06 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
A US court of appeals ruled this past week that citizens — whether they’re journalists or not — have a right under the First Amendment to peacefully film or record police officers on the job in public. The question has come up repeatedly as the widespread use of sophisticated camera-ready cell phones has enabled a level of transparency and accountability in public safety that potentially makes every civilian on the street on a backstop against police misconduct.
Police officers from Maryland to California have cited vague state wiretap laws to not only object to the practice but also arrest citizens caught doing it. Some state laws make it illegal to record audio or video of a person without his or her consent. Police officers have also argued that such footage violates their privacy.
Many legal scholars, though, have countered that such logic can’t reasonably extend to police officers performing their duties in public — and that such a policy clearly violates the public interest. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously agreed, writing:
It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. … The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’
The case began in October of 2007 when Simon Glik, a lawyer, shot video footage with his cell phone of police officers in Boston whom he believed were using excessive force to arrest a young man. Glik objected to one of the officers, explained that he had recorded footage, and was promptly arrested himself. His cell phone was also taken.
The charges against Glik — which also included disturbing the peace — were dismissed by a judge several months later. Glik attempted to file an internal-affairs complaint with the Boston Police Department against the officers involved. When that complaint went nowhere, he filed a lawsuit, in February 2010, against the officers arguing that his civil rights under the First and Fourth Amendment had been violated.
In siding with Glik, the court stressed that the right to collect information on public officials in public belongs equally to journalists and civilian bystanders, particularly in the age of “citizen journalism” and ubiquitous camera phones. The judges wrote:
Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
The decision was praised this week by the New York Times editorial board, the ACLU and legal scholars.
Emily Badger is Index’s US editor
06 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
The state-owned California Science Center has been embroiled for two years in a legal dispute over a documentary critiquing evolution. The American Freedom Alliance, which says it “promotes, defends and upholds Western values and ideals” — apparently, among them, the dubious scientific theory of Intelligent Design — originally sought to air the film in the rented science center’s IMAX theatre in 2009.
The museum eventually canceled the documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, for fear of appearing to endorse its claims. The American Freedom Alliance then sued, arguing that the government-run science center had violated the First Amendment by showing preference for one viewpoint (evolution) over another (intelligent design, generally considered to be a more publicly palatable version of religious-based creationism).
Last week the two reached a settlement: The science center is paying the American Freedom Alliance $110,000 to end the dispute, although, as the Los Angeles Times has pointed out, neither party is admitting wrongdoing in the unusual agreement. As part of the settlement, the science center agreed to invite the film back for a screening, and the American Freedom Alliance agreed to turn the invitation down.
Intelligent Design advocates are properly claiming victory, although their logic is slightly flawed. Said William J. Becker, Jr., the alliance’s lawyer: “It’s a vindication for ID, and First Amendment guarantees of free speech.”
While the latter may be true, the settlement hardly confers on intelligent design some new respectability in the eyes of public institutions. The notion that government may not suppress or favor the expression of certain ideas has nothing to do with whether or not those ideas have any merit.
26 Aug 11 | Uncategorized
During my years as an undergraduate at North Carolina State University, my daily Chic-Fil-A sandwich was usually accompanied by huge displays of aborted foetuses, or the charming words and signs of any of our homophobic, racist, and sexist preachers. Most of us found entertainment in seeing naïve first year students passionately try to reason with the irrational tirades of these people. While our campus police department and resource offices were bombarded with complaints, the brickyard remained a host for such hateful rants. The debate about free speech on our campus is not dissimilar to debates around Westboro Baptist Church, which keeps it classy with signs stating that “God hates fags” and “Thank god for dead soldiers”.
On 2 March, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of the inflammatory group, protecting their right to picket the funerals of dead soldiers. The work of the church, which attacks popstars, the funerals of artists and anyone that they deem to be godless, is already divisive. The conversation becomes more emotionally charged when adding dead troops to the mix. It becomes difficult to focus on protecting free speech when insensitive picketers senselessly disturb the funerals of dead servicemen and women.
Since the Supreme Court ruling, two states, California and Illinois, have taken steps towards the rights of the church to picket the funerals of dead soldiers.
The California Assembly passed a bill to keep protesters away from funerals by a unanimous vote on 18 August. If the bill is passed, protesting within 1000 feet (305 metres) of a funeral during an hour before or after a ceremony would be “punishable by up to six months in jail” or a fine of $1,000.
On 14 August, a bill titled Let Them Rest in Peace Act was signed into law by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn. According to the new law, protestors must be at least 300 feet (92 metres) away from funerals, and are barred from protesting 30 minutes before and after the funerals. Upon signing the law, Governor Quinn made the statement that “every family has a fundamental right to conduct a funeral with reverence and dignity”, and that it was the duty of lawmakers to honour the sacrifices made by soldiers.
The sponsor of the bill, freshman senator and Tea Party darling, Marco Rubio, said that he could not “imagine anyone being against it, at least no one in their right mind”.
What is problematic about Rubio’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” approach to such legislation is that it makes any dissenters look like insensitive monsters. Such a conversation is not framed for a healthy debate about free speech. It is no surprise that the decision in California was unanimous, as any senator that would comment against such a bill would inevitably see their words warped and used in an advertisement against them during the next campaign season.
Growing up in North Carolina, home of one of the largest US Army bases, Fort Bragg, I know that anything involving service men and women heightens sensitivity but legislators must focus on the long-term implications of such decisions.
The experience of repeatedly having obscenities hurled at me by one of the preachers made me feel threatened, and I wanted him silenced. Being called a whore in public does not make for careful consideration of the parameters of free speech.
Our university never banned the preachers, and now I respect that decision. Hate and ignorance can not be banned and preventing citizens from speaking on public property would set a nasty precedent. The only way to combat these groups is to fight back and speak up, rather than just try to silence them.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship
04 Mar 11 | Uncategorized
In one sense, the US Supreme Court this week did exactly what the Westboro Baptist Church has never been able to — it drew a distinction between the value of a principle (free speech) and its members’ feelings about those associated with it (in this case, a few fanatics carrying signs that say “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”). As many proponents of the ruling have recognised, it’s possible to love the right and hate those who exercise it at the same time. It may be hard, but it’s possible.
Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand, have long exhibited a particularly odd kind of confusion, conflating dead American soldiers (who are not gay) with America’s tolerance of homosexuality (which has even less to do with the wars those soldiers died in). As more forgiving Christians like to preach: “Hate the sin, not the sinner.” This is a distinction Westboro Baptist clearly does not make (leaving aside the question of whether homosexuality is even a sin at all).
What the Supreme Court decision says is that we cannot confuse principle with personal animosity, the very offense Rev Fred Phelps and his family commit each time they demonstrate their ethical opposition to homosexuality within eyesight of a private funeral.
“Speech is powerful,” the Court ruled. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
In the reaction to the ruling, many Americans are having a hard time drawing this distinction, compartmentalising hatred for Westboro Baptist from support for the core American principle of free speech even for those with whom we disagree. The individuals in question are just so vile, their attacks so clearly choreographed to achieve maximum offence, prodding America’s rawest nerves at the intersection of deference to the armed forces and respect for the dead. And Westboro Baptist isn’t making it easy on those angered by the decision to see its larger wisdom. Since the ruling, church members have gloated that the court has only encouraged them to picket even more.
Hearing this — and the anguished reaction of Albert Snyder, father of the dead soldier in question — the two most prominent US veterans’ organisations, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, have denounced the decision. So has a seeming plurality of the thousands of message-board commenters on news sites covering the story.
But in a strong sign that much of the furor is really aimed at Westboro Baptist itself — and not at the concept that people whom we dislike have free-speech rights as well — even First Amendment hardliners have found themselves caught in a moment of hypocrisy this week.
Sarah Palin, who has evoked the right to free speech in defence of everything from Laura Schlessinger’s “n-word” rants to her own metaphorically violent political rhetoric, quickly came out railing against the decision.
“Common sense & decency absent as wacko ‘church’ allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers’ funerals but we can’t invoke God’s name in public square,” Palin tweeted.
Tom Brokaw, a veteran broadcast journalist who should know the value of free speech (two-dozen media organisations swallowed hard and filed amicus briefs on behalf of Westboro Baptist) called the ruling “outrageous.”
Prominent Fox News talk-show host Bill O’Reilly, who regularly champions the Tea Party war cry that the federal government better not tread on individual freedoms, opposed the decision as well.
“With the rise of the Internet, cowardly sociopaths are running wild with hateful invective, outrageous smears and bullying tactics that have caused some kids to commit suicide,” he said on his show. “The Supreme Court needs to wise up. It’s not just about free speech anymore. It’s about personal destruction.”
Conservatives like O’Reilly and Palin found themselves in the awkward position of bashing a decision written by the right’s favorite jurist, Chief Justice John Roberts — and in the equally awkward position of agreeing with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“I am very disappointed in today’s Supreme Court decision to allow hateful extremists to attempt to sully the memories of heroes who have fought and died to protect this country, and to heap more hurt on already grief-stricken families,” Reid said in a statement. “These families have only one chance to bury loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice. They deserve the right to mourn without being subjected to the ugly signs and slurs of fanatics.
These are visceral reactions, not well thought-out ones, and they come more from a deep-rooted desire to protect mourning military families than a necessary calculation over how to maintain the First Amendment. As time passes and the visceral unease wanes, opponents of the decision may come to see that the Supreme Court in fact showed nuanced tolerance of the kind Westboro Baptist would never be capable.
