Law school seminars dive deep in FOI, free press, film

RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0

Students in my spring seminars, in Freedom of Information Law and in Free Press and Film, did outstanding work, and I am indebted both to them and to colleagues who joined my classes for teaching me and enriching my intellectual life.

Recently I spoke on the telephone to a long-time friend in academics, a professor at another university, many miles away. We shared strikingly similar stories of well paid administrators, whose numbers on campus seems to grow faster than the wealth gap, even while they lament cuts of not-nearly-as-well-paid staff and faculty positions to keep us within budget.

Well, the similarity would be striking if we were not accustomed to it. Universities in the United States combating financial exigency now seem to me like the nation of Oceania in George Orwell's 1984. They are forever locked in conflict with one or another enemy that is not in fact the greatest existential threat. Rather, the government itself perpetuates a state of emergency so that apparatchiks (administrators) can consume the fruits of labor while the masses (faculty and students) abide oppressive regulation and a diminishing standard of living.

My friend suggested that I propose and apply for a new university office, perhaps a Vice Chancellor of Financial Exigency. That sounds ironically lucrative. As they say, "when in Rome"; if the empire is falling, grab all the grapes you can.

Our conversation devolved, as it invariably does, into why we put up with it all. Coming in a very close second to paying the mortgage is an answer that I fear is both cliché and self-condemnatory: We are gratified when our students learn and excel.

Faculty Seminar Contributors

In the spring, I had the privilege to teach two seminars, one my recurring offering in freedom-of-information (FOI) law, the other a one-off, a course on free press and film. The FOI class coincided with the conclusion of my term on the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, which service afforded me an opportunity to expose my students to leading-edge issues in the field.

The free-press-and-film class allowed me and the class to sink our teeth into the captivating book, featured at The Savory Tort in 2024, Filming the First: Cinematic Portrayals of Freedom of the Press (Lexington Books 2025), by my friend and colleague Helen J. Knowles-Gardner, formerly a political science professor and now research director at the Institute for Free Speech (IFS), and co-authors Professor Emeritus Bruce E. Altschuler, retired from political science at SUNY Oswego, and Professor Brandon T. Metroka, faculty in political science at the University of the Incarnate Word (UIW). (Photos: Knowles-Gardner, from IFS; Altschuler, 2017, by Jim Russel, SUNY Oswego '83, Metroka, from UIW).

My classes were enriched by colleagues who gave generously of their time and energy. Professor Knowles-Gardner joined us in person in Free Press and Film to discuss the book's treatment of the films Denial (2016) and Deliberate Intent (2000) (and to give a campus lecture). Professor Altschuler joined us for three classes, discussing his first three chapters of the book and the films Citizen Kane (1941), RKO 281 (1999), All the President's Men (1976), The Post (2017), Network (1976), and The Social Network (2010). Attorney Dan Greenberg, of the Cato Institute, joined Free Press and Film to discuss his documentary film, American Libel (2025), featured at The Savory Tort last year. (Photo: Dan Greenberg, from Cato.)

My FOI class welcomed attorney and information practice Professor Jason Baron, University of Maryland (U. Md.), and a fellow member of the FOIA Advisory Committee; Arkansas investigative journalist Brandon Howard; independent filmmaker and journalism and mass communication Professor Natalie Pattillo, and a university student leader and student journalist; Professor Robert Steinbuch, featured recently here at The Savory Tort, Bowen Law School, University of Arkansas, Little Rock (UALR); attorney and adjunct professor Gregory V. Sullivan, president of Malloy & Sullivan and president of the New England First Amendment Coalition; and journalism and media studies Professor A.Jay Wagner, Diederich College of Communication, Marquette University, a past member of the FOIA Advisory Committee.

Professor Baron discussed the science of artificial intelligence and how advancements in the era will change the practice of FOI law for both requesters and record officers. Journalist Howard joined the class to talk about his past newspaper reporting and ongoing pro se FOI litigation to access a cold murder investigation case file in northwest Arkansas (see, e.g., The Weekly Vista; see also breaking news). Professor Steinbuch discussed his ongoing transparency advocacy in Arkansas and opinion writing for The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Attorney Sullivan discussed his remarkable record of high-profile access litigation and appellate argument on behalf of New England journalists. Professor Wagner discussed his recent work on statutory citizenship requirements to block state access to public records and the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of the laws.

Professor Pattillo and her student, whose identity I am protecting just in case, discussed contemporary challenges facing campus journalists, including recalcitrant administrators. Professor Pattillo's teaching contract at UMass Dartmouth was not renewed this academic year (e.g., LinkedIn, New Bedford Light, Boston Globe (paywall)). 

(Photos: Jason Baron, from U. Md.; Brandon Howard, from LinkedIn; Natalie Pattillo, from the Center for Independent Documentary; Robert Steinbuch, from UALR; Gregory V. Sullivan, from Malloy & Sullivan; A.Jay Wagner, from Marquette University.)

Student Seminar Contributors

Students in both seminars produced a range of thought-provoking papers built upon insightful research and analysis. I am here honored to share selected titles and abstract, with authors' permission. I thank these stars for their work and for their collaborative spirit in learning with and from each other, and I anticipate with great pleasure their shining future contributions to the legal profession.

