Cops lie. This is a fact. As a business owner, it is in your best interest to oust known liars from your premises, if only for liability reasons. Sure, this will result in backlash from cop supporters, but so will the alternative.

Cops have placed themselves on a plateau of humanity far above their fellow citizens. Any perceived slight becomes a reason to drape themselves in an appropriated American flag and decry the masses for failing to show them the respect they feel they have no duty to earn.

There have been several reports of low-wage fast food employees saying and/or doing mean things to cops in their restaurants. Sometimes, these things have actually happened. What officers fail to understand is that most employees of restaurants have zero respect for a majority of their customers. Add a blue uniform and an air of sanctimoniousness, and cops can easily fly up the ranks of the disrespected.

But cops don't help their own case by lying about things that happened. And even if they're not outright lies, they're severe miscontruals of the actual events. In April of 2016, an officer claimed he was drugged by a Subway employee who supposedly spiked his soda as he went through the drive-thru. Drug tests of the drink and the cop cleared Subway and its employee of any wrongdoing. It also netted the accused teen -- who was arrested and charged -- a $50,000 payout from the city of Layton, Utah.

Roughly a year after that, a Raleigh (NC) police union's Facebook post -- accusing a local restaurant of serenading officers with N.W.A.'s "Fuck tha Police" -- went viral. A review of the restaurant's CCTV footage showed this never happened. An employee apparently mouthed the words at an officer from 25 feet away. That employee quit when the investigation began. The backlash only halted when the police department itself stepped up to say the union's post was full of shit.

Raleigh Police Department Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown [...] released a statement Wednesday concurring with the owner, David Harris, and his attorney Mark O’Mara.

[...]

On Wednesday, Deck-Brown said two officers saw one employee make eye contact with them and mouth the words “F--- the Police.”

“There was no singing. There were no other employees involved,” Deck-Brown said. “Because of the subtle nature of this act, it was not witnessed by anyone else in the store.”

After looking at video, Harris and O’Mara and others could find no evidence that employees were singing at the police or even speaking with them during the nearly half-hour they were in the restaurant.

The restaurant suffered severe reputational damage. Meanwhile, the police union refused to apologize for the lies it had posted to Facebook. The restaurant may have been cleared by the Chief of Police, but the union representing the lying cops who had fabricated a story about a cop-hating restaurant downplayed its own involvement in this debacle, stating only that not "all" of the info in its original post had been "accurate."

Now, there's this: a police officer who's apparently never consumed any spices and/or a burger grilled on a grill raised social media hell because he thought some cop-hating fast food worker screwed with his food.

A police officer's complaint that a fast food burger he ordered came sprinkled with dirt created a flame-broiled Facebook sensation Wednesday before an investigation found that a seasoning mix was the likely culprit.

Fort Myers police Officer Tim McCormick posted on Facebook about a meal he was recently served at the Burger King on Cleveland Avenue at Winkler Avenue. He said that the burger looked like it had dirt on it but didn't notice it until he was down to the last bite. He then tossed the sandwich.

18,000 Facebook shares later, Officer McCormick has deleted his post. But he has yet to offer his apology for being unable to identify substances present on almost all Burger King burgers.

Given the damage officers can do when they act before all the facts are in, why would any restaurant want their business? When officers are fabricating stories and misidentifying rare substances like, um... black pepper, why would any business owner want to serve such supremely risky customers?

Sure, not every cop is going to lodge a bullshit complaint because he didn't like how a restaurant employee eyeballed him during service, but why roll the dice? Officers and their unions can do an incredible amount of damage to small businesses in a short period of time. When the facts do come out, they simply delete posts and walk away from wreckage they've left behind without so much as an apology. And if they do find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit for their actions, it's the taxpayers left footing the bill -- a group of unwilling lenders that includes the same small business owners victimized by the officers' lies and exaggerations.

Play it safe, restaurant owners. Invite officers to start making their own meals at home where the only parties likely to receive collateral damage for food and service-based complaints will be officers' spouses and children. It just makes financial sense.

