<p>《紐約時報》週一提起訴訟，要求阻止記者在五角大樓內被陪同的要求，聲稱這一要求與國防部之前的新聞限制一樣，違反了憲法。</p>
<p>此前，《紐約時報》説服法官阻止了限制國防記者獲取信息的嚴格認證規則。五角大樓對此回應，推出了一套新的限制措施，其中包括陪同要求。</p>
<p>該訴訟旨在阻止這一要求，並恢復到特朗普之前的規則。</p>
<p>“基於記者與五角大樓人員在五角大樓內的例行非計劃性互動而產生的報道，基於與來自國防部各個部門和整個大樓的五角大樓新聞官進行的數十次對話而構建的報道，以及在重大軍事行動期間捕捉五角大樓內部情緒和氛圍的報道——這些都是原告們無法再報道的例子，” 訴狀中寫道。</p>
<p>《國會山》已聯繫五角大樓以獲取評論。</p>
<p>五角大樓官員為這些變化辯護，堅稱這是為了打擊機密材料泄露和保護國家安全。</p>
<p>這一變化遭到了各大媒體和媒體倡導者的譴責，他們將其視為對新聞自由的攻擊。《紐約時報》聲稱，新聞價值的信息 “將對《紐約時報》及依賴《紐約時報》進行基於事實的獨立新聞報道的公眾完全不可用。”</p>
<p>訴訟聲稱五角大樓的政策是壓制言論的努力，並且構成了對該報的違反第一修正案的違憲報復。它還認為該政策違反了正當程序保護，並且是任意和反覆無常的。</p>
<p>上個月底，華盛頓特區巡迴上訴法院允許陪同要求生效。該小組裁定，該要求不受該報在早前訴訟中贏得的法院禁令的限制。</p>
<p>“原告提起第二起訴訟，以挑戰臨時政策本身的條款，” 新案件中指出。</p>

紐約時報

<p>《紐約時報》已對五角大樓提起訴訟，要求阻止一項新的記者陪同進入其場所的要求，稱該要求違反憲法。訴訟認為，這項政策壓制言論，違反了第一修正案，因為它限制了記者獲取信息的能力。五角大樓官員辯稱，這些變化是出於國家安全的必要。美國上訴法院最近允許陪同要求生效，這促使《紐約時報》提出第二次訴訟</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>《紐約時報》週一提起訴訟，要求阻止記者在五角大樓內被陪同的要求，聲稱這一要求與國防部之前的新聞限制一樣，違反了憲法。</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，《紐約時報》説服法官阻止了限制國防記者獲取信息的嚴格認證規則。五角大樓對此回應，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>該訴訟旨在阻止這一要求，並恢復到特朗普之前的規則。</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>“基於記者與五角大樓人員在五角大樓內的例行非計劃性互動而產生的報道，基於與來自國防部各個部門和整個大樓的五角大樓新聞官進行的數十次對話而構建的報道，以及在重大軍事行動期間捕捉五角大樓內部情緒和氛圍的報道——這些都是原告們無法再報道的例子，” 訴狀中寫道。</p>
</div><p>The Hill has reached out to the Pentagon for comment.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>《國會山》已聯繫五角大樓以獲取評論。</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>五角大樓官員為這些變化辯護，堅稱這是為了打擊機密材料泄露和保護國家安全。</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>這一變化遭到了各大媒體和媒體倡導者的譴責，他們將其視為對新聞自由的攻擊。《紐約時報》聲稱，新聞價值的信息 “將對《紐約時報》及依賴《紐約時報》進行基於事實的獨立新聞報道的公眾完全不可用。”</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>訴訟聲稱五角大樓的政策是壓制言論的努力，並且構成了對該報的違反第一修正案的違憲報復。它還認為該政策違反了正當程序保護，並且是任意和反覆無常的。</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>上個月底，華盛頓特區巡迴上訴法院允許陪同要求生效。該小組裁定，該要求不受該報在早前訴訟中贏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>“原告提起第二起訴訟，以挑戰臨時政策本身的條款，” 新案件中指出。</p>
</div>

紐約時報對五角大樓的新聞限制提起新的訴訟