Mediaboss Marketing

The Sixth Amendment Public Trial Clause lets defendants insist that their trials be open to the public, and the Court has interpreted the First Amendment as generally requiring such openness even when defendants are willing to waive their Public Trial Clause rights. But courts have mostly resisted the claim that either provision requirestelevisedtrials; it's enough, courts say, that the trials be open to members of the public (including the media, which will then write about the trial for the benefit of those people who can't see it directly).

But Wednesday's decision in State v. Chauvin, Minnesota state Judge Peter A. Cahill took a different approach, because of the epidemic:

In the past, failures to restrict public and media access inside the courtrooms of high-profile trials resulted in media action that was so intrusive and disruptive that defendants' rights to a fair trial were violated. While the right of the press and public to attend criminal trials is sacrosanct, and carries with it the right to report what has occurred during the trial, the right does not include a right to "telecast" the actual proceedings. Estes v. Texas(1965).

Against this historical background, the Minnesota Supreme Court promulgated the current version of Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4, which limits audio and visual media coverage of criminal proceedings. While that rule sets out a general rule of prohibition, it also allows for the visual and/or audio recording and reproduction of trial proceedings with the consent of all parties. Even with the consent of all parties, visual or audio recording of trial proceedings is limited.

Normally, this rule can be applied without concern that it will impinge on the right to a public trial or the right of access held by the public and press. Spectators may freely attend trials, and the usual trial receives little attention, except from family and friends of the victim orthe defendant and the Court can easily accommodate those wishing to attend the trial in person. On occasion, members of the media attend and report on the proceedings. All spectators, whether journalists, interested parties, or casual observers, may, in normal times, come and go as they please.

The instant situation, however, not only is abnormalit is in fact quite unique. The COVID-19 pandemic persists and requires social distancing, especially during jury trials. All four Defendants here have been joined for trial by separate order filed today in all four cases in which this Court has granted the State's motion for trial joinder. The joint trial requires extra counsel tables, and thus a higher demand on the space within the courtroom. Even when this Court used the largest courtroom in the Fourth Judicial District for the joint motion hearing on September 11, 2020, only a handful of family and media representatives could fit into the courtroom given all the parties and counsel and the social distancing requirements in the courtroom necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and various orders issued by Chief Justice Gildea and the Judicial Council in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Most family and media had to observe the proceedings through a closed-circuit feed to other courtrooms, and even then had trouble hearing all of the proceedings. The general public could only observe from a closed-circuit feed to a courtroom several blocks away in the Hennepin County Government Center. The closed-circuit feed was limited to a static wide-view of the courtroom from a single camera above the jury box. This was a hearing that did not require space for jurors and it was still cramped.

A courtroom has been rebuilt in the Hennepin County Government Center, Courtroom 1856, for the upcoming joint trial in these cases. Spacing requirements mean there will be little, if any, room for any spectators in that courtroom during the trial.10 That includes not only family members and friends of George Floyd and the Defendants, but also members of the public and the press.

Not surprisingly, these cases continue to hold the interest of the press and the general public on an international scale. Virtually every filing by the parties in these cases is reported in the media, both locally and nationally. This Court's substantive orders also receive local and national news coverage. Protests demanding justice for George Floyd continue. It is expected that, even with some overflow courtrooms, the demand by family members, the public, and the press to attend the joint trial will outstrip the court's ability to provide meaningful access.

This Court concludes that the only way to vindicate the Defendants' constitutional right to a public trial and the media's and public's constitutional right of access to criminal trials is to allow audio and video coverage of the trial, including broadcast by the media in accordance with the provisions of the attached order.

The Court acknowledges that the attached order allows for greater audio and video coverage than that contemplated by Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.02(d), even if all parties had consented. It could be argued that the Court should simply follow the limitations of the rule to protect the constitutional rights of the Defendants, the public, and the press. The limitations of the rule are so extensive, however, that nothing would be known about the empaneled jurors, all witnesses could veto coverage of their testimony, and the public would be left with nothing but the arguments of counsel. That is hardly a basis for the public "to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process."

The Court's attached order seeks to accommodate the interests served by the current rule by expanding audio and video coverage only as necessary to vindicate the Defendants' constitutional right to a public trial and the public's and press rights of access to criminal trials in the unique circumstances currently prevailing in the COVID-19 pandemic and the intense public and media interest in these cases. By doing so, the Court is confident that "the public may see [that Defendants] [are] fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep [their] triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and the importance of their functions."

I'm not sure whether this is right, given the Minnesota Supreme Court's rules, and at least the potential availability of a better-functioning closed-circuit feed to some other large room that would provide much the same access to interested members of the public and the media as they have traditionally gotten in nontelevised trials. Still, it seemed like an interesting decision that I thought was worth noting.

Thanks to theMedia Law Resource Center MediaLawDailyfor the pointer.

Continue reading here:
First, Sixth Amendments Require Allowing TV Coverage of Derek Chauvin Trial - Reason

Sharon Myers|The Dispatch

Davidson County is proposing a new law to regulate gatherings on public property on the heels of months of protest and counter-protest in uptown Lexington surrounding the Confederate memorial.

We have to have something in place, right now we dont have anything, said Davidson County Manager Casey Smith. It is not the intent to infringe with anyones First Amendment rights, but in the times we are living in we need a better way to deal with things like access to public property, signage, and flags.

On Nov. 10, the Davidson County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing to receive input on an ordinance to address assemblieson public property to define how and where people can assemble, as well as, what they are allowed to carry or display.

The first amendment of the U.S Constitution gives citizens the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging thefreedomof speech, or of the press, or therightof the people.

Government officials cannot prohibit any public assembly on public property, but it can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.

We cant infringe on anyones right to protest. This is a tool for our law officers; it will give them a law to be able to deal with enforcement. Right now we dont have an ordinance that allows them, for example, to tell anyone to remove a flag or sign from a government building or from putting flags on county property, said Smith.

The proposed ordinance follows months of protest and counter-protest focused on the Confederate monument in uptown Lexington, which was removed on Oct. 20. Two groups of protesters were located on county-owned property in front of the historical Davidson County Courthouse and at the square across the street.

Under the proposed ordinance, protestors or assemblies cannot obstruct, interfere or block people entering or exiting vehicles; public buildings; crossing the street or deny the use of any other public areas.

Also, assemblies shall not be conducted on any public roadway used primarily for vehicular traffic, nor interfere with the business of the county or state.

The proposed ordinance limits signs or flags to less than 36 inches and cannot use words that would incite violence. The staff or pole for any sign, flag or banner cannot be made of metal and must be continuously held by a protestor.

If the ordinance is passed it will be unlawful to hang, fasten, or attach banners, flags or electrical devices to any county property including buildings, handrails, fences, bridges, memorials, landscaping, and trees. It also would prohibit the placement of poles, posts, pins, or pegs in the ground on government property.

The ordinance also states that law enforcement is allowed to assign different groups a place to assemble in order to preserve the public peace and that members of a group are not allowed to enter the assigned area of another group. The priority of location would be based upon which group arrived first and is at the discretion of law enforcement.

Also, spectators are not allowed to physically interfere with individuals or groups who are protesting and will not speak fighting words or threats that would tend to provoke a reasonable person to a breach of the peace.

Law enforcement will still be allowed to issue a command to disperse if a threat to the public peace is determined. Officers are also allowed to establish barricades to preserve public peace and it would be unlawful for anyone to intentionally cross over a law enforcement line or barricade.

Under the proposed ordinance, it will be unlawful for anyone to camp or light a bonfire on any public property owned by the county, including public rights-of-way and sidewalks. The county retains the right to remove a temporary shelter, bedding or personal belongings deemed a public nuisance.