One of the most dangerous aspects of SOPA and other copyright proposals is the idea of moving enforcement and liability further down the stack of technology that powers the internet, even all the way to the DNS system. Although SOPA's DNS-blocking proposals were heavily criticized and the bill ultimately defeated, the idea of deep-level copyright enforcement has lived on and been implemented without changes to the law. This week our returning guest, law professor Annemarie Bridy, discusses how private agreements have quietly recreated some of the worst parts of SOPA.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

While the best chance of reversing the FCC's attack on net neutrality still likely rests with the courts, an uphill effort to restore the FCC's 2015 rules via Congress appears to have taken a small step forward this week.

The Congressional Review Act lets Congress reverse a regulatory action with a simply majority vote in the Senate and the House (which is how the GOP successfully killed FCC consumer broadband privacy protections last year). And while the Senate voted 52 to 47 back in May to reverse the FCC's attack on net neutrality, companion efforts to set up a similar vote in the House have, as expected, had a hard time gaining traction thanks to ISP lobbying influence.

But things progressed slightly this week on the news that Representative Mike Coffman of Colorado agreed to be the first House Republican to sign off on the effort to restore the rules. But Coffman also introduced his own, new net neutrality legislation, and proclaims in a statement that he would be taking an "all of the above" approach to tackling the problem:

"The fight to keep the internet open belongs in Congress, not at the Federal Communications Commission,” said Representative Coffman. “The American people deserve to know that their elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats, are fighting for their interest. That fight begins with my bill, which will create an ‘internet constitution’ with the foundational elements of net neutrality."

“While my bill moves through the Congress, I am taking an ‘all of the above’ approach by simultaneously signing the discharge petition on the CRA, and introducing my bill” added Coffman.

A discharge petition needs 218 votes to even see floor time, and another 218 votes to pass the measure. So far however, the petition only currently has 172 likely votes -- 173 with Coffman's cooperation. It remains a steep uphill climb, and even if it passes it will need to avoid a veto by President Trump, who has yet to signal he has the faintest idea what the fight is even about.

As we've long noted, ISPs have spent the better part of fifteen years successfully (but idiotically) framing net neutrality as a partisan issue to sow debate and stall progress. Except the idea of keeping the internet a level playing field free from monopoly meddling has broad, bipartisan public support for what should be obvious reasons. The rules were a stop gap measure until somebody decided to actually do something about the lack of competition in the sector, something both parties have a long-standing habit of trying to ignore for fear of stifling AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast campaign contributions.

Coffman's bill (pdf), meanwhile, comes amidst efforts by ISPs to pass legislation they wrote in a bid to prevent tougher state or federal rules from being passed (or the 2015 FCC rules being restored in case of a court loss). Having read the bill it's weaker than the FCC's 2015 rules, carving out numerous loopholes for things like interconnection shenanigans, usage caps and zero rating, and "reasonable network management" (a term ISPs love to abuse). It also isn't likely to survive Marsha Blackburn's committee in the House, since she has her own even weaker, ISP-favored legislation she's been pushing.

It's Coffman's decision to join the CRA repeal that's more interesting, though that effort too has a long way to go before it sees any serious traction. Politicians facing re-election may want to join to avoid being vilified by activists ahead of the midterms, but most House Republicans likely deem net neutrality as too confusing and fringe of an issue for their opposition to really pose much of an existential threat.

Government agencies large and small, federal and non-federal, are aggressive non-participants in the free flow of information. Laws enacted to force the government to be responsive to records requests have made it possible to obtain documents from agencies, but this can often take the form of long, expensive legal battles.

When not deterring public records requesters with insane fee demands or years of stonewalling, the government plays keepaway with documents by playing the role of insane, cackling villains, casting aside logic and goodwill in equal parts to assure the public remains ill-informed and well-screwed.

Here are just a few highlights from the government's non-goodwill tours:

• The CIA pretends information it handed on the sly to selected journalists has not been "made public"
• The FBI redacts a document that had already been made public by Senator Rand Paul
• A state agency pretends it doesn't know who requested documents in an attempt to deny standing in a records lawsuit
• The DOJ tells Techdirt it can't find a gag order it had already released to another requester
• The FBI tells Jason Leopold it can't release documents it had already released to Techdirt
• The FBI tells a records requester it can't find a document it had already released to another requester six months earlier
• The IRS turns over fully-redacted documents to a requester in the form of password-protected encrypted files... with no password included

It is in this spirit of non-cooperation that we bring you the following, via FOIA warrior Emma Best and MuckRock: if something is always in the last place you look, why not check your own website first?

