Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents

from the prior-restraint? dept

We've talked about the hypocrite grifters who run Project Veritas, who, even when they have legitimate concerns about attacks on their own free speech, ran to court to try to silence the NY Times. Bizarrely, a NY judge granted Project Veritas' demand for prior restraint against the NY Times falsely claiming that attorney-client material could not be published.

The NY Times appealed that ruling and now a court has... not overturned the original ruling, but for now said that the NY Times can publish the documents, saying that it will not enforce the original ruling until an appeal can be heard. This is... better than nothing, but fully overturning the original ridiculous ruling would have been much better. Because it was clearly prior restraint. But, at least for now, the prior restraint will not be enforced.

Still, the response from Project Veritas deserves separate comment, because it's just naively stupid:

In a phone interview on Thursday, Mr. O’Keefe said: “Defamation is not a First Amendment-protected right; publishing the other litigants’ attorney-client privileged documents is not a protected First Amendment right.”

While it's accurate that defamation is not protected by the 1st Amendment, he's wrong that publishing attorney-client communications is -- in most cases -- very much protected. He's fuzzing the lines here, by basically arguing that because Project Veritas is, separately, suing the NY Times, that bans the NY Times from publishing any attorney-client privileged material it obtains via standard reporting tactics.

But that fuzzing suggests something that just isn't true: that there's some exception to the 1st Amendment from publishing attorney-client materials. That's wrong. The attorney-client privilege is with respect to having to disclose certain documents to another party in litigation. If you can successfully show that the documents are privileged, they don't need to be disclosed to the other party. That's the extent of the privilege. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not someone else obtaining those materials through other means has a right to publish them. Of course they do and the 1st Amendment protects that.

And, I should just note, that considering Project Veritas' main method of operating is trying to obtain private documents, or record secret conversations, it is bizarre beyond belief that Project Veritas is literally claiming that private material has some sort of 1st Amendment protection. Because that seems incredibly likely to come back and bite Project Veritas at a later time. Of course, considering they're hypocritical grifters with no fundamental principles beyond "attack people with views we don't like," I guess it's not surprising that their viewpoint on free speech and the 1st Amendment shifts depending on who it's protecting.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, attorney-client privilege, james o'keefe, new york, prior restraint
Companies: ny times, project veritas

Tenth Circuit Tells College Administrator That Ordering A Student To Stop Talking About An Instructor Clearly Violates The First Amendment

from the how-could-you-seriously-think-otherwise? dept

The First Amendment applies to school students. This is something courts seem to have particular difficulty drilling into the heads of school officials and administrators. Yes, their rights are somewhat limited due to their age and/or time and place restrictions, but they are closer to "fully respected" than "nonexistent" -- the latter of which appears to be the default assumption for far too many educational entities.

Schools hope allegations of "disruption" will salvage their rights violations. But in far too many cases, the asserted disruption was localized solely in the minds of the rights violators, resulting in them having to continue facing lawsuits over their actions, rather than having complaints against them judiciously wished away into the qualified immunity cornfield.

Such is the case here in legal action involving a college and its violation of a student's rights. (via Volokh Conspiracy) In this case, a student, who dropped a class because she was unhappy with her instructor, was subjected to discipline solely because she (very quietly) made her unhappiness with this professor known.

The plaintiff, Rowan Thompson, has an eye condition that makes her sensitive to light. In one class, taught by Dr. Megan Lazorski, avoiding aggravating this condition meant sitting in one of the first three rows. For the most part, Thompson was able to use this option. But in two instances, when she arrived late, seats up front were no longer available. Thompson chose to sit on the floor, which apparently irritated her instructor. In the second instance -- with no other usable seats available -- Dr. Lazorski gave Thompson this option: sit in an available seat or leave the class. Thompson left. Then she dropped the class.

She also sought mediation of her dispute over seating. The mediators asked her to submit a review of Dr. Lazorski, utilizing an online form for evaluations and class ratings. Thompson discovered she could no longer do this through the college website's portal since she was no longer listed as a student of Lazorki's.

