more mercenary than principled.

Even if they were unsuccessful in intimidating large outlets such as the Times or the Post, wealthy and powerful people would likely find it much simpler to use the threat of litigation to silence those without deep pockets or institutional support. It would be little trouble to target the average person shooting their mouth off on social media, but the media outlets that conservatives hate would continue to exist and continue to cover public affairs in a way they disapprove ofthat is, without sounding like the Trump advisers at Fox News.

Without the actual-malice standard, the strong would likely find it easier to silence the weak. It is not hard to understand why the justices, powerful people who are frequently subject to withering public criticism, might be sympathetic to that outcome. But conservatives who believe that the end of the actual-malice standard would fatally injure the mainstream outlets they loathe should probably be careful what they wish for.

This article originally misidentified the entity whose chief executive is suing an outlet in Australia.

Here is the original post:
The Right-Wing War on Free Speech Could Backfire - The Atlantic

Dive Brief:

Former President Donald Trump took an interest in protecting free speech and religious freedoms on college campuses.

In 2019, Trump signed an executive order that tied federal research dollars to colleges protecting First Amendment rights or their own free inquiry policies, depending on whether they were public or private institutions, respectively.

The free inquiry rule the administration issued in 2020 is a follow-up to that executive order.

The regulation forbids public colleges from denying religious student groups the same rights such as funding as other clubs because of beliefs, practices or policies informed by their faith.

It also outlines how religious institutions can claim exemptions to Title IX, the law banning sex-based discrimination at federally funded schools.

Critics said many elements of Trumps free inquiry rule were redundant, as public institutions must already follow the First Amendment and higher education as an industry values principles of free expression.

The Education Department said in August 2021 that it intended to rescind parts of the rule, but officials did not specify which ones. The department expects public colleges to ensure they protect constitutional rights, Michelle Asha Cooper, acting assistant secretary for postsecondary education and deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, said at the time.

We urge public colleges and universities and their students to engage thoughtfully on these matters, holding paramount the goal of creating environments in which all students have the opportunity to learn and thrive, Cooper said in a statement.

The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, must review a rule before its put forth to evaluate whether a federal agency considered the consequences of the regulation, good or bad. Then, the public can offer feedback before its finalized.

Likely, a delay at OMB doesnt signal the Biden administrations draft free inquiry rule is in jeopardy, said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of government relations and public affairs at the American Council on Education, the sectors top lobbying group.

The administration has many policy matters on its plate, Hartle said, including recent action to cancel up to $10,000 in student loans for borrowers earning under $125,000 a year, and up to $20,000 for those in the same income bracket who received federal Pell Grants in college.

Read more here:
Where is the Education Department's proposed religious liberty and free inquiry rule? - Higher Ed Dive

A source inside Project Veritas leaked the diary of Ashley Biden to a reporter at a conservative news outlet, according to Noel Fritsch, publisher of that outlet, National File, which first published the diary in October 2020, just ahead of the presidential election.

Project Veritas founder James OKeefe had suspected an employee of his organization leaked the document, the New York Times previously reported, but Fritschs confirmation firmly establishes the links in a chain that began in a Florida drug rehabilitation center and led to a predawn raid of OKeefes home last year.

The diary was left behind by Biden, the daughter of President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden, at a friends house during a rehab stint in Delray Beach, Florida. Aimee Harris, who subsequently lived in the house, discovered the diary, and with Robert Kurlander concocted a Coen brothers-level plan to sell it. Harris and Kurlander recently pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property, with prosecutors confirming the diary as authentic. Kurlander, according to prosecutors, is now cooperating with an ongoing investigation, and a key question being probed is whether Project Veritas understood the diary was legally obtained (as the organization has asserted) or whether it had any role in instructing Harris and Kurlander to steal further personal items of Bidens in order to allow it to authenticate the diary. (The question could hinge on whether Biden abandoned the items, or was storing them at the friends home, and planned to return. Prosecutors allege the items were stored, not abandoned.) No charges have been filed against Project Veritas or its employees.

Fritsch said that OKeefe, as far as he knew, did not authorize the leak. Its kind of ironic, we had to sort of Veritas Veritas in order to get the thing broken and out into the news, he told The Intercept. He said he wanted to speak with The Intercept in order to raise the alarm about the press freedom implications of investigating Project Veritas. During the Bush administration, he noted, journalists routinely denounced efforts to expose the sources of reporters. Were doing the same thing now, but were not hearing the phrase chilling effect at all, he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have both expressed skepticism about the propriety of the investigation into Project Veritas, and in particular the raid of OKeefes home, warning of its press freedom implications. Press freedom advocates who differ with Project Veritas politically, and who are queasy about the deceptive tactics the group infamously deploys, have also voiced opposition to the raid.

This is just beyond belief, University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Politico. Im not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.

The diarys most newsworthy moments are suggestive but stop short of making any concrete allegations against Ashley Bidens father. In the most-often quoted passage, she writes, Hyper-sexualized @ a young age. What is this due to? Was I molested. I think so I cant remember specifics but I do remember trauma I remember not liking the woolzacks house; I remember somewhat being sexualized with [a cousin]; I remember having sex with Friends @ a young age; showers w/my dad (probably not appropriate). Being turned on when I wasnt supposed to be.

In general, it is legal for a news outlet to publish stolen documents when they are of public concern. Many whistleblowers, after all, do not have legal authority to leak the documents they are making public. Barring journalists from publishing stolen documents threatens First Amendment rights and gives the government tremendous power to censor the press. But it is also generally understood that journalists may not participate in any crime to obtain information, or ask anyone else to. So, if Project Veritas encouraged the pair to steal more items, the outlet could face charges. But if Project Veritas thought the items were abandoned by Biden rather than stolen, they could be protected by the First Amendment.

Project Veritas is in the crosshairs despite making the decision not to publish the diary. The guy didnt even break it and hes getting treated like an enemy of Stalin, said Fritsch. OKeefe, in an email to staff obtained by the New York Times, argues that publication of the diary would have been seen as a cheap shot and backfire against Project Veritas. On October 24, the National File published excerpts of the diary, and followed up two days later by publishing the full version. The outlet explained at the time, National File obtained this document from a whistleblower who was concerned the media organization that employs him would not publish the materials in the final days before the presidential election.

National Files readership is largely made up of an extreme right-wing audience, many of whom, Fritsch said, have been banned or suspended from Big Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Still, it has managed to break some major stories, including being the first to publish an image from former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northams medical school yearbook, showing a man in blackface beside a man in a Ku Klux Klan robe.

The Times also reported that the Project Veritas whistleblower adds that his media organization chose not to release the documents after receiving pressure from a competing outlet. Fritsch said the competing outlet referred to a conservative outlet that the Project Veritas employee told him urged Project Veritas not to publish the diary.

Federal prosecutors say that Project Veritas paid $40,000 to obtain the diary, a pursuit that continued even after OKeefe made the decision not to publish, according to prosecutors.

Harris and Kurlander hadinitially hoped to sell the diary to the Trump campaign and brought it to an event in Florida in an effort to show it to Donald Trump Jr. The Times reported that Trump Jr. advised them to turn it into the FBI. Instead, they reached out to Project Veritas. Fritsch said the plot to get the diary to Trump Jr. was not well thought out. If theyre in some sort of seaside, boat-in-the-water fundraising event of whatever, Don Jr. is going to jump in the dang canal if somebody tries to push a diary like this in his hands, he said.

Project Veritass attorney, Paul Calli, declined to comment.

Continued here:
A Project Veritas Employee Leaked Ashley Biden's Diary - The Intercept