In late February 2017, the Trump Administration took some of its earliest steps towards implementing a new border wall policy with an executive order and several memos issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s leadership. In response to the policy, MuckRock filed a FOIA request for “memos relating to executive orders signed by Donald Trump,” including but not limited to memos described in a specific article.

Just under 17 months later, DHS responded with a letter saying that they were unable to find any such memos. Despite these claims, two of the memos which DHS said they were unable to find had already been posted to their website.

As Best points out, this isn't just an embarrassing failure by the DHS's FOIA response team. A couple of easily-avoidable errors is one thing. Ongoing antipathy that results in this sort of under-service is a symptom of a bigger problem.

While DHS’ failure to provide copies of already publicly available memos may appear to be an amusing annoyance, their response to the FOIA request highlights the agency’s general failing with FOIA. There’s no reason to believe that these were the only two DHS memos relating to Trump’s executive orders, since no policy can be fully implemented by just two memos. The DHS’ failure to find copies of already public documents brings their search process into question for both this particular FOIA request as well as FOIA requests in general.

This is being appealed, with Best making the understated suggestion the DHS's search attempt wasn't very thorough by pointing it to the two memos posted at its own website. But even if the DHS had found the memos under its nose, it's still stiffing requesters by pretending there's nothing else guiding its monumental shift in immigration enforcement priorities. This is bad faith by bad actors who apparently feel it's their duty to keep the public in the dark.

Pay what you want for the Professional Photography Bundle and learn 10 tips on how to be more creative with your camera and to help you break free from using auto mode all of the time. If you beat the average price, you unlock 6 more courses designed to help you take photos like a pro. Learn how to take better portraits of individuals and groups and learn how to plan and shoot a wedding. Other courses focus on off camera flash, photographic exposure, and editing with MacPhotos.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

One of the talking points we heard in the run up to the EU Parliament's vote over the EU Copyright Directive was the laughable claim that Article 13 -- which would require mandatory upload filters for many sites -- could not possibly lead to censorship. Here was what UK collection society PRS for Music had to say about that issue:

...the argument is flawed for the simple reason that it assumes creators and producers are incentivised to block access to their works.

Centuries of copyright have proven this is not the case. Indeed, one of the core principles of copyright is that it incentivises the licensing of works. Requiring online platforms to obtain a licence will not lead to mass-scale blocking of copyright works online.

We talked about how silly this was in response (and pointed to dozens of articles we've written in the past about how copyright is used for censorship), but let's add another one to the pile. As you know, the World Cup just ended this past weekend, and FIFA, which certainly has some history being over aggressive on the "intellectual property" side of things, apparently was working overtime getting videos taken down from various platforms.

This resulted in lots of outraged fans especially over insane situations like when Kathryn Conn posted a 5 second video of her 7-year-old son celebrating a goal. She posted it to Twitter, where it was promptly taken down thanks to a highly questionable DMCA notice from FIFA. It is positively bizarre that anyone could possibly think that this video infringed on anyone's copyright, or that it somehow should require "licensing" from FIFA to show your 7-year-old celebrating a goal.

But, it's not just taking down what some might consider "inconsequential" videos of fans celebrating. As you may have heard, the well known collective Pussy Riot staged a protest by having some of its members run onto the field during the final between France and Croatia. All of those involved have been arrested and thrown in jail for 15 days and banned from visiting any sports event for three years.

And... you guessed it, it appears that FIFA decided to take the matter into its own hands and sent a DMCA takedown to have the video disappeared:

Oh, but no, copyright is never used for censorship, is it? It's just magically taking down videos of political protests... because it's an incentive to license the material, right?

If you've been paying attention, you've probably noticed that Sinclair Broadcast Group's $3.9 billion merger with Tribune Media has been widely derided as terrible. The company, already under routine fire for content that's more lobotomized pablum than news, hopes to seal a deal that would give it ownership of more than 230 local broadcast stations reaching more than 72% of the nation. Given Sinclair's inflammatory and facts-optional reporting, that's generally seen as a problem for a country where daily discourse is already a raging dumpster fire, and local reporters are already struggling to survive.

For much of the last year the FCC has been going to comical lengths to pave the way for Sinclair's deal. From attacking the law that prohibits any one broadcaster from dominating more than 39% of local broadcast audiences, to restoring obscure bits of discarded regulation (like the UHF discount) simply to let Sinclair bullshit its way under said limit, the FCC has been making it very clear it hoped to rubber stamp the deal. It was so clear, Ajit Pai found himself the subject of a nonpartisan corruption investigation by his own agency into whether he coordinated the effort with Sinclair.

But the obvious cronyism came to an abrupt and strange end Monday morning, when Pai announced that he suddenly developed some reservations about Sinclair's justifications for the deal, and stated he'd be launching an order that would put the merger under additional scrutiny by an administrative law judge:

You have to think the FCC investigation into Pai's behavior here played more than a small role in him suddenly and uncharacteristically caring about factual data. Pai, who has pretty obvious post-FCC political aspirations, must have seen some pretty damning evidence to engage in such a stark reversal from a full year's worth of merger cheer leading. The deal's allies at the agency had previously tried to claim that a long list of rule changes perfectly timed to aid Sinclair (one of which occurred three weeks before the deal was even announced) were all just entirely coincidental.

Sinclair had been pushing hard for the FCC to eliminate the ownership cap entirely (which the FCC isn't legally authorized to do, but showed interest in attempting anyway). But Sinclair had also been engaged in all kinds of gamesmanship to try and sneak in below the line if that gambit failed, including trying to offload some stations to subsidiaries, shell companies and partners to make it look like they were adhering to the law. Reuters obtained a leaked version of the draft order which indicates that even Pai was forced to admit that Sinclair engaged in rampant "deception" to try and railroad the deal through:

"Sinclair’s actions here potentially involve deception” in its application to acquire Tribune and in reference to the divestiture of WGN, a TV station in Chicago, according to Pai’s draft order, not yet public but seen by Reuters.

The draft order said “this question of misconduct does not bear” only on the WGN transaction but on the entire merger application."

In short, it looks like Sinclair was so immeasurably full of shit during their merger sales pitch and various law-dodging shell games that even Ajit Pai couldn't rubber stamp the proposal, which is saying something about the depths Sinclair was likely willing to sink to. It's likely we'll see more details in the wake of a court fight over the FCC's UHF discount move, and the inquiry into Pai's behavior.

Again, if you've watched Pai try and twist the fabric of reality itself to make AT&T and Comcast happy, this is a pretty shocking about face. For much of the last year it seemed clear Pai was blisteringly-eager to rubber stamp the deal with the usual 3-2 partisan agency vote. But an order shoveling merger review toward an administrative hearing is traditionally seen as a death knell for such deals, meaning Sinclair's multi-year bid to lie its way to market domination may have just hit a dead end -- courtesy of the most unlikely of sources.

A federal judge has decided unconstitutional prior restraint is the best way to handle a clerical screwup. An injunction request, filed under seal, has been granted, resulting in the LA Times deleting information it obtained legally from a US federal court's website.

A plea agreement the government reached with Glendale police detective John S. Balian was accidentally made public on PACER, where it was scooped up by the LA Times. Information from that plea agreement appeared in its July 14th article on Balian. That information has now been removed from its website and replaced with this note:

5:15 p.m.: This story has been updated to remove references from the filed plea agreement, which was ordered sealed by a judge but publicly available Friday on the federal court’s online document database. The changes were made to comply with an order issued Saturday by a U.S. federal judge. The Times plans to challenge the order.

The information Balian's lawyer wanted removed lives on at the Internet Archive, where an unedited version of the post still resides. The effectiveness of this order may have blunted by the internet's ability to remember things people want forgotten, but the order is still an abuse of judicial power. This is the bulk of the information targeted by the court order.