Because the only option the mediator provided wasn't available to her, Thompson emailed her fellow students, asking them to submit their own reviews of Lazorski's class. This is taken from the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court decision [PDF]:

Hello everyone, I’m Rowan- some of you may know me as the goth girl who sat on the floor in class. For those who don’t know, I came late to class a couple of times and sat on the floor. It angered the professor enough that I was asked to leave class on the last occasion. A few weeks later, after a mediation attempt between the dean of chemistry and the professor, I had to drop the class to stop further confrontation- over sitting on the floor.

I have heard so many of you say how horrible a time you’re having in this class, that there are some bits that are ridiculous or downright unreasonable. You shouldn’t have to suffer through a class, especially one that is required, and this is not what college is supposed to be like. College is supposed to make us feel excited about our futures and finally learn what we are interested in, not ditch class because we know we won’t learn anything. You don’t need to keep your complaints and troubles private; this is what the evaluations are for. They’re online; the link to fill them out appears when you log into Blackboard, they take only a couple of minutes, are anonymous, and the more detail is said the better. Every issue you’ve had, every complaint? This is when the faculty and university is listening and wants to hear them. Students, including myself, who have dropped the class won’t be able to fill out an evaluation- our voices cannot be heard unless we speak to the deans directly, but I know for a fact that many are afraid to speak face-to-face.

Please, take the few minutes to review this chemistry class and be honest- make the faculty listen to you so that this class can change for the better. If not for yourself, than for those who have had to drop the class, feeling worthless and stupid, or for students who will have to take this class after you. Hang in there- you’re almost done and then you can leave this semester behind you! ? ?

-Rowan

This plea for action on her behalf (and on behalf of other students who may have been treated unfairly or were too intimidated to bring their complaints directly to the dean) resulted in this extreme overreaction by the college's administrators:

On April 25, Thompson received a letter from [Associate Director of Student Conduct Thomas] Ragland informing her that “the Dean of Students Office received reports that [Thompson] may have violated provisions of the Student Code of Conduct”; that these reports concerned “the disagreement between [Thompson] and Dr. Lazorski”; that, specifically, Thompson’s email to her former classmates “may have violated the Student Code of Conduct”; that Thompson had to meet with Ragland; and that Thompson was subject to a “No Contact order” restricting her from communicating with Dr. Lazorski. Ragland’s letter specifically cautioned: “Further, due to the persistent communication and disruption your communication is about Dr. Lazorski (sic), you are restricted from discussing Dr. Lazorski with any student in the CHE 1800 course or any of Dr. Lazorski’s classes, as this would be a violation of the this No Contact Directive (sic).”

There's your prior restraint. And there are the baseless accusations about "persistent communication" and "disruption," neither of which the school was able to provide evidence of when defending against this lawsuit. Going back to Tinker (1969) and tracing procedural history forward, the Tenth Circuit says denying qualified immunity is a no-brainer. This right is clearly established.

We think the foregoing precedents clearly establish that Thompson’s complaint adequately states a First Amendment violation. Indeed, this case is, at least at the present stage of the proceedings, an easy one. Thompson’s speech was restricted. And there is no apparent legitimate basis for this restriction.

As for the argument that school "disruption" justified Ragland's prior restraint, the court is having none of it.

He relies in part on the disruption caused to the two classes Thompson attended when she sat on the floor. Those two classes were in early February 2019. Ragland’s letter to Thompson was in late April. In the interim (sometime after the mediation on March 18) Thompson sent her email to fellow students. A reasonable factfinder could readily determine that the discipline was imposed on Thompson because of the email, not just because of the two classroom incidents that caused minimal disruption and had apparently been resolved by Thompson’s dropping the class.

Nor was Thompson's email disruptive.

The other possible cause of disruption was Thompson’s email to fellow students. But there is no evidence of any disruption caused by the email; on the contrary, the complaint alleges that there was no disruption to the work of MSU, and none was mentioned in Ragland’s letter imposing the discipline. Nor could disruption be reasonably anticipated. Thompson merely sent a respectful, noninflammatory email expressing her dissatisfaction with a professor’s performance and encouraging her former classmates to submit “honest” reviews about the class and the professor.