—in Freedom of Information Law

Jeremy Aylward, Retaining Transparency in the Digital Age: Retention of Electronic Records Under Federal and State Freedom of Information Laws. The proliferation of electronic records and digital communications has fundamentally challenged the legal frameworks governing government transparency and public accountability. While the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Federal Records Act (FRA) establish baseline obligations for the retention and disclosure of electronic records, the enforceability of those obligations remains structurally compromised. This paper analyzes and synthesizes the legal frameworks governing the retention and disclosure of electronic records and messages under federal law and the open records statutes of California, Colorado, and Virginia, with particular attention to how those frameworks can be meaningfully enforced. Drawing on statutory text, agency guidance, and judicial interpretation, this paper examines how each jurisdiction defines "electronic records," what retention schedules apply, how personal device and third-party platform use by public officials is treated, and critically, what mechanisms exist to compel compliance, sanction violations, and remedy the destruction or concealment of covered records. The paper argues that across all four jurisdictions, electronic records retention law suffers from a common structural deficiency: obligations are broad in theory but weak in enforcement. This leaves agencies largely self-policing in an environment where the incentives to retain records often conflict with the incentives to delete them. While California's content-focused judicial approach offers the most expansive access framework, and Colorado and Virginia provide more structured but still under-enforced retention regimes, none of the examined frameworks provides a reliably enforceable mechanism for preventing loss of electronic records at the point of creation or ensuring accountability after the fact. The paper concludes by identifying the enforcement gaps that most critically undermine the transparency purposes of freedom of information law and by synthesizing lessons across jurisdictions for legislative and judicial reform. (Image: RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0.)

Davis Preston, The Public Records Law Battles with State University Athletic Programs. Universities have taken advantage of state public record exemptions to skirt disclosures of their spending. To combat the skirting of disclosures and to provide more transparency, the NCAA mandates budget disclosures. Public records law exemptions still apply to the schools, but the NCAA mandates force the schools to disclose certain financial information anyway. These mandatory budget disclosures have their own limitations that allow schools to avoid full disclosure. They open the door to what money goes where, but withhold important information, such as who donates, how much they donate, and how the fundraising is organized. There are different structures for how athletic departments operate, but most use private or semi-private entities. Schools use privatization to avoid full disclosure after they meet the NCAA mandate. Different states have different laws that allow universities to avoid full disclosure. The University of Arkansas utilizes a private foundation, multiple universities in Florida utilize direct support organizations, and the University of Georgia utilizes disclosure time extensions. The laws are used to circumvent the public records law, which was enacted to hold public bodies accountable and provide transparency. The universities argue that they should have privacy on financials, as this allows them to keep a competitive advantage over other universities. This argument is met with the public interest in how the government spends money and whether this is done with transparency. There should be statutory change to prevent this circumvention of disclosure. Statutory change would entail eliminating exemption for direct support organizations, standardization of the function equivalent test, and the elimination of time extensions. (Image: RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0.)

Natalie Whitt, Civil Enforcement, Criminal Secrecy: Exemption 7 and the Expansion of FOIA Withholding in Immigration. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted to promote accountability and transparency by providing public access to government records, which can be essential where state authority is most coercive. Public oversight of law enforcement depends heavily on access to government records, yet requests for information concerning police misconduct and officer discipline frequently encounter resistance under FOIA Exemption 7. This provision permits agencies to withhold records compiled for law enforcement purposes when disclosure could cause specified harms, including unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, interference with investigations, and safety risks. Although these protections serve legitimate interests, their application in the policing context often limits public access to information necessary to evaluate how coercive state authority is exercised. Courts typically afford a high level of deference to agencies in determining whether records qualify as law enforcement materials and in assessing claimed harms, while disclosure obligations such as segregability receive comparatively limited enforcement. The result can be a practical barrier to transparency in cases involving alleged misconduct, systemic failures, or patterns of negative behavior from law enforcement. This Article argues that the way courts apply Exemption 7 in the context of policing creates barriers to public oversight that are difficult to reconcile with FOIA’s central purpose of promoting accountability for government power. Law enforcement agencies have a unique authority to detain, search, and use force, while transparency regarding the exercise of that authority serves both individual and systemic public interests. However, courts do not consistently distinguish between personal privacy concerns and information reflecting official conduct, and agencies’ assertions of harm are often accepted without requiring narrowly tailored justifications. (Image: RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0.)

Tryon P. Woods, Prison Conditions and Public Access Or 1(st Am.) + 5(th Am.) + 8(th Am.) + 14(th Am.) < 0—Public Access Math. This paper examines the ongoing problem of prison conditions and the public’s access to information about what goes on inside prisons. I approach the topic as a twin problem in which access and conditions are opposite sides of the same coin. The correlation between access restrictions and the unconstitutional treatment of prisoners has a long history and nation-wide scope. Tracking the aftermath of the seminal case of the Attica Prison uprising in 1971 through several lawsuits arising from institutional failures in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and NYC, this paper argues that in a "total institution" such as a prison or jail, visibility is the leverage on which control hinges. This relationship between the public’s access to information about prison conditions and the constitutional violations suffered by prisoners is refracted in the Court’s First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence on prisons since the passage of FOIA in 1966. Despite the Court’s best efforts, together with prison administrators, the relational reality of law remains undeniable: the undoing of legal personhood for people inside serves as the precondition for inventing the human outside. (When not appearing in class as a law student to sate his insatiable appetite for learning, Professor Woods also is a gifted faculty colleague in crime and justice studies at UMass Dartmouth.—RJPS) (Image: Attica Correctional Facility, 2007, by Bronayur via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0.)

—in Free Press and Film

Bryce Mayo, "A Victim of the Modern Age": Soft Law, Private Suppression, and the Gap in First Amendment Theory. Film: A Clockwork Orange (1971). The First Amendment limits government suppression of speech but does not restrict decisions by private actors. Constitutional doctrine therefore provides little guidance when expression is constrained through private pressures, market incentives, or self-censorship. These forms of non-governmental suppression rarely enter the public consciousness until controversy surrounding particular works expose gaps in the protection of free expression. Stanley Kubrick’s decision to withdraw A Clockwork Orange from circulation in the United Kingdom illustrates this limitation. Although the film was not subject to a nationwide legal prohibition, public controversy, media criticism, and local regulatory pressures preceded Kubrick’s nearly three-decade self-removal. The film thus remained legally protected yet practically inaccessible within the United Kingdom. This incident provides an example of how expressive works may be limited without formal government censorship. This paper examines Kubrick’s withdrawal through a United States constitutional framework. It focuses on the distinction between state restriction and private control over distribution and argues that the quasi-ban of A Clockwork Orange reveals a structural gap in First Amendment theory: while speech is protected from government censorship, it may nonetheless be suppressed through "soft law" mechanisms that operate outside formal doctrine. By separating the concept of legal protection from the reality of circulation, the paper clarifies how expression may be constrained outside traditional censorship models. Recognizing this distinction clarifies the practical limits of First Amendment protections and refines how free speech is understood in modern media environments shaped by market forces, rating systems, and distribution controls.

Amanda McKim, Speech is Free, But Lies You (Should) Have to Pay For: Alex Jones as a Case Study for the Inefficacies of Defamation Remedies. Film: The Truth vs. Alex Jones (2024). The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against government-imposed limitations on freedom of speech and the press. However, the First Amendment does not protect false, defamatory statements. The intersection of these two areas of law has been analyzed at length, but changes in the way society communicates raises new and more dangerous problems regarding the ways in which courts address the impacts of defamation. With the continually expanding use of smart phones, access to endless perspectives in media, and few ways to definitively “fact-check” sources, misinformation is rampant, and defamation remedies provide increasingly less meaningful relief to victims. Alex Jones, a prominent radio show host, was sued in two states and has three judgments against him for defaming victims’ families in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. The complaints were filed in 2018 and resulted in final judgements in 2022 of $1.5 billion dollars in damages. Jones has since filed for bankruptcy, has yet to pay the victims. He continues to disparage the proceedings to his audience of 30 million daily listeners. The plaintiffs’ inability to recover and Jones’s continuing perpetuation of harmful rhetoric exemplify the ineffectiveness of current remedies to meaningfully address serious speech-based harms. Despite legal scholars’ critiques of equitable remedies in defamation cases, equity might be the best way to address previous harm, prevent future harm, and provide victims with the most appropriate relief. (Image: Instagram post by WBRC-TV 6 News, 2025. With characteristic wisdom and compassion, Ms. McKim suggested that the visual element for this post might honor the victims of Sandy Hook, rather than draw further attention to Alex Jones, who doesn't need help with publicity. I could not agree more.—RJPS)

Sean Pillai, Embedded Reporting and Freedom of the Press in Contemporary U.S. Military Operations. Films: Restrepo (2010), Korengal (2014). Embedding journalists with U.S. military combat operations highlights the ongoing struggle to balance democratic transparency with the practical realities of fighting a war. The system of embed reporting was created to give the public a clearer view of what happens on the front lines, but it also has raised continuing legal and ethical questions about how independent reporters truly can be when the military controls their access and movement. This paper looks at those tensions through the perspectives offered in Restrepo (2010) and Korengal (2014), while examining the most recent policy behind U.S. military media policy. The embed system shows why some limits on access are required in combat zones and that journalists must continue to expose themselves to risk both in the legal realm and physically in combat to protect speech. 

Carson Powell, From Accessible Knowledge to Smoldering Ashes: How a 1953 Novel Reflects a Growing Current Reality. Film: Fahrenheit 451 (2018). A story created in 1953, in which books are outlawed, and "firemen" burn any that are found, illustrates the censorship of knowledge and literature. In Arkansas, on March 30, 2023, the legislature approved Act 372, which included new standards for individuals selling books, whether that be public libraries or small bookstores. Act 372 in theory was approved to protect minors from stumbling onto books and materials of mature topics, but many librarians disagreed with that sentiment. The librarians of Fayetteville Public Library, joined by many other librarians believed that the act forces libraries and bookstores to segregate novels with "mature subjects" into "adult only" areas, with a risk of criminal prosecution for failing to do so. The Fayetteville Public Library, American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, and others filed complaints alleging that Act 372, like outright book banning, violates the First Amendment as overbreadth, vague, and content based. The lawsuit further alleged that the Act was intended to limit access of books and media to individuals who have a constitutional right to the books in question. The Arkansas legislature follows a growing trend around the United States of State’s legislators introducing and implementing acts regarding content-based censorship. Increasing enactments of laws aimed at removing “obscene” materials to protect children effectively discriminates against people of color, underrepresented communities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. The suppression of media, whether by segregating books in the library or bookstore, or by facilitating their removal smaller institutions having to take the books off the shelves at risk of prosecution, reflects the themes of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

