Mediaboss Marketing

Im delighted to report that yesterday the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handed down Ex parte Thompson (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 17, 2014) (8-to-1, with Judge Meyers dissenting without opinion). This was a UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic case, in which my student Samantha Booth and I wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. (Many thanks again, by the way, to Cam Barker (YetterColeman LLP) for all his help as local counsel.)

The courts opinion is a victory for the right to take photographs in public even when a statute barring such photograph is limited to photography of people without their consent and with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, but of course equally when the photographs lack such an intention. The court struck down the Texas improper photography statute, which read,

A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:

(A) without the other persons consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Heres a quick summary of the courts reasoning:

1. Taking photographs in public places is generally constitutionally protected, because photographs regardless of their artistic merits are generally protected expression, and the act that creates the end product is likewise protected:

The camera is essentially the photographers pen or paintbrush. Using a camera to create a photograph or video is like applying pen to paper to create a writing or applying brush to canvas to create a painting. In all of these situations, the process of creating the end product cannot reasonably be separated from the end product for First Amendment purposes. This is a situation where the regulation of a medium inevitably affects communication itself. We conclude that a persons purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.

2. This First-Amendment-protected conduct doesnt lose its protection even when the photographer is intending to arouse or gratify sexual desires:

See the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Texas highest criminal court strikes down improper photography statute

Texas highest criminal court struck down part of a law banning upskirt photos on Wednesday, arguing that photos taken without permission in public are entitled to First Amendment protections. Outlawing improper photography or visual recording, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals panel ruled, would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a paternalistic effort to regulate the photographers thoughts.

The camera is essentially the photographers pen and paintbrush, Judge Sharon Keller wrote in the courts 8-1 opinion. A persons purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the case involved Ronald Thompson, who was charged with 26 counts of improper photography in 2011 after taking underwater pictures of swimsuit-clad children at a San Antonio water park. Thompson challenged the constitutionality of the improper photography ban before his case even went to trial, claiming that a plain reading of the law would place street photographers, entertainment journalists, arts patrons, pep rally attendees and even the harmless eccentric at risk of incarceration.

Prosecutors argued that the laws intent element for example, trying to do something unlawful like taking an illicit photo of someone without their consent should place the expressive activity outside the bounds of First Amendment protection. But, according to the appeals panel, protecting citizens from being made the subject of expressive surreptitious photography unknowingly or without permission is actually the governments way of protecting them from being thought of sexually, which runs the risk of infringing upon other peoples First Amendment rights.

Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of paternalistic interest in regulating the defendants mind that the First Amendment was designed to guard against, Keller wrote. We also keep in mind the Supreme Courts admonition that the forms of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protection are limited, and we should not be quick to recognize new categories of unprotected expression.

A legal scholar told the Chronicle that the court issued a sound ruling, saying that it cannot be made a crime in the United States to look at someone in public and think lascivious thoughts about them. But such an analysis fundamentally misunderstands the difference between looking at someone in a public space and photographing them without consent. The thinking of lascivious thoughts is irrelevant, because thats not what laws against taking upskirt photos and other illicit creepshots are meant to prevent. They are meant to prevent the violation of peoples physical autonomy in public spaces; they are meant to prevent sexual harassment. Apparently, though, its not harassment when its just a surreptitious photo thats art.

Original post:
Texas court throws out upskirt photo law, because banning creepshots is paternalistic

Growing Together: Mexico and the United States
On September 12, 2014, The McCain Institute co-hosted Growing Together: Mexico and the United States with the Center for American Progress at The First Amendment Forum at The Walter Cronkite...

By: The McCain Institute

See the original post:
Growing Together: Mexico and the United States - Video

Episode 20- Clip 1- Hartford Shooting and the First Amendment

By: Summary Judgment Talk Show

See the article here:
Episode 20- Clip 1- Hartford Shooting and the First Amendment - Video

WE ARE, as it always seems, "at a pivotal moment in American history." At least that's what Sens. Tom Udall and Bernie Sanders maintained in a melodramatic Politico op-ed last week as they explained their efforts to repeal the First Amendment.

Let me retort in their language:

It's true that building the United States has been long, arduous and rife with setbacks. But throughout the years, the American people have repelled efforts to weaken or dismantle the First Amendment. We have weathered the Sedition Act of 1918, a law that led to the imprisonment of innocent Americans who opposed the war or the draft. Since then, we have withstood numerous efforts to hamper, chill and undermine basic free expression in the name of "patriotism." We have, however, allowed elected officials to treat citizens as if they were children by arbitrarily imposing strict limits on their free speech in the name of "fairness."

But nowadays, after five members of the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and treated all political speech equally, liberal activists and Democrats in the Senate would have us return to a time when government dispensed speech to favored institutions--as if it were the government's to give.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion striking down major parts of a 2002 campaign-finance reform law in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case and subsequent rulings, including McCutcheon v. FEC, have led to more political activism and more grass-roots engagement than ever before. In the 2012 presidential election, we quickly saw the results. More Americans voted than in any election; more minorities voted; more Americans engaged in more debate and had more information in their hands than ever before. More than 60 percent of all those super PAC funds came from just 159 donors, each of whom gave more than $1 million. And still, every vote held the same sway. You may be persuaded by someone, but no one can buy your vote. I wish the same could be said for your senators.

View post:
The Constitution protects the rich, too