Search

Led by NPPA, over 60 Media Companies & Organizations Join in Support of Journalists’ Rights

March 20th, 2017 by nppaeditor and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On March 17, 2017, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit supporting a visual journalist’s appeal of a lower court decision in favor of the defendant police officers who arrested him.

That “friend of the court” brief was joined by a broad coalition of over 60 media companies and organizations engaged in press photography, videography, broadcast news, journalism (both online and in print) and free-speech advocacy.

Photojournalist Douglas Higginbotham was covering an Occupy Wall Street protest at Zuccotti Park in New York City on the morning of November 15, 2011. In order to get a better vantage point from which to record the large crowd of police and protestors he climbed to the top of a phone booth. Mr. Higginbotham claims that while he was in the process of complying with police officers, who had asked him to come down, he was forcibly pulled off, arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. NPPA general counsel, Mickey H. Osterreicher was successful in having that charge quickly dismissed by the Manhattan district attorney.

Douglas Higginbotham on the day of his arrest covering an Occupy Wall Street protest at Zuccotti Park in New York City on the morning of November 15, 2011. Photo credit: PaulMartinkaPhotography.com

Higginbotham subsequently brought a federal civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the arresting officers and the City of New York. Among other things, his complaint alleged that “the defendants retaliated against him for filming a violent arrest in violation of his First Amendment rights.” In refusing to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel held (with regard to the question of whether the police officers were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity), that  “the right to record police activity in public, at least in the case of a journalist who is otherwise unconnected to the events recorded, was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the events alleged in the complaint.”

The matter is now being appealed, following Judge Castel’s grant of a motion for summary judgment by the defendants. “Though we believe the District Court erred in granting summary judgment, we also believe that Judge Castel was correct in recognizing that the press has a First Amendment right to cover police activity, said Jay K. Goldberg, attorney for Mr. Higginbotham. “We urge the Second Circuit to adopt Judge Castel’s reasoning and align this Circuit with all others that have upheld this fundamental right of constitutional protection,” he added.

Attorneys Robert Balin, Abigail Everdell and Jack Browning, of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP drafted the amicus brief with help from NPPA’s Osterreicher. “The fact that more than 60 leading news outlets and free speech organizations have joined the NPPA in this friend of court brief speaks volumes about the importance of the First Amendment rights at stake in this case,” said Balin. “From Ferguson to Occupy Wall Street to tomorrow’s headlines, safeguarding the ability of the press and public to record and  freely discuss police activity in public places is essential to an enlightened, informed democracy. Given the national consensus by other courts, we believe a ruling by the federal appeal court in New York recognizing a First Amendment right to record the police in public is long overdue. We look forward to presenting our arguments.”

Those courts include the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, which have expressly acknowledged the existence of this crucial right. The Second Circuit has yet to find that right as being “clearly established,” which has had a chilling effect on journalists and citizens, while officers who arrest or harass those recording police conduct continue to avoid liability by receiving “qualified immunity” for their actions.

The brief urges the Second Circuit to “recognize—as did the district court—that members of the press unconnected with the underlying events have a clearly established First Amendment right to record officers in public places in furtherance of their free press rights to gather and disseminate news on matters of public concern.” In the alternative, the amici argue, should the Court find “that the right to record the public conduct of police officers was not clearly established . . . at the time of Mr. Higginbotham’s arrest,” it “should nonetheless use this opportunity to declare the right to be clearly established going forward.”

In reflecting on his case, Higginbotham said, “I just want to thank the NPPA for assembling so many media industry leaders, along with an impressive coalition of free speech organizations  in support of my appeal. Now is a very important time for the courts to uphold our constitutional rights,  and send a clear message that a free press must be allowed to go about our invaluable duties, which are enshrined in the First Amendment , without fear of police retaliation, or having our livelihoods destroyed.”

“The attorneys for Davis Wright Tremaine are to be commended for their work on this brief,” said Osterreicher, who has been involved in this case for the last six years. “I believe that Jay [Goldberg] has crafted an excellent appeal, while Rob, Abigail and Jack at DWT have drafted an amicus brief that should help guide the court on this issue. Of course the overwhelming support from so many groups has been very gratifying and we hope the court will take judicial notice of that fact. I would also be remiss if I did not thank Lynn Oberlander and the Press Freedom Litigation Fund of First Look Media Works for their support of Doug’s appeal. Thanks also go to Gregg Leslie at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for helping to rally support for the brief. Last but by now means least, I must thank Doug Higginbotham, who had to endure his unlawful arrest for just doing his job and for standing up for his, and in turn all of our rights, by pursuing this case.”

