Monday, October 15, 2018
#FREESPEECH IN THE NEWS: OCTOBER 16, 2018
As the Citadel of Free Speech here in Cleveland, we work to protect and promote the basis of our democracy by sharing related stories, commentary, and opinions on free speech in the 21st century. Here's what's making the news – and what you should know about – in the past week.
1.) Drug Lobby Sets Stage for Free-Speech Battle Over Prices in Ads
A new U.S. government proposal may require drug companies to disclose prices in ads, and the pharmaceutical industry is fighting back.
The pharmaceutical industry says such a requirement infringes on their right to free speech. The Department of Health and Human Services says the requirement was created to ensure drugmakers are honest about doing all they can to lower drug prices.
“Our vision for a new, more transparent drug-pricing system does not rely on voluntary action,” Alex Azar, the U.S. health secretary said in a statement. “The drug industry remains resistant to providing real transparency around their prices, including the sky-high list prices that many patients pay.”
2.) Justices Take Up Public-Access First Amendment Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck involving the application of the First Amendment to the private operator of a public-access television channel.
According to the case, the public-access channel removed a video for what it says was harassment and threatening language, and the producers of the video sued, saying their right to free speech had been infringed upon. Due to the channel being run as a state entity, the producers say the suit is valid.
This ruling, court documents filed on behalf of the station say, threatens the viability of public-access channel operators around the country. It also raises the broader question of whether private property can be a public forum.
3.) Berkeley confronts First Amendment concerns after police tweets
The Berkeley Police Department often tweets the names and mugshots of those arrested, and that has caused serious questions about free speech and the privacy of those that haven’t been convicted.
Proponents of the ban on police tweeting names and mugshots of those arrested include the mayor and two council members. Opponents say not releasing such information could result in less transparency overall. Those who have been arrested say publishing their names and photos has only opened them up to harassment and threats, even if not ultimately convicted of a crime.
David Snyder, executive officer of the First Amendment Coalition, said it’s not clear whether media outlets have a legal right to booking photos, but names, cities of residence and other information on people who are arrested should always be disclosed.
“These are protections for both the public and the person being arrested,” Snyder said. “We don’t do secret arrests in this country.”