A journalist who was arrested for recording inside of a New York Police Department precinct sued the city July 24, claiming a department policy violates state law and his First Amendment right to record police.
A North Carolina man sued a police department and two officers for violating his First Amendment right to record and livestream as a passenger during a traffic stop. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Feb. 7 that livestreaming the police is protected speech.
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 Tuesday morning argues that the law, known as HB2319, is a content-based restriction on speech and would have a chilling effect not only on the First Amendment activities of visual journalists “whose job it is to document the newsworthy activities of public servants in public places” but would also affect the general public who “simply wants to record what law enforcement officers are doing."
There's no hesitancy among free press and media legal scholars who are asked whether the law is constitutional. There's consensus: It's not. They base their views on numerous rulings of federal appeals courts on the issue.
The court referenced First Amendment principles and the previous six U.S. appeals courts' decisions as relevant precedents to decide in favor of a self-identified journalist YouTube blogger, Abade Irizarry.
On May 5th, a split three-judge panel on the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida for the Fourth District upheld the arrest of Sharron Tasha Ford, who sued the city of Boynton Beach for violating her First Amendment right to record police.