The New York Times and the Pentagon clashed on Monday before a federal judge over the legality of the new conditions imposed on accredited journalists at the U.S. Department of Defense.
This judge, Paul Friedman, who was approached by the New York Times about the new rules imposed in October by the Pentagon on journalists, ordered on March 20 their cancellation, considering that they violated notably the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.
He ordered the Pentagon to immediately reinstate the accreditation for seven New York Times journalists that they previously held.
The department stated that it would appeal this decision. However, it also imposed new restrictions, announcing on March 30 the closure of a press area called the “correspondents’ corridor” and the requirement for any journalist wanting to access the Pentagon to be escorted by “authorized personnel from the ministry”.
The New York Times, supported by the Pentagon press association, accused the government of “flouting” Judge Friedman’s decision and requested him to enforce it.
“They have made the accreditations that we fought so hard to regain useless,” said the newspaper’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous.
At the hearing, the judge read a written testimony from one of the journalists describing how, once they regained their new accreditations, they were informed by the ministry’s press service that they could access a new press area located in the Pentagon library, in a building separate from the main building.
When asked how to get to the library since pedestrian access was now prohibited for journalists, the press service responded that they were not sure but suggested taking the Pentagon shuttle.
“We pointed out to them that accreditation holders were not allowed to take the shuttle,” continued the New York Times journalist, emphasizing that they later learned that this authorization was eventually granted to them.
“Is this Catch-22 (a no-win situation) or Kafka?” Judge Friedman asked the government’s lawyer, Sarah Welch.
She assured the judge that these new rules complied with his decision, but if the journalists wished to challenge them, they would need to amend their recourse accordingly.
The judge concluded the arguments after noting that he needed to consult relevant case law to rule on this matter.
In its document published in October and almost unanimously rejected by the American and international press, including AFP, the Pentagon instructed accredited journalists not to request or publish certain information without explicit authorization, risking the loss of their accreditation.
