We Ask The Supreme Court To Clarify If It's Legal For Virginia To Bar Techdirt From Filing Freedom Of Information Requests
from the restrictions-on-the-press dept
Like many media properties, we've filed Freedom of Information Act requests to seek out information at both the federal and state levels. The various federal and state freedom of information regulations are important tools for the public, and also for those doing journalism to seek out and report on important information that should be public. Unfortunately, some states like to limit these laws, and Virginia in particular has made its law such that it limits filings to only Virginia residents... or to a very small number of media companies that meet its "exemption" rules. Basically, it will allow freedom of information requests from "traditional newspapers, print magazines or FCC-licensed broadcast media." So if you're an online-only media property and not a Virginia resident, you're out of luck.A small number of other states also have "citizens only" clauses in their FOI laws, though Delaware's was recently struck down as unconstitutional. However, Virginia is the only state that allows a partial exemption for some media players, but not for others. Even so, a court recently upheld Virginia's law as constitutional. This has created both a circuit split (with different courts in different circuits finding very differently on the general issue of "citizens only" clauses), and an unfair burden on anyone doing online-only reporting and thus not qualifying for the specific exemption in Virginia's law.
As the Supreme Court has been asked to hear an appeal of that case, we've signed onto an amicus brief along with the American Society of News Editors, the Center for Investigative Reporting, Ars Technica, Daily Kos, Grist, Matthew Lee, Muckrock, Automattic and Tumblr, arguing that this is an issue where existing rulings and the arbitrariness of the exemptions in the law have created massive uncertainty for anyone doing investigative reporting. So our filing is asking the Supreme Court to take the case and clarify whether or not Virginia's restrictive law is constitutional. Hopefully, the Court recognizes the problems of the law and makes clear that, in this age when anyone can do reporting, limiting such rules to only citizens or an arbitrary definition of professional media is too restrictive.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: citizens, freedom of information, journalism, virginia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Because the current set of Supreme Court Justices are notoriously thin-skinned and prickly�and quite likely to decide a case based on spite, pettiness and personal pique.
... Or not.
�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like you could...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems like you could...
work the system...
that is one way, but the better way would be to fix the broken system...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like passive-aggressive "get off my lawn" to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exempt
The exemption is for media players who do NOT file Freedom of Information Act requests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exempt
Or is it more of WinAmp is ok but Windows Media Player is not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exempt
VLC might be allowed....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's this we shit? What did you contribute, other than a signature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's this we shit, Pirate Mike! What did your chubby fingers contribute, other than a signature. By "we" you must be referring to your army of hitlers and their rabid piracy apologist dogs. Perhaps your request would get more attention if you could have convinced your Google paymasters to sign on as well, but I guess all of the slam pieces you've been writing on them lately have made them reevaluate their relationship with their once favorite shill. Could your weasel words be any more... um... weasely?
P.S. broadbrush, sycophant, disingenuous, think of the children, Masnic!!!1!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bravo!
Now, TD trolls have seen better days, when our regular commenters start trolling better than the trolls it seems to me that it's time for the trolls to re-evaluate their strategies =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Mike's "fan" first shows up within the top 10 flattened spaces; 1 shot of bourbon.
2. Mike's "fan" first shows up beyond 10 but before 20 flattened spaces:
1 shot of bourbon and 1 shot of whiskey.
3. Mike's "fan" first shows up beyond 20 posts in flattened; combine drinks 1 and 2 and mix it with three shots of tequila.
4. Take one shot of Bloody Marry per every time Mike's name is used in a comment.
5. Take two shots spiced rum if the term "Pirate Mike" is used in a comment.
6. Chug a pint (half liter) beer for every time Mike is called a shill in a comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's when you loose the game :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's when you loose the game :-)"
**"So, is the point of this 'game' to get people so smashed that the stalkers/trolls start to actually make sense?"
That's when you lose the game :-)
Thanks :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, that spiced rum is nice! *Collapses from alcohol poisoning.*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
king of all trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: king of all trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I've said, I'm not a journalist, but sometimes I *do* journalism. And I think that's true of lots of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds more like a dodge to escape when trapped, saying "I'm not a journalist, just a blogger" when you get caught telling less than all the truth or not bothering to check any sources.
Classic!
So how about a new t-shirt with your face on it, with the message under:
"Only a Journalist When Convenient".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So do you literally do nothing expect what's explicitly covered by your job title? What is your job title?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, if it helps you out any, call it "small business owner" or "president of the company". Perhaps that might let you dial in.
I am assuming your job title is "student", right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't get weird. It's just the sound of you jackass trying (and failing) to turn his words on the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not a journalist, I just play one on the interwebs
PLEASE?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate sites like docstoc
Mike, why can't you publish PDF files like this directly on the TD website? By all means use other services as well so people can view such files directly in their browsers if that's what they want to do, but my laptop has a much nicer PDF file viewer than any of the browser-based services, and I refuse to give out my email address just to read a document (they almost all require a sign-up nowadays before they'll let you download the original file).
</rant>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's all sign up to be 'reporters'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitutionality
The argument that the residents-only law is unconstitutional is based on the Privledges and Immunities clause, which reads:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
I'm not sure that this clause can be used to declare a FOIA law unconstitutional. If you live in one state and want to apply for a fishing license in another state, it costs more. Same with college tuition. As the Supreme Court has said:
"Only with respect to those 'privileges' and 'immunities' bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity must the State treat all citizens, resident and nonresident, equally."
Does this fall into that category? Maybe, and maybe not. The Supreme Court at one point explicitly avoided deciding what is covered: "We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation." http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/371/case.html
And from a really old case, we have this:
"The inquiry is what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"There is a state law prohibiting corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates"
That is pretty scarry...good luck :-)
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/virginia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...allows a partial exemption for some media players..."
;-)
(Just a guess on some future headlines...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hay stupid wally fuck you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hay i dont give a shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]