The court's harshest criticism is reserved for that particular argument:

What Ragland argues in his appellate brief is remarkable. He claims that Thompson’s “efforts to encourage other students to give negative evaluations would disrupt Dr. Lazorski’s career and her relationship with her students, as well as [MSU’s] efforts in employing faculty to conduct the class.” [...] If we were to accept that rationale, there would be no First Amendment protection for criticism of government employees.

This reverses the lower court's decision, which inexplicably sided with Ragland and his argument that criticism of government employees isn't protected speech. The administrator loses his qualified immunity and will have to continue defending himself against Thompson's lawsuit. This doesn't mean the addition of more facts to the case might result in a delayed win for Ragland (although, given what's detailed here, I don't see how he possibly walks away from this), but the onus is now on the administrator to defend his apparent rights violation, rather than simply claim he had no idea ordering a student to stop talking about an instructor might violate the student's rights.

Filed Under: 10th circuit, 1st amendment, college, free speech, megan lazorski, prior restraint, reviews, rowan thompson

Confused Judge Grants Project Veritas' Prior Restraint Against The NY Times

from the that's-bad dept

This is so bizarre. Last month we wrote about how the incredibly hypocritical oafs at Project Veritas were, on the one hand, screaming about their own press freedoms (for potentially legitimate reasons) while simultaneously trying to get a prior restraint order against the NY Times using the famed press silencers at the censorial thuggish law firm Clare Locke. Somewhat incredibly, on Christmas Eve a New York Supreme Court judge granted the request.

At issue is that the NY Times apparently got access to some memos that Project Veritas's lawyer had sent to Project Veritas, apparently about how Project Veritas' brand of secret filming and selectively edited "journalism" might violate various laws. PV ran to court to stop the Times from publishing anything from the documents, and got a ridiculously broad order that could be read to say that the NY Times couldn't even continue reporting on PV. Incredibly, Project Veritas, whose entire genre of "reporting" revolves around obtaining information through deceit, claimed that the NY Times could be stopped under a law that allows for the "suppression of information improperly obtained." Can't see how that might come back to bite PV, now.

The NY Times rightly pointed out that this order was clearly prior restraint and unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. The complicating factor here is that the censorial hypocrites at PV are suing the NY Times for alleged defamation, and claim that the information obtained by the NY Times reporters "relates directly" to the case at hand. The Times, on the other hand, pointed out that the information in the memos they obtained "have nothing to do with the subject matter in the underlying defamation action" and actually predate the PV video at issue in that case. More importantly, the NY Times noted (correctly!) that a news organization cannot be prevented from reporting on newsworthy info, even if that information is attorney-client privileged info, so long as they came by it via the news gathering process (i.e., not via discovery and the legal process in the lawsuit).

And, here, it's impossible that the documents were obtained via discovery because discovery hasn't even happened yet in the lawsuit.

But the judge, Charles Wood, says that Project Veritas "has met is burden of showing the subject memoranda were obtained by irregular means, if not both irregular and improper." The judge goes on a long digression about the importance of attorney-client privilege, but seems to totally miss the fact that it only matters with regards to being able to deny certain discovery requests, and that a third party news organization is simply not bound by the attorney-client privilege of a lawyer and a client if the material is obtained through their reporting.

The court then addresses the 1st Amendment issues here... by basically brushing them off and saying it's no big deal. It goes through a long discussion on prior restraint and how the Supreme Court has rejected attempts at prior restraint in the past, but then seems to think that attorney-client privilege trumps that. It's bizarre. Even more bizarre is a weird aside about how our smart phones "beep and buzz" with information the judge believes is unimportant.

In light of these principles of law, the court rejects the Times' position that Project Veritas' attorney-client communications are a matter of public concern. Undoubtedly, every media outlet believes that anything it publishes is a matter of public concern. The state of our nation is that roughly half the nation prioritizes interests that are vastly different than the other half. Our smart phones beep and buzz all day long with news flashes that supposedly reflect our browsing and clicking interests, and we can tune in or read the news outlet that gives us the stories and topics that we want to see. But some things are not fodder for public consideration and consumption. These memoranda, and hundreds of thousands of similar attorney-client privileged documents that are in homes, offices, and businesses in every village, town, and city in this nation are only between an attorney and a client, and it does not matter one bit who the attorney and the client are. While the content of the advice is irrelevant to this court's analysis, in this case, the subject memoranda here contain typical, garden variety, basic attorney-client advice that undoubtedly is given at nearly every major media outlet in America, including between the Times and its own counsel.

A client seeking advice from its counsel simply cannot be a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public. It is not the public's business to be privy to the legal advice that this plaintiff or any other client receives from its counsel.

So, a few things about this. First of all, simply having a judge decide on his own whether or not a document is in the public interest raises its own 1st Amendment concerns, because it's substituting the judge's opinion for the news organization's editorial decision-making process -- and seems wide open to vast abuses to suppress speech. Judge Wood's own analysis here shows what a fraught 1st Amendment path he is taking.

Furthermore, if we compare this ruling to the Pentagon Papers case, it seems to suggest that "garden variety, basic attorney-client advice" somehow can be subjected to prior restraint, whereas things that might "threaten national security" cannot be. And that... makes no sense at all. The 1st Amendment has a very narrow set of limited exceptions and "attorney-client privileged material" is not one of them.

Finally, while "typical, garden variety, basic attorney-client advice" may not be newsworthy in most cases, there absolutely are cases when they can be newsworthy and in the public interest and that includes the scenario in this very case -- where the advice raises significant legal concerns about the methods PV used to manufacture a story that received national attention and potentially had wider ramifications. But, again, the newsworthiness of that should be up to the news organization and not the state, or else you don't really have freedom of speech.

Judge Wood also seems to think (extremely incorrectly) that the 1st Amendment allows for a balancing test between the Constitution and NY state law. This is just wrong.

Here, the court's protective order does not act as impermissible prior restraint on the Times. As important as the First Amendment's protections against prior restraint is, on the present facts, the erosion of attorney-client privilege is a far more imminent concern.

Hilariously, given that this effort is to protect Project Veritas, the judge cites another case that suggests "hit and run journalism" gets less 1st Amendment protections:

'Hit and run' journalism is no more protected under the First Amendment, than speeding on a crowded sidewalk is permitted under a valid dirver's license.

This is a very weird quote from a strange 1979 case but if you think more carefully about it, the statement makes no sense at all.

Either way, the NY Times has already said that it will be appealing this decision (confusingly for those not deeply enmeshed in these issues, NY's "Supreme Court" is effectively the district court level in the state, so its rulings can be appealed):

I would be amazed if, on appeal, this blatant prior restraint is not tossed out as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, attorney-client privileged material, charles wood, prior restraint
Companies: ny times, project veritas

Hypocrite Grifters Project Veritas Scream About Press Freedom, Then Run To Court To Silence The NY Times

from the not-how-it-works dept

So, just yesterday we wrote about how the FBI's raid of Project Veritas's founder and a few associates was concerning from a press freedom standpoint -- and that you should be concerned even if you believe that Project Veritas are a bunch of dishonest grifters. However, beyond being a bunch of dishonest grifters -- who still deserve press freedoms -- it appears that Project Veritas are also a giant bunch of hypocrites.

All week they've been grandstanding about press freedoms... while at the same time they hired the law firm of Clare Locke -- a firm that brags about silencing the press -- to try to silence the NY Times. Incredibly, so far it has worked. Project Veritas and Clare Locke successfully got a judge in NY to issue a ridiculously broad order requiring that the NY Times delete information it had in its possession and then stop reporting on certain aspects of Project Veritas' behavior.

This is straight up prior restraint.

ORDERED that, until such time as this Court resolves the order to show cause, defendant The New York Times shall immediately sequester, protect, and refrain from further disseminating or publishing any of plaintiff Project Veritas’ privileged materials in the possession of The New York Times, or its counsel, and that The New York Times and its counsel shall cease further efforts to solicit or acquire plaintiff Project Veritas’ attorney-client privileged materials.

The prohibition on distributing materials is concerning enough, but the demand that they "cease further efforts to solicit or acquire" material about Project Veritas is literally banning reporting. That's clearly a 1st Amendment violation. Basically every lawyer that Law & Crime spoke to notes that this is blatant prior restraint.

Libby Locke from Clare Locke (who once insisted to me that anti-SLAPP laws harmed people) put out a statement that misrepresents the law to the point of being laughable:

“A prior restraint is just that—a restraint before publication. Here, The Times already published Veritas’ attorney-client privileged communications, and the interim order and more permanent relief sought are narrowly tailored to that misconduct,” Locke told Law&Crime in an email. “Moreover, even if this were a prior restraint (it is not), there are certain circumstances where the law permits a court to enjoin the publication of materials before it happens—including, for example, by a protective order in litigation between litigants to prevent the use and dissemination of attorney-client protected materials. And this is no greater restraint on speech than the myriad protective orders the Times has been subject to in other litigation proceedings.”

This statement is stunning in its own way. First, it is wrong about prior restraint (and misstates the full extent of the order). Again, Law & Crime spoke to a lawyer who knows better:

Former federal prosecutor Mitch Epner, who has consulted with media organizations on First Amendment and copyright issues and is now of counsel with Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC, told Law&Crime in a phone interview that Project Veritas’s counsel has it wrong on the meaning of prior restraint—and that’s just what this order is.

“Even though it’s only an interim order, it is clearly a prior restraint, and it strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment protection of the U.S. to publish,” Epner said in a phone interview.

As for Locke’s definition, Epner said: “It is not the way people understand the term prior restraint.”

“It is a restraint of what can be published before there has been a ruling on the merits,” he noted.

Furthermore, the rest of Locke's comments are stunning in that she more or less admits that prior restraint is fine in the second part.

But, there's a much bigger point here. This is Project Veritas demanding that a media organization not publish content that it had received. Project Veritas. An organization whose entire existence is based around trying to obtain material it's not supposed to have or by honey trapping and surreptitiously recording people. What kind of fucked up organization would try to set a precedent that could then easily be turned around and used against its own practices?

The NY Times is very, very likely to appeal, and a NY appellate court is likely to toss this out very, very quickly -- and hopefully the court provides Justice Charles Wood with a strong talking to about prior restraint and the 1st Amendment. Justice Wood should know this already -- because it's one of the most basic things about the 1st Amendment that every judge should know, but also because the NY Times told him directly in a letter filed earlier in the day.

Plaintiff’s proposed Order to Show Cause requests, among other things, that the Court enter an order directing The Times to “refrain from further disseminating or publishing” information that Project Veritas asserts, without evidence, that The Times obtained improperly. Such an order is, on its face, the paradigmatic example of an unconstitutional prior restraint. See, e.g., Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993) (“Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints.”); Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415 (1971) (vacating order “enjoining petitioners from distributing leaflets anywhere in the town of Westchester, Illinois” as impermissible prior restraint); Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U. S. 308, 311, 317 (1980) (per curiam) (striking down, on prior restraint grounds, Texas statute that authorized courts, upon a showing that obscene films had been shown in the past, to issue an injunction prohibiting future exhibition of films that had not yet been found to be obscene); Porco, 116 A.D.3d at 1266.

Before the imposition of such a draconian and disfavored restriction, The Times should have the opportunity to be heard. The Times therefore respectfully requests that the Court hold in abeyance Plaintiff’s request to enter an Order to Show Cause in order to permit The Times to file a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s request no later than November 24, 2021. As our forthcoming opposition will make clear, Plaintiff’s request is factually and legally deficient. The request lacks merit and seeks relief that the Court cannot and must not grant.

Rather than do that, Justice Wood just granted Project Veritas' blatantly censorial demands.

I still think that Project Veritas's own rights deserve protecting, and remain concerned about the FBI raid. But Project Veritas is no defender of free speech itself. It is a censorial, thuggish, grifting, hypocritical organization and everything it does should be seen through such a lens.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, freedom of the press, injunction, journalism, libby locke, prior restraint, reporting
Companies: clare locke, ny times, project veritas

Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment

from the fearing-for-the-people-who-aren't-the-people-responding-to-the-other-people dept

One of the more common violations of the First Amendment is viewpoint discrimination. When entities run into speech they don't like, they often steamroll Constitutional rights in their hurry to shut this speech down.

The government is allowed some time and place restrictions on speech, but it is very limited in its options. To expand these options, government entities will often say things about "public safety" to justify their incursion on people's rights. These justifications rarely justify the overreach.

Maybe these things happen because governments (incorrectly, in some cases) assume those whose rights have been abridged won't sue. Maybe they happen because governments assume nebulous "public safety" concerns won't be examined thoroughly if they are sued. Or maybe they just assume that, because they're using the public's money to both violate rights and defend against accusations of rights violations, none of this really matters because it isn't any particular government employee's money at stake.

That brings us to this case [PDF], where a Maryland federal court has ruled the government had no justifiable reason to shut down a "prayer rally." What it did have were some unjustifiable reasons, which were mainly related to the speakers and the kind of speech the government expected to be uttered… I mean, if it hadn't unconstitutionally shuttered the event. (via Courthouse News Service)

Here's some brief background by the court, which doesn't highlight the most likely trigger: alt-right figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been banned from [name a social media platform].

St. Michael’s, a non-profit organization, “is a vocal critic of the mainstream Catholic Church,” including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”). Plaintiff seeks to hold the prayer rally and conference to criticize the Church, particularly with respect to child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, and it wants to do so on a date that coincides with the USCCB’s Fall General Assembly. The USCCB plans to meet from November 15 – 18, 2021 at the Waterfront Marriott Hotel (“Hotel”), a private facility located near Pier VI.

On or about August 5, 2021, weeks after plaintiff had paid a $3,000 deposit to SMG for use of the Pavilion, SMG, on instruction of the City, notified St. Michael’s that plaintiff could not rent the Pavilion. The City cited safety concerns linked to some of the people who were identified as speakers at the event.

Given the average government's "for the children" protestations whenever it plans to violate rights, you'd think a rally criticizing a religious entity infamous for sexual abuse of children would be right up its rhetorical alley. You'd assume wrong -- not if its "allies" include people the elected officials of Baltimore find noxious. (That list includes Yiannopoulos, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, and Newsmax commentator Michelle Malkin.)

St. Michaels sued, alleging First Amendment violations. The court (unsurprisingly) agrees. First, it notes a similar rally by the same group in 2018 which resulted in no acts of violence or any other threats to public safety. Nevertheless, city officials insisted this time would be different.

Michael Huber, Mayor Scott’s Chief of Staff, avers that the discussions between SMG and St. Michael’s “came to the attention” of the City in July 2021. In particular, the City learned that St. Michael’s planned a rally featuring speakers “known for encouraging violent actions that have resulted in injuries, death, and property damage.” In the City’s view, some of the speakers would “provoke a strong reaction and raise the potential for clashes and disturbances,” given the “very real potential [that the speakers] would use [the rally] to incite violence and public disruption.”

While it's true some of the threat matrix may have changed following an unprecedented attack on the Capitol building in Washington, DC by so-called conservatives apparently hoping to negate a peaceful presidential election, no previous experience with this group should have led city officials to this conclusion. And, while the forum being rented was privately-owned, the city has some say in the issuance (and, in this case, rescinding) of contracts. When it interceded -- for internally inconsistent reasons -- it violated the plaintiff's rights.

Without question, the City reacted to a perceived safety concern arising from past use of inflammatory remarks by some of the rally speakers. In thwarting the rally, the City essentially invoked or relied on the heckler’s veto. And, in doing so, it exercised complete, unfettered discretion; it acted on an ad hoc basis, without any standards. Further, it has presented somewhat shifting justifications for its actions, with little evidence to show that the decision was premised on these justifications.

As to the matter of discretion, the City apparently has unbridled discretion to determine whether, when, and how to intervene in bookings of the Pavilion. The record before the Court indicates that the process used here was entirely ad hoc. After plaintiff’s plans came to the attention of the City, the City decided to intervene with SMG, requiring SMG to terminate negotiations with St. Michael’s. No policies, guidelines, or procedures have been brought to the attention of the Court providing any factors or systematized approach governing the City’s actions here. As far as the Court is aware, none exist.

As the court notes, the main concern the city had appeared to be about those who would show up and protest the St. Michael's protest, rather than the supposed "incendiary" participants working with St. Michael's. That only adds to the list of ways the city violated the First Amendment.

The City’s invocation of a heckler’s veto also raises serious concerns that its decision was motivated by viewpoint discrimination. Huber cited the prospect of counter protestors when explaining the City’s decision. And, at the hearing, counsel for the City placed considerable weight on the City’s concerns as to counter protestors and the disruption and potential violence that might ensue. In other words, the City seems to have based its decision on the anticipated reaction of counter protestors, which is precisely the “persistent and insidious threat[s] to first amendment rights” discussed in Berger, 779 F.2d at 1001…

This is not an acceptable justification for regulating speech.

And more along those same lines:

As the Ninth Circuit put it in Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign, although this concern might receive less weight outside of a traditional or designated public forum context, it is still relevant when “used as a mere pretext for suppression expression” based on viewpoint. This includes, for example, “where the asserted fears of a hostile audience reaction are speculative and lack substance.”

Such is the case here. The City cannot conjure up hypothetical hecklers and then grant them veto power.

St. Michael's gets its injunction against the City of Baltimore. The show will go on. The City violated the group's rights when it decided the people who didn't secure the venue were so potentially dangerous the speakers who rented the venue shouldn't be allowed to speak. A heckler's viewpoint is indistinguishable from viewpoint discrimination in situations like these. The city decided in favor of one viewpoint (the counterprotesters [a.k.a., the hecklers] and decided the other viewpoint (St. Michael's) had no right to be heard.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, baltimore, catholic church, free speech, michelle malkin, milo yiannopoulos, prior restraint, rally, steve bannon
Companies: st. michael's

Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate

from the please-don't-make-me-side-with-this-asshole dept

The Chicago PD -- fronted by the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) [itself fronted by John Catanzara, "one of the most frequently-disciplined officers in the history of the Chicago PD"] -- is fighting the city of Chicago's vaccine mandate.

Yes, the thin blue line between criminals and the safety of the public has decided it will not stand between the spread of the virus and the safety of the public. Or, indeed, the safety of its officers, apparently. As COVID-19 continues to kill more officers five times faster than gunfire, Chicago PD officers have decided they'd rather die from something preventable than receive a vaccine.

Disgraced-officer-turned-police-union-president John Catanzara is the one making the most noise about the city's mandate and is weaponizing the PD's lack of self-care against the mayor and the city itself.

Officers in Chicago had a deadline of midnight Thursday to disclose their vaccine status to the city or be placed on unpaid leave, Catanzara said. Lightfoot said the city would take the weekend to check with officers who haven't complied before putting them on unpaid leave, and that she didn't think that would happen Saturday or Sunday. Lightfoot said officers should report for duty until they're told by supervisors that they've been placed on leave.

"If we suspect the numbers are true and we get a large number of our members who stand firm on their beliefs that this is an overreach, and they're not going to supply the information in the portal or submit to testing, then it's safe to say the city of Chicago will have a police force at 50% or less for this weekend coming up," Catanzara said. "That is not because of the FOP, that is 100% because of the mayor's unwillingness to budge from her hard line. So whatever happens because of the manpower issue, that falls at the mayor's doorstep."

The city apparently takes this threat seriously. It has asked a Cook County (IL) court for an injunction to block the FOP from speaking out against the vaccine mandate, which covers all city workers. The FOP has sued right back, seeking an injunction blocking the city from enforcing the mandate. In the meantime, the PD itself has cancelled all vacation and time off requests to ensure staffing once the mandate goes into effect.

The resistance against the mandate is inexplicable, given the alarming number of law enforcement deaths the virus has caused. Law enforcement agencies demand tougher laws and increased funding every time there's a spike in officer deaths at the hands of suspected criminals. But when it's a preventable disease doing the killing, cops would rather go jobless than be inoculated.

This resistance is being led by a man who's mostly known for violating rights and running his mouth. If Catanzara truly speaks for the Chicago PD rank-and-file, perhaps a 50% layoff isn't a bad idea, especially if the city can restock with new officers who aren't already accustomed/resigned to the PD's long history of brutality, violence, rights violations, and nonexistent oversight. Then again, you'd think the rank-and-file would want to continue trying to get a handle on increasing gun violence in the city, given the oft-stated concerns about public safety.

But none of that makes this an acceptable interim outcome. The litigation crossfire has resulted in an additional violation of rights.

A judge late Friday issued a temporary restraining order against the Chicago police union president, prohibiting him from making public statements that encourage members not to report their COVID-19 vaccine status to the city.

Cook County Circuit Judge Cecilia Horan ruled there was potential irreparable harm if local Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara persisted in making such statements. City attorneys argued they were tantamount to him advocating “sedition” and “anarchy” because he was directing members to disobey an order from their superiors.

Catanzara's agitating may be aggravating and annoying but it is not "sedition" or "anarchy." His statements may run contrary to the city's wishes but he should be free to make them. He has not actually called for strike (which is forbidden by the PD's contract) but rather suggested officers' should refuse requests for vaccination status and memorialize these interactions via body cam if possible. Catanzara has also speculated that more than half the police force will no longer be employed if a COVID vaccination is a job requirement. This court order appears to be prior restraint -- something impermissible even with the city's obvious interest in ensuring the safety of its employees.

That being said, maybe Chicago police officers should do the thing they're always telling citizens to do: comply, comply, comply. If it appears rights are being violated, members of the public are expected to take their lumps first and sue about it later. That's what the PD should do here: supply the PD with their vaccination status and get aggrieved later -- that's if they care at all about being the thin blue line standing between the innocent public and violent criminals.

Filed Under: chicago, covid, free speech, police unions, prior restraint, vaccine mandate, vaccines
Companies: chicago fop

Georgia Court Streams Ridiculous 'Kraken' Lawsuit Hearing On YouTube; Then Tells People They Can't Repost Recordings

from the not-how-it-works dept

We have lots of concerns about court transparency, and how more transparent court systems would be nice. One of the more interesting consequences of the pandemic, in which many court hearings are now done virtually, is that courts have been much more open to allowing more realtime access to these court hearings. In one of the more high profile (and more ridiculous, if that's possible) lawsuits challenging the election results -- the so-called "Kraken" lawsuit in Georgia -- there was a hearing earlier today. The court announced that the audio would stream on YouTube:

That says that the audio will be streamed on YouTube and provides you with a link. However, beneath it, it says the following:

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is participating in an audio pilot program permitting a limited number of district courts to livestream audio of certain civil proceedings with the consent of the parties. Under the pilot program, audio of qualifying civil proceedings will be livestreamed on the court’s YouTube channel.

Audio recordings will not be available for playback on YouTube after proceedings have ended. Audio, in full or in part, from any proceeding may not be recorded, broadcast, posted or reproduced in any form.

And, uh, what? I kind of understand (if seriously disagree with) rules in courts saying that people in the courtroom are not allowed to record, but cannot fathom any possible way in which the court can say that audio that they've streamed out on the open web cannot be recorded or used in any form.

And already there seems to be some crackdown on those who did make use of the recordings. Reuters legal reporter Jan Wolfe was told to delete her tweets with the recording of Judge Timothy Bratten shutting down the lawsuit:

And, if you go to the original YouTube video where the court hearing was officially streamed, you now see this:

This seems absolutely ridiculous. I also cannot conceive of any possible basis for which the courts can force someone, especially a reporter, to not record or republish using the publicly available audio stream. And it's not that difficult to find the audio stream reposted elsewhere.

As reporter Brad Heath notes, this seems both short-sighted and beyond the authority of the courts:

I'd go beyond short-sighted. It's ridiculous. And demanding people take down such things seems to raise serious 1st Amendment issues.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, audio streaming, courts, free speech, georgia, prior restraint, recordings, sidney powell, transparency