Aggregator
Landmark order protecting press freedom from Minnesota police should be a model around the country
For journalists covering the immediate aftermath of George Floyd’s death in 2020, there was no more dangerous place to be than Minneapolis. According to our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, in the span of one week, authorities in the city committed more assaults and more arrests of journalists than in the entirety of 2019.
On Wednesday, the Minnesota State Patrol was finally held accountable for their actions. The ACLU of Minnesota, which represented a class action group of journalists who were attacked and arrested during that time, has come to a historic agreement that was just approved by a judge. The settlement should be a model for other jurisdictions around the country who saw police flagrantly violate the rights of journalists in 2020.
In addition to more than $800,000 in financial compensation for the journalists involved, law enforcement working with MSP and the MSP — under court order — will now be explicitly prohibited from:
- Arresting, threatening to arrest, and/or using physical force or chemical agents against journalists.
- Ordering journalists to stop photographing, recording or observing a protest.
- Making journalists disperse.
- Seizing or intentionally damaging equipment such as photo, audio or video gear.
One of the plaintiffs, Ed Ou, our friend and award-winning photojournalist who was seriously injured by state troopers, said on Twitter after the decision was announced:
“For me, this lawsuit and settlement is bittersweet - because it is… sad that we even needed to do this in the first place. We should have already been protected by the First Amendment, and able to operate without fear of being attacked by security forces for our work. But this is a start, and sends a signal to security forces that they cannot act with impunity, and there are consequences for their actions.
I am grateful to everyone who supported us, and proud to stand with journalists who continue to bear witness and bring truth to light.”
As we have cataloged in the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, more than 140 journalists were arrested around the country in 2020, a nearly 1500% increase on the year prior. More than 600 were assaulted in the same year. In the vast majority of those cases, the perpetrator was law enforcement.
While the issue of press freedom has been elevated to a national level over the past few years, this case is a reminder that it is state and local jurisdictions that have the most power to protect or curtail journalists’ rights. If police departments are not held accountable for arresting reporters exercising their First Amendment rights, or they are not punished for assaulting or shooting projectiles at reporters while they do their jobs, then these actions will only continue.
Tracker senior reporter Stephanie Sugars recently documented that there are currently dozens of lawsuits in progress around the country, brought by journalists who were arrested or assaulted by police officers while covering Black Lives Matters protests in 2020 and 2021.
We hope this settlement will become a model around the country for other journalists seeking accountability, and judges in those cases should take note.
Illinois-American Water Project Will Keep Alby Street Area Closed To At Least May, Weather Dependent
‘Athletes always rise to the occasion’: Former Olympic-level competitors reflect on Winter Games
I'm starting to think there may be an unusual animal portal leading to St. Ferdinand Park in Florissant
Kadean Construction is building five warehouses in St. Louis amid hot industrial market
This article originally ran in the St. Louis Business Journal on February 9, 2022 Kadean Construction has significantly expanded its industrial sector work over the past year with $327 million of new logistics facilities underway, totaling more than 6.7 million square feet at 15 locations around the country, including five in St. Louis, where the industrial market remains hot. The Fenton-based general contractor […]
The post Kadean Construction is building five warehouses in St. Louis amid hot industrial market appeared first on St. Louis Regional Freightway.
Messenger: Injury leads to opioids, which lead to slow motion tragedy
Court (For Now) Says NY Times Can Publish Project Veritas Documents
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.
Firefighters in Cahokia Heights find dead man inside home that burned
Butler’s Pantry acquires 23 City Blocks Hospitality Group and announces The Reverie, a new events venue
MoDOT seeks ruling to free state road fund from lawmakers’ control
State lawmakers have no authority over how the Missouri Department of Transportation spends the state road fund, as long as it is within constitutional limits, an attorney told Cole County Circuit Judge Cotton Walker during a Thursday hearing. Because the Missouri Constitution says the road fund “stands appropriated without legislative action” at the “sole discretion” […]
The post MoDOT seeks ruling to free state road fund from lawmakers’ control appeared first on Missouri Independent.