Jakob Resnik, Apocalypse When? Latent Power of 47 U.S.C. § 606. Film: Apocalypse Now (1979). 47 U.S.C. § 606 ("the Act"), "The War Powers of the President," is an unused emergency provision of the Telecommunications Act that threatens freedom of speech. Apocalypse Now contains a scene depicting a Time magazine article reporting inaccurately on the Vietnam War. The movie does not say whether Time published the article of its own volition or at the direction of the Government. In the "real world," the Act enables the President to seize and control certain media outlets during emergencies, possibly controlling public reception of the emergency. The Act lacks clear definitions or statutory guardrails, conferring power so broadly that it is easily abused. Apocalypse Now used a prop magazine article to illustrate dishonesty in the media without showing where the lie really came from. Under the Act, a censored message can easily be spread to deceive the public regardless of free speech objections that outlets may raise. This is a threat to free speech.

Corie Scott, Tried Inside a Story: Pretrial Narrative and the Fragility of the Presumption of Innocence. Film: When They See Us (2019). Ava DuVernay’s When They See Us documents what happens when narrative precedes adjudication. The prosecution of the Central Park Five—who now identify as the Exonerated Five—illustrates how media coverage, official statements, and public discourse can converge to construct a story of guilt before evidence is tested in court. That story proved more durable than the convictions it preceded and more resistant to correction than the exonerations that followed. The case is extraordinary in its consequences. The dynamic it reflects is not. This paper examines the tension between First Amendment press freedom and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial through doctrinal analysis and a preliminary comparative study of contemporary criminal reporting. Drawing on a close reading of fifteen articles across local news outlets, national publications, tabloid media, and government press releases, the analysis examines patterns in headline labeling, suspect characterization, moral descriptor language, victim framing, contextual background, and the presence or absence of presumption-of-innocence language. The sample is illustrative rather than representative and is offered to surface patterns consistent with the doctrinal concerns the paper identifies. The findings identify patterns that warrant closer legal and empirical attention. Narrative intensity, humanizing context, and presumption-of-innocence framing vary consistently across source types – and, with regularity that raises due process and equal protection concerns, across defendants. White defendants were disproportionately introduced through professional identity and personal context. Black and Latino defendants were more frequently framed through criminal identity and categorical threat language, with government press releases producing the most authoritative and criminalized framing of any source category examined. These patterns point to a structural gap in existing doctrine. First Amendment protections permit the circulation of narratives that assign meaning to accusation. Sixth Amendment safeguards operate within the courtroom to mitigate identifiable prejudice. Neither framework fully addresses how pretrial narratives shape the ground on which guilt is adjudicated. This paper argues that the law’s current approach is incomplete—not because it fails on its own terms, but because it was not designed for an information environment in which narrative formation is rapid, self-reinforcing, and difficult to unwind. The presumption of innocence survives as a formal rule. Whether it survives as a lived condition of adjudication, for all defendants equally, is the question the paper raises—and the one it calls on doctrine and empirical scholarship to more fully answer.

Alayna Wageman, Accountability Gaps at The International Criminal Court: How States Get Away with Murder. Film: A Private War (2018). Women journalists operating in conflict zones are targeted not only because of their reporting, but because of their gender. Sexual violence, intimidation, and physical assault are deployed as deliberate tools to silence women in the press, yet international law has failed to translate its formal protections into meaningful, enforceable accountability. This paper investigates that failure through the legendary war correspondent Marie Colvin. In Colvin v. Syrian Arab Republic, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a default judgment of $302,511,836.00 against Syria for the deliberate targeting and killing of Marie Colvin during her reporting in Homs in 2012. Syria has never paid. Additionally, the conduct that killed Colvin, a state-directed attack on civilian journalists in armed conflict, falls within the jurisdictional reach of the Rome Statute as a war crime under Article 8, yet no International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution followed. Syria is not a signatory and the UN Security Council vetoed the referral. Thus, even when liability is established, the absence of enforceable international laws leaves victims without remedies and states without consequences. Colvin's case is not exceptional. It is representative of a systemic pattern in which gender-based violence suppresses journalistic work and states face no meaningful consequences. This paper highlights three structural deficiencies within the International Criminal Court framework revealed by the Colvin case. This paper contends that addressing these gaps necessitates structural reforms beyond the scope of the current system.