The groups joining with the NPPA in the brief are: ABC, Advance Publications, Inc., ALM Media, LLC, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, American Society of News Editors, Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, Association of American Publishers, Inc., Association of Magazine Media, The Author’s Guild, Inc., The Buffalo News, Buzzfeed, Inc., Cable News Network, CBS Broadcasting, The Daily Beast Company, LLC, Daily News, LP, Discovery Communications, LLC, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Electronic Frontier Foundation, The E.W. Scripps Company, First Amendment Coalition, First Amendment Lawyers Association, First Look Media Works, Inc., Fox News Network LLC, Free Press, Freedom of the Press Foundation, The Freedom to Read Foundation, Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, Inter American Press Association, Media Coalition Foundation, Media Law Resource Center, Inc., The Media Consortium, Inc., Meredith Corporation dba WFSB-TV, National Association of Broadcasters, National Newspaper Association, National Press Club, National Public Radio, Inc., NBCUniversal Media, LLC, New England First Amendment Coalition, New England Newspaper & Press Association, Inc., New York News Publishers Association, New York Press Club, New York Press, Photographers Association, New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc., The New York Times Company, The News Media Alliance, NYP Holdings, Inc., Online News Association, PEN American Center, Penske Media Corporation, Radio Television Digital News Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporters Without Borders, Reuters America LLC, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Society of Professional Journalists, Student Press Law Center, Tully Center for Free Speech, Vermont Press Association, Vox Media and WNYW-TV FOX 5.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Disorderly Conduct, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Occupy Wall Street, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Photoshop, Police, Recording Police, Regulations limiting photography, retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights, Robert Balin, Visual Journalists | No Comments »

Judge Halts Enforcement of Unconstitutional Nude Photo Law in Arizona

July 10th, 2015 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

PHOENIX – A federal court today permanently ordered Arizona state prosecutors to halt enforcement of a 2014 law restricting the display of nude images.

The order approved a joint final settlement between the Arizona attorney general and the coalition of plaintiffs which include the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), Arizona booksellers, book and newspaper publishers, and librarians, who filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law.

The order resolves all claims in the lawsuit, Antigone Books v. Brnovich, and states that plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees.

“We are very pleased with the outcome of this case and our representation by our attorneys in this matter,” said Charles W. L. (“Chip”) Deale, NPPA Executive Director.

“This is a complete victory for publishers, booksellers, librarians, photographers, and others against an unconstitutional law,” said Media Coalition Executive Director David Horowitz, whose members include plaintiffs in the suit. “Now they won’t have to worry about being charged with a felony for offering newsworthy and artistic images.”

The law, Arizona Revised Statute 13-1425, was initially passed with the stated intent of combating “revenge porn,” a term popularly understood to describe a person’s malicious posting of an identifiable, private image online with the intent and effect of harming an ex-lover. But, as plaintiffs maintained in the lawsuit, the law wasn’t limited to revenge and criminalized far more than offensive acts. It could have led to the conviction of someone posting a nude photo with no intent to harm the person depicted. This would include, for example, an artistic photographer who creates an anthology of his images of nudes — as well as the book’s publisher, seller, or librarian.

As part of the lawsuit, NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher expressed fears in his declaration “that the NPPA’s members (including me) are at risk of prosecution under the Act simply for doing our job—the accurate and comprehensive reporting of the news. The Act would subject the NPPA’s members to prosecution for taking newsworthy, non-obscene photographs and videos, and either offering those photographs and videos for publication, or themselves publishing the photographs and videos through electronic or other media.” “With this very comprehensive settlement, that concern has now been alleviated,” said NPPA President Mark Dolan.

Likewise, a person who shared a photograph could have been charged with a felony even if the person depicted had no expectation that the image would be kept private and suffered no harm, such as a photojournalist who posted images of victims of war or natural disaster. As a result, the law applied to any person displaying an image of nudity, no matter how newsworthy, artistic, educational, or historic.

“This is an important vindication of the First Amendment and a great resolution for our clients,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Lee Rowland, who, along with lawyers from the ACLU of Arizona and Dentons US LLP, represents the plaintiffs. “We commend the state for agreeing not to enforce a broad statute that chilled and criminalized speech unquestionably protected by the Constitution.”

