EDITORIAL: Cellphone ban too restrictive


Trial court cellphone ban steps on First Amendment rights


firstamendmentphone

Photo Illustration

Isabella County Trial Court instituted a new policy March 9 prohibiting cellphones, cameras and recording devices in the courthouse. The decision has caused discussion about First Amendment rights in the Mount Pleasant community.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1981 decision, in Chandler v. Florida, allows each state to make its own rules to legislate courtroom use of cameras and recording devices. While Michigan courts can revoke the ability to use these devices, state law generally allows them in courtrooms.

Community members and students should oppose the Isabella County Trial Court's new policy. We should be wary of any attempt to stifle our First Amendment rights.

Other than intervening for a legitimate safety issue or to protect courtroom decorum and a defendant's right to a fair trial, courts cannot place restrictions on proceedings. 

The court's argument that the policy is in place to "maintain the security of the courthouse" is weak. If the court wants to ensure sensitive material is not discussed outside the courtroom, it is perfectly capable of employing a gag order. This makes the policy unnecessary.

Undermining the First Amendment is a slippery slope. 

Under the law, there is no difference between a member of the press and a citizen when it comes to filing Freedom of Information Acts requests, recording at a trial or taking a photo at a public event. This policy has effectively placed the media apart from citizens by granting reporters special privileges and allowing them to continue using recording devices.

 As members of the press, we do not agree with this separation. Neither should you. 

Some might argue that because most of us do not frequent courtrooms, the policy has little effect or causes little harm. Any infringement on First Amendment rights, no matter how directly related to you, is a step in the wrong direction. 

This particular policy was enacted in response to what appears to be an isolated incident. One citizen used his own recordings to comment on court proceedings on Youtube, and the court retaliated. 

Why should all Isabella County citizens have their rights trampled because of the court's displeasure with an individual? Further, why should a court make an enemy out of an individual to the point of making a policy change based on his or her actions?

Additionally, courts already keep their own official records of courtroom proceedings. These records are generally open to be viewed by the public and can even be purchased. What makes the person who takes that official record any more important or valid that the citizens who are no longer allowed to?

Whether you plan on frequenting Isabella County Trial Court proceedings or not, this policy is a slap in the face to your First Amendment rights. 

We hope students and community members will join us in voicing their concerns in the name of free speech.

Share: