I don't follow the complaint here. What the article said was correct then, right? And if the EFF feels it's bad that media companies are drafting the orders (setting aside whether they're right nor not), why not mention it?
Suppose you get in a dispute with someone. You got to court asking that the court order the other person to stop doing something, or to hand over the money they owe you, or do whatever it is you think they should do that made you sue them. The judge will tell your lawyer to draft the order that you (the client) would like the judge to sign. How do you think the defenedant will feel about this if you win the case? 'OMG it was so unfair, the order was actually written by fenomas' lawyer and all the judge did was rubber-stamp it, what has our justice system come to etc. etc. etc.'...unless the dispute goes int eh defendant's favor in which case you'll probably say the same thing about the defendant's lawyer writing the motion that the judge signed off on.
This is the normal operation of our adversarial legal system. the EFF should be using their position to educate people about that and then explaining where they disagree with the merits of the media companies' arguments, instead of pretending that there is some sort of procedural sleight-of-hand going on. After all, when the EFF goes to court the EFF's lawyers submit the motions that they would like the judges to sign, just like in any other dispute.
except for the fact that there is sleight of and going on, the MAFFIA get ex parte rulings all the time, this is not "adversarial" this is the court system bending to the will of large corporations.
The MAFFIA believes it alone should be the sole arbitrator of who is allowed and not allowed to post content to the Internet, and the courts have been more than willing to cede this power to them with rubber stamp orders.
Lawyers know that submitting a proposed order is routine (not just for injunctions, but almost any motion), and that the judge will strike or rewrite anything he or she does not agree with. But when you phrase it the way the article does--that the media companies get to write the order (as if everyone else doesn't)--that falsely implies special treatment and influence.
The court doesn't want you to say "this code is dumb, it should sort numbers better."
The court does want you to say "here is how the code should sort numbers: <diff.txt>" And the opposing side can critique your diff.txt.
If you cannot arrange your thoughts sufficiently to get into the second format, you do not belong in the courtroom yet.