Dan Pochoda, attorney for the ACLU of Arizona, added: “We always believed that it would be a waste of the Arizona taxpayers’ money to continue defending this unconstitutional statute. We’re pleased that the court’s order means this law will not be enforced, all without additional and unnecessary litigation.” Today’s order is at: http://mediacoalition.org/antigone-books-v-brnovich/

The plaintiffs were: Antigone Books L.L.C.; Intergalactic, Inc., D/B/A, Bookmans; Changing Hands Bookstore, Inc.; Copper News Book Store; Mostly Books; Voicemedia Group, Inc.; American Booksellers Foundation For Free Expression; Association Of American Publishers; Freedom To Read Foundation; and the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA).

Posted in Access, ACLU, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism | No Comments »

Court Orders Police in Ferguson Not to Interfere with Individuals Who are Photographing or Recording in Public

November 21st, 2014 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today a federal judge for the Eastern District of Missouri granting three orders agreed and consented to by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the County of St. Louis Missouri and the City of Ferguson. The orders signed by Judge John A Ross for the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the County of St. Louis enjoins those entities from  “interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.”

The order directed at the City of Ferguson more specifically prohibits the city from enforcing or threatening to enforce “any rule, policy or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest, threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.”

The fact that the orders protect photographers who are not “physically” interfering with law enforcement prevents agencies from claiming that the act of reporting is in itself threatening or otherwise an interference. “Journalists and law enforcement officials share a common responsibility – we all serve the public – raising the awareness of law enforcement personnel about these matters after the fact only means that journalists were prevented from doing their jobs, and because of that, the public was not properly served,” said NPPA president Mark J. Dolan.

In August the ACLU file a lawsuit in federal court against police agencies in Ferguson on behalf of photographer Mustafa Hussein. The complaint sought a preliminary injunction against police policies of demanding and ordering members of the media and public to stop recording the police acting in their official duty on public streets and sidewalks. It also sought to have the court declare that the police policy on its face and as-applied violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by chilling free speech without due process.

In support of that lawsuit, the NPPA filed a Declaration outlining some of the issues faced by visual journalists as well as how NPPA’s general counsel, Mickey H. Osterreicher, tried to deal with those situations while he was in Ferguson this summer. The bigger issues were the fact that police tried to keep the media in areas they had established rather than allow  access to traditionally open public forums such as sidewalks. Osterreicher suggests that journalists print out and carry the orders to show police who may be in contempt. “While it is gratifying that the police agencies agreed to these self-evident liberties it is still troublesome that they have apparently failed to provide any substantive training regarding constitutional rights. As we have seen time and time again without proper training  p0lice frequently disregard the Bill of Rights and any enforcement orders as just another piece of paper,” Osterreicher said.

NPPA Executive Director Charles W. L. (“Chip”) Deale added, “We are pleased that the court again has recognized and emphasized the important and Constitutionally-protected right of visual journalists to perform their critical news-gathering function free of harassment and undue restrictions. The NPPA hopes and trusts that law enforcement agencies in and around Ferguson will unerringly abide by these court orders.”

The orders resolves the case, but the federal court specifically retains jurisdiction to enforce the injunctions.

Posted in Access, ACLU, Assault on Photographers, Ferguson, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Visual Journalists | No Comments »

NPPA Joined by 17 Groups Protest Forest Service Photo Permits

October 1st, 2014 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The National Press Photographers Association, joined by seventeen news organizations, photographers’ organizations and First Amendment advocacy groups sent a letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief, Thomas L. Tidwell, opposing the Forest Service’s proposal to make permanent its interim directive on filming in the nation’s wilderness areas. The letter expressed the groups concern that the proposal would apply new criteria in deciding whether to issue a permit for filming in Congressionally-designated wilderness areas as well as the permanent directive’s vague language and failure to make a clear distinction between still photography, film and videography for newsgathering purposes and “commercial” film and still photography.

Tidwell has been quoted recently in the media as saying the “US Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment,” but Osterreicher, on behalf of the organizations, explained in the letter that the language of the “provisions in the draft directive” does not make it clear that it does “not apply to news gathering or activities” and urged the Forest Service “to  work closely with us to craft an unambiguously worded policy that protects not only our natural resources but our First Amendment guarantees.”

The letter also expressed the groups concern “not just for individuals traditionally identified as newsgatherers, but also for freelance visual journalists and members of the public who may use cameras on a speculative basis to photograph or film activities on public lands without an assured media outlet for their work.”

Of even greater concern to the group is “that a permit could be arbitrarily denied because a member of the Service with such authority might believe that a news story did not comport with the vague notion of protecting ‘wilderness values.’” The group contends that “the proposed permanent policy limits far more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s stated purpose. Not only does requiring a permit for ordinary newsgathering create a chilling effect on freedom of speech and of the press, but also granting/the Service the ability to deny such a permit in the case of a journalist or news organization would, we believe, create an unconstitutional licensing obligation or  – worse – a prior restraint on those newsgathering activities.”