John Saro Balian, 45, pleaded guilty to one count each of soliciting a bribe, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators as part of a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors. The document was ordered to be filed under seal but appeared on PACER, a public online database for court documents.

According to the agreement, filed in U.S. District Court, Balian agreed to cooperate with federal authorities by responding truthfully and completely in interviews and court proceedings. He is scheduled to be sentenced in September, when prosecutors are expected to recommend a reduced sentence.

As Ken White points out in his post on the subject, the granted injunction [PDF] appears to have been approved in whole by the presiding judge, who only added a couple of things to the proposed order before signing off on this violation of the First Amendment.

[B]ased on an emergency request from the defendant, with no prior opportunity to be heard, a federal judge ordered a major newspaper (1) not to write about the details of a federal plea agreement it had obtained lawfully, (2) not to write anything that "relies on, or is derived in any way" from the plea agreement, an incredibly broad and vague term that is extraordinarily chilling to speech about the case, (3) to take down any story it's already published, and (4) told the paper they can see the order, but not the application stating the legal and factual grounds for the order.

The LA Times is challenging the order, but it has to do it without access to all the facts. The application for the order was filed under seal, so it's likely the first time the paper will see what it's arguing against will be when it shows up in court to argue against the injunction.

Beyond the obvious First Amendment implications of granting such a broad order over information legally obtained by the LA Times, there's the question about the purpose it's supposed to serve. What's been "deleted" reveals little that probably couldn't be inferred by astute readers. Certainly the Times' article does provide more details than it would have without a copy of the plea agreement, but its other coverage -- along with the docket's publicly-available documents -- already strongly hinted that Balian had entered a plea agreement with the government.

The plea agreement isn't necessary to show his cooperation; reasonable observers can infer it as a strong likelihood. The plea agreement may also have included factual details about what Balian admitted to doing — prosecutors typically get cooperators to agree to a detailed set of facts to "lock them in" to a story. But that's the government's concern, not Balian's.

This sloppy decision by a federal judge now requires the LA Times to spend time and money overturning a clearly unconstitutional gag order. It's not a party to this case but has been put in the position of having to interject. Sure, it doesn't have to challenge this injunction, but if you don't stick up for your rights -- especially in an industry heavily-reliant on the First Amendment -- you're just ceding ground and signalling to others you're willing to delete information anytime an article's subject gets angry. The Times' appeal of the injunction should be successful but the greater point remains that it never should have had to do this in the first place.

UPDATE: Ken White reports (from the courthouse) that the judge has vacated the restraining order but still decided to say bad things about the LA Times choosing to publish information left exposed by a clerical error. This Twitter thread details the swift movements of Judge John F. Walter to reverse his horrendous decision before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had a chance to lambaste him for forgetting the First Amendment exists.

As we've pointed out any number of times over the past few years, cord-cutting is a very real thing and represents a threat to the cable television industry as it exists today. One of the last threads from which that industry largely hangs is professional sports broadcasts, with cable network providers having traditionally locked up pro and college sports broadcast rights in long-term exclusive deals. That has slowly begun to change, as the leagues of the world have finally gotten on board with streaming providers big and small, connected to the cable industry or not. If this is adopted en masse, it puts disruptive change for cable on the horizon.

But progress isn't linear and one of the threats to keeping this train on its tracks is the quality of the experience for users that dive into these sports streaming options. Especially early on in this kind of change, providers getting things right is extremely important, as reputations and public perception of the viability of sports streaming are more than somewhat on the line. And YouTube recently botched its broadcast of the World Cup match between England and Croatia.

In the middle of Wednesday's World Cup semifinal match between England and Croatia, YouTube's live TV service suffered an unfortunately-timed outage (not unlike ones we've seen from Sling or Hulu). Naturally, it enraged YouTube TV subscribers who had picked up the service specifically to catch live broadcasts like that game, and now it's offering an apology in the form of a credit.

There are several unfortunate factors at play for why this specific screw-up is worse for the reputation of sports streaming than it might have been otherwise. We can start with the most obvious factor: this is YouTube we're talking about. Look, there are plenty of good streaming service providers out there, but YouTube is the king of them, by reputation if not by fact. Having that name tied to this screw up is likely to register with the public as an indication that streaming for sports may not be ready for prime time.

