Ninth Circuit orders press cross for Gateway Pundit, pending attraction

Appellant alleges that the denial of Conradson’s press accreditation was based on content and opinion, as per the application, which is impermissible. The First Amendment does not provide free and unconditional access to all government property or activities. farther, “[t]Existence of rights to use public property and criteria for limitations [placed] Such rights must be assessed differently depending on the nature of the property in question. “

In traditional public forums—places such as parks and streets where public speaking has traditionally been spoken—“governments can impose reasonable restrictions on when, where and how private speech is expressed, but restrictions based on content must be rigorously conduct is prohibited.” Even in limited public forums, the government opens traditionally private venues to speak on limited topics, such as opening the county’s press conference facility as the county is doing here, the First Amendment Protections against content-based and opinion-based restrictions are strong.

Content-based restrictions “are presumed to be unconstitutional and may only be justified if the government demonstrates that they serve exclusively a compelling national interest.” The First Amendment provides a stronger defense against viewpoint discrimination protection, opinion discrimination “is an egregious form of content discrimination that occurs when a particular motivating ideology or a speaker’s views or opinions are grounds for restricting speech.” If restricting speech is “simply because Public officials attempt to suppress speech against the speaker’s views,” the speech is unconstitutional. In evaluating claims of opinion discrimination, “[w]Therefore, we consider government purpose as a threshold consideration. “

The county denied plaintiffs’ September press pass application because it concluded that plaintiffs “(a) did not avoid an actual or perceived conflict of interest, and (b) were not without associations that would compromise journalistic integrity or damage credibility,” and because It determined that Conradson “wasn’t in [his] Profession. But despite the reasons for these statements, the evidence before the district court — including that presented by the county itself — strongly suggests that a major reason the county denied plaintiffs’ press passes was Conradson’s political views.

For example, the county noted, “Conradson attended political parties and associated with people and groups who demonstrated an inability to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest.” Relying on journalists’ attendance at party events is a weak basis for determining journalistic conflicts of interest and measurement standard. No other evidence submitted to the district court—nor the arguments presented to us on appeal—supports Conradson’s assertion that he failed to “avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest” and that “nothing would compromise journalistic integrity or impair Reputation Association” “

{The county also failed to prove that Conradson had violated press pass restrictions on any journalistic ethics issues when it declined in September.In the district court proceeding, the county noted that after being denied press credentials, “Conradson appeared at a press conference with a hidden camera on October 13, 2022. November 10, 2022 , he appears in [the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center] Under the guise of collecting his certificate there. He allegedly became so disruptive that the county had to remove him from the facility. This behavior is disturbing. However, none of these follow-up actions affect the county’s previous denials. Journalist ID.

Limitations on Individuals’ First Amendment Rights May Not Be Justified afterwards explain. }

In addition, evidence before the district court strongly suggests that the county considered Conradson’s political leanings. The county’s own witness, Roy Moseley, said at the hearing that, in addition to not avoiding a conflict of interest, Conradson’s press credentials were denied because “[h]He does not seek the truth, and his articles have resulted in direct threats against Election Commission officials and employees. “Allowing the county to determine “truth” violates fundamental concepts of our press freedom.

{There is no evidence that Conradson ever threatened county employees. Such evidence is, of course, relevant to the issuance of press credentials as a reason entirely independent of Conradson’s views. But — in the absence of any evidence that Conradson himself called for violence — the fact that a third party who may have read Conradson’s article was involved in the threatening act is not such relevant evidence. }

The county’s own evidence only highlights that the denial of press accreditation against Conradson was not opinion neutral; the county’s evidence does highlight its reliance on Conradson’s political views. Before the district court, the county argued:

As part of the application process, Mr. Conradson submitted three links to work examples. These three articles… are nothing more than promoting the views of The Gateway Pundit. Each article is derived from a news story or press release (such as the county’s published press pass standards). Mr. Conradson then expressed his opinion on the news report or press release, backing it up by citing like-minded social media posts, previous articles by The Gateway Pundit, and syndicated websites expressing the same sentiment. In addition, each article used inflammatory and/or accusatory language, such as “fake news media,” “globalist elite institutions,” and “deeply flawed 2022 primaries.” While Mr. Conradson is certainly entitled to express his views, he has been poorly sourced, researched and reported and lacks the journalistic integrity and credibility required by press pass standards.

The Magistrates Court rightly considered that evidence to be a “worrisome consideration”. However, the district court held that the county was pursuing a legitimate interest in disseminating accurate information to the public in a manner “reasonably related to the viewpoint-neutral goal” of promoting journalistic integrity by supporting a media that avoids actual or perceived conflicts of interest or entanglement Spend. Special interest groups, or those groups involved in advocacy or lobbying. “

In reaching such a conclusion, the district court relied heavily on the Seventh Circuit’s analysis of similar press pass restrictions John K. MacIver Bar Institute. Policy, Inc. v. Evers (2021 7th Circuit).exist McQuayHowever, the court noted that there was no evidence that the government “manipulated[d] This[] discriminatory neutral standard[d]” against the applicant. McQuay The court further found that the applicant’s “other flagrantly biased assertions” were “unsupported by the reference record.” Things are different here.

At least at this preliminary stage of the review, the evidence supports the conclusion that a major reason the county refused to give Conradson a press card was the views he expressed in the article. It was the county’s politically charged assessment of Conradson’s earlier reporting that appeared to lead it to deny him a press accreditation. This kind of discrimination based on opinion is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to prevent. Because, at this preliminary stage, the county appears to be discriminating against views, the county’s decision to deny press credentials likely fails scrutiny when Conradson’s actual challenge is considered. Appellant thus shows the likelihood of success on the merits… .

“The loss of First Amendment liberties, even for the briefest period, undoubtedly constitutes irreparable harm.” While that may be unconstitutional, the district court noted that Conradson could watch the news conference live even if he couldn’t Attend in person and defer for 41 days to seek injunctive relief from denial. Neither the availability of the live broadcast nor Conradson’s delays were enough to lessen the irreparable harm caused by a possible violation of the Constitution. …

The district court found that watching the news conference live, rather than attending it in person, was a “negligible” injury because county officials were not obliged to “interact” with Conradson even if they were allowed in. We disagree. The constitutional harm of viewpoint discrimination, manifested here in the county’s exclusion of plaintiffs from its limited forum, cannot be mitigated or mitigated by requiring plaintiffs to take advantage of less desirable, if somewhat effective, alternatives.

As the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia convincingly explained, “[w]While it is entirely true that journalists do not have an unfettered right to seek news where they want to go… the exclusion of some journalists in areas that are voluntarily open to other journalists for newsgathering purposes is an entirely different situation. ” for this reason, “[a]Access to the News, if unreasonably or arbitrarily denied…, constitutes a direct restriction on the content of the News. “…”[T]The First Amendment “provides at least some degree of protection for the gathering of news and information, especially with regard to governmental matters,” [so] Plaintiffs’ attendance at the governor’s press conference is certainly protected. “…view discrimination regarding in-person attendance at such meetings is not trivial harm….

{We grant a pending appeal injunction, which requires respondent to grant Conradson a temporary press card pending the merits of plaintiff’s appeal, and does not preclude Maricopa County from revoking Conradson’s press card in the future—or denying it These documents — so as long as the county does so meets Conradson’s First Amendment rights. }