 Welcome to CN Live Consortium News's coverage of this press conference. My name is Joe Lawyer. I'm the editor-in-chief of Consortium News with me is Bruce Afrin, an attorney for Consortium News. This morning in the Southern District of New York, the Consortium for Independent Journalism, the publisher of Consortium News, filed a lawsuit against the United States and News Guard Technologies alleging violations of the First Amendment and defamation. Consortium News's court filing charges the Pentagon's U.S. Cyber Command, an element of the U.S. intelligence community, with contracting with News Guard to identify and report on American media organizations that dissent from U.S. official positions on foreign policy. Quoting from the complaint, in direct violation of the First Amendment, the United States of America and News Guard Technologies are engaged in a pattern and practice of labeling, stigmatizing, and defaming American media organizations that oppose or dissent from American foreign and defense policy, particularly as to Russia and Ukraine. This quote is accomplished by a contract between News Guard's Misinformation Fingerpins Program and the Department of Defense Cyber Command, an element of the intelligence community. Under this agreement, media organizations that challenge or dispute U.S. foreign and defense policy as to Russia and Ukraine are reported to the government by News Guard and labeled as anti-U.S., purveyors of Russian misinformation and propaganda, publishing false content, and failing to meet journalistic standards. News Guard's contract with the government requires it to find trustworthy sources, a provision in violation of the First Amendment that does not permit the government to vet or clear new sources for their reliability, trustworthiness, or orthodoxy. Quote News Guard, working jointly with the United States, excuse me, works to achieve a form of censorship designed to compel the removal of viewpoints that challenge policies of the United States and its allies, labeling commentaries as false content, disinformation, or Russian propaganda. News Guard and the United States seek to silence or abridge debate and commentary. Quote in the course of its contract with the Pentagon, News Guard is acting jointly or in concert with the United States to coerce news organizations to alter viewpoints as to Ukraine and Russia imposing a form of censorship and repression of views that differ or dissent from policies of the United States. News Guard and the U.S. claims to be false content and anti-American material are merely six, six CNN commentaries that challenge or dispute U.S. foreign and defense policies. Despite its disagreement with the viewpoint expressed in six, only six articles, News Guard has flagged all of Consortium News' 20,000-plus archive published since 1995 with the defamation warnings, even though News Guard only took issue with a total of six articles and none of its videos. End of the quote of the complaint. The lawsuit comes at a time when many in Congress and elsewhere have charged the U.S. government with using private entities and internet platforms as proxies to suppress free speech and violation of the First Amendment. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, declaring the joint program unconstitutional, barring the government and News Guard from continuing such practices and as for more than $13 million in damages for defamation and civil rights violations. Consortium News was founded in 1995 by the late Robert Perry, a highly respected journalist who was a former investigative reporter for the Associated Press and Newsweek magazine. He was the first, he also created Consortium News as the first independent online news site devoted to critiquing U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Perry won the George Polk Award for his work on the Iran Contra Affair, in which he revealed the identity and role of all over North and fermenting a U.S. operation under President Ronald Reagan to illegally fund the Contras, a Nicaragua militia. Bob Perry died in 2018. Bruce Afferman is a constitutional and public interest lawyer who also teaches at First Amendment Lord Rutgers Law School. Among other cases, he obtained the release last year of former Black Panther Sundiata Akoli, one of the nation's longest-serving prisoners, after 48 years of incarceration. Mr. Afron is based in Princeton, New Jersey. I'm the editor-in-chief of Consortium News, a veteran reporter. I've had decades of work inside major media corporations. One of my first professional jobs with the New York Times in 1975. In 1990, I began reporting on international affairs from the United Nations in New York for the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, in Britain and later for the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal. I've also been an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London. So, Bruce, we have a reporter here. Stefania, please address any legal questions you may have to Bruce and any general questions to me. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Well, let me just introduce myself. I'm Bruce Afron. I'm counsel for Consortium News in this lawsuit, which was the original version of what was filed in August, alleging defamation against News Guard technologies, commonly known as News Guard, for labeling as providers of false content as being anti-U.S., as failing to have journalistic standards, as failing to correct errors, Consortium News as an entire news organization. And this was part of a pattern of News Guard labeling organizations in this way, when News Guard took issue with viewpoints expressed in published material. We later learned that the United States Cyber Command has a contract with News Guard that covers the period in which News Guard did this to have News Guard identify and report to the government on the existence of news organizations that speak about issues concerning Russia and Ukraine, including a 9-2014 coup in Ukraine, if there was one, the question of genocidal policies of the Ukrainian government or those closely associated with it. And finally, the third area was the question of the presence of neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government or governmental structure. These three areas are the subject of the government's contract with News Guard, under which News Guard is to report on and identify organizations that repeat what the government calls Russian propaganda in these three areas. And these are the very three areas that News Guard contacted Consortium News about in 2022, in March and February of 2022, demanding, excuse me, in March 2022, demanding that Consortium News retract articles in these three areas, the very same three areas covered by the government's contract with News Guard's misinformation fingerprints program. And so we've amended our complaint today to include allegations that the government and News Guard are working to violate the First Amendment rights of media organizations by labeling and stigmatizing those groups for publishing what the government calls false content or disinformation, which really is information that may differ from US government policies concerning Russia and Ukraine. And so now we are not only suing News Guard for defamation, but News Guard and the United States are sued for First Amendment violations based on this program of labeling and identifying and stigmatizing news organizations. Several hundred organizations have been targeted under this program and Consortium News is apparently one of those based on the public labeling of Consortium News by News Guard. And that's the essence of this complaint. And we are alleging, as I said, violations of the First Amendment on a widespread basis in which the government has given News Guard license to report on and identify for it, all organizations publishing in these fields and News Guard effect has done so. It has, in fact, flagged, for lack of a better term, Consortium News with a red flag warning that says, proceed with caution. This site does not meet journalistic standards. It does not correct errors. It publishes false content and needed anti-US. This goes well beyond an expression of disagreement with issues raised by Consortium News writers, but rather this is defamation of an entire news organization. As Joe Laurier mentioned, News Guard has taken issue with a total of six articles published by Consortium News out of its 20,000 plus archive of articles and videos. And yet it will flag on any News Guard subscriber's website, web search, all Consortium News material with this defamatory content, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the six articles. In fact, as we point out in the complaint, even a Thanksgiving greeting by Consortium News to its readers is flagged with the defamatory material, even an article from 1995 dealing with a completely unrelated question is flagged with this material. So basically the News Guard has acted to assume the power to label and stigmatize news organizations. It's doing so under a contract with the United States Defense Department. And it does so in a way that violates the rights of news organizations and commits defamation. $13 million plus in damages, which is twice the capital News Guard has raised in its fund rate, in its investment campaigns. We feel that's an appropriate measure of damages to bring to the court. So that's a summary. And although there aren't that many journalists on, just Stefania, here for questions. And so feel free as Joe is as well. Yes, Bruce, thank you. I would like to ask also News Guard contacted Consortium News. And did they clarify why it was false content? What was the problem specifically? Yes, what News Guard does is two-fold. One, it puts the three-fold. It puts a red flag warning next to any search result for Consortium News. Then, if you move your cursor over that warning, it brings up a box. They call a nutrition label, and that contains the defamatory content, as I describe. It says, proceed with caution. This site publishes false content, is anti-US, etc. Then, if you scroll further onto the nutrition label and press a button, an article appears in which News Guard then gives its reasons for saying those things. Now, if it just limits itself to giving an opinion that disagrees with the Consortium News writer or any other organization, that might not be defamatory. It would be an expression of opinion. But they're not doing that. They're labeling it with defamatory information. And only if the reader goes further and continues to press buttons will they see News Guard's explanation. Now, Consortium News, I think I can speak for Consortium News in saying that there's no objection to disagreeing with their writers. In fact, Consortium News might even publish such disagreement if someone wished. But to label an entire news organization's output over 30 years nearly as publishing false content, failing to meet journalistic standards, labeling it as anti-US and saying the reader must proceed with caution before going further with this website, that is defamation. And when tied to a government contract to report on organizations that right in the area of Russia-Ukraine matters, then it becomes a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. Absolutely. But before labeling Consortium News in such defamatory fashion, did News Guard try to engage with Consortium News? Let me briefly answer that before, Bruce. We were contacted in the very first communication from News Guard. We were accused of publishing false content before we had any chance to respond or even knowing what specific articles they were referring to. And also, as Bruce points out in writing the lawsuit, they did not identify themselves as having any relationship with government. They presented themselves as journalists without any connection to government. Yeah, I will say, Stefania, I misunderstood your question before. My apologies. Yes, they did contact Consortium News. But as Joe said, they started with the premise that you've published false content. What are you going to do about that rather than making an inquiry that's objective? And then they disregarded entirely any of the detailed explanations provided by Consortium News. Now, if it was merely a debate on the issue of are there neo-Nazis president in Ukraine, does Ukraine