City of Sumter officials passed a resolution during a city council meeting earlier this month related to the First Amendment, but parts of it may be problematic.
"This is just a policy that will protect that First Amendment, but it will also protect the citizens who are coming in here," Assistant City Manager Howie Owens said during the meeting. "It really defines boundaries of what public areas are and what limited-access areas are."
Essentially, the policy is intended to help educate the public on where First Amendment rights to record are protected.
Owens used the police department as an example, stating the lobby would be a public area where recording, which is generally considered a form of free speech by the courts, is allowed, but a room of the department where files are kept would be considered a limited-access area because it holds sensitive information, so citizens would not be allowed to record in there.
In other words, this policy makes it so video and audio recording are restricted in certain areas of government-owned buildings.
The policy would protect city employees' privacy, Owens told council.
It labels the following areas as restricted-access areas, or areas within government-owned buildings where First Amendment rights to video and audio recording would not be protected:
- employee offices;
- copy rooms;
- mailrooms;
- break areas;
- employee parking lots;
- storage areas;
- access points or other outside areas marked for use by municipality employees or vehicles;
- areas in close proximity to places, stations, desks, counters or teller windows where private third parties conduct business with city employees;
- hallways;
- staircases;
- restrooms;
- elevators;
- other areas by purpose or function restricted to limited or transitory occupancy or providing access solely to other limited-access areas;
- maintenance, storage and warehousing facilities;
- public works and public safety buildings, except for any designated waiting or reception areas within them; and
- water, sewer and other public utility facilities.
The document states that limited-access areas are not limited to that list and that limited-access areas can be designated through just about any kind of boundary identifier like rope, fencing, signage or other kinds.
Nothing within the policy is in direct violation of First Amendment rights, according to Taylor Smith, a Columbia attorney who is part of the South Carolina Press Association's legal council.
The policy seems good-intentioned, he said, but because it's now in place, the city could be opening itself up to an increase in First Amendment audits from the public. In other words, the existence of this policy creates more ground on which the city could be challenged on how it upholds First Amendment rights.
At the end of the policy, it states that "[a]ny person may photograph, film, or record audio of any public area. Any such activity should be reported to a municipality official, preferably a law enforcement officer if possible."
This is not in direct violation of First Amendment rights, according to Smith, but this part of the policy does seem to discourage the public from acting upon those rights, which can be problematic.
Comentários