Those joining in the letter were: American Photographic Artists, American Society of Media Photographers, American Society of News Editors, Associated Press, Associated Press Media Editors, Associated Press Photo Managers, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, Digital Media Licensing Association, National Federation of Press Women, National Newspaper Association, National Press Club, Newspaper Association of America, North American Nature Photography Association, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Society of Environmental Journalists and Society of Professional Journalists.

 

 

Posted in Access, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Permits, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, US Forest Service | No Comments »

Texas Court Upholds the Right to Photograph and Record Police Activity

July 26th, 2014 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an important ruling in Texas, a federal judge held that the right to record police activity is a clearly established right protected by the First Amendment.

In a civil rights lawsuit, Antonio Buehler alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested by the Austin Police Department multiple times for taking pictures of police activities. Buehler was first arrested when he came upon a police scene at a gas station, where he began recording the arrest because he felt that excessive force was being used. After that arrest, he formed a group called the “Peaceful Streets Project” and began regularly documenting police activity. He was arrested again and again for documenting police activity, according to the lawsuit.

In an effort to get the lawsuit dismissed, the Austin Police Department claimed “qualified immunity” which protects state officials from suit. However, qualified immunity is not available if officials violate a clearly established constitutional right. In their argument, APD claimed that the right to photograph or videotape police officers “is not recognized as a constitutional right”.

In an order released Thursday, the federal judge in the case held that not only is there a constitutional right to document police officers, but that the right is clearly established. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane held that “the First Amendment protects the right to videotape police officers in the performance of their official duties, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.”

Continuing, the judge wrote:

If a person has the right to assemble in a public place, receive information on a matter of public concern, and make a record of that information for the purpose of disseminating that information, the ability to make photographic or video recording of that information is simply not a new or a revolutionary expansion of a historical right. Instead the photographic or video recording of public information is only a more modern and efficient method of exercising a clearly established right.

Buehler’s attorney, Daphne Silverman told NPPA, “Antonio and I are pleased with Judge Lane’s ruling upholding the First Amendment right to document police conduct. This is a win for the citizens and should be of no concern to honest police officers.”

The NPPA filed an amicus brief in the case last month in support of Buehler’s position, whose case will now go forward.

See also, http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/crime-law/federal-judge-upholds-activist-antonio-buehlers-ri/ngnbp/

Posted in Austin Police, blogging, False Arrest, Federal Court, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Lawsuit, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, NPPA, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording Police | No Comments »

NPPA, Other Media Groups Submit Comments to FAA in Support of Exemptions for Use of sUAS

July 16th, 2014 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today the NPPA filed comments with the FAA in support of petitions from a number of aerial photo and video production companies seeking exemptions to commercially operate small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS – 55lbs or less) for motion picture and television industry use. The NPPA also joined in the analysis submitted as part of the News Media Coalition’s Comments in Support of Video-Production Companies’ Petitions to the FAA for Section 333 Exemption. That Media Coalition includes: Advance Publications, Inc.; A.H. Belo Corp.; The Associated Press; Gannett Co., Inc.; Getty Images (US), Inc.; Gray Television, Inc.; NBCUniversal, Inc.; The New York Times Company; Scripps Media, Inc.; Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.; and WP Company LLC (d/b/a The Washington Post), represented by Charles D. Tobin and Christie N. Waltz of the Washington, DC law firm Holland & Knight, LLP. The additional comments by NPPA were submitted to reflect the specific concerns of our members and were drafted by NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher and Advocacy Chair Alicia Wagner Calzada, who is also an  attorney with Haynes and Boone, LLP.

As noted, the NPPA has an acute interest in helping the FAA properly expedite the integration of sUAS into the National Airspace System (“NAS”).  We also support exemptions by the FAA that would permit journalists, and in particular visual journalists, to use sUAS for newsgathering purposes. The NPPA reviewed the voluntary and self-imposed “limitations and conditions” proposed in the production companies’ petitions. And while they may be acceptable to those groups, we urged the FAA to decline to adopt or extend them as prerequisites for future exemptions or as future standards in its rulemaking. The NPPA acknowledged that some of those limitations and conditions might be acceptable, but expressed our concerns about others that we deemed to be impractical and which would impose an undue burden on sUAS use for newsgathering.

The NPPA continues to assert that sUAS use for newsgathering is not a “commercial use” and we expect to see tangible benefits if the current exemption requests are granted. Specifically, we would hope that NPPA will also be allowed to “facilitate” exemption petitions on behalf our membership in a similar manner to what has been achieved by the Motion Picture Association of America.

The NPPA also referenced in its comments and filed a copy of our paper written in support of sUAS for use in newsgathering, which also included results from a study we conducted on that subject.

 

Posted in drone, Drones, FAA, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, rulemaking, small unmanned aerial systems, sUAS | No Comments »

NPPA Sends Letter Opposing Proposed Anti-Paparazzi Statutes in California

April 23rd, 2013 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 *** UPDATE *** In the wake of opposition from NPPA and other groups the CA Assembly Judiciary Committee made both AB-1256 and AB-1356 “2 year bills.” A 2 year bill is one which will not move out of the policy committee this year. It is eligible to be taken up again at the beginning of the 2nd year of the biennial session thus the term “2 year bill.” In January, the Legislature will hear all bills introduced in the 1st year and those that pass muster will begin to move through the process. This is very significant because every other anti-paparazzi bill that has been introduced has flown through the Legislature. This is the first time one has been held up. While the AB-1256 and AB-1356 are not dead, this indicates the sponsors may have a difficult time getting out of Judiciary in January.

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) today sent a letter to California Assembly Member Richard Bloom opposing two recently filed anti-paparazzi statutes that he sponsored. The NPPA was joined by twenty-six other organizations in sending this letter, including the Associated Press Media Editors, Digital Media Law Project at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Bloomberg News, North Jersey Media Group Inc., The New Yorker, E.W. Scripps Company, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Society of Professional Journalists, Radio Television Digital News Association, The Associated Press, National Public Radio, Inc., The McClatchy Company, Reuters News, Time Inc., The Washington Post, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Picture Archive Council of America, Cox Media Group, American Society of News Editors, California Newspapers Partnership, The First Amendment Coalition, Courthouse News Service, The Newspaper Guild, Communications Workers of America, Association of Alternative Newsmedia and San Francisco Bay Media Associates.

The letter is written in opposition to proposed bill AB-1256, “An act to amend Section 1708.8 of, and to add Section 1708.9 to, the Civil Code, relating to civil law.” Proposed bill AB-1256 would expand upon California’s constructive invasion of privacy law. The letter also expresses opposition to AB-1356, “An act to amend Section 1708.7 of the Civil Code, relating to stalking,” which would enhance California’s anti-paparazzi statutes.

“We believe the creation of a civil cause of action for the “constructive invasion of privacy” is overly broad and vague and imposes greater civil penalties upon otherwise protected forms of speech and expression,” wrote Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for NPPA. Osterreicher continued, “We are also concerned that remedies for invasion of privacy and trespass are already properly addressed by current California statutes and that statutory and punitive damages will further chill free speech and create uncertainty about liability.” “Additionally,” stated Osterreicher, “the definition of “commercial purposes” fails to distinguish those acts done for valid newsgathering purposes and in fact penalizes publishers and broadcasters along with visual journalists and members of the public with a camera.”

In the letter Osterreicher cites recent Supreme Court cases which support NPPA’s position that AB-1256 and AB-1356 are unconstitutional, including U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010) (holding the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 unconstitutional); California v. Superior Court of California (Raef), Case No. BS140861 (holding California statute AB-2479, an anti-paparazzi statute, unconstitutional); and Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (holding that “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated”).

In another related matter a California assembly member withdrew his proposed “ag-gag” bill hours before it was to be considered at a scheduled hearing.

The measure, AB-343, sponsored by Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, originally imposed a “duty to report animal cruelty” that would have required “any person who willfully or knowingly photographs, records or videotapes animal cruelty . . .” to “submit all original photographs, recordings or video to local law enforcement and the owner of the animal(s) or a representative of the owner within forty eight hours of taking such photographs, recordings or video.”

NPPA and other groups opposed the bill as violating the Shield Law provisions of the California Constitution and Code of Evidence; as well as being unconstitutional under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in that it abridged free speech and press and constituted an unreasonable seizure lacking in due process.

“The NPPA is very proud to have the support of so many state and national organizations in its fight against these ongoing First Amendment erosions,” said NPPA President Mike Borland. “We hope that lawmakers around the country will realize that there is a better way to address their constituent’s concerns than to propose unconstitutional bills,” he added.

Posted in ag-gag, anti-paparazzi, California, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, Paparazzi, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Recording, Regulations limiting photography | No Comments »

« Previous Entries