The second factor: this was the World Cup we're talking about. The popularity of this event, and its related viewership, is immense. The public knows that. Any streaming service for World Cup broadcasts has to know that its service is going to be heavily trafficked and ought to have its shit in order to accommodate the event's popularity. Heavy viewerships shouldn't be a surprise and, whatever the actual cause of YouTube's interruption, it will be assumed by most that viewership load played a factor.

Now, as the post notes, streaming interruptions have happened before and they will happen again. Much of the reaction to what I outlined above will be at least in part unfair. But if you're rooting for sports streaming to erupt in popularity, or if you're a streaming provider trying to get more leagues on board, this kind of a screw up was about as bad in terms of timing as it gets.

Having just written about a good New York ruling concerning third-party subpoenas and the ability to protect free speech, now we have to write about some less good news: the recent decision by New York's highest court undermining the protection afforded by the state's shield law.

Shield laws are critical to preserving a free and independent press because they enable journalists to resist testifying about the non-public aspects of their reporting, or having to turn over their notes and related work product. This ability to resist is what empowers them to promise anonymity to sources, which often can be the only way for news the public needs to know about to come to light. If journalists couldn't resist, or had to risk going to jail in order to try, it would inhibit their reporting and leave the public less able to learn about matters of public concern. Yet unfortunately this decision by the New York Court of Appeals invites just such a result by interfering with journalists' ability to avail themselves of the protection ostensibly afforded by the state shield law. (Note: New York confusingly labels its lowest court the Supreme Court. The highest court is instead known as the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Division is in the middle.)

As frequently happens with tough cases involving important First Amendment interests, the underlying facts of this case are awful: Conrado Juarez has been charged with the gruesome 1991 murder of his four year-old niece. The case remained unsolved until DNA evidence made him a suspect. After fourteen hours of interrogation, he purportedly confessed. He now claims that the confession was coerced, and prosecutors want to use the notes and testimony of New York Times reporter Frances Robles, who had interviewed him, to challenge his claims. The trial court originally refused her motion to quash the subpoena demanding she provide the notes and testimony, but the Appellate Division overruled that decision and quashed it. Only now the Court of Appeals has overturned the Appellate Division's ruling, thus making the subpoena once again enforceable.

In overturning the Appellate Division's decision the Court of Appeals found that the reporter had no right to appeal the original denial of her motion to quash the subpoena by the trial court. If she had no right to appeal the trial court's decision, then the Appellate Division had no ability to reverse it. [p. 2] But even if this Court of Appeals finding that she had no right of appeal were truly consistent with chapter and verse of New York appellate procedure (the dissent believes it isn't [Rivera dissent p. 8-9]), it's still a remarkably formalistic conclusion that gives short shrift to the significant substantive rights at stake.

Formalism isn't of course inherently bad; careful adherence to procedural rules can sometimes help protect substantive rights better than ad hoc short cuts can. These rules exist in order to further the administration of justice, and the Court of Appeals itself fairly makes this point: by limiting the ability to appeal in criminal matters, it keeps the administration of justice from being bogged down unfairly through appellate gamesmanship. [p. 2]

But justice isn't furthered by being a slave to interpretations of procedural rules so at odds with why we have the rules in the first place. Or, as in this case, so indifferent to the rights of those these rules were never intended to govern – namely, the third parties affected here and whose interests the Court of Appeals seems so hostile to [p. 4-5]. Or so arbitrary in their application and effect.

That arbitrariness is well on display here. First, the no-appeal rule the Court cites only applies to criminal cases, not civil ones, [p. 2], which suggests that if this case had not involved a prosecution, the reporter apparently could still have appealed a lower court's refusal to quash a subpoena without problem. Next, the rule limiting appeals does not apply to subpoenas issued as part of investigations of criminal matters. [p. 3] So, if they hadn't already begun to prosecute the defendant, the reporter also likely could have appealed a refusal to quash a subpoena.