Rebecca Wood, A Relic of the Past: It’s Time To Deal With The Equal Time Rule. Film: Man of the Year (2006). This paper utilizes the 2006 film Man Of The Year to introduce and illustrate systemic inconsistencies in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) enforcement of the equal time rule. The rule, Section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, requires broadcast licensees providing airtime to a legally qualified candidate must also provide equal air time all opposing candidates. The rule is introduced by examining the absence of discussion and enforcement of it and its requirements throughout the film despite a talk-show host’s presidential campaign. This paper suggests that the omission is illustrative of the inconsistent and arbitrary application of the rule in the real world. Next, the history and origins of the rule are explored beginning with the rule’s origin in the Radio Act of 1927 through present day talk show challenges. Subsequently, the rule’s inconsistent implementation and the question of censorship are investigated with examples in media, case law, and FCC proceedings and notices from the rule’s beginning through present day. Finally, possible remedies such as further defining the rule, post-Chevron challenges, or repealing the rule are considered.

Carr, Trump threaten broadcasters unconstitutionally, experts attest, but the play's the thing

Late last week, on Sunshine Week, former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) officials, civil society organizations, and First Amendment scholars organized by D.C.-based TechFreedom, sent a letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr asserting the unconstitutionality of threats to revoke broadcast licenses and to prosecute broadcasters for treason.

I joined the letter, which observed that the Communications Act of 1934, while allowing the government broad discretion to regulate "as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires," also disallows censorship.

At risk of exhausting the word "unprecedented," that's the best way to describe the strong-arm tactics of the Trump Administration that have wrought havoc with late-night comedy and hammered historically stalwart network news into conformity. Accusing media of treason for not favorably spinning the Iran war is beyond the pale.

Early in the history of U.S. telecommunication regulation, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the government power to regulate in the public interest. The Court, like the public, was wary of seemingly miraculous new communication technologies. And transmission over unseen electromagnetic waves posed real technical challenges, such as interference and scarcity.

Even when the civil rights era sparked a sea change and invigoration in First Amendment jurisprudence, the peculiar prerogative of public broadcasting regulation persisted. 

Researchers and social activists raised alarms about the impact of television on child development. With "the first televised war" in Vietnam as backdrop, many commentators theorized a causal link between television and social unrest. Accordingly, First Amendment law enshrined the principle of "media balkanization," meaning government regulatory power varied by medium, as between, for example, a newspaper and a TV station.

Late in the 20th century, the status of the internet in the schema of media balkanization was much debated. The internet blurred traditional lines, such as between print and broadcast, and as between journalist and ordinary citizen. As the internet became pervasive in American life, and the technology improved toward handheld recording and video streaming, the prospect of internet regulation seemed ever less akin to broadcast licensing and more akin to censorship. 

Thus, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court charted a course away from disparate treatment of the internet. Still, balkanization doctrine has never been addressed definitively in the digital age, much less abolished. Internet abuses, from revenge porn to social media addiction, continue to bolster arguments for regulatory models tailored to the online environment. And conventional broadcasters still have a foot in the bear trap of FCC licensing, as the agency nears its centennial.

Carr and Trump's threats thus occur at a nadir of constitutional confidence in the government power to regulate by way of broadcast licensing.

Yet constitutionality might be beside the point. A lesson Trump learned well in a lifetime of litigation is that the powerful economic actors that dominate our society fear uncertainty and risk more than they fear impact and loss. That is to say, the Sword of Damocles is more dangerous for its potential than for its blade. 

The threat to censor, or to impose transactions costs in resisting censorship, has proven effective in compelling commercially minded media corporations to toe the official line. 

And therein lies an especially pernicious threat to free speech, because our legal system, thus far, has proven profoundly ill equipped to counter.

LoMonte tells timely Tenn. tale of vanishing public records, legislative response in retention requirement

My friend and colleague Frank LoMonte, CNN senior legal counsel, has published a superb and timely new article, "The Race to Erase: Destruction of Government Documents Undermines Freedom-of-Information Laws," in the Seattle University Law Review.

Here is the abstract.

In August 2019, reporters with Chattanooga’s daily newspaper, the Times Free Press, filed what seemed to be a routine request for access to emails and other public records held by their local county government. The seemingly unremarkable request set the newspaper’s staff on a months-long journey of unpleasant surprises. The first was a demand to pay the county $717 in advance before being allowed to inspect the documents. The second was that—during prolonged haggling over the fee assessment— the county attorney’s office simply destroyed almost all of the disputed records. Third, and most glaringly, the journalists discovered that Tennessee law did nothing to require agencies to retain public records after receiving a request to produce them, exposing a gaping hole in right-to- know laws that goes well beyond one state.

This Article looks at the state of records-retention law in the United States and how the lack of forceful and well-enforced retention requirements can frustrate the good-government objectives of FOI laws. Part I lays out the animating principles behind right-to-know laws, how they operate, and how requesters have productively used public records to uncover government secrets. Part II examines the state of records-retention laws and regulations, and how their lack of clarity—particularly when it comes to emails, texts and other twenty-first-century electronic communication methods—has led to frustrating results for requesters. Part III looks at the meager remedies under federal and state law to enforce records retention requirements; paradoxically, these remedies provide hidebound government officials with an incentive to destroy, rather than just withhold, embarrassing records. Part IV focuses on the special case of police personnel files and body-cam videos, which hold promise as tools of accountability if the public can actually obtain them. This Part uses a recent California dispute—in which a municipal police department destroyed video footage of officers removing homeless people’s campsites while a requester was still fighting to obtain the footage—to exemplify the larger problem of inadequately rigorous retention laws. Finally, the Conclusion discusses what a legislative remedy to patch this hole in the public’s information safety net might look like, returning to the example of the Chattanooga Times Free Press’ unfulfilled request and the legislative response it inspired.

