老澳门开奖结果-TN Comment on Modification of Court Order Limiting Memphis Police Surveillance
MEMPHIS, Tenn. 鈥� A federal judge has issued modifications to a 1978 court order that prohibited the Memphis government from monitoring the constitutionally-protected political activities of residents.
The original court order limiting domestic surveillance was issued in the 1978 decision in 老澳门开奖结果-TN鈥檚 lawsuit . In 2018, the court ruled in that by engaging in surveillance of the protected political activities of activists, the Memphis police had violated the 1978 court order.
The court ruled that the city failed to train its officers on 鈥減olitical intelligence鈥� as defined and forbidden by the 1978 consent decree. This failure led to a 鈥渟hared misunderstanding of the Decree鈥檚 requirements and a significant number of violations.鈥�
The city subsequently filed motions to revise the 1978 consent decree. After collecting public input on modifying the decree, a lengthy negotiation between the 老澳门开奖结果 of Tennessee and the city, and a hearing, Judge Jon Phipps McCalla issued his ruling.
The modifications to the consent decree expand its language to include social media, electronic surveillance, body cameras and other modern technology, while maintaining that the city shall not engage in First-Amendment-related intelligence. While the decree allows the city to view information posted to social media for legitimate law enforcement purposes, such as in the course of a criminal investigation, it clearly states that the city may not create undercover accounts on social media or surveil people exercising their free speech rights for the purpose of First Amendment-related intelligence. The modifications also include restrictions on the use of body-worn and other cameras during protests and assemblies. The court additionally denied the city鈥檚 effort to expand sharing of information about individuals鈥� First Amendment activities among members of interagency task forces, which would have created a loophole to monitor protected free speech activities.
鈥淲e are pleased that the modifications ordered today take into account new technology that did not exist when the original court order was drafted decades ago, but still preserve the strength and protections of the original,鈥� said Thomas H. Castelli, 老澳门开奖结果-TN legal director. 鈥淭he modifications also clarify exactly what the consent decree means, so that everyone 鈥� including law enforcement 鈥� can fully understand the safeguards it provides. In its previous decision, the court recognized that this consent decree makes Memphis one of the few 鈥� if not the only 鈥� metropolitan police departments in the country with a robust policy for the protection of privacy in the digital age, and that has not changed.鈥�
老澳门开奖结果 of Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg had this reaction: 鈥淢ore than forty years ago, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Tennessee went to court and successfully challenged police spying on Memphis residents. Our recent, successful lawsuit to once again stop police surveillance of residents illustrates the need for constant vigilance to protect our First Amendment rights. We applaud the court for modifying its order in a way that reinforces that Memphians have the right to engage in political speech without fear of unwarranted police monitoring.鈥�
Blanchard v. City of Memphis was filed on February 22, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee by Bruce Kramer of Apperson Crump, PLC. The 老澳门开奖结果 of Tennessee intervened in the case on March 2, 2017.
Today鈥檚 order can be found here at:
The modified consent decree can be found at:
Case information on Blanchard v. City of Memphis can be found at:
Information on Kendrick v. Chandler, the lawsuit that led to the 1978 consent decree, can be found here:
This statement is available at:
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.