Justin Silverman, the executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, agrees with Snapchat. . . . The reason it's important to legalize voting booth photography surpasses the right to selfie, Silverman argues.
The New England First Amendment Coalition has filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief laying out the case against the selfie ban. Filed in conjunction with the Keene Sentinel and prepared by the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School, it is a humdinger. . . . "Political speech is a 'core' concern of the First Amendment," the amici write, "and protection of speech is never stronger than when the speaker is addressing political or governmental issues.
Those opposed to photography bans say concerns about vote-buying are overblown. "There isn't much evidence, if any at all, that this kind of activity is actually occurring," said Justin Silverman, the executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition. . . . Mr. Silverman said the image of a goofy selfie with a ballot has obscured what he described as more serious benefits of allowing photography, like serving as an alert system for confusing ballots. "More importantly, it's about keeping the system honest, and documenting the election process and quickly identifying flaws that might be on the ballot and being able to share them quickly and easily with other voters," he said.
"This decision is a blow to transparency in Rhode Island," the New England First Amendment Coalition's Justin Silverman said. "It put a burden on the public to show evidence of government wrongdoing before it can obtain the records that may show that wrongdoing. This type of reasoning will have Rhode Island watchdogs chasing their tails."
And there's the rub, says William Chapman, a Concord attorney and board member of the New England First Amendment Coalition. He said the privacy exemption is too broad. He'd like to add these words: "unless a court orders the recording or portion to be disclosed." . . . "There might well be situations that constitute an invasion of privacy but are central to knowing whether law enforcement acted properly," Chapman said in an email. "My concern is that without the amendment I proposed, asserting invasion of privacy will carry the day," he said. "Law enforcement will assert it if the private individual doesn't."
The New England First Amendment Coalition took a counter view. "This ruling flips APRA on its head," executive director Justin Silverman said. "It puts the burden on journalists to show government wrongdoing before they can access the documents needed to look for that wrongdoing. ... Rhode Island residents need to know that their law enforcement is working with integrity and without preference to elected officials or their children. This decision denies the public that opportunity."
"It is an interesting First Amendment set of issues," said Gregory V. Sullivan, a law professor in Boston and the legal counsel for the New England First Amendment Coalition. "And I do think the guy's art work is protected by the First Amendment." . . . "I would say what you're looking at here is some political artwork that is protected by the First Amendment," Sullivan said. "And that is not obscene. What's obvious right away to me is what we're looking at is political satire."
"I would say what you're looking at here is some political artwork that is protected by the First Amendment," Gregory V. Sullivan, a law professor in Boston and the legal counsel for the New England First Amendment Coalition told NH1. "And that is not obscene. What's obvious right away to me is what we're looking at is political satire."
"I would say what you're looking at here is some political artwork that is protected by the First Amendment," said Gregory V. Sullivan, a law professor in Boston and the legal counsel for the New England First Amendment Coalition. "And that is not obscene. What's obvious right away to me is what we're looking at is political satire."
"The speech at issue here is abhorrent, but that doesn't mean it should be criminal," said Justin Silverman, head of the New England First Amendment Coalition. "When we punish a speaker based on the actions of an audience, we risk silencing other voices that should be heard." When family members of a terminally ill patient discuss suicide, Silverman asks, is that conversation illegal if the loved one takes their own life? Expanding criminal liability too far for one awful case could have dire and unintended consequences for others.
"The president is right that journalists need to dig deeper, ask tough questions and provide a broader context," New England First Amendment Coalition executive director Justin Silverman said. "The problem is that his administration makes it difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish those goals." He noted that NEFAC gave its 2014 Stephen Hamblett First Amendment Award to The New York Times' James Risen, a former Providence Journal writer who faced the prospect of prison for refusing to reveal a source, and Obama prosecuted more leak-related cases than all previous administrations combined. Can it get worse? Well, Donald Trump talks of changing libel law to make it easier to sue the press. "To have a presidential candidate even saying those things makes any First Amendment proponent concerned," Silverman said.
