First Amendment Coalition vs. Chiu: LaRoe & Volokh Involved

Today, a critical legal challenge has been initiated by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Coalition, targeting California Penal Code § 851.92(c). This statute restricts the dissemination of information related to sealed arrests, imposing significant civil penalties on those who violate it. Specifically, it states that entities or individuals, aside from criminal justice agencies or the person whose arrest was sealed, face fines ranging from $500 to $2,500 for each instance of unauthorized information sharing. Enforcement of these penalties may be pursued by various legal authorities, including city attorneys and the state’s Attorney General, and the law does not negate any existing legal actions that can be taken privately. The implications of this law are profound, potentially chilling free speech and press freedoms by instituting harsh fines for publishing information that the law deems confidential.

The legal team is particularly concerned about the chilling effect this law might have on freedom of expression, especially with respect to public access to information and accountability of governmental actions. The statute’s broad terms could intimidate individuals and organizations from engaging in discourse about public interest matters involving sealed arrests, undermining transparency. The lawyers involved in this challenge reference established legal precedents, specifically the case of Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979), which invalidated a law that prohibited the publication of juvenile defendants’ names. This precedent underscores the importance of protecting the press’s ability to report on matters of public concern and the necessity for a free exchange of information in a democratic society.

Amidst the legal challenge, it has come to light that the San Francisco City Attorney’s office has taken significant action by sending demand letters to a newsletter author on Substack, as well as Substack itself, citing violations of the statute. This development raises further concerns about censorship and the harassment of individuals who may wish to discuss or report on matters concerning sealed arrests. The potential for punitive measures against those sharing information in good faith emphasizes the urgent need to challenge this statute and defend the rights associated with free speech and expression. These letters serve as a stark reminder of the potential repercussions of the statute and its chilling effect on journalism and individual expression.

In light of these events, the legal team aims to temporarily halt the enforcement of the statute, seeking an injunction that would allow for discussion and publication of information related to sealed arrests without fear of civil penalties. This approach is intended to safeguard the rights of individuals and media outlets to engage in critical discussions about the legal system and the ramifications of arrest records on individuals’ lives. The team’s goal is not only to defeat this law but also to encourage broader debates about privacy, public safety, and the government’s responsibility regarding sealed criminal records. The implications of this case may extend beyond California, potentially influencing discussions on similar statutes in other jurisdictions.

Advocates for individual rights maintain that the dissemination of information about sealed arrests may serve the public interest by promoting transparency and accountability. By preventing conversations about these topics, the law may inadvertently preserve injustices and hinder necessary reforms within the criminal justice system. The case will hinge on balancing the rights of individuals to privacy against the public’s right to know about the actions of their government and its impact on communities. As discussions around police reform, systemic bias, and equality under the law continue to unfold, the resolution of this legal challenge may play a significant role in shaping the future conversation about civil liberties and the role of the press.

Looking ahead, there is hope that the outcome of this case will reaffirm critical principles of free speech and expression, empowering individuals to report on issues that are vital to societal well-being. The legal team expresses intentions to share updates as the case progresses, especially following any successful actions such as obtaining an injunction. As this challenge unfolds, it underscores the necessity of vigilant advocacy for civil liberties in the digital age, where information sharing is increasingly pivotal yet threatened by governmental overreach. The broader implications of such legal battles reinforce the need to protect individual rights against encroachments that may limit free expression and access to information, essential components of a democratic society.