The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other media organizations writes to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts asking for the Court to allow audio and video recording of the announcement of its decision in the three cases involving proposed federal health-care legislation.
Written testimony of Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, on behalf of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on "Addressing Concerns about the Integrity of the U.S. Department of Labor's Jobs Reporting."
Oral testimony of Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, on behalf of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on "Addressing Concerns about the Integrity of the U.S. Department of Labor's Jobs Reporting."
Courthouse News Service challenged a policy of the Ventura County, Calif., Superior Court that withholds from public inspection records filed with the court until after the court completes its processing, which takes several days and sometimes much longer. Courthouse News filed an action in federal court, claiming that the procedure violates its First Amendment-based right of public access. The trial court dismissed the case, holding that federal courts should not unduly interfere with pending and future state court proceedings.
RCFP, along with eleven other organizations, signed on to an amicus brief in a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia urging the court to find that U.S. Secret Service White House complex visitor logs are "agency records" under the federal Freedom of Information Act and that the Secret Service is required to process a request for such records in compliance with FOIA.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a letter brief in support of California resident Michael Chwe's petition to the California Supreme Court for review of a lower court ruling allowing a public employee who is the subject of a public records request to preemptively file a lawsuit challenging an agency's decision to release the record. If such a ruling is allowed to stand, it will have the effect of reversing the presumption of public access to records in the state by forcing the public to demonstrate at the outset why a particular record should be disclosed.
A media coalition comprising 47 national and local news organizations and associations, including The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, wrote the U.S. Department of Defense to express concern about reports that journalists covering the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning have been unable to view documents filed in the proceeding.
Photojournalist Bradley Stuart Allen was charged with felony conspiracy and other offenses for his coverage of an "Occupy" demonstration in Santa Cruz, Calif. The Reporters Committee and National Press Photographers Association argued that newsgathering is constitutionally protected, and courts considering punishments for exercise of that right should weigh the public interest in obtaining information against competing interests. The groups urged the Court to grant Mr.
HB 62 proposes an amendment to the current exemption for “research projects” in Maryland's public information act that would allow public universities to withhold from disclosure wide categories of records "produced or collected by" faculty members.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Lucy Dalglish testified before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee of the Maryland General Assembly, in support of SB 221. which clarifies and modernizes Maryland's anti-SLAPP law. SB 221 offers several important improvements to the current law, including the removal of the requirement that defendants show that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in “bad faith” – that is, with the intent to use it to stifle constitutionally protected expression – in order to have the lawsuit dismissed as a SLAPP.
Fort Smith, Ark. resident and attorney Joey McCutchen sued the city when its city administrator presented individual members of the city’s board of directors with a proposed amendment to local ordinances outside of a public meeting, and some of the board members expressed their initial approval or disapproval. A lower court ruled not only that such behavior did not violate the open meetings law, but also that the law – as well as its criminal misdemeanor penalty – was an unconstitutional infringement on the speech of public officials.
The Massachusetts Legislature is considering a bill that would impose criminal charges against members of the media and others who, in connection with any criminal proceeding, disclose documents that divulge information about a child involved in the proceeding, regardless of the source of such documents or information. The bill requires all documents that include such information to be filed under seal, without court order, with a redacted version made publicly available.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has submitted testimony to the Illinois General Assembly in support of an amendment to the state eavesdropping law, which would create an exemption from criminal prosecution for the “[r]ecording of a peace officer who is performing a public duty in a public place and speaking at a volume audible to the unassisted human ear.” House Bill 3944 is an important step in reforming an overly broad law that criminalizes a critically important aspect of the newsgathering process and infringes on cherished First Amendment freedoms, the Repor
The Delaware Coalition for Open Government brought a lawsuit in federal court against the Delaware Chancery Court, its judges and the state challenging as facially unconstitutional Chancery Court rules that allow blanket confidentiality in private arbitration proceedings and records, including court-supervised settlement agreements.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) struck down the 2006 Stolen Valor Act, which criminalizes lying about the receipt of military honors, on First Amendment grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case--which involves a California man who, despite never serving in the military, stated at a municipal water board meeting that he had served in the armed forces for almost three decades and received a Medal of Honor--and decide whether the statute is constitutional.