Today in this age of increased political polarization and the ubiquity of social media communications, the need for a clear definition of what exactly constitutes a true threat is even more important.
Nine days after George Floyd’s death, the American Civil Liberties Union posted a story characterizing the attacks on journalists covering the protests as a “full-scale assault on the First Amendment freedom of the press.” Lawsuits were filed and we detail the top three settlements this year obtained by journalists and a citizen documenting the protests.
The complaint filed Oct. 3 stated, “CNN has sought to use its massive influence – purportedly as a ‘trusted’ news source – to defame the Plaintiff in the minds of its viewers and readers for the purpose of defeating him politically, culminating in CNN claiming credit for ‘[getting] Trump out’ in the 2020 presidential election.”
The first release from First Amendment Watch at New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute and the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University focuses on the rights of those who wish to photograph or record video of police officers in public places.
Judge John Tuchi for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the motion for a preliminary injunction Friday and enjoined enforcement of the law pending resolution of the case on the merits, according to Ballard Spahr attorney Matthew E. Kelley, who represents an alliance of press groups in opposition to the law.
The motion, filed Aug. 25 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, says Jones has “systematically transferred millions of dollars” to himself and relatives, despite the company filing for bankruptcy to allegedly avoid paying damages to the families. In a response filed Aug. 28, Jones’ attorneys state that the families’ “motion is brimming with inaccuracies and allegations that have no basis in fact.”
Chief Judge Mark Walker concluded that this law restricted speech and suppressed expression of Florida employers, employees and diversity consultants. He described the provision as “a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech” that violated the First Amendment.
First Amendment Watch asked Mchangama, a free speech historian and scholar, his perspective on the evolution of blasphemy laws and the context surrounding the vicious attack against Salman Rushdie, a Distinguished Writer in Residence at NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute.