Reporters Seek Easier Access to Obama’s Federal Staff
by Jennifer Brown

Members of the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) aren’t happy with the hoops they have to jump through to talk with Obama’s federal staff, and have asked the President to end certain restriction so that journalists can have an easier time getting answers from government, says firstamendment.org.

On March 4, 2009, the AHCJ sent out a press release arguing that the policies that require journalists to get approval from public affairs officers before they’re allowed to interview government agencies has got to go, according to the AHCJ website.

The AHCJ also sent a letter to Obama on Feb. 26, 2009, outlining the problems with the current interview process, claiming it hampers transparency and also keeps the public in the dark on subjects that citizens have the right to know. The AHCJ went on to ask the President to prohibit the use of permission forms for interviews, and to stop public affairs officers from monitoring interviews.

The AHCJ argues in their press release that by keeping this kind protocol when it comes to interviewing government agencies brings about a chilling effect to the country. The AHCJ claims that public affairs officers have ignored or denied interviews with journalists, and have also have given a long lag time between granting the interview with the government agency and actually going through with it. The AHJC also says that having public affairs officers monitor interviews prohibits federal staff to give valuable “off-the-record” information to journalists, which again keeps the public from knowing pertinent information about our government.

Despite this, the AHCJ told firstamendmentcenter.org that they recognize that Obama called for greater transparency of the government when he first took office, and hope that he’ll listen to their requests.

Question:

1. Do you think that these public affairs officers are actually bordering on being unconstitutional because they’re withholding or making it hard for journalist to get certain information that the public has a right to know, therefore chilling political speech? What kind of suit could the AHCJ bring against the federal agencies that make it extremely difficult for journalists to get information?

Guards and detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq on Dec. 12, 2003.

© 2006 Associated Press

Pictures of Detainee Abuse to be Released

by Jennifer Brown

The US Defense Department will release pictures depicting the abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan that took place during the Bush administration, according to firstamendmentcenter.org.

The order release the photos is a response to a Freedom of Information Act suit filed in 2004. The American Civil Liberty Union said that these photos show that prisoner abuse was happening in places other than Abu Ghraib. The ACLU believes these photos are necessary to give the public the full scope of what’s really happening to war prisoners.

“These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU, said in a press release. “Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.”

The Bush administration had been fighting to keep the photos under wraps ever since the ACLU had asked them to be released in 2003, claiming that the photos would bring about public outrage and also violate the U.S.’s obligation to the Geneva Convention.

However, last September the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s arguments and decided these photos held enough interest to the public that they had to be released. On April 23, 2009, the Justice Department issued a letter signed by Acting U.S Attorney Lev L. Dassin stating that the government must give full discloser of the photographs and reiterated the court’s refusal to rehear the case.

The photographs will be released on May 28.

Questions:

1. What cases could be argued about how the chilling of speech to make the point that this could be unconstitutional?

2. The Bush administration argued these photographs would cause public outrage. What exception to the federal FOIA could the Bush administration argue?

3. As far as distribution of the photographs goes, what rights do you think the people who were photographed have? Do those photographed have a case for libel?

© 2005 Associated Press (Photo by Mary Altaffer)

Papers Could Go Non-Profit
by Jennifer Brown



In an effort to curtail the decline of daily newspapers, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed a bill last month that would allow papers to become non-profits similar to broadcasting stations, according to firstamendmentcenter.org.

The bill, called the Newspaper Revitalization Act, could be a double-edged sword. The pluses of this bill would be that the advertising and subscription revenue papers bring in would be tax exempt, and that contributions supporting coverage could be tax deductible.

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said in a press statement. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

The downside of this bill is that while papers would still be able to cover all issues including political campaigns, papers would not be able to make political endorsements.

Cardin says in the press release that this plan is more for the small local papers and not the powerhouse conglomerates. He also admits this may not be the perfect plan, but it could help keep the newspaper industry alive.

Question:

1. Would newspapers not being able to make political endorsements chill political speech and be a breach of First Amendment, which states “government… shall make no law that abridges the freedom of speech or press”?

2. Even if not allowing papers to endorse a political candidate chills political speech, if this is the only way to save newspapers, do you think the government has an argument to enforce their act? Would the government be able to trump freedom of the press in order to protect the industry, like they’re able to withhold information in times of extreme national security?

Linking to copyrighted material: Fair Use?

by Dan Cailler

According to a recent New York Times article, the Associated Press says it will start suing websites that use its content without paying for it. AP executives are concerned with engines like Google and Yahoo that link to sites which reproduce AP's articles whole or in part.

According to an article by Mike Masnick at Techdirt.com the AP said, "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories," to which Masnick questioned what these 'misguided theories' were and said that "search engines aggregating info and sending people to your site has been ruled fair use before"

The AP says this isn't about fair use, "its about a bigger economic issue at stake." The real issue seems to be an old business model meeting head to head with a changing world of technology. But the AP isn't alone in its concerns:

In a related story at InfoWorld.com, the French news agency, Agence France Presse, is being removed from Google's news service. The AFP had filed a lawsuit against Google because of a copyright infringement due to the Google's inclusion of AFP stories and content in its Google News. Having won, AFP's content is being removed, but many think separating itself from such a powerful search engine will only hurt it in the long run.

• Is Google's usage of, and linking to, stories produced by the AP and AFP fair use? Which of the 4 tests for fair use would hurt or help Google's case?
• Is it reasonable for services like the AP or AFP to submit stories on the web and expect people to not link and share that information, or to expect people to pay for it when someone, somewhere will always be passing it along for free?

Google Street View: Invading Privacy?

(©2008 Associated Press)

by Dan Cailler

Every day, more and more roads are being digitally mapped by Google's Street View Vans, capturing images of people, their cars, their homes, and anything else within eyeshot of private and public streets.

According to the AP, a London-based group, Privacy International, argued that Google Street View breached people's privacy. But the Information Commissioner in the UK has refused to shut down the service, despite complaints. The Commissioner said that "picturing people on street view was no different to filming faces of football fans..."

According to a CNET news article, a couple in Pittsburgh, PA, tried to sue Google for taking a photograph of their home. They claimed Google vans ignored a private road sign, but images from the van itself showed to such sign. Google, in response to these claims of invading privacy, said, "today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," according to an article at Itnews.com.

There are now even websites (mashable.com, for example) dedicated to displaying the odd and amusing things captured by Google's vans - like pictures of ladies sunbathing, men urinating in public, patrons entering/exiting sex shops, and other things which, in Google's defense, are done IN PUBLIC.

But despite Google's policy to blur our faces and license plates, people do not like the fact these vans are out there.

• Is Google's capturing and documenting of public images somehow violating privacy rights? Google says it will remove any image by request of those whose image and property appears in Google Maps; but should Google be forced to obtain consent from everyone before publishing these 'public' images?
• It seems that the concept of privacy naturally evolves alongside technology. Do state legislatures need to redefine privacy with modern technology in mind? Is the concept of 'public property' without jurisdiction?...i.e. Do people in other states and countries have the right to see what traditionally only your fellow neighbors used to see?
• Do the benefits of Google maps outweigh the privacy issues? What about the privacy torte Custom and Usage? Does Google's documenting of the civilized world through pictures consider 'typical use' of public property?
  

Animal Cruelty to become Unprotected Speech?

(©1999 Associated Press)

by Daniel Cailler

Tony Mauro, legal correspondent for The First Amendment Center, wrote that the Supreme Court agreed "to consider reviving a 10-year old federal law which makes it illegal to produce, sell, or possess depictions of animal cruelty created for commercial gain."

If the Court votes in favor of the proposed law, depictions of animal cruelty would lose first amendment protections, like that of fighting words, obscenity and child porn.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down the law, last year, because they said the government interest in the proposed ban was not "of the same magnitude as protecting children." The appeals court also said the law was too broad, despite an exception for depictions that have "serious religious, political, scientific, education, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

Footage of a bullfight would be illegal if this law passes, despite the sport's immense popularity.

Robert Stevens, a documentary maker in Virginia, was sentenced to 37 months in prison for videos he had made showing the right and wrong way to raise pit bulls, according to an article published by the Associated Press. His video contained dog fight footage in Japan, among other scenes. Despite his claim the videos were educational, he was found guilty, but then the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. Stevens had originally argued that the law was "viewpoint discrimination,' since the same footage would be legal in the hands of dogfight protestors.

• Is there enough of a compelling Gov't interest (of the same magnitude as protecting children, for example) with which possessing/distributing depictions of animal cruelty could be made illegal?
• If a particular type of speech is banned for some, shouldn't it be banned for all? Images of child pornography couldn't be used in an anti-child-porn campaign, despite its good intentions, so how could the same footage of animal cruelty be legal in the hands of an activist yet illegal in the hands of other people?

Secret memos now not-so-secret. Is that good?

By Ben Gellman-Chomsky

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's secret memos have now been released to the public. (AP Photo)

In a move cheered by the ACLU, the Obama administration released four secret memos Thursday from the Justice Department. According to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, the memos concerned interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, and constituted proof of the legality of the techniques as far as the Bush administration was concerned.

The ACLU had been seeking access to these memos, as well as other opinions, under the Freedom of Information Act in federal court. The decision was made at the deadline, as the Obama administration had agreed to decide on a course of action by Thursday.

It remains to be seen whether this creates a precedent for the White House. In his statement, President Obama said, "The exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States."

Most of what the memos described was already public, and had been very damaging to the American reputation abroad, especially in foreign relations.

Questions:
1) Would making the memos public while the interrogation techniques were in use have been protected under the 1st Amendment? Or would it sufficiently create a "clear and present danger"?
2) Is government transparency a more vital need than national security? Should the FOIA make us able to reach these documents? We didn't find out, as the White House released them willingly, but what if it HAD gone to a legal fight?