Mediaboss Marketing

Home > SPJ News > SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings

SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings

CONTACT: Ashanti Blaize-Hopkins, SPJ National President, ashanti.blaize@gmail.com Andrew Geronimo, Case Western Reserve University School of Law First Amendment Clinic, andrew.geronimo@case.edu Kim Tsuyuki, SPJ Communications Specialist, ktsuyuki@hq.spj.org

INDIANAPOLIS The Society of Professional Journalists is urging a federal appeals court to protect journalists First Amendment right to photograph, record, and redistribute images of court hearings that are livestreamed for remote viewing.

In a legal brief joined by the National Press Photographers Association, SPJ asks the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal district court ruling from Michigan, which found that there is no constitutionally protected right to create and publish screenshots of court proceedings even if the courts themselves televise the proceedings.

Although judges have been given latitude to exclude photojournalists from the physical courtroom on the grounds that cameras might be noisy or distracting, the same principle does not apply when a journalist, or other spectator, is recording the hearing in the privacy of a home or workplace, the brief argues: By self-publishing the audio or video of a proceeding, the judge has conceded that there is no harm in letting the public listen and watch.

The brief was filed Jan. 8 by attorneys Andrew Geronimo, Sara E. Coulter and Siobhan Gerber of the Milton and Charlotte Kramer First Amendment Law Clinic at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, who are providing pro-bono counsel to SPJ and NPPA.

The brief was filed in support of a Michigan lawyer, Nicholas Somberg, who is suing prosecutors for seeking sanctions against him after he took a screenshot of a hearing in which he was participating by Zoom and shared the image on Facebook. Prosecutors had initiated contempt proceedings against Somberg under a court rule that restricts the use of cameras inside the courtroom without the judges permission. A U.S. district judge threw out Sombergs lawsuit, agreeing with prosecutors that the rule against cameras inside courtrooms applies equally to a livestreamed remote hearing. Somberg is asking the Sixth Circuit to reinstate his case.

SPJ and NPPA ask the appeals court to overturn the district court, which failed to require the government to demonstrate why it is legitimate to extend the courtroom cameras ban beyond the walls of the courthouse. The organizations argue that the ban is unconstitutionally broad, prohibiting the re-use of any images of courtroom video, even in cases of great public concern that involve no sensitive privacy issues.

News media coverage of the courts serves an essential public-education function, enabling far more people than could ever sit in the courtroom to have the civic benefit of viewing the workings of the justice system for themselves, the brief argues. Video of judicial proceedings, whether broadcast by the news media or streamed directly by the court, provides the most complete record of what took place, rather than leaving the public to rely on second-hand accounts, the accuracy of which might be questioned.

The case is Somberg v. McDonald, No. 23-01872.

SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to informing citizens; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and fights to protect First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. Support excellent journalism and fight for your right to know. Become a member, give to the Legal Defense Fund or give to the SPJ Foundation.

-END-

More here:
SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings - Society of Professional Journalists

I dont quite understand how anyone could misinterpret the First Amendment, as many people seem to do. It specifically states the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Our forefathers came to America to escape religious bigotry and to practice their religious beliefs without fear of retribution. So when people say we need to put religion into the government, they are defying the intent of the First Amendment.

Choosing to believe or not believe in a particular religion is a very personal decision. When someone says, I cant do that, its against my religion, thats perfectly acceptable. But when someone says, You cant do that, its against my religion. This is unacceptable for the obvious reason that it takes away the freedom to choose to believe differently than you.

When anyone imposes their beliefs on others, it diminishes the right of other people to think for themselves. Let us respect each others personal choices when it comes to religion. Isnt that what true freedom really means?

Kae Luppens

Lemay

The rest is here:
Letter writer reminds others about intent behind the First Amendment - Call Newspapers

An election year is hard to avoid in Washington, even at the Federal Communications Commission.

Chair Jessica Rosenworcel is playing down the prospect that former President Donald Trump could make good on his recent threats to go after some TV networks that he views as hostile to his candidacy. The First Amendment is something that we take seriously, Rosenworcel said Thursday. It stands for the proposition that we cannot prohibit speech. The thing that is clearest to me is that we have licensing authority over broadcast stations, and its something that needs to be understood more widely and certainly in some of our candidate circles.

When reporters put the same question to Commissioner Brendan Carr, he declined to comment. As we move into election season, I'm not going to be making comments on every statement from candidates as they're working through this process, he said.

It is not the first time Trump has blown off steam toward his adversaries by suggesting the FCC should yank their licenses. He made similar comments in 2017. It drew a critical response from the National Association of Broadcasters, the Radio Television Digital News Association, and some in Congress, but ultimately little came of it.

In other FCC news, Commissioner Anna Gmez has made some staff changes, including those who are advising her on media issues. Deena Shetler will serve as Chief of Staff and advise Gomez on media and international matters. And Harsha Mudaliar will serve as Policy Advisor, focusing on media and technology issues.

Shetler most recently worked on Capitol Hill where she served as a research assistant for the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband. Previously, she interned at the FCC in the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Mudaliar joins Gmezs staff from Rosenworcels office, where she served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration. She has held numerous leadership roles at the FCC since taking her first job at the agency in 1996, including Deputy Chief of the Office of Economics and Analytics, Deputy Managing Director, Associate Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau, and as a Legal Advisor to Commissioner Gloria Tristani. Mudaliar has also stepped away from the FCC on two occasions, to work at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from 2010 to 2011 and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division from 2016-2017.

Gmez also announced Edyael Casaperalta will serve as Legal Advisor for Wireless, Public Safety and Consumer Protection. Hayley Steffen will serve as Legal Advisor for Wireline and Space. And Anna Holland will serve as Executive Assistant in her office.

I am pleased to announce that members of my acting staff have agreed to join my office long term Gmez said. They bring years of communications legal and policy experience along with a longstanding commitment to public service and a can-do attitude.

More here:
FCC's Jessica Rosenworcel On Trump Broadcast License Threats: First Amendment Guides Us. - Insideradio.com

Indianas student-to-counselor ratio ranks worst in the nation, according to the 2023 State of the Indiana Girl Report published in September.

Two bills introduced in the General Assembly one in the House, the other in the Senate seek to fill the counselor void, but critics say their solution is unconstitutional and could end up further harming some childrens emotional and mental health.

House Bill 1192 and Senate Bill 50 would allow public and charter schools to employ chaplains, or approve them as volunteers, to counsel students and staff. Though school chaplains wouldnt be required to divulge privileged or confidential communications, the bills are written to invite skepticism as to the ultimate goal of allowing pastoral care.

The Senate version, authored by Sen. Stacey Donato, R-Logansport, says a chaplain may only provide secular assistance, unless the student (or their parent or guardian) gives consent for religious advice, guidance and support services. The House proposal of Rep. Doug Miller, R-Elkhart, does not include such language.

The primary role of chaplains is to provide pastoral or religious counseling to people in spiritual need, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said in a statement. Allowing them to assume official positions whether paid or voluntary in public schools will create an environment ripe for religious coercion and indoctrination of students.

Without any oversight to prevent chaplains from imposing their own religious viewpoint on the children they counsel, HB 1192 and SB 50 could undermine the religious freedom of students of all faiths and no faith.

For a transgender student experiencing mental health concerns, especially in light of Senate Enrolled Act 480 that banned childrens gender-affirming care last year, having a chaplain provide counsel could be harmful.

The Indiana Youth Institute and Girl Coalition of Indiana examined mental health data and surveys completed by school-age children and found schools statewide employed just 1,494 counselors for more than 1 million students.

Proponents of HB 1192 and SB 50 likely will tout the proposals as remedies to the mental health needs of Hoosier students.

Chaplains are trained and certified to provide spiritual and emotional support. Lawmakers should leave mental health care services to the professional school counselors qualified to do that job.

Excerpt from:
Faith-based school chaplains would test First Amendment - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Pointing to childrens mental health and online sexual predators, the Florida House on Wednesday passed a bill that seeks to prevent children under age 16 from having social media accounts.

The House voted 106-13 to approve the measure (HB 1), a priority of House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast. The issue will go to the Senate, amid arguments from parts of the tech industry that the bill would be unconstitutional.

This is about protecting children from addictive technology and what we know harms them, Renner told House members after the vote. And what the social-media platforms know. For years, they have known this and they have failed to act. By your vote today, we have done so.

Lawmakers said children have suffered mental health problems because of such things as bullying on social media. They also said the technology makes children targets for sexual predators.

The truth is, people use these platforms to prey on our children, Rep. Kevin Chambliss, D-Homestead, said.

But opponents questioned the bills constitutionality and said it would take away the rights of parents to determine whether their children use social media. Thirteen Democrats voted against the bill, while 23 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting it.

Rep. Daryl Campbell, D-Fort Lauderdale, called the bill a complete governmental overreach.

Parents should have the ultimate decision-making ability for their child, Rep. Ashley Gantt, D-Miami, said. I 100 percent agree with the bill sponsors position of making sure that we protect children. I 100 percent agree. But it should not come at the cost of parents being able to make the ultimate decision in how they raise their child.

The bill would prevent minors under 16 from creating social media accounts and would require social media platforms to terminate existing accounts that are reasonably known by the platforms to be held by children younger than 16. It also would allow parents to request that minors accounts be terminated.

The bill would require platforms to use independent organizations to conduct age verifications when new accounts are created and would require denial of accounts for people who do not verify their ages. The organizations would be required to delete the data after ages are verified.

Meta, the parent company of platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, and NetChoice, a tech industry group, last week criticized the proposal and raised the possibility that it would be challenged in court.

NetChoice posted testimony on its website that said the bill has constitutional flaws. It said federal courts have blocked similar social-media restrictions in other states.

If passed, HB 1 would violate minors First Amendment rights by imposing a blanket restriction on access to constitutionally protected speech for anyone who is either under the age of 16 or refuses to comply with the laws age-verification requirements, the industry group said. The fact that HB 1 covers the internet rather than books, television programs, or video games, does not change the First Amendment issue.

But Renner, an attorney, told reporters that the bill doesnt violate the First Amendment. He said the bill is directed toward addictive technology, not content.

This is why weve narrowly defined it, because Its a situation in which kids cant stay off the platforms, and as a result of that, they have been trapped in an environment that is harming their mental health, Renner said.

The Senate version of the bill (SB 1788) has not started moving through committees as lawmakers near the end of the third week of the 60-day legislative session.

Also Wednesday, the House unanimously passed another Renner priority (HB 3) that would require age verification to try to prevent minors under age 18 from having access to online pornography.

The bill would set a series of standards for determining whether online material would be harmful, such as whether it appeals to the prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Here is the original post:
Florida House passes HB 1 to ban kids 16 and under from having social media accounts - NBC 6 South Florida