LoMonte's apt paean to record retention is nicely complemented by a new release from UNC's David Ardia pressing for a constitutional dimension to the freedom of information (HT @ Professor Robert Steinbuch).

I am grateful for references in LoMonte's article to something I wrote many years ago on record retention. I oft lament that my early-career work from flyover country on record retention and court record access are rarely if ever cited, even while they represent first publication of many points later repeated in the literature. Attorney and Georgia law professor LoMonte seems set on taking the wind from my whiny sails.

At the same time, I observe and lament that our strange times—with such as the firing of the National Archivist, the disappearance of federal records, and a privacy-obsessed generation baffled by the custom of open courts—have sent researchers scurrying for past findings in these areas. Who knew.

Court's pass on Wynn bid to revisit 'actual malice' makes sense, but standard still fuels misinformation

Wynn operates the Encore Casino in Everett, Mass.,
since a dust-up with authorities over ownership.
Holiday Point via Flickr CC BY 2.0

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear casino mogul Steve Wynn's bid to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" standard, despite the known appetite of some justices to revisit the 1964 precedent.

The outcome is not a surprise and probably for the best, because Wynn had lousy facts to support his argument. Unfortunately, Sullivan's complicity in our present misinformation crisis remains real and ever more problematic. Cases such as Wynn's undermine legitimate recognition of the dysfunction Sullivan has wrought.

I've written and spoken before, and will not here belabor, my ardent opposition to the Sullivan standard, which requires public figures to demonstrate, even prove—usually upon filing a complaint, with no access to evidence in the possession of the defense—that the defendant subjectively knew of the falsity of the publication, or at least that there's a smoking gun disproving the defendant's denial.

Sullivan came about with good intentions. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court was determined to enforce Brown v. Board (U.S. 1954) and bring about the civil rights order required by the Reconstruction Amendments, specifically in Sullivan by heading off southern officials' weaponization of tort law. But the wide berth that the Court cut for freedom of speech vis-à-vis the competing values of personal reputation and human dignity was cemented in constitutional law, and now we face the consequences of an irremediable imbalance.

Steve Wynn
Sarah Gerke via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

In Wynn's case, defendant Associated Press surfaced two complaints of sexual assault filed with police against Wynn in the 1970s. The reporting occurred in the context of contemporary allegations of a pattern of misconduct, which Wynn roundly denies. The AP report probably falls within the common law "fair report" privilege, which shields from liability the re-publisher of allegations in official documents. The advanced age of the reports raises a thin question on the "fair" prong of the analysis, and the degree to which the privilege has been constitutionalized is debatable. But those issues are neither here nor there, for the courts in the Nevada lawsuit never got that far.

Wynn's suit was dismissed under the Nevada anti-SLAPP law because, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, Wynn failed to demonstrate sufficient proof of actual malice in his pleading. Wynn offered little more in the way of allegation than that the police complaints were "implausible," so should have been disbelieved—hardly that they were contradicted by evidence in the defendant's possession. There was an allegation that the AP reporter regarded a complainant against Wynn as "'crazy'"—but, again, that hardly equates to "lying." Anyway, were the fair report privilege eventually implicated, the salient fact would be the truthful rendition of the reports, not the truth of their underlying contents.

Besides bemoaning Sullivan, I have lamented at length on the ill wisdom of anti-SLAPP laws, such as they have been adopted throughout the United States, another song of woe I won't here reiterate. I also have acknowledged consistently that anti-SLAPP works well when it works well (and could work better). Wynn's case proves both points. He didn't get his day in court, nor hardly a hearing. But I suspect his ability to prosecute all the way to Washington has more to do with his wealth than with the merits of his claim.

Wynn's appeal strategy was principally to attack Sullivan head on. Wynn knows, or his lawyers know, that near immunity for false, even ludicrous, allegations against public figures has everything to do with the vigor of misinformation circulating in the American marketplace of ideas. But Wynn was ill able to illustrate an injustice against a meritorious cause, the kind of fertile soil one needs to nurture willingness to overturn a 60-year-old, civil rights-era precedent.

For some further context of judicial dissatisfaction with Sullivan, here's an excerpt from my 2 Tortz: A Study of American Tort Law (Lulu 2024 rev. ed.), on "Reconsidering Sullivan."

Doubts about sacrosanct Sullivan were once uttered at one’s own risk in legal academic circles. But U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas legitimized debate with a concurrence in denial of certiorari in McKee v. Cosby (U.S. 2019). An actress, McKee, in 2014, publicly accused actor-comedian Bill Cosby of rape 40 years earlier. A letter from Cosby’s attorney to mass media attacked McKee’s credibility, but did not specifically deny the asserted facts of the encounter. McKee alleged defamation, and the courts concluded that the letter stated only unverifiable opinion.

