August, 23 2022, 05:17pm EDT
ACLU of Arizona and ACLU Challenge Arizona's Ban on Recording Police
WASHINGTON
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and a group of 10 media organizations, represented by the ACLU and Ballard Spahr, respectively, filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona today challenging HB 2319, a law which makes it a crime to record police officers within eight feet of law enforcement activity. The suit challenges the law as a violation of the First Amendment, and seeks to stop HB 2319 from going into effect. The constitutional right to record police engaged in official duties is one of the public's most effective accountability tools against police wrongdoing.
Video recording of police encounters and other law enforcement activity in public is one of the few ways community members and the media can hold police accountable for misconduct. Over the last decade, the simple act of recording police misconduct has raised public awareness about police brutality and ignited movements to demand reform across the country. Arizona's HB 2319 would directly suppress free speech rights, while also limiting public accountability and effective protest of government actions.
"At a time when the public is demanding police accountability, Arizona wants to criminalize the public's most effective tool for shining a light on police violence," said Jared Keenan, legal director of the ACLU of Arizona. "This law is not only unconstitutional, it is bad public policy."
Under Arizona's law, a person commits a crime if they film an officer engaged in law enforcement activity within eight feet if they have been warned to stop. This vests far too much power in individual officers to stop someone from recording them if they don't want to be recorded. It also makes it nearly impossible to record police in large protests, where protesters may walk within eight feet of a line of police monitoring the protest from all sides.
"We have a right to hold police officers accountable by recording their activities in public,"said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "Arizona's law will prevent people from engaging in recording that doesn't interfere with police activity, and it will suppress the reporting and advocacy that results from video evidence of police misconduct. The First Amendment does not permit that outcome."
"We fear that, rather than acting as a shield to ensure 'officer safety,' this law will serve as a sword to abridge the 'clearly established' First Amendment right to video record police officers performing their official duties in public," said National Press Photographers association (NPPA) general counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher. "We hope the court will agree and strike down this law as unconstitutional."
Every federal circuit court to consider the matter has recognized the right to record police engaged in official duties in public, including the Ninth Circuit, which covers Arizona.
The plaintiffs in this case include the ACLU of Arizona and the following media organizations: Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.; Gray Television; Scripps Media; KPNX (12 News); Fox Television Stations; NBCUniversal Media (Telemundo Arizona/KTAZ); Arizona Broadcasters Association; States Newsroom (AZ Mirror); Arizona Newspapers Association; and the National Press Photographers Association.
This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'It's the Abortion Ban': Final Iowa Poll Shows Harris Leading Trump 47-44
Rights advocates were energized by the "gold standard" poll results, but called on progressives to continue working to turn out voters.
Nov 03, 2024
Political observers expressed shock Saturday evening as the Des Moines Register released its final poll before Election Day showing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris leading Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump by three points.
Harris was supported by 47% of respondents compared to 44% who backed Trump.
The newspaper's poll, conducted by pollster J. Ann Selzer, is widely regarded as the "gold standard" survey of voters in the state and has been recognized as "predicting" numerous election results in Iowa and giving a potential preview of how candidates could fare in other Midwestern states with similar demographics.
Progressive advocates cautioned against placing too much faith in a single poll—even a widely respected one—and urged Harris supporters to continue canvassing, phone-banking, and taking action to defeat Trump and the far-right MAGA movement.
But the unexpected result in a state that hasn't been considered a swing state in this election, and was widely assumed to be a Trump-supporting state, led political observers to look closely at the poll, which showed significant shifts toward Harris among women.
Women aged 65 and older supported Harris over Trump, 63% to 28%, in the poll. Women who identify as political independents also backed her, 57% to 29%.
Overall, women in the state are backing Harris in the poll by a margin of 20 points, according to the survey.
Lyz Lenz, a journalist based in Iowa, said she believed the poll could be linked to one major change in Iowa since the last presidential election: the six-week abortion ban that took effect in July, banning abortion care after fetal cardiac activity can be detected. Similar abortion bans have been blamed for at least four deaths of pregnant women in Texas and Georgia.
"It's the abortion ban," said Lenz. "Women are furious."
Daniel Nichanian, editor-in-chief and founder of the digital magazine Bolts, said the result could preview losses for state Supreme Court justices who have upheld abortion bans in a number of states, including Iowa.
