<p>《纽约时报》周一提起诉讼，要求阻止记者在五角大楼内被陪同的要求，声称这一要求与国防部之前的新闻限制一样，违反了宪法。</p>
<p>此前，《纽约时报》说服法官阻止了限制国防记者获取信息的严格认证规则。五角大楼对此回应，推出了一套新的限制措施，其中包括陪同要求。</p>
<p>该诉讼旨在阻止这一要求，并恢复到特朗普之前的规则。</p>
<p>“基于记者与五角大楼人员在五角大楼内的例行非计划性互动而产生的报道，基于与来自国防部各个部门和整个大楼的五角大楼新闻官进行的数十次对话而构建的报道，以及在重大军事行动期间捕捉五角大楼内部情绪和氛围的报道——这些都是原告们无法再报道的例子，” 诉状中写道。</p>
<p>《国会山》已联系五角大楼以获取评论。</p>
<p>五角大楼官员为这些变化辩护，坚称这是为了打击机密材料泄露和保护国家安全。</p>
<p>这一变化遭到了各大媒体和媒体倡导者的谴责，他们将其视为对新闻自由的攻击。《纽约时报》声称，新闻价值的信息 “将对《纽约时报》及依赖《纽约时报》进行基于事实的独立新闻报道的公众完全不可用。”</p>
<p>诉讼声称五角大楼的政策是压制言论的努力，并且构成了对该报的违反第一修正案的违宪报复。它还认为该政策违反了正当程序保护，并且是任意和反复无常的。</p>
<p>上个月底，华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院允许陪同要求生效。该小组裁定，该要求不受该报在早前诉讼中赢得的法院禁令的限制。</p>
<p>“原告提起第二起诉讼，以挑战临时政策本身的条款，” 新案件中指出。</p>

纽约时报

<p>《纽约时报》已对五角大楼提起诉讼，要求阻止一项新的记者陪同进入其场所的要求，称该要求违反宪法。诉讼认为，这项政策压制言论，违反了第一修正案，因为它限制了记者获取信息的能力。五角大楼官员辩称，这些变化是出于国家安全的必要。美国上诉法院最近允许陪同要求生效，这促使《纽约时报》提出第二次诉讼</p>

<p>The New York Times sued on Monday to block a requirement that reporters be escorted on Pentagon grounds, asserting it is unconstitutional just like the Defense Department’s earlier press restrictions.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>《纽约时报》周一提起诉讼，要求阻止记者在五角大楼内被陪同的要求，声称这一要求与国防部之前的新闻限制一样，违反了宪法。</p>
</div><p>Previously, The Times convinced a judge to block strict credentialing rules that limit how defense reporters can solicit information. The Pentagon responded by unveiling a new set of restrictions that includes the escort requirement.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此前，《纽约时报》说服法官阻止了限制国防记者获取信息的严格认证规则。五角大楼对此回应，推出了一套新的限制措施，其中包括陪同要求。</p>
</div><p>The suit seeks to block it and return to the pre-Trump rules.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该诉讼旨在阻止这一要求，并恢复到特朗普之前的规则。</p>
</div><p>“Stories based on routine unplanned interactions between journalists and Pentagon personnel on Pentagon grounds, stories built on dozens of conversations with Pentagon press officers from various parts of the Department and across the building, stories that capture the mood and atmosphere within the Pentagon during times of consequential military operations—all are examples of what Plaintiffs can no longer report,” the complaint reads.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“基于记者与五角大楼人员在五角大楼内的例行非计划性互动而产生的报道，基于与来自国防部各个部门和整个大楼的五角大楼新闻官进行的数十次对话而构建的报道，以及在重大军事行动期间捕捉五角大楼内部情绪和氛围的报道——这些都是原告们无法再报道的例子，” 诉状中写道。</p>
</div><p>The Hill has reached out to the Pentagon for comment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>《国会山》已联系五角大楼以获取评论。</p>
</div><p>Pentagon officials have defended the changes by insisting they’re necessary to combat leaks of classified material and protect national security.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>五角大楼官员为这些变化辩护，坚称这是为了打击机密材料泄露和保护国家安全。</p>
</div><p>It’s been met with condemnation from various outlets and media advocates, who’ve cast the changes as an attack on press freedom. The Times alleged that newsworthy information “will be simply unavailable to The Times and to the public that relies on The Times for fact-based, independent journalism.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这一变化遭到了各大媒体和媒体倡导者的谴责，他们将其视为对新闻自由的攻击。《纽约时报》声称，新闻价值的信息 “将对《纽约时报》及依赖《纽约时报》进行基于事实的独立新闻报道的公众完全不可用。”</p>
</div><p>The suit claims the Pentagon’s policy is an effort to suppress speech and that it amounts to unconstitutional retaliation against the newspaper in violation of the First Amendment. It also argues the policy violates due process protections and that it’s arbitrary and capricious.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>诉讼声称五角大楼的政策是压制言论的努力，并且构成了对该报的违反第一修正案的违宪报复。它还认为该政策违反了正当程序保护，并且是任意和反复无常的。</p>
</div><p>Late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit allowed the escort requirement to go into effect. The panel ruled the requirement wasn’t covered by a court injunction the newspaper won in its earlier lawsuit.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>上个月底，华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院允许陪同要求生效。该小组裁定，该要求不受该报在早前诉讼中赢得的法院禁令的限制。</p>
</div><p>“Plaintiffs bring this second lawsuit to challenge the Interim Policy on its own terms,” the new case states.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“原告提起第二起诉讼，以挑战临时政策本身的条款，” 新案件中指出。</p>
</div>

纽约时报对五角大楼的新闻限制提起新的诉讼