have genocidal policies? Did the US help organize a coup in Ukraine? You know, people can differ. And merely debating the issue is what free speech is all about. But that's not what News Guard appears to be about. They rather demand corrections and retractions of what they challenge. And if an organization fails to, it gets the red label with all of the warnings and defamatory material. So this is really trying to force a form of censorship on news organizations. You know, many of complaint News Guard focuses only on conservative organizations. Now, Consortium News is not conservative, but some of its viewpoints of its writers have differed from the administration's positions. So really, what we're saying in this complaint is that News Guard is focusing on those that dissent from administration foreign policy. And that's where the government contract comes in, because that contract is designed to identify and out, so to speak, organizations that take views on Russia and Ukraine. They're really a contrary to the administration's views. And we point out in the complaint how many reputable news organizations have addressed the very same issues in even more strident terms than consortium news writers, and yet News Guard fails to give them a red flag. What's really happening here is that News Guard is trying to target on a serious trick with the government. Those take a different view from the government line. And this violates the First Amendment. The government has no right to declare what is orthodox and acceptable in speech. But by the way, one example that Joe pointed out that we put in the complaint, there was a consortium news ran a reprint of an article from Common Dreams. I think it was on Ukraine, if I'm correct, Joe, and the article was identical. It was simply a reprint from Common Dreams. Common Dreams gets 100 percent rating from News Guard and a blue flag. Good. That's a good color for News Guard. And the same article is now labeled with the red flag in all the warnings and defamatory material for the same article when it appears in consortium news. So what we say in the complaint is that this appears to be targeting news organizations rather than really a debate about content. So when a news organization tends to dissent frequently from the government's line, they become the subject of News Guard's interest. And so I hope that's. Yeah. May I ask you? You mentioned that hundreds of news organizations had problems with News Guard. Could you please give some examples of these news organizations? Now, when I said that I was referring to a list of four hundred news organizations at the state that the United States has identified as allegedly being propagandist for Russia, the News Guard contract requires News Guard to report such groups to the government. Well, I don't know that News Guard has reported all four hundred, but they're on the list. And that list is partly the product of the government's contract with News Guard. So that's what I'm referring to. I can't identify all of them. What's the contract between the United States cyber command and News Guard that renews? Because I noticed that it goes back to 2021-2022. That's correct. Very interestingly, it appears to cover a period, I think, of 15 months. However, in May of 2023, Gordon Corovitz, the co-founder of News Guard, issued a public statement to a media organization and to journalist Matt Taibi that News Guard is currently working with the government on this program. So we think that from that statement, News Guard is continuing in its relationship with the government, even though that initial contract may have expired. Mr. Corovitz's email says we are, in fact, identifying sources of disinformation for the United States and its allies. So we believe on that basis that this relationship is continuing. What kind of, you know, what kind of journalistic criterion is to say is anti-U.S. I mean, you can say this content is not reliable. It doesn't, you know, it doesn't rely on journalistic standards. But saying that it is anti-U.S. is something really about controlling the content, controlling the editorial line and so on. Joe, as a journalist, do you want to take that question first? Well, you're very strong on that one, Bruce. I think you wrote out a very good passage there where it impunes the loyalty of the staff members, most of whom are Americans. Clearly, I feel that one of the highest forms of citizenship is to criticize your own government. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. That's the notion of adversarial journalism, that our responsibility to the public, to our readers, to our viewers is to challenge what the government says when it needs to be challenged. It doesn't make one anti-U.S. In fact, it makes one very pro-U.S. because you believe in those standards of free press and free speech. And if we were anti-U.S., we wouldn't challenge anything because when we disagree with the trajectory of U.S. policies that are damaging the country, we wouldn't say anything. But of course, we speak up, we criticize the U.S. because we care about our country. We care about the United States and its citizens. And we care that the government treats Americans correctly, according to the Constitution. And that's what we do. And what they seem to have believed is somehow anti-American or anti-U.S. Yeah, what's really shocking is this is the same line taken by organizations like Red Channels in the 1940s and 50s, which flagged people as anti-U.S. as pro-communists. If they took a position favoring a labor union or if they took a position against the Vietnam War or whatever it might be. This is exact. This is now a liberal version of this ultra-conservant hitting of people that we saw in the Communist era, the McCarthy era. You know, it is an American value to dissent and challenge your government. It doesn't make you anti-U.S., it makes you an American. And that's the American value. That's what every child is taught in school. So the very country was founded on dissent against Britain, against the king. That's the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. So it's fundamental to us free speech values, which the Constitution