If the ordinance is approved, it will be unlawful for any person to use objects to obstruct a public road, sidewalk, right-of-way or any entrance or exit to private property or any other area open to the public. This also includes attaching themselves to another person, building, or vehicle.

The ordinance states anyone who fails or refuses to abide by or violates these rules shall be subject to penalties and arrest.

Smith said after the months of protest and counter-protest, government officials became aware of the impact that not having a set ordinance has had on the public peace. He said the ordinance isto bring a little bit of clarity about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when protesting.

We need to have a tool for our law enforcement officers to have clear cut rules and regulations, Smith said. Given the world we live in, we need some regulationin case something like this ever happens again. We are not regulating the right to free speech or right to assemble, we are just making the rules realclear.

More here:
New county ordinance to regulate protest and public gatherings - Lexington Dispatch

From MPD:

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Wednesday, November 4, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with this event, there will be parking restriction and potential street closures that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 12:00 a.m. to Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:59 p.m:

Constitution Avenue, NW from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWConnecticut Avenue, NW from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWF Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWG Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWI Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWH Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWK Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWNew York Avenue, NW from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(to include both sides of Farragut Square)

16th Street From H Street, NW to L Street, NW15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(to include both sides of McPherson Square)

14th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW11th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NWC Street, NW from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWD Street, NW from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NW

While the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate street closures, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area of the District of Columbia. Any decision to close a street will be based upon public safety.

Read more from the original source:
"On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Wednesday, November 4, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of...

San JoseNovember 4, 2020November 5, 2020

A screenshot from the First Amendment Under Fire forum hosted by San Jos Spotlight and First Amendment Coalition.

As the country grappled with the police killing of George Floyd, San Jose found itself at the center of widespread protests, confrontational policing and conversations about police brutality, racial bias and First Amendment rights of protesters and journalists.

What has San Jose its people, elected leaders and civic institutions learned from a season of protest? How does a community balance First Amendment rights with public safety?

San Jos Spotlight teamed up with the First Amendment Coalition for a dynamic discussion featuring policymakers, activists and legal experts.

The discussion dug deep into the movement for racial justice, recent legislative proposals to increase police accountability and the clashes between law enforcement and those engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment.

San Jos Spotlight is a 501(c)3 nonprofit news organization thats 100% funded by your support. Please help us continue bringing high-quality, independent political and business news coverage to San Jose by joining our membership program with a tax-deductible donation today.

Donate Now

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

Read the original:
WATCH: What has San Jose learned from a season of protests? - San Jos Spotlight

The Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based nonprofit backed by the internet giants, sued over the order in June, arguing it violates the First Amendment. And voter advocacy groups in late August filed a separate suit, arguing it would hurt voters who get electoral information through social media.

Although the Biden campaign balked at Trumps executive order, the former vice president found himself in rare agreement with Trump about the legal protections it targets. Biden said in an interview published in January that the online industrys legal shield afforded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be immediately revoked, but his campaign hasnt outlined how he would revamp or revoke it.

But the two candidates hold the same position for opposite reasons: Trump says social media platforms have been too punitive in cracking down on messages from him and his allies, while Biden says the companies havent done enough to curb misleading posts by politicians.

It remains unclear how Bidens administration will tackle the issue, however. Asked about his position on Section 230 in May, a campaign spokesperson said Biden wants to use legislation to hold social media companies accountable for knowingly spreading falsehoods, without elaborating.

Andrew Yang, who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary on a platform of modernizing regulations on tech and the future of work, said in an interview hes against repealing Section 230 without a replacement and that he hopes to work with a potential Biden administration on reforming it instead.

You don't want to eliminate it altogether, Yang said.

Hopefully under a Biden-Harris administration we can start to do the hard work of figuring out what Section 230 should actually look like in 2020 or 2021, he added.

Go here to see the original:
Biden wants to tackle legal protections for tech companies, though its unclear how hed do it - POLITICO