in Journalism and Mass Communication
From the 1 for All website –
“The Free to Tweet competition on Dec. 15, 2011, encouraged students 14-22 to celebrate the First Amendment though social media. Most participants tweeted their messages, while others e-mailed, or tweeted with links to essays, videos, photos or graphics.”
Twenty-two students from the US will each receive $5,000 scholarships to continue their high school or college education.
Read the full post and the list of winners on the 1 for All website
Requests to Google to remove videos of police brutality on YouTube have been denied. Google, who decides what to take down on a case by case basis, said in its mid-year transparency report,
“We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.”
From Jason Stverak on OJR, Sept. 29, 2011 – Last month, a federal court ruled that recording public officials, including police officers, is protected by the First Amendment. This decision, which may outrage law enforcement officials and members of Congress, is one of the first federal court decisions that brings the First Amendment into the Internet age.
This case emerged from an incident where a private citizen used his personal cell phone to capture alleged police brutality.
Simon Glik could have walked away when he saw two police officers punching a man in the face. Instead, he pulled out his cellphone and started recording it. When Mr. Glik informed the police officers that he was recording audio, the officer arrested him for violating the state’s wiretap law. He also was charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner. The charges were dropped eventually because of lack of merit, but Mr. Glik filed a lawsuit claiming his free-speech rights had been violated.
This latest ruling is especially relevant to those who consider themselves citizen journalists. Before the court’s decision, members of the general public did not have the legal protection guaranteed by state shield laws enjoyed by credentialed journalists.