protects and wants to see happen. The whole Constitution is based on this notion. So to say one is anti-U.S. for disagreeing with the U.S. government is really an absurdity. It also is defamatory. It's defamatory in any event. And how do you evaluate that as you started out to find you to ask? That's why it has. Yeah, how does one decide whether you are correcting error or it's an article, but how can you measure being anti-U.S. or pro-U.S., you know? Or pro-Russia, for that matter. I mean, one disagrees. I'm not offering a personal opinion here, but one disagrees with who is at fault in the Ukraine-Russia war is one now labeled pro-Russia, simply because they have a viewpoint that they may blame Ukraine in part for the war. I mean, these standards are so subjective as to be meaningless, but they're defamatory. You know, many young people opposed to Vietnam War in the 1960s and 70s by news guard standards, they're anti-U.S. Yet they consider themselves great patriots who are seeking to block an unwise invasion of a foreign country. Absolutely. Bruce, I have a couple of questions. Where are the six articles all about the Ukraine and Russia, the ones targeted by news guards? One was about a U.S. bombing of the town of Dumas in Syria during the Syria-Isis conflict. The U.S. did not be corrected. The U.S. did not bomb Dumas. There was an incident at Dumas that led to U.S. airstrikes. Sorry, my apologies. It was a question of what happened in Dumas that led the U.S. by the Syrian government, that led the U.S. to bomb Syria. And a report in consortium news by one writer suggests that this was a false flag incident in which the U.S. manufactured evidence to justify the bombing. News Guard criticized this article and in the complaint, we show that many, many other sources, very reputable sources, the nation and others, have in fact stated that the U.S. engaged in a whitewash and a cover-up of the true facts to justify that bombing. Precisely what consortium news reported. So to say this is a false fact or disinformation is to say that much of the mainstream media practices that way, too. Yet News Guard only targets a more left-wing organization such as Consortium News. One other article was slightly different in nature, but dealt with Russia. In August 2023, after we filed the first complaint in this case, just two months ago, News Guard immediately wrote to us, to Consortium News, demanding that it correct its article that said the alleged campaign by Russia to elect Donald Trump was a hoax. And we ignored them at that point because they had defamed Consortium News and there was no point continuing to speak with them. In September, they issued a new label, again condemning Consortium News in the same way because Consortium News would not retract its statement that Russiagate was a hoax, close quote. And of course, in the complaint, we point out how vast numbers of legitimate media organizations and investigators, including Robert Mueller and others, concluded there was no evidence to suggest a deliberate Russian campaign to elect Donald Trump or that Donald Trump was even helped by Russia. And so we're offering the complaint a whole discussion. It's just the tip of the iceberg of this vast array of public discussion about the absence of evidence of Russiagate being a true entity. And or that it even helped Donald Trump in any way. Not a single investigator or news organization has concluded that. Yet News Guard decided that it would label Consortium News, yet again, the purveyor of false content for debating something that millions of people have debated, vast numbers of people have debated whether Russiagate occurred, yet News Guard is now labeled as purveying disinformation false content yet again. I'm sorry, Consortium News is yet again labeled by News Guard in this manner. So there were six articles in total challenged out of new out of Consortium News's 20,000 plus archive. Five of those six articles dealt directly with Russia, only one dealt with another subject. That was the incident concerning a rising out of Dumas in Syria. Yeah, in the interest of accuracy, I just wanted to point out that the United States is not accused at NATO at that nation article on our own article of doing the false flag. That would the jihadis who it appears were behind that in order to get the US intervene. The US it is alleged here did cover up this up. And this was a leaked document. WikiLeaks published it in which the original inspectors there for the UN wrote something that's that explained all of this and was taken out of the final report and the US had some role in that. But the US didn't do the false flag. I just wanted to clarify that in the interest of complete accuracy here. Right. The point was, though, that Consortium News reported that the bombing arose from an alleged false flag incident. And this is purveying false information. Yet the Nation magazine gave a very, very vivid description of this, as did others, going far much further than NewsGuard. So Consortium News ever did. And yet they're not flagged. So really, this is evidence yet again that NewsGuard's modus operandi is really to target entities that differ from accepted government policy. That's that's the. Take this is Consortium News. The only media organization heavily targeted, the only US media organization heavily targeted by NewsGuard or are there others? Consortium News is all unique in this, Joe, isn't it? Because it's more of a left oriented publication. Most of the targeted groups have been conservative, right? I don't want to say that for sure, because I don't know the full list. But because it's however, the gray zone was also approached by NewsGuard, so there's been a full spectrum. And in fact, NewsGuard labels it as a left wing publication. They say it. There is a perception that NewsGuard itself is somehow left wing and only going after conservative outlets. I don't think that's true. I don't have the full list. But, you know, in essence, our lawsuit is I think Bruce will agree with me, a very substantive lawsuit that takes on these very substantial and important, very important crucial issues going on right now, including in great