Media advocates certainly hoped that Thomas’s commentary was a one-off. It was not. Two years later, Justices Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson (U.S. 2021).... Earlier the same year, highly regarded U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman had joined Thomas’s call, dissenting in Tah v. Global Witness Publishing (D.C. Cir. 2021) (involving accusation of bribery against international human rights organization). A likeminded concurrence by Florida appellate Judge Bradford L. Thomas followed in Mastandrea v. Snow (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022) (involving accusation city official was “on the take” in development matter). And that same year, the Journal of Free Speech Law published Professor David McGowan’s A Bipartisan Case Against New York Times v. Sullivan (2022). Justice Thomas reiterated his “view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, LLC (U.S. 2023) (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari), thrice more in 2022 and 2023.

Mass-media misinformation during the Donald J. Trump Presidency, contributing to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, shook the confidence in Sullivan even of some devoted liberal stalwarts in the academy. On the one hand, President Trump had used defamation, among other legal tools, to attack critics. He was accused of weaponizing transaction costs, but Sullivan remained an important substantive bulwark. On the other hand, Trump evaded “Me Too” accountability not only with denials, like Cosby, but with ruthless accusations of lying, which loyal political supporters embraced and amplified.

The busy federal court for the Southern District of New York has seen its share of politically charged defamation litigation. That’s where writer E. Jeanne Carroll, availing of a New York look-back statute, brought two suits against President Trump, alleging sexual battery in the 1990s and defamation for calling her claims “a complete con job,” “a hoax” and “a lie.” Juries awarded Carroll in excess of $80 million for sexual battery and defamation, despite the actual malice standard. Trump appealed. Do the verdicts show that Sullivan works? In 2022, Sarah Palin lost a defamation claim in S.D.N.Y. against The New York Times over a staff editorial that blamed her in part for the mass shooting that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords. Exceptionally against the usual no-actual-malice motion to dismiss, Palin had won discovery. And discovery revealed some ethically problematic sloppiness behind the scenes at the Times. Nevertheless, bad journalism is not actual malice, and the court and jury so concluded. Palin’s appeal from the Second Circuit was seen widely as a contender to draw Sullivan reconsideration, but the Court passed.

Whether a function of social media, declining civility, or partisan extremism, data show that defamation litigation is up. And courts are not as quick as they once were to dismiss for a plaintiff’s inability to prove actual malice. Still, the public-plaintiff win remains a rarity, especially for the public official or public figure who doesn’t have the resources to go to the mat.

The case is Wynn v. Associated Press, No. 24-829 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2025).

New book spotlights freedom of press in film

My friend and colleague Helen J. Knowles-Gardner, formerly a political science professor and now research director at the Institute for Free Speech, along with co-author Professor Emeritus Bruce E. Altschuler and Professor Brandon T. Metroka, has published a gratifyingly compelling new book, Filming the First: Cinematic Portrayals of Freedom of the Press (Lexington Books 2025).

The engaging cover art was created by illustrator Doug Does Drawings (X, Etsy, Instagram, YouTube).

Here is the publisher's description of the book:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging freedom of the press. But, as the printed press has been transformed into mass media with Americans now more likely to get their political information from television or social media than from print, confidence in this important, mediating institution has fallen dramatically. Movies, in their role as cultural artifacts, have long reflected and influenced those public attitudes, inventing such iconic phrases as “follow the money” from All the President’s Men and “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore” from Network. Filming the First: Cinematic Portrayals of Freedom of the Press analyzes eighteen films that span from Citizen Kane to Spotlight showing changes in how the press have been portrayed over time, which voices receive the most attention and why, the relationship between the press’s “Fourth Estate” role and the imperatives of capitalism, and how, despite the First Amendment’s seemingly absolute language, the government has sometimes been able to limit what the public can read or view.

I was privileged to review an advance copy of the book and am quoted aptly on the back cover: 

Filming the First is a deeply thought-provoking exploration of America's cinematic engagement with "the press." Through the revealing social implications of the big screen, Filming the First interrogates press freedom from yellow-journalism sensationalism to Watergate and Vietnam heroics, to the existential threat of misinformation. Organizing eighteen films into ten thematic chapters, Filming the First embraces both classics and the avant-garde and treats readers to perspectives on mass media from the reverent paean to the ruthless critique. Knowles-Gardner, Altschuler, and Metroka locate their diverse film selections each in its social, cultural, and legal context. Upon each exposition, the writers relate key takeaways to the perils and uncertainties that surround the business of media in our polarized present day. Filming the First is a thrill ride for film buffs, free speech aficionados, and anyone willing to engage with the struggle to define media's place in modern democracy.

If I ever again have the freedom to teach an indulgent topical seminar, this book is at the top of my list.

Here is the table of contents.

