Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe... by jessaustin on Sunday July 15, 2018 @11:56PM (#17538661)

The paragraph before that mentions that it is often appeals courts who have protected the behavior, as various trial "...Judges have issued similar orders before..."

Incidentally, no one would wish to see the cop's family harmed, but it's not like this plea agreement came as a surprise to them, so they already had time to reorganize their lives for security. That makes the seal difficult to justify. Also, the risks they face are mostly due to the cop's actions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe... by forapurpose on Monday July 16, 2018 @12:22AM (#17538761)

> often appeals courts who have protected the behavior, as various trial "...Judges have issued similar orders before..."

That omits every time a district judge has declined to issue such an order.

In reference to the original post:

> ask for forgiveness not permission

News organizations don't ask permission of anyone before publishing, least of all courts.

Finally, I'll add that if news organizations can publish the Pentagon Papers and Snowden's leaks, certainly they can publish an accidentally leaked plea agreement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe... by hedora on Monday July 16, 2018 @01:28AM (#17538967)

I’d add that they are the asking for forgiveness; prior court rulings clearly established that they have “permission”, since the information was not illegally obtained, and is of public interest.

What if this crooked cop gets a job with even a modicum of authority in the future? Surely, insuring this incident shows up in background checks would help future potential employers.

[ Parent | on HN ]