detail, the war in Ukraine, the horrible war in Ukraine and also what happened in Syria and the Russia Gate issue. So this is not this is a lawsuit that tries to argue that we did not publish false information by refuting that charge. Also, it's important to point out that the government is while it's prevented by the First Amendment from censoring or bridging the free speech of anyone, they could use private companies that they cannot legally use a private company. I said, I think we're seeing here proxy where the US cannot do something. They are using a private company, in this case, NewsGuard. Is that right, Bruce? Yeah, I would point out that the law says very clearly that just because the government does this to a private entity doesn't mean it is not a violation of the Constitution, where the government facilitates or works closely with the private entity or pays for it, that private entity's actions are considered governmental action. And so we've alleged here that NewsGuard is violating the First Amendment rights of consortium news and others and is working in concert with the government jointly to do so. And this violates the First Amendment. And obviously, this is somewhat of a new question. You know, there's very little caseload in the area of the government using private entities to stigmatize news organizations. And we'll see where this goes. But we think it very clearly violates the US Constitution. Thank you. Thank you so much. I unfortunately have to leave. I have to rush to an appointment, and I hope to report on it. Thank you very much for coming, Stefania. Appreciate it. Thank you. I hope you will succeed because this goes to the core of, you know, freedom of freedom of the press. You know, it certainly does. Yeah. Yeah, these are these are these are decisions generally historically made by editors, not by the government, whether they act alone or through a proxy. What is true? What is not true? What what is published? What is and read evaluation in a free market? Ideas if a newspaper continuously published lies, no one will read it. This is how these things have worked out traditionally over 250 years of US history. Absolutely, absolutely. Thank you. Oh, by the way, let me say one more thing, Stefania. An answer to your question. They did flag on a single day MSNBC and Fox at one point. And both organizations acted so strongly that they immediately withdrew it. And we think this really demonstrates that their intention is more to go to organizations that challenge policy more frequently. They were criticized for attacking two mainstream organizations and therefore immediately withdrew it. But a smaller group that challenges policy, not only have they not withdrawn their challenge, they've added to it as they just did in August. So I want to add that point. Thank you. Thank you so much. OK, bye bye, Stefania. Thank you again. Well, Bruce, I think we can wrap it up now. One thing we really found I think egregious is that they have only looked at six articles out of more than 20,000 published since 1995 or in our 28th year and not one of the 300 or more videos that we published. And they also put their red flag against all of our videos. And we find this in the words of the lawsuit reckless, I believe, and defamatory. I think that's exactly what we say. And the very fact that they label an entire organization's output in this way is a very definition of recklessness. They obviously haven't read any of it, and yet they're labeling all of it or they've read only a small part of it. That to me is recklessness. And I think this meets any standard under the New York Times to be Sullivan Doctrine, if we even need to meet that standard in this case. Joe, one other thing I want to point out to those still listening is that when one defames an organization's in its professional capacity, that's what we call defamation per se. One doesn't even have to prove damages automatically. There's liability, and so it's not even necessary that consortium news show that it lost viewers. You know, most likely it did not. We have been defamed in consortium news's professional stature. And that's defamation per se under the law. Right. I'd also be that there are alternatives to. Combating false information and Twitter has created community notes. And there was a recent incident about two months ago where the US Embassy in Prague published a photograph that it said came from Odessa and Ukraine from 2023. It was actually from 2014. And a lot of readers in the community notes pointed that out. And after three days or so, the US Embassy took that down and apologized. So there are ways to correct this. Without having to resort to the system that we are complaining about. And I would also point out that if you think someone's speech is bad because it's false or misleading, we always say in First Amendment law, the remedy is to make good speech. You give what you think is good speech to counter what you think is bad speech and let the listener or the reader or the viewer make their judgment. That's what it's all about. Not trying to stifle and squelch speech before anyone can make an evaluation of their own. We don't need internet nannies to tell the American people what they should find trustworthy enough to think about. Let the people hear different views, even if they're wrong. The people can evaluate what is truthful for their own needs. And by the way, being wrong is good because being wrong helps us all get to a point of truth. So even if someone publishes something that's incorrect, their organization should not be defamed. We all need to be wrong sometimes in order to have a debate that gets us to a point of truth. And so Newsguards' entire focus is really contrary to the whole speech value system of the Constitution and what the framer is expected. Very good. Thank you very much, Bruce Affrin for joining us and Stefania Morizzi. And for consortium news, this is Joe Laurier. Thank you for joining us for this announcement of a lawsuit against Newsguard Technologies and the United States government filed today in the Southern District of New York by the Consortium for Independent Journalism. Thank you and goodbye.