New Mexico Judge Says First Amendment Is Subservient To The 'Dignity Of The Court'
from the lawyers:-begin-routing-your-1st-A-cases-elsewhere... dept
Many government entities do little more than tolerate the existence of the press, knowing that anything they do that appears to restrict First Amendment activities will backfire horribly. These are the smart ones. Then there are others who are too obtuse to recognize the censorious gun they think they're pointing at others is actually resting about temple-level on their own heads.
Cue the idiotic "memorandum" issued to journalists by the Second Judicial District Court located in Albuquerque, New Mexico:
A memorandum to members of the media issued June 2 by Chief Judge Nan G. Nash and Clerk of the Court James Noel requires “at least twenty-four (24) hours advanced notice to the Clerk of the Court of their desire to report on any matter within or regarding the Court. Members of the media shall enter the Courthouse through its main entrance and through Court Security. Upon entrance, members of the media shall proceed to Court Administration to ‘sign-in’ with the Clerk of the Court and to verify that they provided twenty-four hours advanced notice to the Court.”While court proceedings are subject to some restrictions (even more so if handling juvenile cases), there is no Constitutional limitation that supports a demand for "24 hour advanced [sic] notice," much less "intermediate notice" or "beginner's notice." The state does not have a right to demand journalists "check in" ahead of time and ask for permission to cover open public court proceedings.
And the demand goes further than just court proceedings. The language says "any matter within or regarding the Court," which could be read as covering any interaction between media members and the court. This is clearly ridiculous. The Rio Grande Chapter of Society of Professional Journalists wasted little time condemning the memo.
The public has a right to see its justice system at work. Impeding the work of journalists who report from the courts will only erode that right and, we fear, limit the community’s access to this institution.According to the memo, some unspecified "recent violations" have somehow "detracted" from the "dignity of the Court." Well, if it had any "dignity" remaining, it's gone now. Especially considering this was the explanation given when Judge Nan Nash -- who authored the memo -- walked it back in the face of public backlash.
Moreover, we do not believe the court has any authority to require our members or any other journalists to provide advance notice of reporting on “any matter regarding the court” (emphasis added). Nor do we believe the court has any authority to require reporters “sign in” with security even when carrying nothing more than what a lawyer or litigant might tote around the building.
Chief Judge Nan Nash said late Wednesday that she was rewriting the policy.There are certain restrictions against recording devices already in use. Why further restrictions were "needed" isn't immediately clear to anyone but Judge Nash. And if she only meant film crews, why did she write "members of the media?" Probably because she didn't expect this to be challenged, or at the very least, didn't expect a local memo to receive national media attention.
“This is overbroad,” she admitted. “It was never intended to address reporters. It’s intended to clarify the rule about when and how film crews could be present in the courthouse.”
She cites in her defense a single incident in which a TV film crew "chased" down a judge who was walking down a hall while asking for an explanation of how an accused cop-killer managed to elude jail time. This may have been in violation of standing court policies (Rule 23-07 allows cameras and recording devices so long as they don't interfere with proceedings or "undermine the dignity" of the court), but if so, it should have been handled under that rule and limited to the offending news crew, rather than with a broadly-worded memo that sought to impose unconstitutional restrictions on media members.
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: dignity of the court, first amendment, free speech, journalists, new mexico
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
somewhere - if it's possible - our founding fathers are groaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooo we are supposed to trust the judgement of a Judge who clearly either did something blatantly stupid or was unable to clearly articulate what they intended. If you were in this Judges court would you be concerned?
And another page in the power causes a form of brain damage file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
And apparently writer doesn't understand difference between Court Rules and localized administrative clarifications, besides the myriad duplications in bureaucracy.
THIS complete waste of time NON-STORY is why Techdirt's credibility rating is down there with The Onion. (Back in 2013 when Technorati kept ratings, that was verifiable.)
How was it The Masnick himself "projected" Techdirt's policy? Oh, yes:
"its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
Is your claim that a trial balloon that was popped isn't worth reporting on?
It was only because this was reported on that the rules were reversed. Pretending that it didn't happen negates that the press did their job serving the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
For that matter, why do you even bother at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
Which is why Judge Nash and Clerk of the Court Noel have made that left turn at Albuquerque. Loony Tunes indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dignity of the court protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dignity of the court protection
I don't think the "undermine the dignity" refers to the video as presented after the fact; it refers to the behavior of the individuals doing the filming undermining the social atmosphere of the courthouse. For example, if a film crew kept interrupting a judge presenting his deliberations so they could get it again from a different angle, or setting up a fake gallows in the hallway for filming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dignity of the court protection
It certainly would not. It might undermine the dignity of the judges (but only if you think being a human being is undignified), but the judges are not the court.
"For example, if a film crew kept interrupting a judge presenting his deliberations so they could get it again from a different angle"
Also not undermining the dignity of the court. That's simply interfering in the operation of the court, and there are existing non-dignity-related laws about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish to report on all court activities that take place between now and the end of time.
Thank you,
Filed by, the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bugs Bunny once said...
Maybe they should not have went to Albukoikee at all from the looks of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
must have got the people round the wrong way. we all know that it's the norm for the Police to not get Jail time when involved in shootings resulting in civilian deaths!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges are employees of the State / Federal Government
This includes members of the press being their bosses.
That means that statements like the following:
'She cites in her defense a single incident in which a TV film crew "chased" down a judge who was walking down a hall while asking for an explanation of how an accused cop-killer managed to elude jail time.'
are pure bullshit, as when they are outside the courtroom, they are fair game for their employers to ask pointed questions about why they fucked up so royally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judges are employees of the State / Federal Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imaginary Policy CONFIRMED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think it was as devious as everyone interpreted it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*innocent face*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Nash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]