In 10 states this year, voters will make their voices heard on ballot initiatives regarding the right to abortion care. In traditionally red states including Kansas and Kentucky since Roe was overturned, people have voted to protect the right to obtain an abortion.
"It's the Dobbs election," said Helaine Olen of the American Economic Liberties Project. "The Iowa poll is just the latest proof."
Selzer herself told the BBC that many respondents talked about abortion rights.
"The people who say they're supporting Kamala Harris, the issue they say they're thinking about most is democracy, about half of them saying that's the most important thing," she said. "But then half of that, about 25% roughly, say abortion. And Iowa has one of the strictest abortion laws in place... and that may well have played a part in this."
Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, said it would be "foolish to dismiss [Selzer's] poll," but cautioned election watchers against abandoning "all of [their] prior views about the state of the race."
Dan Pfeiffer, a former adviser to President Barack Obama and co-host of "Pod Save America," said one possible interpretation among several is that "Harris isn't really winning Iowa but the poll is capturing late-stage momentum that bodes well for Wisconsin, Michigan, [and] Pennsylvania."
Advocacy group Indivisible on Sunday morning advised supporters to "send this Iowa poll to all your group chats. Then, sign up to talk to some voters. With your help, we're going to win this thing in two days."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Terrifying' Ad Shows Deadly Impact of GOP Abortion Bans
The ad was released as Americans learn of a growing number of women who have died because doctors would not provide standard miscarriage and abortion care under state abortion bans.
Nov 03, 2024
"Dr. Davis, what do I do?" asks a man frantically, kneeling near his partner as she writhes in pain on the floor.
"John, she needs an abortion, or she's going to die from the pregnancy," answers the doctor over the phone.
But a Republican congressman suddenly appears and tells the man, "That's not happening," explaining that abortion care is now banned because the GOP is in control of the government.
The scenario plays out in the latest ad from Progress Action Fund, a Democratic political action committee that's produced a number of viral videos focusing on how Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's policies and those outlined in the right-wing agenda Project 2025 would impact both men and women's ability to make private decisions.
In the ad, the Republican lawmaker tells the man, "I won the last election, so it's my decision" whether the woman is able to receive the standard care needed to end her pregnancy.
"Don't worry, you can still have children," he tells the man. "Just not with her."
Watch:
The ad went viral on social media late Saturday, the day after ProPublica reported on Nevaeh Crain, an 18-year-old in Texas who died last year at six months pregnant, when she was diagnosed with sepsis—a fast-moving and potentially deadly condition that can result from an infection.
Because of Texas' six-week abortion ban, which threatens doctors with prison time if they terminate a pregnancy before a fetal heartbeat has stopped, Crain made three emergency room visits and was required to have multiple ultrasounds as she became increasingly ill. By the time doctors confirmed "fetal demise," Crain's organs had begun failing. She died hours later.
The investigative outlet has also reported on the deaths of another woman in Texas—Josseli Barnica—and two women in Georgia, Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller—from state abortion bans since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.
"This is a healthcare crisis and Donald Trump is the architect of this crisis," said Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, after the two Georgia women's deaths came to light in September.
Abortion bans and restrictions like those in Texas now exist in 21 states. Both Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) have expressed support for a nationwide ban on abortion care—a position from which they have both attempted to distance themselves as polls have increasingly shown a majority of voters support access to abortion care.
Other viral ads by Progress Action Fund have been more risqué and have even used absurdist humor to warn voters about Project 2025's proposal to ban pornography and emergency contraception.
With two days to go until Election Day, the "terrifying but important" ad released Saturday shows that "MAGA abortion bans are killing our wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters," said nonprofit progressive advocacy group DemCast.
"They're willing to risk your wife's heartbeat," said Eleven Films, a progressive film production company. "Are you?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unacceptable,' Advocates Say as COP16 Ends Without Biodiversity Fund Deal
"Biodiversity finance remains stalled after a deafening absence of credible finance pledges from wealthy governments and unprecedented corporate lobbying," said one campaigner.
Nov 02, 2024
Officials at the international biodiversity conference that began in October were forced on Saturday to suspend talks without reaching an agreement on a key issue of the summit—a detailed finance plan for a dedicated biodiversity fund—after the meeting went into overtime and delegates began leaving.
The failure to reach an agreement on biodiversity finance was denounced by the head of environmental group Greenpeace's delegation at the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which took place over two weeks in Cali, Colombia.
