Gov. 1A-50: The Lens is Mightier than the Gavel

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press. However, the extent of this right is often contested by the state. One important instance of this right is the ability to lawfull document and record the activities of state officials, such as school boards. This case has been particularly important over the last few years, with some public schools attempting to restrict the recording of open meetings. In such cases, should the police be allowed to enforce a verbal restriction against making a video at an open meeting? This question has sparked debates among legal scholars and policymakers, but the consensus is clear.This essay contends that any attempts to enforce a restriction against recording public meetings are clear violations of the First Amendment and compromise the rights of citizens and their inherent right to access information.

Firstly, enforcing verbal restrictions would violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, including the right to record public officials in the performance of their duties. In Glik v. Cunniffe, the First Circuit held that the right to record the police in public is a "clearly established" First Amendment right. Enforcing a verbal restriction against recording an open meeting would amount to a violation of constitutional rights.

Secondly, the public has a right to access information. Open meetings are designed to ensure transparency and accountability in government. By restricting the recording of open meetings, politicians would be limiting the public's ability to scrutinize their actions and hold them accountable for their decisions. In some cases, the recording of open meetings has even been instrumental in exposing corruption and abuse of power. Therefore, allowing politicians to restrict the recording of open meetings would undermine the very purpose of open meetings.

Thirdly, the restriction of recording open meetings would set a dangerous precedent. If politicians are allowed to restrict recording at open meetings, it could lead to further attempts to restrict the freedom of the press in other contexts. This could have harmful effects on journalism and limit the ability of reporters to hold those in power accountable. Additionally, it could lead to selective enforcement, where politicians only allow favorable media coverage and suppress any unfavorable coverage. This would be a violation of the First Amendment and could lead to a decline in the (inherently poor) quality of democratic governance.

Finally, there are few legitimate reason for politicians to restrict recording at open meetings. The argument that recording could be disruptive or distracting is not compelling, as recording technology is now ubiquitous and unobtrusive. Additionally, politicians who are uncomfortable with being recorded can choose not to run for public office. The public has a right to know what their elected officials are doing and saying in the course of their duties.

There are few justifications for politicians to impose limitations on recording during open meetings. According to Government Code Section 54953.5, individuals have the right to record an open and public meeting without disruption, and a school district does not have the right to prohibit recording unless there is a reasonable finding of disruption. The reasoning that recording may cause interference or disturbance is not convincing since recording devices are widely available and inconspicuous. Moreover, elected officials who feel uneasy about being recorded can opt not to pursue public office. The community has a legitimate entitlement to be informed of the actions and statements of their elected representatives while they are carrying out their responsibilities.

In conclusion, the police should not be allowed to enforce a politician's verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting. Doing so would violate First Amendment rights, limit the public's right to access information, set a dangerous precedent, and have no legitimate reason. In a open society, the public has the right to know what their elected officials are doing, and any attempt to restrict that right should be met with resistance. As the famous American philosopher and abolitionist Lysander Spooner once said, "The only just governments are those that are based upon the ([real]) consent of the governed." Therefore, any attempt to restrict the public's access to information should be viewed as an assault on the fundamental principles of a free society.

Sources:

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/10-1764/10-1764-2011-08-26.html

LaRue v. DeWolff, 590 F.3d 263, 272 (3d Cir. 2009). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/app

One Instance: https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2009/06/aa-right-to-videotape-school-board-meetings/