US judge bars government from reviewing seized Washington Post materials

The Washington Post requested that the US government stop reviewing the documents it seized from one of its reporters, and a judge granted that request.

Press freedom advocates claim that the seized materials by journalist Hannah Natanson violate her First Amendment rights and pose a threat to journalism as a whole as a result of the temporary order.

The federal government was ordered on Wednesday to wait until a hearing could be held on February 6 before filtering through the seized materials.

According to Porter, the US Department of Justice could respond to The Washington Post’s complaint with a pause.

A federal investigation is not being conducted in Natanson. Additionally, the US has long-established regulations and laws protecting journalists’ freedom to report on sensitive matters from whistleblower sources.

However, a search warrant was executed on January 14 for Natanson’s residence by the president’s administration. She has been reporting on changes to the federal government under Trump for the past year, and 1, 169 new sources have contacted her with information.

The Justice Department argued that a search warrant was required to find out more about government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was detained on January 8 for allegedly removing classified documents.

However, the sweep of Natanson’s home resulted in the removal of her work computer, Post-issued cellphone, personal MacBook Pro, 1-terabyte hard drive, voice recorder, and Garmin watch.

Lawyers argued in court documents that Natanson’s electronics were “years of information about past and current confidential sources and unpublished newsgathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting.”

According to the complaint, “abandoned data may not even be relevant to the warrant, which only requests records from or relating to a single government contractor.”

According to the complaint, the six seized items included a lot of data about her journalism career.

More than 30 000 Post emails from the past year alone are included in Natanson’s “devices,” it claims.

The Post is scheduled to file a federal court in Virginia in response to the Justice Department’s request for the return of the materials.

The government keeps its hands on these materials every day, and the outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials stifles speech, cripples reporting, and causes irreparable harm, the newspaper reported in a statement.

We have requested that the court prevent the use of all seized items and require their immediate return. Anything less would allow for-going newsroom searches and restore censorship to the original search warrants.

The Trump administration has come under fire for its combative approach to the media, and its critics claim that it is attempting to erode the right to free speech through legal protest.

Trump and his supporters have, however, stated that they are still working with the government to find “leakers” who leak sensitive information to the media.

Natanson was accused of “reporting classified and illegally leaked information,” according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

In a social media post, she wrote that Perez-Lugones is currently behind bars.

The Trump administration will not tolerate classified information that is knowingly leaked, putting our country at risk for national security and the brave people who serve our country.

Karoline Leavitt, a press secretary for the White House, reiterated that statement and that the Trump administration would have the right to file a lawsuit against anyone found to be using illegal methods.

She said, “The administration is not going to tolerate leaks, especially those coming from the US government’s national security apparatus,” without going into detail.

Anyone who violates the law, whether it’s a journalist or an employee of a federal agency will face legal action.

The US Constitution’s First Amendment provides that no law can be passed that would “abolish the freedom of speech or the press.”

The Supreme Court has ruled over the years that while the government may ban the media from “clear and present danger,” it must also burden the authorities to establish that a threat exists.

In one of the cases, New York Times v. United States in 1971, The Washington Post participated.

Source: Aljazeera