New Yorker magazine contesting judge's order to turn over recordings of interviews with Lindsay Clancy's husband
In February, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan issued a subpoena for reporting materials related to the article at the request of Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz's office.
Advertisement
Sullivan approved the subpoena without indicating whether he would review the material before providing it to prosecutors.
In court documents, prosecutors said they needed access to the handwritten notes, emails,
audio recordings, and voice messages between Orbey and people he interviewed for the story, including the person identified as the pastor.
Prosecutors said the published article was crafted to generate sympathy
for Lindsay Clancy and that journalists are legally required to comply with such court orders.
The profile 'in both title and substance — is intended to portray the defendant in a sympathetic light and support her defense of a lack of criminal responsibility,' prosecutors said.
The New Yorker, through First Amendment attorney Jonathan Albano, urged Sullivan to reconsider his order. (Albano also represents the Boston Globe).
'The New Yorker's sympathies are not on trial here,' he wrote. 'In fact, even a cursory reading of the piece shows The New Yorker's reporting is complex and nuanced, and is hardly 'in support' of the defense,' Albano wrote.
Advertisement
More significantly, 'the notion that the government could seek presumptively privileged, unpublished information from any news outlet that expresses sympathy for a criminal defendant is chilling and directly contrary to the First Amendment,' he added.
Under both the US Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the request by prosecutors is legally invalid and Sullivan should quash the subpoena, he wrote.
Albano filed the magazine's response to the subpoena last week. No hearing is currently scheduled on the issue, according to court records.
John R. Ellement can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
16 hours ago
- New York Post
LA City Council bans N-word at public meetings, triggering legal threats
Watch your mouth! The Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to ban the use of the N-word and C-word at public meetings — triggering free speech backlash and the threat of a $400 million lawsuit. The controversial vote by the body allows council leadership to issue a warning for any use or variation of the slurs. Repeat offenders can be booted from the chamber and barred from future sessions. Advertisement Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who is black and introduced the measure, said the use of slurs during public comments has made residents hesitant to attend meetings. 3 The council chamber where a 14–0 vote Wednesday banned use of the N-word and C-word during meetings, citing years of disruptive outbursts. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images 'It is language that, anywhere outside this building where there aren't four armed guards, would get you hurt if you said these things in public,' Harris-Dawson told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year. Advertisement He added that public comment has become 'rank, cantankerous, and rude and demeaning and insulting' since Donald Trump's election in 2016, according to the LAist. The Wednesday ban is already drawing legal threats. Wayne Spindler, an attorney and longtime City Hall commenter, said Wednesday he intends to sue. 3 Critics of the new rule, including frequent City Hall speakers, claimed the city was infringing on free speech and promised legal challenges. Getty Images Advertisement 'I'm going to file my $400-million lawsuit that I already have prepared and ready to file,' Spindler said during public comment, adding he plans to read explicit Tupac Shakur lyrics until he's banned from a meeting. Spindler was arrested in 2016 after submitting a public comment card showing a burning cross, a man hanging from a tree and the phrase 'Herb = [N-word],' referring to then-Council President Herb Wesson. Prosecutors declined to bring charges. David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, warned the council's policy likely won't survive in court. 3 Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said offensive speech has surged since 2016, creating a chilling effect on civic engagement. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Advertisement 'The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech because it disapproves of that speech,' Loy wrote in a letter to the City Council. The city has lost similar battles before. In 2014, it paid $215,000 to a black man who was removed from a meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and a T-shirt with the N-word. The new rule took effect immediately.
New York Post
18 hours ago
- New York Post
Queen's ‘Garden of Hate' taking case to federal court, rips judge and ‘scurrilous' NY Post coverage
The fight over a community garden in Queens is getting thornier. The attorney for the anti-Israel leaders of Sunset Community Garden in Ridgewood withdrew their state lawsuit against the city and the Parks Department — to make a federal case out of the issue. Since last fall, Jewish Ridgewood residents haven't felt welcome at Sunset Community Garden, thanks to the garden group's pro-Palestinian rhetoric, which included a special section labeled 'Poppies for Palestine.' 4 Some local residents said they do not feel welcome in the community garden, whose leaders asked incoming members to pledge 'solidarity' with the people of Palestine. Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood Incoming members are also made to pledge 'solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized people' of Palestine' by the garden's management. The Parks Department wanted the group out by June 6 for 'violat[ing] the terms of their license' with the 'unconstitutional wording' of their 'ideological litmus test' for membership, according to court documents. The group responded with a state lawsuit in early June to block the eviction, and The Post was in the courtroom when attorneys for both sides met in court this month. But Jonathan Wallace, the garden leaders' attorney, withdrew the state lawsuit Monday, and told the city he plans to refile the case in federal court, a source said. In a letter this week, the lawyer accused Judge Hasa Kingo of allowing the 'scurrilous' New York Post's coverage to guide his rulings in court. 'The plaintiffs in this case are a community group composed largely of trans people of color, many of whom are immigrants, and who share a powerfully-rooted moral opposition to the horrifying violence committed by a political entity, the nation-state Israel, against the people of Gaza,' the letter read. 4 Attorney Jonathan Wallace objected to coverage from The Post. Michael Nagle 4 The garden's leaders are fighting the city's efforts to oust them. Helayne Seidman 'We could not be further from the ideals and goals stated by Justices Holmes and Brandeis when the Post appears to be influencing outcomes in judicial proceedings,' he added. 'As an old white, proudly Jewish attorney (something that in a 43-year career I never thought until now I would need to mention) I like and am content to be associated with' the garden leaders, Wallace concluded in his letter to Kingo. Christina Wilkinson — a Ridgewood resident who worked to secure funding for the green space, but is now one of its most vocal critics — said the switch to federal court a 'stall tactic,' and believes 'Parks must now remove the violators and find a community partner that will make Sunset Garden an open and inclusive place for all.' 4 Members planting in the garden in June 2024. Instagram @sunsetgardenridgewood She added, 'You have to love the irony of an attorney arguing that the City violated his clients' First Amendment rights, then turning around and complaining about [a Post reporter] being present in the courtroom.' Wallace did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Parks Department refused to respond to requests for comment.
American Military News
a day ago
- American Military News
U.S. bill targets Chinese repression of Uyghurs
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers this week announced a bill that would broaden existing sanctions to combat what one senator called 'a deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy the Uyghur people' — one of a set of bills targeting China over its treatment of minority groups, dissidents and Taiwan as bilateral trade negotiations continue. The measure would expand the sanctions under a previous law to include actions like forced family separations and organ harvesting. It would also deny entry to the U.S. for people found to have participated in forced abortions or sterilizations. In interviews with RFA Uyghur, Uyghur women have detailed birth control procedures they say were forced on them by authorities in northwest China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The bill would bar the U.S. military from buying Chinese seafood out of concern that Uyghur and North Korean forced labor is used in its production. It would direct the State Department to create a plan for countering Chinese propaganda that denies 'the genocide, crimes against humanity, and other egregious human rights abusese experienced by Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethic groups' in Xinjiang. It would also appropriate $2 million for the Smithsonian to create research and programs that would preserve Uyghur language and culture threatened by the Chinese government. 'The evidence is clear. The Chinese Communist Party has waged a deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy the Uyghur people through forced sterilization, mass internment, and forced labor,' Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), the chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and one of the bill's co-sponsors, said in a statement. 'This legislation ensures the United States holds accountable not only the perpetrators of these horrific crimes but also those who support or profit from them.' Joining Sullivan in co-sponsoring the bill are Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.). Rushan Abbas, executive director of the Campaign for Uyghurs, a U.S.-based nonprofit advocacy group, and the chairwoman of the Executive Committee of the World Uyghur Congress, an international organization promoting Uyghur rights, said the measure's introduction is 'a critical step toward dismantling the systems of control and repression that have enabled genocide and devastated Uyghur families and communities.' 'For Uyghurs who have endured years of silence and separation, this bill represents a meaningful step toward exposing the truth, advancing justice, and creating pathways to family reunification,' Abbas told RFA. U.S. lawmakers this week also planned to release a bill that would aim to help Taiwan and support countries that maintain official diplomatic relations with its government, as well as a measure to combat efforts by any foreign government to reach beyond its borders to intimidate, harass or harm activists, dissidents or journalists. In response to the bills, China's foreign ministry on Tuesday rejected U.S. accusations on Xinjiang and Taiwan. 'The related accusations are entirely fabricated and are malicious slander,' the ministry said. The measures come as an Aug. 12 deadline looms for a durable trade deal between the U.S. and China. A U.S. official told reporters that progress is being made toward a deal, Reuters reported Friday.