"Governments in Cali put forward plans to protect nature but were unable to mobilize the money to actually do it," said An Lambrechts. "Biodiversity finance remains stalled after a deafening absence of credible finance pledges from wealthy governments and unprecedented corporate lobbying... Closing the finance gap was not merely some moral obligation but necessary to the protection of people and nature that grows more urgent each day."
Lambrechts added that with international leaders now preparing to attend the 2024 U.N. Climate Change Conference, or COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan this month, "the non-decision on a fund damages trust between Global South and North countries."
The conference was aimed at ramping up progress toward meeting goals set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in Canada in 2022. That framework calls for the protection of 30% of land and sea areas and the restoration of 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.
In Canada, delegations also agreed to phase out subsidies that are harmful to nature and to provide $200 billion per year for the protection of biodiversity by 2030, including $30 billion per year that would be transferred from rich to poor countries. A larger goal of ultimately generating $700 billion to protect nature was also part of the agreement.
About $15 billion was transferred in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and nations have pledged about $400 million to a Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.
But in Cali in recent days, Colombian environment minister Susana Muhamad offered a draft proposal for the establishment of a dedicated biodiversity fund—a priority for developing nations at the conference—only to have delegations including those from the European Union, Switzerland, and Japan reject the proposal.
"Two years ago, we made a commitment to do better and be better," said Jiwoh Abdulai, minister of environment and climate change for Sierra Leone. "This COP has neither delivered that additional funding nor given us confidence that governments will work together to deliver it in a transparent and urgent manner."
The Forests & Finance Coalition—which includes Amazon Watch, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), and Friends of the Earth U.S., among others—called the result of finance discussions at the meeting "disappointing."
"This latest development makes it all the more critical that banks and investors are stopped from financing destructive sectors that continue to drive nature loss and human rights abuses," said Tom Picken, RAN's forests and finance director.
Lambrechts acknowledged that "big pharma and big agribusiness failed to block a game-changing deal on corporate responsibility to pay up for nature protections."
COP16 delegates devised a plan to create a fund that would share the profits generated from digitally sequenced genetic data taken from plants and animals with the communities—mostly in the Global South—that the species come from.
Companies that make money from cosmetics, medicines, and other products that use digitally sequenced genetic data would pay into the fund, but the final agreement made participation voluntary, saying only that companies "should" contribute.
Indigenous delegates celebrated the creation of a permanent body within the CBD to represent the interests of Indigenous groups—a "historic victory," according to Leila Salazar-López, executive director of the nonprofit Amazon Watch.
A work plan was approved by the convention to expand the role of Indigenous people, local communities, and Afro-descendant people in the protection of biodiversity.
"Thanks to this new body and work plan approval, future COPs will work, amongst many other important issues, on land tenure, traditional knowledge and governance by Indigenous Peoples," said Isaac Rojas, forests and biodiversity coordinator for Friends of the Earth International (FOE). "It's a milestone in the struggle of Indigenous peoples for their rights. We congratulate them and share their joy following this win. But we have to remain vigilant, because these achievements may turn out to be empty words in view of the push for several false solutions."
FOE warned that false solutions, particularly biodiversity offsetting, were pushed heavily by corporations at the conference.
Corporate interests called for biodiversity credits—"tradeable assets intended to represent 'measurable outcomes'—such as protecting or restoring certain species or ecosystems, or parts of them," according to FOE. "Similar to carbon credits, they allow corporations to buy and sell these, to meet regulations or voluntary sustainability claims."
Nele Marien, forests and biodiversity co-coordinator for FOE, said Saturday that "corporations were here pushing very hard for all kinds of false solutions, for example on biodiversity offsetting, which had a lot of traction."
"They argue that they can keep pushing into new territories, and destroying these ecosystems, promising that they will compensate for this," said Marien. "This is simply impossible, because we don't have space in the world to compensate for these losses. Biodiversity offsetting is a mechanism that further perpetuates destruction, undermines human rights, and damages environmental justice."
A spokesperson for the CBD, David Ainsworth, told reporters that the conference would resume at a later date.
Estefania Gonzalez, deputy campaign director for Greenpeace Andino, said delegates were "able to take advantage of COP16 to bring much of the priority agenda of the Global South to the center of the negotiations, fighting to the last minute to reach agreements on financing."
But she added that "the resource mobilization committed by developed countries must be fulfilled immediately without further excuses."
"It is unacceptable that rich countries, besides failing to meet the $20 billion commitment," she said, "were unwilling to seek consensus on one of the most crucial issues: financing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular