From the Legal Hotline (1-877-NEWS-LAW)

Q. We have a school district here in our county with an overzealous public information officer. In the past year, he has stonewalled stories, convinced individual schools not to speak with us, and is requesting every single media request goes through him. The problem with that is he often won’t actually do that work, so we can’t get the story in a timely manner.

Mind you, these aren’t hard-hitting news items, either. They’re mostly positive feature stories on kids who are excelling.

And then tonight, he told our sports reporter that she would have to go through him just to attend games. I’m 99.9% sure this is illegal, but I didn’t know the exact statute or law to cite–I’m assuming the First Amendment applies–but are there any other court cases that address this specifically?

And for your information, we are talking about a public school district. We have no issues with our private schools.

I’m trying to get a meeting with the PIO next week, so I just would like some talking points when I address these issues.

A. While it’s unlikely that a court would say that a journalist always has a First Amendment right to demand access to the event of their choosing, once a sporting event in a publicly funded venue (such as a school stadium) is held open for some media coverage, other media outlets can’t be barred from attending or refused credentials— and credentials like PIO-approval can’t legally be withheld merely because the organizers of the event/PIO dislike the content of the publication.

For example, In Stevens v. New York Racing Ass’n, 665 F. Supp. 164 (E.D.N.Y. 1987), the court held that a horse racing track could not refuse press credentials to magazine based on the magazine’s heavily social and gossip content.

This rule regarding sports coverage is similar to the rule regarding coverage of press conferences by government officials, where many courts have prohibited government entities from singling out and excluding a particular news organization or reporter. See, e.g., Times Picayune Publishing Corporation v. Lee, 15 Media L. Rep. 1713 (E.D. La. 1988); Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906 (D. Hawaii 1974); Quad-City Community News Service, Inc. v. Jebens, 334 F. Supp. 8 (S.D. Iowa 1971); and Southwestern Newspapers Corporation v. Curtis, 584 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. Ct. App. 1979).]

Further, since the football game is accessible to the public (even to ticketed members of the public), the district/PIO must at least be able to point to some legitimate basis for placing special restrictions (like PIO approval) on the media/reporter that aren’t placed on the general public. For example, if the general public is allowed to bring cameras into an event, the First Amendment would not allow organizers/PIO to prohibit the media/reporter from shooting the same event without some justification. There are several cases that support this special-restrictions rule in the context of media coverage of concerts and state park events (although note the courts ultimately found the regulation to be reasonable). E.g., D’Amario v. Providence Civic Center, 639 F. Supp. 1538 (D. R.I. 1986).

Finally, this isn’t legal-related but it seems like parents of the athletes with FOMO (fear of missing out!) on action shots of their kids performing on the field would be a good ally. The parent lobby has helped in other states where school districts have attempted to limit journalists from freely covering games and making their photographs available for sale. Maybe you’ve already or are considering a story on the PIO actions.

Here is a good article from the Student Law Press Center that I found helpful.

Q. Under Florida public records law, is a county Supervisor of Elections office required to supply email addresses? They claim “court cases” uphold withholding that information.

A. Section 97.0585(1) says that the following information is confidential and exempt from public disclosure requirements and may be used only for purposes of voter registration: “declinations to register to vote; information relating to the place where a person registered to vote or updated a voter registration; the social security number, driver license number, and the Florida identification number of a voter registration applicant or voter; and all information concerning preregistered voter registration applicants who are 16 or 17 years old.”

There is also an exemption for addresses, corresponding telephone numbers, and social security numbers of participants in the Address Confidentiality Program for Victims of Domestic Violence held by the Office of the Attorney General.

But I do not see a general exemption for email addresses that may appear on a voter public record. (That said, I don’t think the SOE would have to generate a new document that contains lists of emails that is not currently maintained– “custodian is required to provide access to or copies of records but is not required either to provide information from records or to create new records in response to a request.” )

Importantly, I don’t think the Supervisor merely referring to “court cases” is sufficient. The Public Records Act requires the custodian to “state the basis of the exemption that he or she contends is applicable to the record, including the statutory citation to an exemption created or afforded by statute,” and if asked to “state in writing and with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that the record is exempt or confidential.” So, you should ask for the particular statutory citation that the Supervisor contends makes email addresses exempt, and ask him to please state in writing and with particularity the reasons for the conclusion that email addresses are exempt.