老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina Challenges Prison Policy that Seeks to Silence the Incarcerated
COLUMBIA 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the South Carolina Department of Corrections鈥� (SCDC) total ban on news media interviews with incarcerated people on First Amendment grounds. In addition to filing a complaint, the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina is seeking emergency relief that will allow the organization the right to interview incarcerated clients and publish their speech.
鈥淚ncarcerated peoples鈥� speech has long played a critical role in our public discourse,鈥� said Allen Chaney, legal director for the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina. 鈥淚f applied historically, SCDC鈥檚 rule would suppress publication of Martin Luther King Jr.鈥檚 鈥楲etter from Birmingham Jail,鈥� Nelson Mandela鈥檚 autobiography, and four books of the New Testament. Today, it operates to insulate SCDC from real public accountability and to suppress the public鈥檚 knowledge about the violence committed against prisoners 鈥� wrongs that are committed in the public鈥檚 own name.鈥�
South Carolina鈥檚 prison media-access policy is among the most restrictive of any state in the U.S. Unique among prison systems nationwide, SCDC takes the position that incarcerated people 鈥渓ose the privilege of speaking to the news media when they enter SCDC.鈥� In addition to infringing on the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina鈥檚 First Amendment right to receive and publish the speech of incarcerated people, this blanket policy impoverishes public understanding of vital matters including prison conditions, treatment of LGBTQ individuals and other vulnerable prisoners, and the propriety of capital punishment.
鈥淭he SCDC鈥檚 categorical rule that incarcerated people can never talk to the press or anyone else for the purpose of publication is blatantly unconstitutional,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭his policy is so broad that no court has upheld anything similar. We urge the court to block this law, and defend our right to free speech as soon as possible.鈥�
As highlighted last year in news coverage of the Alex Murdaugh murder trial, incarcerated people and their legal teams can face punishment for publicizing written or recorded statements by people held in SCDC. While Murdaugh鈥檚 case has garnered national attention, the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina seeks to address the routine violations of all incarcerated people鈥檚 rights, including in lower-profile cases.
As one example, the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina seeks to publish an interview with Marion Bowman Jr., who resides on South Carolina鈥檚 death row in Columbia. As Mr. Bowman prepares to petition the governor to commute his sentence to life imprisonment, we want to share Mr. Bowman鈥檚 story in his own words. To quote the complaint:
A story about Marion Bowman 鈥� that is, a telling of his case and his life behind bars 鈥� is not functionally equivalent to a story by Marion Bowman 鈥� In the context of prison advocacy, empathy is hard earned. The sound of another person鈥檚 voice can break the demonizing and otherizing constructs that the public has about 鈥減risoners,鈥� and can reveal the multidimensional humanity possessed by those behind bars.
"Our state government spends untold millions of dollars a year to keep 33 men on death row, often for decades,鈥� said the Rev. Hillary Taylor, executive director of South Carolinians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. 鈥淭he citizens of South Carolina deserve to know who they are keeping alive with their tax dollars. It's time for SCDC to stop acting like it's a 'black box' of state secrets and allow media access to South Carolina's death row. What could SCDC possibly be afraid of revealing?"
There is wide variation in media access policies among the states, but South Carolina鈥檚 policy is uniquely draconian. Many states include some restrictions on speech and press access for prisoners, but not a total prohibition.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.