老澳门开奖结果 Files Lawsuit Challenging Miami-Dade Police Restrictions on Animal Rights Advocates at Miami Seaquarium
Police policy barring advocates from using county sidewalks outside marine mammal park violates First Amendment rights; Lawsuit filed on behalf of 3 animal rights advocates, including 1 arrested for standing on public sidewalk holding protest sign
MIAMI, FL 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果 (老澳门开奖结果) of Florida filed a lawsuit challenging a policy of the Miami-Dade Police Department that limits demonstrators鈥� access to over 40 feet of the public sidewalk outside the Miami Seaquarium. The complaint, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, states that the 鈥渞ed zone鈥� policy violates the animal rights advocates鈥� rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Miami Seaquarium, a 60-year-old oceanarium and zoological park, is built on Miami-Dade County land on Virginia Key in Biscayne Bay along the Rickenbacker Causeway, and is accessible by county sidewalks. The park has drawn increasing attention in recent years from advocates protesting the treatment of 鈥淟olita,鈥� an orca held at the Seaquarium. Beginning in the summer of 2014, the Miami Dade Police Department (MDPD) began circulating maps designating the area of sidewalk in front of the Seaquarium a 鈥渞ed zone,鈥� where advocates are not permitted to stand.
Because of the 鈥渞ed zone,鈥� advocates must stand far back from the entrance and exit on sections of the sidewalk designated as a 鈥済reen zone,鈥� where they are not as visible or audible to Seaquarium visitors, most of whom enter the Seaquarium by car. From the 鈥済reen zone,鈥� advocates are unable to talk to Seaquarium visitors or distribute leaflets to visitors, significantly reducing their ability to share their message.
鈥淭his is about as obvious a violation of free expression as there can be,鈥� stated 老澳门开奖结果 of Florida Staff Attorney Shalini Goel Agarwal. 鈥淢DPD鈥檚 red zone prevents advocates from engaging in normal conversation with Seaquarium visitors about animal rights and eliminates their ability to hand leaflets to the visitors鈥攂oth historically protected forms of speech鈥攐n a long stretch of the public sidewalk鈥攁 historically protected place for the free exchange of ideas. The role of police isn鈥檛 to minimize the impact of unpopular opinions, but to keep people safe and to ensure that their rights are being protected. The 鈥榬ed zone鈥� policy at the Miami Seaquarium clearly violates the rights of those advocating for the animals.鈥�
The complaint was filed on behalf of three South Floridians who have been told by police to vacate the 鈥渞ed zone鈥� 鈥擲teven Bagenski, Gilda Cummings, and Jeff Geragi. All three have been ordered by police to move out of the 鈥渞ed zone鈥� at one or more demonstrations. Cummings and Geragi have been prohibited from giving leaflets to visitors, whether in the 鈥渞ed zone鈥� or in the 鈥済reen zone鈥�. On August 31, 2014, Bagenski was arrested and detained for 13 hours for standing on the sidewalk in the 鈥渞ed zone鈥� a few feet away from the entrance driveway while holding a protest sign.
鈥淚 was shocked by the whole situation and really taken aback by the arrest,鈥� stated Bagenski, a recently-retired law enforcement officer with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 鈥淚 really feel that I have a right to protest on a public sidewalk, and the police shouldn鈥檛 be trampling the rights of the public. As a former law enforcement officer, I am hoping to send a message to the police officers that they are there to protect the public and protect their rights, and I don鈥檛 feel that that happened in this instance.鈥�
The lawsuit names Miami-Dade County, MDPD Director J.D. Patterson, and MDPD Officer John Alexander Jr. 鈥� the officer who arrested Mr. Bagenski -- as defendants, and states that the creation and enforcement of the 鈥渞ed zone鈥� policy has violated demonstrators鈥� First Amendment rights.
Photos and bios of the plaintiffs are available here:
An HD video statement by plaintiff Steven Bagenski is available upon request.
A copy of the complaint filed today is available here:
A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction filed today is available here:
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.