Chapter 1. Censorship in a Time of War: Good Morning, Vietnam
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 2. A Media Mogul Battles Against His Fictional Doppelganger: Citizen Kane and RKO 281
Bruce E. Altschuler

Chapter 3. Heroic Newspaper Reporters, Editors, and Publishers Battle the President – All the President’s Men and The Post
Bruce E. Altschuler

Chapter 4. Technology Transforms the Press into the Media: Network and The Social Network
Bruce E. Altschuler

Chapter 5. “How Can We Possibly Approve and Check the Story…?”: Good Night, and Good Luck and The China Syndrome
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 6. Testing the Limits of Freedom: Denial and Deliberate Intent
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 7. Responsibility Matters: Shattered Glass
Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Chapter 8. Creating Protagonists, Competing Interests, and Uncertain Legal Standards: The People vs. Larry Flynt and Citizenfour
Brandon T. Metroka

Chapter 9. A Tale of One Press Clause and Two Journalisms: Spotlight and Out in the Night
Brandon T. Metroka

Chapter 10. Mainstream Press Negligence and its Effects: The Normal Heart and Tongues Untied
Brandon T. Metroka

 

Student media combat criminalization of speech

The criminalization of journalism is the worry at the heart of the Julian Assange case, as a UK court mulls the possibility of his extradition to the United States to face Espionage Act charges, essentially for publishing truthful information that he lawfully obtained (more).

Today is Student Press Freedom Day, a day to recognize the important First Amendment rights and vital Fourth Estate function of journalists in schools, colleges, and universities. 

Speech on college campuses, if more in a protest vein than a journalistic vein, has seen lately a wave of efforts at criminalization. Charges might not be on the scale of the federal Espionage Act. But the deployment of criminal law in the suppression of speech is bad news at any level.

Student journalism came face to face with the criminalization of protest speech recently at Northwestern University.

The Intercept reported on February 5 that students at Northwestern University had embodied their pro-Palestinian protest in a parody of The Daily Northwestern newspaper. The parody was regarded by other students and members of the community as offensive and antisemitic.

The newspaper publisher—a nonprofit comprising alumni, faculty, staff, and students, and distinct by design from the student editorial board—complained to police. And when the perpetrators were identified, prosecutors charged them with "theft of advertising."

"The little-known statute appears to only exist in Illinois and California, where it was originally passed to prevent the Ku Klux Klan from distributing recruitment materials in newspapers, The Intercept reported. "The statute makes it illegal to insert an 'unauthorized advertisement in a newspaper or periodical.' The students, both of whom are Black, now face up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine."

The Daily Northwestern published an editorial demanding that charges be dropped. The publishing entity and prosecutors capitulated, Seth Stern recounted for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Stern lauded the student editors, and I agree. They didn't like their nameplate being appropriated by an offensive partisan protest. But that wasn't the point. Stern explained:

After all, newspapers are often the victims of the same kind of overreach the students are facing. Police in Marion, Kansas, raided the Marion County Record last August, purportedly to investigate whether reporters somehow committed identity theft by confirming a news tip on a government website. In October, authorities charged a reporter and publisher in Alabama with violating a grand jury secrecy law—plainly inapplicable to journalists—by reporting on a criminal investigation of a local school board. Six months before that, an Arizona state senator got a restraining order against a reporter for knocking on her door.

There’s more. A citizen journalist in Texas is hoping to go to the Supreme Court with her lawsuit over an arrest for violating an archaic law against soliciting “nonpublic information.” The City of Los Angeles last week sued a journalist for publishing information that the city itself gave him. And the mayor of Calumet City, Illinois, had citations issued to a journalist in October for asking public employees too many questions. The list, unfortunately, goes on and on.

There are cases in which I will go to bat for criminal law enforcement against protest activity. Protestors don't have a right to trespass on private property after being asked to leave peaceably, which seems to have happened at Brown University. And they don't have a right to cause damage or to put other people in harm's way.

First Amendment doctrine is not perfect, but it has plenty of experience drawing this line. What's worrisome about the latest incidents of speech criminalization is that we seem to have to be re-litigating some easy questions.

When I was an intern at the Student Press Law Center many moons ago, there were five statutes in the United States protecting student media freedom. Today there are 17. Read more about the steady but sure advance of student media freedom at the SPLC and how you can recognize student media freedom at Student Press Freedom Day.

Assange Defense Boston rallies at State House

The Boston Committee of Assange Defense rallied today at the Massachusetts State House.

At the rally today, I spoke about my experience with freedom-of-information law and read parts of a letter from U.S. law professors to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. The letter asks the U.S. Department of Justice to drop Espionage Act charges against Assange and abandon the request for his extradition from the UK. 

Freedom of the Press Foundation has more on the letter. My comments were based on, and the text of the letter can be found in, my February 16, 2024, post, "Me and Julian Assange."

The High Court in London heard arguments today that Assange should have a right to appeal to the courts over his extradition, which the British government has approved. Read more about today's proceeding from Jill Lawless at AP News. The case continues in the High Court tomorrow.  Protestors crowded on the street outside the London courthouse today.

Photos and videos by RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

The sun shines at the Massachusetts State House.

The group sets up.

The crowd grows.

Committee organizer Susan McLucas introduces the cause.

Victor Wallace speaks.

A letter in support is read from U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).

A speaker decries government secrecy. The s***-word might have been used.

A woman speaks to the intolerable cruelty of U.S. federal prisons.

Committee organizer Paula Iasella says that Assange is hardly alone in aggressive national security accountability, citing John Young's Cryptome.