Under Louisiana’s new, recently enacted law (HB 173), journalists and other citizens are limited in their right to film the police.
Anyone who finds themselves within 25 feet of an on-duty officer doing that – after being warned to stop or retreat – could face misdemeanor charges.
Now a group of Louisiana-based media companies is challenging the new legislation by suing the state – Attorney General Liz Murrill and two other officials – on First Amendment grounds, seeking an injunction.
The plaintiffs behind the Deep South Today v. Murrill case, brought before the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, go into the importance of the media being able to cover police activity to ensure public scrutiny and avoid miscarriage of justice.
HB 173, the filing continues, “has grave implications for the ability of reporters and news organizations, including plaintiffs, to exercise their First Amendment rights.”
Although the lawsuit does not specifically mention the consequence the law could have on speech online, given that a majority of videos showing police at work get posted on the internet, the restrictions imposed by the act could also have indirect implications for that form of freedom of expression.
According to the plaintiffs, the law is unconstitutional and enables the police to prevent both journalists and the public from being close enough to document their work.
At the same time, officers are allowed to stop those filming them from approaching, either providing a reason or not, and that includes public gatherings, arrests, and reporting from the scene of an accident.
And, there are no exceptions that would regulate when 25 feet is objectively not close enough for a member of the public or a reporter to document police activity.
Since officers are now given the right to ask those filming them to leave – this means they are able to “effectively silence them” and bypass the constitution, the filing reads.
State AG Murrill, on the other hand, told the press that HB 173 is designed to allow law enforcement to perform their duties “without being threatened or impeded by others.”
Murrill also said she would defend the law as a reasonable response to what she calls past “documented interference with law enforcement.”