In addition, if this case had originally broken the other way, and the trial court had originally quashed the subpoena, then per this rule, if applied consistently, it would have been the government who could not have been able to appeal that ruling. Obviously this particular result would be protective of journalists, but for the no-appeal rule to be applied this way it still makes journalists' protection entirely contingent on the judgment of trial courts. And that's a problem, because trial courts are not infallible. If they were, then there would be no need to have any appeals courts at all. We have these courts because sometimes lower courts get things wrong, as this one did here, and there needs to be some way to set things right when they do. But what the Court of Appeals is saying in this case is that when it comes to subpoenaing journalists (something that the NY legislature passed the shield law in order to prevent), if this subpoenaing happens as part of a criminal trial, then journalists will be entirely dependent on that trial court getting the decision whether to quash it perfectly correct in the first instance, because its decision on the matter will not be one that can ever be reviewed.

For shield law protection to be meaningful it needs to have adequate rights of appeal baked into it, in all situations where journalists may need to assert it. True, in the context of criminal trials journalists might be able to recover the right to appeal as part of their challenge of a contempt order seeking to punish their refusal to comply with a subpoena. But if journalists are forced to risk jail to assert their shield law protection effectively, then the protection the shield law affords is hardly effective.

The Court of Appeals seems to think that a legislative fix is the way to go to make it explicit that there is always a right of appeal. [p. 5] And there may also be the possibility of challenging a subpoena as part of an "Article 78" civil proceeding, although, as the dissent notes, forcing journalists to go this route does nothing to advance the speedy-trial interests the majority's "no appeal" rule is supposed to advance (nor is it clear that an Article 78 proceeding would necessarily be an effective option).

In any case, the alternatives available to a nonparty seeking some type of appellate review of the denial of a motion to quash will likely result in even greater delay of the criminal proceeding than would a direct appeal of a quashal motion. The two avenues left open to a nonparty to contest a denial would be a CPLR Article 78 action in the nature of prohibition or for the nonparty to simply fail to comply with the subpoena and seek appellate review of the subsequent order of contempt. In either case, if the prosecutor or defendant needed the nonparty’s evidence, they would wait until the resolution of the collateral proceedings. [Rivera dissent p. 11]

But the problem is that journalists should not be in the situation where their right and ability to resist subpoenas the shield law is supposed to protect them from are so uncertain. In order to be consistent with the First Amendment and similar principles enshrined in the New York Constitution, principles that the shield law seeks to vindicate, the right to appeal any trial court denial should be implicit, since the effect of barring these appeals so significantly impinges on the free press the public needs.

Sadly, however, this sort of decision – procedural formalism over the effective preservation of substantive speech rights – may be par for the course for the New York Court of Appeals these days. This case is not the first one where the Court of Appeals has reached a conclusion that puts substantive speech rights at risk because of the way it has limited the appellate rights of third parties. In fact, it justified this shield law decision by citing another case it decided last year where Facebook, as a third party, had tried to quash 381 Stored Communications Act "warrants" seeking information about its speakers. In that case, Facebook had been similarly denied a right to appeal the denial of its motion to quash, and for generally similar reasons as those cited in this case now.

We've written before about troubling effects that arise when shield law jurisprudence collides with attempts by platforms to protect the anonymity of their users. The questions of whether journalists can resist subpoenas and whether platforms also can are separate and distinct, and, as such, are often best resolved according to separate and distinct reasoning. After all, the right to a free press and the right to speak anonymously often affect liberty interests in different ways. Plus, as we saw in the Glassdoor case, when both the district court and the Ninth Circuit unhelpfully conflated the two sets of questions and used the reasoning for journalist subpoenas to drive its analysis of platform subpoenas, it used the weak reasoning in the former context to undermine the constitutional protection of anonymous speech in the latter. And in this case now we see further problems with conflating these issues, only this time in reverse, with the earlier Facebook case about platform subpoenas and anonymous speech now negatively shaping this case about journalist subpoenas and the right to a free press.

On the other hand, both anonymous speech and free press cases affect the interests of third parties and both vindicate important First Amendment rights upon which public discourse depends. Both therefore deserve to have had these critical rights treated with more care than the New York high court lately has afforded them.