[ori_b]

To be fair, I've always thought that warrant canaries were extremely questionable legally. If the government can legally say "You're not allowed to spill the beans about this", then using a warrant canary is directly subverting that order.

As a result, I always assumed that anyone that had a warrant canary in place would get a court order to keep it up regardless.

I would be shocked if they stood up in court, and I don't find the outlawing of it any more disturbing than allowing secret warrants in the first place. (Although secret warrants are pretty damn disturbing.)

[koenigdavidmj]

Theoretically an order compelling speech, especially false speech, scares courts more than prohibiting speech in certain circumstances, which happens frequently.

[AdamJacobMuller]

Is it merely theoretical? I read a bunch of opinions on the subject last year that definitely left the impression that there was some precedent here.

[lerpa]

I may be wrong but in the Australian case it seems journalists are forbidden from creating a canary in the first place, they cannot say they did or did not receive a gag order. That's what I got from what I've read but not sure.

If the issue was being forced to continue with the canary then there is a solution for that just use as a canary, before you received any order: We have received a gag order!

And when you do receive a gag order what are they going to do? Make you remove that? Keeping it seems as a direct violation of that order.

[mirimir]

Sure, they can force you to keep the old one up.

But can they force you to put up a new one?