![]() “In particular, the government relied on this provision of the law to justify maintaining a watch list of reporters and others who were documenting migrant crossings at the border,” Clary said. 20, 2022.Ĭlary told VOA that rights advocates see the case as important “because the government has not always approached the statute as if it was as narrow as it now claims it is.” "Historically, the statute has been an important tool for prosecuting numerous smuggling activities that facilitate unlawful immigration - conduct that, like respondent’s own sham adoption scheme, has no claim to protection under the First Amendment," she wrote.įILE - Migrants gather at a crossing into El Paso, Texas, as seen from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Dec. ![]() She added that Hansen does not have a valid claim of protection under the First Amendment. The Department of Justice referred VOA to its filings on the case and said it could not comment about ongoing litigation.Įlizabeth Barchas Prelogar, the solicitor general of the United States, filed a brief in which she wrote that "if a defendant assists in the commission of a criminal violation of the immigration laws, the defendant may be prosecuted under the general federal prohibition on aiding and abetting." In it, they urged the court to rule that the federal law making it a felony to encourage noncitizens to reside in the U.S. In February, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the National Press Photographers Association and the News Leaders Association filed a joint brief with the Supreme Court. “ means that even if you have been prosecuted for something that it's constitutional for the government to prohibit, you can still argue that the law you're prosecuted under violates the First Amendment.” “But in the First Amendment's context, there is this doctrine called overbreadth.” “No one is especially keen on defending what did,” Clary said. But if the violation is committed “for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain,” a separate penalty can increase imprisonment to up to 10 years. Violating such provisions carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The mere prospect of arrest would surely encourage self-censorship.” Still, he wrote, “that doesn’t mean prosecutors won’t try. Stern wrote that justices have repeatedly held that action to punish the publication of information rarely “satisf constitutional standards,” but the court has yet to say accurate and truthful reporting “can never be punished.”įILE - Two women from Cuba try to keep warm after crossing the border from Mexico and surrendering to authorities to apply for asylum on Nov. ![]() “If a news report can be deemed illegal for giving migrants ideas on how to cross the border, why can’t the same reasoning apply to, say, criticism of police departments that exposes incompetences that criminals might exploit? What about reporting of abuses that might lead protesters to trespass on government property, or stay out past curfews?” Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote on March 15. In a news briefing, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union said that under the so-called encouragement provision of the federal law, it is a felony to “encourage or induce” an individual to “come to, enter or reside in the United States” in the knowledge the person would be in violation of the law.īut that provision is too broad, according to immigration lawyers and journalists, and it could open space for prosecutions of journalists publishing newsworthy and factual content even outside the immigration context. In the case of Hansen, “what he had done was run a fraudulent adult adoption agency that falsely promised people a path to citizenship,” Grayson Clary, attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told VOA. Media experts agree, saying such broad provisions could leave journalists vulnerable to prosecution if they cover a range of issues, from poor security at the border to commentary on relaxing immigration policy. The government asked the Supreme Court to hear the case after a lower court ruled that the law was “overbroad and unconstitutional,” according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. ![]() Hansen is attempting to have parts of his conviction overturned, saying parts of a federal law against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration to the U.S. Hansen, stems from the 2017 prosecution of Helaman Hansen, who was convicted in connection with a fraudulent adoption agency that he ran. Supreme Court is expected to hear a case Monday that some First Amendment experts warn could affect how journalists cover immigration. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |