Few worries for Times in printing tax records

Although an average citizen would be breaking federal law by publishing someone else’s tax returns without permission, the New York Times will probably have First Amendment protection as a newspaper in its controversial decision to release Donald Trump’s hotly sought-after tax records.

“If the Times didn’t do anything illegal to obtain it, then there’s a strong argument under the First Amendment that they should have a right to publish it,” said Jeffrey Hermes, deputy director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York City.

Hermes, citing a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bartnicki vs. Vopper, said the country’s highest court determined media outlets are protected if they didn’t break any laws to obtain information in matters of “public importance,” even though federal law “prohibits unauthorized disclosure of tax returns.”

“This is important information for the electorate to know. My opinion as a First Amendment lawyer is ... they (New York Times) have very little to worry about here.”

A Trump adviser told the Herald he thinks Trump should sue the New York Times for publishing parts of his 1995 tax returns Saturday, saying a lawsuit would not distract from the final month of the presidential campaign.

“He should stand his ground and go after them,” said Al Baldasaro, a New Hampshire state legislator who advises the Trump campaign on veterans affairs. “He has lawyers, he can run for president and let the lawyers do it, he can focus on the election.”

Baldasaro called the publication of Trump’s tax returns “old-time yellow journalism” and said it crossed the line of publishing private documents.

“Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing but it doesn’t give you the right to throw out personal, private information,” Baldasaro said.

Tobe Berkovitz, a media expert at Boston University, said much like the rivalry between Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, the media has gone “wild west” and at times disregarded industry standards such as objectivity.

“Trump is perceived to be so uniquely dangerous, the media is debating internally, ‘ do we have to change the rules of the game?’ ” Berkovitz said.