A judge says the Department of Defense cannot force New York Times reporters to walk with government officers in the Pentagon.

一名法官表示，國防部不能強迫《紐約時報》記者在五角大廈內必須與政府官員同行。

Judge Paul L. Friedman made this decision. He says the rule is against the law. The New York Times fought this rule in court for a long time.

法官 Paul L. Friedman 做出了這個決定。他表示這項規定違法。《紐約時報》在法院針對這項規定進行了長期的抗爭。

The New York Times is happy. They say the public needs to see what the military does. They want to report the news freely.

《紐約時報》對此感到滿意。他們表示大眾需要了解軍方的作為，因此希望能夠自由地報導新聞。

The Department of Defense is not happy. They say the rule keeps secrets safe. They think reporters might take secret information.

國防部則並不滿意。他們表示這項規定是為了保護秘密，認為記者可能會獲取機密資訊。

Now, the New York Times can enter the building alone. Other news companies may still have different rules.

現在，《紐約時報》可以單獨進入大樓。其他新聞公司可能仍適用於不同的規定。

The Department of Defense wants to fight this decision in a higher court. The New York Times will continue its legal fight.

國防部希望在更高層級的法院對此決定提出上訴。《紐約時報》將繼續其法律鬥爭。

A federal judge has issued a preliminary ruling that prevents the Department of Defense from forcing New York Times journalists to be accompanied by officials while inside the Pentagon.

一名聯邦法官已發布初步裁決，防止國防部強迫《紐約時報》記者在五角大廈內必須由官員陪同。

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman based his decision on the finding that the escort requirement violates the First Amendment. This ruling is the result of a long legal battle started by The New York Times in December. The newspaper challenged access restrictions created by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The specific escort policy was introduced in March, after a previous court decision ruled that removing press credentials for security reasons was unconstitutional.

美國地方法官 Paul L. Friedman 做出此決定是基於陪同要求違反了第一修正案。此裁決是《紐約時報》於 12 月發起的一場長期法律戰的結果。該報挑戰了由國防部長 Pete Hegseth 制定的進入限制。這項具體的陪同政策是在 3 月引入的，此前法院的一項裁決認定，以安全理由撤銷記者證是違憲的。

There is a clear disagreement between the two parties involved. The New York Times emphasized that the ruling protects the media's right to monitor military operations without interference. On the other hand, Department of Defense spokesperson Sean Parnell asserted that the ruling could harm national security by removing safeguards that prevent the leak of classified information. Furthermore, the Department argued that the First Amendment does not guarantee the easiest possible access to facilities. While this ruling currently applies to The New York Times, it is unclear how it will affect other media organizations.

參與的兩方存在明顯分歧。《紐約時報》強調，此裁決保護了媒體在不受干擾的情況下監控軍事行動的權利。另一方面，國防部發言人 Sean Parnell 主張，此裁決可能會因移除了防止機密資訊洩露的保障措施而損害國家安全。此外，國防部辯稱，第一修正案並不保證能以最便捷的方式進入設施。雖然此裁決目前僅適用於《紐約時報》，但尚不清楚將如何影響其他媒體機構。

The Department of Defense plans to appeal the decision, while The New York Times continues its legal fight against these restrictions.

國防部計劃就此決定提出上訴，而《紐約時報》則繼續針對這些限制進行法律鬥爭。

A federal judge has issued a preliminary ruling prohibiting the Department of Defense from requiring New York Times journalists to be escorted by officials within the Pentagon.

一名聯邦法官已發布初步裁決，禁止國防部要求《紐約時報》的記者在五角大廈內必須由官員陪同。

The judicial intervention by U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman is predicated upon the determination that the escort requirement constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. This legal development follows a protracted series of litigations initiated by The New York Times, beginning in December with challenges to access restrictions implemented by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The specific escort policy was instituted in March, subsequent to a prior judicial determination that earlier restrictions—specifically those permitting the revocation of press credentials based on perceived security risks—were unconstitutional.

美國地區法官 Paul L. Friedman 的司法干預是基於一項判定，即隨行陪同的要求構成對第一修正案的違反。此次法律進展繼《紐約時報》發起的一系列漫長訴訟之後，始於 12 月對國防部長 Pete Hegseth 實施的進入限制提出質疑。該項特定的隨行政策於 3 月實施，在此之前法院已判定，先前基於感知安全風險而撤銷記者證明的限制是違憲的。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a profound divergence in institutional perspectives. The New York Times characterizes the ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional protections against measures intended to obstruct public oversight of military operations. Conversely, the Department of Defense, via spokesperson Sean Parnell, maintains that the ruling compromises national security by removing necessary safeguards against the unauthorized dissemination of classified intelligence. The Department further contends that the First Amendment does not guarantee the most convenient mode of access. While the current injunction applies to The New York Times, the legal status of other media organizations remains unspecified. This friction is underscored by the October departure of several press outlets from the facility, resulting in the establishment of a department-approved press corps.

利益相關者的立場顯示出制度視角的嚴重分歧。《紐約時報》將此裁決視為對憲法保障的再次肯定，旨在反對企圖阻礙公眾監督軍事行動的措施。相反，國防部透過發言人 Sean Parnell 主張，該裁決移除了防止機密情報被未經授權傳播的必要保障，將損害國家安全。國防部進一步認為，第一修正案並不保證最便捷的進入方式。雖然目前的禁令適用於《紐約時報》，但其他媒體機構的法律地位仍未明確。這種緊張局勢在 10 月多家媒體機構離開該設施後更加顯著，導致隨後成立了一個經部門批准的記者團。

The Department of Defense intends to appeal the ruling while the New York Times maintains its legal challenge to the restrictions.

國防部打算就該裁決提出上訴，而《紐約時報》則維持其對該限制的法律挑戰。