1st Amendment

League of Women Voters forbids filming of San Francisco mayoral forum

Update: After writing this blog post, I spoke to The League of Women Voters, and SFGTV and the City Attorney's office. After making these phone calls, I was assured that the public would in fact be able to videotape the debate and on Thursday night, I did see plenty of cameras in the audience. To the best of my knowledge, everybody was provided full access to the debate.

In the city of San Francisco, a dozen people are running for mayor of San Francisco. I am one of them. Most of us are serious candidates pushing real issues and innovative solutions to the city's problems though you might not think so reading the local newspapers or watching the television.

In fact, many people in San Francisco don't even know there is an election next month. Of those who do, many are unaware that Gavin Newsom, the incumbent, is not running unopposed. By all accounts the mayor is running a very quiet campaign, and has refused to participate in any candidate forums or debates. Except one.

Almost all of the candidates, including Newsom, will be taking part in a candidate forum tonight. It's sponsored by the League of Women Voters and will take place at 6:00PM in the Koret Auditorium at the main branch of the public library. The event will be taped by SFGTV, the local government television station, and according to an e-mail I received from Jolinda Sim, the Candidate Forums chair for the League of Women Voters, "no videotaping or flash photography [will be] allowed due to the fact that SFGOV TV is taping this forum for broadcast."

Given that this is a public event being held on city property and pertaining a to government election, the mere suggestion that the media not be granted full access to the event is deeply troubling. The fact that the government is actually involved in taping the forum means that the city is complicit in denying the media access. This is not only alarming, it may even be illegal.… Read more

A shield for journalists worth supporting?

I've been tracking the progress of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 for months. Having spent time in a federal prison for protecting my source material, it's natural that I would be interested in a law that would prevent others from enduring this same fate.

The last time I wrote about the bill's status was in August, after it cleared the House Judiciary Committee. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee followed suit, and both houses of Congress are now ready to vote on the law.

While this is very exciting news for many journalists, I'm less than ecstatic, given that neither the version of the bill is ideal, and there is no telling how the two bills will be combined, should it pass both houses.

While the amended version of the House bill seeks to tie journalism to an economic exchange, the Senate's definition is broader in scope and would not only protect professionals but would likely apply to students and many bloggers as well.… Read more

Do crime cameras make us safer or just undermine our privacy?

Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Every ATM snaps your mug, and each time you get into a taxi your photo is recorded as well. According to the BBC, our images are captured an average of 300 times each day. While we've grown used to these security cameras in our malls and at stoplights, the influx of surveillance cameras in our public spaces should be of great concern to everyone.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago has 560 crime cameras that are actively monitored for criminal activity. In London there are more than 10,000 cameras. These so-called "crime cameras" have multiple roles: they are intended to provide evidence of crimes when they occur, they are meant to deter criminals, and they are a reminder that Big Brother is watching.

… Read more

Kathy Griffin to be censored on Emmy telecast

When Kathy Griffin decided to make a point by not thanking Jesus when she accepted the award for best reality program at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards she planned to offend people. She's a comedian and it's part of her shtick, but when people sit down this weekend to watch the awards show on E!, they won't hear what Griffin had to say. Just what could she have possibly said that was deemed to controversial for cable television? A new video up at CNN.com shows Griffin stating, "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

Certainly it isn't the sort of thing you'd say at dinner after inviting over the local pastor, but it hardly qualifies as obscene either. Besides, cable television stations have few limitations to what can't be broadcast and Griffin's statement doesn't even come close. So why is E! censoring Griffin's comments?

… Read more

Facebook group ignites protest

When creating a broad forum or social-networking site like Facebook, deciding what, if any, content should be prohibited is always a difficult decision. Pornography and unauthorized copyrighted material are usually forbidden, but any other restrictions will often spark calls of censorship and accusations that the forum infringes on the freedom of speech guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. In reality, the constitution doesn't dictate what must be allowed in these circumstances, just as you are permitted to make certain subjects off-limits in your own home. Despite the fact that there is no constitutional issue, there is a perception of one, and the concerns about censorship are very real and do have merit.

Lately, Facebook has been dealing with a growing controversy surrounding one of its groups. F**k Islam has more than 800 members, has generated almost 20,000 wall posts, and sparked a number of similar groups in addition to a host of groups built around their opposition to the group's existence. The debate has recently spilled into The New York Times.… Read more

Why does the DOJ oppose net neutrality?

According to Wikipedia, the Department of Justice is "designed to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." So why is it that the Justice Department recently filed a press release stating its opposition to net neutrality? In the statement, the DOJ argues that "consumers and the economy are benefiting from the innovative and dynamic nature of the Internet," and that "regulators should be careful not to impose regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities."

Of course, given that almost all locales are limited to at most two broadband carriers--the telephone and cable monopolies--there are already regulations that "limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities." The Justice Department seems to be tailoring its antitrust agenda in such a way as to serve the interests of certain big business interests and not the needs of the American people. If any company could enter the marketplace to offer high-speed Internet access then their position would at least be possible to defend. Were that the case, then people would be free to choose among a multitude of Internet offerings, some of which would likely offer neutrality while others would provide a preferential pipe. Only then would there be some teeth in the argument that the free market would ensure Americans get the best access at the best price. In reality, it is only the massive telecoms and cable companies that are able to provide high-speed Internet, and both camps have an economic incentive to abandon net neutrality.

… Read more

A comic controversy

We all remember the massive protests that sprung up after a Danish newspaper published a series of editorial cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Recently another controversy involving newspaper comics and Islam has sprung up. and this time the debate centers around how some news media refused to publish the comic, as opposed to those who did.

In this case, the comic was the August 26 edition of Opus, and a September 2 follow up to the storyline. Approximately 25 newspapers opted not to publish the comic including The Washington Post.… Read more

State high court rules public has a right to know

Open government is a central tenet for democracy. After all, if it's your government then you have the right to know what your money is going toward. But what about the rights of public employees' personal privacy? As reported in today's SFGate , the California Supreme Court has ruled that "the public has the right to know the names of police officers and the salaries of local and state government employees."

… Read more

A media blackhole in Colorado

Having spent time in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), I wasn't surprised to learn that the agency's highest security prison has denied all media requests for the past six years. Known as the ADX, the super-maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado is home to some of the most notorious convicts in history including Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, and the so-called "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh. While simultaneously being very conscious of public relations, the BOP exercises tremendous secrecy under the guise of security.

According to Westword News, there have been exactly 100 media requests submitted to interview inmates at the ADX facility since 2002 and none of these requests have been granted.… Read more