NPPA & REPORTERS COMMITTEE SEEK DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST PHOTOJOURNALIST COVERING OCCUPY PROTEST

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DURHAM, NC – The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Reporters Committee) filed a joint Letter Brief seeking the dismissal of charges against Bradley Stuart Allen in The People of the State of California v. Becky Ann Johnson et al, Case No. F22194. The brief asserts that Mr. Allen, who is a photojournalist and NPPA member, should not be criminally prosecuted for trespass, vandalism and conspiracy. He was charged after his photographic coverage of an Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest in Santa Cruz, California last year.

Noting that the First Amendment’s guarantee of press freedom is meaningless if journalists do not possess a concomitant right to gather the news, the brief states that while the allegedly violated statutes may serve important government interests, they cannot be exempt from First Amendment protection. Application of these laws in the prosecution of a journalist engaged in the constitutionally protected act of newsgathering demands careful balancing of these competing interests.

“While journalists may sometimes violate the letter of the law in order to obtain information of public concern, we believe it is extremely important for the court to also consider when such action occurs in the spirit and exercise of First Amendment rights,” said Sean D. Elliot, NPPA president. “Review of visual reportage subject to criminal penalties without that balance unfairly burdens newsgathering at its most critical need of protection,” he added.

This is just the most recent case where journalists have been interfered with and arrested while covering OWS protests throughout the country. In almost every case, those charges – ranging from disorderly conduct and obstruction of governmental administration to trespass – have been dismissed or the defendant journalists have been acquitted.

About the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)

The NPPA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of visual journalism in its creation, editing and distribution. Since 1946, NPPA has vigorously promoted freedom of the press in all its forms, especially as that freedom relates to visual journalism.

For more information, contact Mickey H. Osterreicher at 716.566.1484 or go to www.nppa.org. You can also follow us on Twitter @nppa.

Mickey Osterreicher @ March 12, 2012

Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz, Don Lane, kicked things off by stressing the importance of the ballot initiative and knowing which of the foods we eat are made with genetically modified ingredients. Lane said he was taking time away from being with his grandchildren who were visiting from out of the area, but felt they would understand because their health would benefit by the labeling of genetically modified foods.

Local campaign organizers, including Tarah, Mary, Patti, and Kyle, provided updates from a very successful first morning of collecting signatures, and also reviewed various legal rules, as well as agreements specific to the campaign. After that, a modest raffle was held, then volunteers signed up for locations to gather signatures, and received materials such as petitions, table signs, volunteer badges and sandwich board signs.

GMO-Free Right to Know! Santa Cruz has set a goal of collecting 10,000 signatures, but expects to reach that goal easily, and keep on gathering. Statewide, the effort is being led by The Committee for the Right to Know, a grassroots coalition of consumer, public health, environmental organizations, and food companies in California seeking the labeling of genetically engineered foods (GMOs).

The initiative needs 504,760 valid signatures to make it on the November 2012 ballot. Signatures can get thrown out (invalidated) for a number of reasons: being illegible, spelling mistakes, wrong county, etc. Therefore, the campaign aims to collect more than 800,000 signatures to make sure they have enough that qualify.

For more information, please see:

California State Grange Supports GMO Labeling for November Ballot
by Dan Bacher
Saturday Feb 18th, 2012
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/18/18707651.php

The Committee for the Right to Know
http://www.labelgmos.org/

Santa Cruz County Label GMOs Group, GMO-Free Santa Cruz
http://www.labelgmos.org/santacruz

GMO-Free Right to Know! Santa Cruz
http://www.facebook.com/nongmosantacruz

–

This article, along with the following photos, were also published at Indybay.org.

photo gallery >>

Over 90% of Prop 23 financial support has come from chemical and oil companies, namely Valero and Tesoro, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, and Koch Industries, the largest private U.S. chemical company, headquartered in Witchita, Kansas.

The out-of-state chemical and oil companies who sponsored the initiative refer to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative, while environmental organizations and other opponents are calling Prop 23 the Dirty Energy Proposition.

The California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), an organization working to defeat the proposition, explains, “California leads the way with clean energy technology. But oil companies from Texas are spending millions to fund Prop 23 and block California’s global warming law. They want to keep polluting despite threats to our health and our climate.”

For more information, check out: Van Jones slams Koch Industries’ role in Prop 23

Under the new ordinance, Greenway Compassionate Relief and Santa Cruz Patients Collective (SCPC), the two existing medical marijuana dispensaries, will be permitted to operate a cultivation facility up to 3,000 square feet, which must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The new ordinance specifically bans any new dispensaries from opening, and it also specifies that the entire city is off-limits for dispensaries, except for two industrial zones in the Westside and Harvey West area. Read More and View Photos

photo gallery >>

The AETA is being used for the first time since its passage by Congress in 2006 to do exactly what civil rights advocates feared it would do – criminalize activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The oral arguments presented on July 13th were not about the allegations as directly applied to the AETA 4, but rather that the whole case should be dismissed now because AETA itself is unconstitutional.

Photo of the AETA 4 courtesy of the AETA 4 Support Committee. From left to right: Nathan Pope, Adriana Stumpo, Maryam Khajavi and Joseph Buddenberg.

U.S.A. v. Buddenberg is a federal prosecution of four animal rights activists in California for conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism. On February 19th and 20th, the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI arrested four animal rights activists as “terrorists.” The indictment against the AETA 4 charges them with conduct including protesting in front of the homes of University of California medical researchers in Santa Cruz and Berkeley, chalking the sidewalk, chanting and leafleting, as well as “using the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers.” The Center for Constitutional Rights affirms that these acts are all protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The indictment against the AETA 4 was made possible because of a little known law called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) which is an expansion of a previous law called the “Animal Enterprise Protection Act.” Independent journalist Will Potter reports that AETA was steamrolled through Congress with little discussion or debate in November of 2006 by corporations and the politicians that represent them. AETA is aimed at suppressing speech and advocacy by criminalizing First Amendment-protected activities such as protests, boycotts, picketing and whistleblowing. It targets animal rights activists, but includes language so broad and vague it could be used to prosecute a wide range of social movements. Through the AETA, Congress has codified the dangerous misuse of the term “terrorist” to describe animal rights activists, and this has been largely propagated by mainstream media.

“The AETA is so overbroad and vague that picketers protesting labor practices at WalMart who mount a successful boycott could be charged with animal enterprise terrorism because WalMart sells lunch meat,” said CCR Cooperating Attorney Matthew Strugar. “And it is impossible to know from the language of the law whether your activities might be covered. The AETA is unconstitutional, and if it remains on the books it will be a genuine threat to free speech.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change, says AETA is unconstitutional because it criminalizes a broad swath of protected First Amendment activities and is so unclear as to fail to give people notice of whether or not their conduct is lawful. On this basis, CCR and the defense team have asked the Court to strike down the AETA as unconstitutional.

The following are my very rough and incomplete notes of the oral arguments.

The courtroom was packed, and many people were there in support of the AETA 4.

Matthew Strugar of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argues that AETA is unconstitutional for a number of reasons, not just one.

For example, section (d) (3) (B) [The text of AETA is available as a pdf from GreenIsTheNewRed.com] defines the term ‘economic damage’ and says it “does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;”

CCR argues that this boycott exemption, which was directly influenced by third parties, is vague and unconstitutional.

A comparison is made between the civil rights movement and the animal rights movement. For example, the case NAACP v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE. [In 1966, a boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Miss., was launched at a meeting of a local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).]

Under AETA, if a boycott is effective, or not effective, you are penalized.

Attorney for Maryham Khajavi argues that AETA is aimed at silencing animal rights activists, as evidenced in comments made by Wisconsin Representative James Sensenbrenner.

AETA is aimed at silencing critical speech, which is constitutionally protected. This is a content based restriction. For example, section (a) (1) says, “for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise”

Animal rights protests are excluded under this statute. This is illegal under the constitution.

If a business owner threatens a protestor, they can’t be charged with AETA, but if a protestor threatens a business owner, they can be charged.

This is a viewpoint based restriction.

Government is clearly restricting one side of the debate.

THE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION ON AETA, AS STATED BY A PROSECUTOR:

Conduct related, not speech related.

Subsection (2) (A) – not just speech, but conduct. Not just a lawful protest, those are clearly exempt.

Harassment is criminal conduct.

AETA criminalizes what people do, not what they say or believe.

AETA is applied when a person is placed under reasonable fear, there is a pattern of conduct, threats, vandalism, etc…

MORE ARGUMENTS FROM THE DEFENSE TO DISMISS THE CASE; AETA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

Section (a) (2) (B) uses frivolous and overly broad language: “intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that
person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation”

Terms used are not defined. For example, ‘harassment’ and ‘intimidation’ are already covered under the word ‘threat’.

Sections (a) (2) (A) and (a) (2) (B) are very similar.

THE COURT DID NOT MAKE ANY DECISION AT THIS TIME.

THE NEXT COURT HEARING WAS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14.

–

This article was originally published on Indybay.org

The proposed Santa Cruz County State Park and Beach closures are Big Basin Redwoods State Park, Castle Rock State Park, Castro Adobe State Historic Park, Coast Dairies State Park, Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park, Lighthouse Field State Beach, Manresa State Beach, Manresa Uplands State Park, Natural Bridges State Beach, New Brighton State Beach, Palm State Beach, Rio Del Mar State Beach, Santa Cruz Mission State Historic Park, Seabright State Beach, Seacliff State Beach, Sunset State Beach, The Forest of Nisene Marks, Twin Lakes State Beach and Wilder Ranch State Park.

A rally to save State Parks and Beaches took place on June 1st at Natural Bridges State Beach. On June 2nd, Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks took a bus to Sacramento for the only public hearing on this proposal before the Legislative Budget Conference Committee. Read More and View Photos

photo gallery >>

Here in Santa Cruz, hundreds of people of rallied at 5pm at the Town Clock and marched a short distance. Read More and View Photos

photo gallery >>

photo gallery >>

The reclamation of this sacred site was launched with four days of ceremonies to celebrate the seasonal transition from summer to fall. While the Dakota did not ask for a permit for the four days, the property manager has provided one. Despite the permit and the ceremonies that are happening on site, there continues to be heavy surveillance by Homeland Security, Hennepin County Sheriffs, and riot-police from various police agencies. Read More and View Photos

photo gallery >>

The rally held at Mears Park and the march that followed were heavily infiltrated by plainclothes law enforcement officers. Read More and View Photos

photo gallery >>