Commentaryand Coverage

Judge Pauses Maine Lobster Defamation Suit Pending Appeal
Portland Press Herald 4.15.25

In a brief filed last month, the New England First Amendment Coalition argued that siding with the plaintiffs would be an “unprecedented application of the group libel rule” and threaten news reporting. Doing so could also create a chilling effect related to scientific and public policy debate, the coalition said.

Will Court Records in RI Become More Accessible? Here’s What an Online Revamp Might Bring
The Providence Journal 4.7.25

“The biggest reason why we reached out to the court when new system was announced was there were lot of lessons to be learned from other states, and we want to make sure everyone is learning from the mistakes of other states and providing all the access that should be available to the public,” New England First Amendment Coalition Executive Director Justin Silverman said. Unlike Rhode Island and Maine, the Judiciary in Vermont met with stakeholders last year to “discuss ongoing challenges to online court record access” as they eye new online document systems. “We’ve had several discussions with [Vermont] court officials on what a most useful system looks like, and court officials there offered to show us a beta version of the new system once available to get feedback on that,” Silverman said. . . . One of the biggest concerns about the Re:Search platform is that users in Maine are having a horrendous time using the new system, both to access court documents and to look up cases, Silverman said. “The major concern is how the new platform will be used, how it will function, because frankly, every document in court could be public, but if there’s no practical way to search, it doesn’t matter,” Silverman said. “We’ve seen in other states, Re:Search platform can have flaws. I’m not sure if it’s in the technology or through decisions courts make, about how it can and cannot be used by the public.”

Detention of Tufts Student is a Brazen Attack on the First Amendment

NEFAC’s Justin Silverman and Josh Moore at the Student Press Law Center explain that this alarming incident is the latest example of the Trump administration unlawfully targeting student speech. When students face detention or deportation for lawful expression, they wrote, it sends a message to all that the price of dissent is exile. Their op/ed appeared in the following publications:

The Day | The Berkshire Edge | The Bedford Citizen | The Berkshire Eagle | Stowe Reporter | Caledonian Record | Addison County Independent | Keene Sentinel | Worcester Telegram & Gazette

College Grapples with Congressional Investigation Following SJP Encampment
The Bowdoin Orient 4.4.25

First Amendment attorney Robert Bertsche, who sits on the board of the New England First Amendment Coalition, labeled the letter to Bowdoin an “act of intimidation” from Congress. He affirmed that peaceful protest is protected under the First Amendment, even if it violates College policy. “A free exchange of non-violent views should be encouraged and not discouraged, and I think this intervention by the federal government has the effect of discouraging the free exchange of ideas,” Bertsche said.

Chilling Arrests Target Everyone’s Free Speech
Addison County Independent 4.3.25

Nationally, more than 11 newspaper groups are advocating for Öztürk’s release, including NEFAC (New England First Amendment Coalition), Student Press law Center, Freedom of the Press Foundation and many others. They say the detention appears to be a “blatant disregard for the principles of free speech and free press within the First Amendment.” “The First Amendment is an asset, not an inconvenience,” wrote NEFAC and its fellow advocates in a March 28 statement. “Further, we note that these efforts may start with students, but it likely will not end there. If the federal government can take these steps for an op-ed in a student newspaper, what will prevent it from doing so with journalists and others with whom it disagrees?”

Mass. Police Say a 25-Foot Buffer Will Keep Them Safe. First Amendment Advocates Call It ‘Dangerous’
The Boston Globe 4.3.25

Federal courts have repeatedly said that filming police while they perform their duties is a well-established First Amendment right, said Gregory V. Sullivan, an attorney and president of the New England First Amendment Coalition. Creating a 25-foot buffer, he said, could take that ability away. “It’s a danger to the First Amendment rights of the public and of the press,” Sullivan said of the legislation. “Every case turns on its own set of facts. That’s why overly broad and vague statutes are dangerous, and don’t serve the purpose they’re intended to serve.”

Worcester Denies T&G’s Request for New Health Director’s Résumé
Telegram & Gazette 4.2.25

There may have been legal grounds to deny the first records request, said Justin Silverman, executive director at the New England First Amendment Coalition. Silverman explained there can be a legal argument that a résumé could be exempt from public disclosure until a person is hired. However, once someone is hired, the résumé should be made public, said Silverman. . . . As Silverman sees it, the decision in the WBUR case shows that once someone is hired by a government agency, the résumé becomes public, when balancing the public’s right to information against privacy interests.

With Healey’s Signature, Virtual Meetings Can Continue
Andover News 3.31.25

At in-person meetings, groups can rally and show support for causes, journalists and residents can pose questions that are avoidable in online forums, and certain disabilities can be better accommodated, said Justin Silverman, executive director of New England First Amendment Coalition. “Both points of access [in-person and virtual] need to be provided, that is the most equitable way forward,” Silverman said. “It should be provided to every person in the state so no one is left out of government, and everyone has the opportunity to meaningfully engage with those that are making critical decisions on their behalf.

City Hall: Budget Blowback, Teaching Procrastination, and Public Comment Potty Mouths
Union Leader 3.28.25

The New England First Amendment Coalition (NEFAC) feels folks should be able to use the F-word (and we don’ t mean freedom) along with any other vulgar language or profanity they choose during the public comment period of aldermen meetings at City Hall. “Semi-retired” former New Hampshire Union Leader journalist Mark Hayward spoke at the board’s most recent meeting, using his three minutes of public comment to thank the city for not limiting subject matter, giving folks a reasonable amount of time to speak, and allowing nonverbal communication such as signs. “However, your Rule 3 in the Board of Mayor and Aldermen rules does have some shortcomings, and I’d encourage you to remove them so it could strengthen this public participation process,” Hayward said. “My first concern is with prohibitions of speech. You have some prohibitions against vulgarity, profanity, and the text of the First Amendment doesn’t include any such exceptions.

In Zeal to Convict Lindsay Clancy, Plymouth County Prosecutors are Undermining the Free Press
The Boston Globe 3.26.25

The magazine’s attorney says the US Constitution protects a journalist’s privileged, unpublished information. Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, says state law in Massachusetts protects it too – though not to the degree it would if this state got off its duff and finally passed a reporter shield law.

Council Considers Increased Public Records Fees
Warwick Post 3.24.25

ACCESSRI is a broad-based, non-profit freedom of information coalition dedicated to improving citizen access to the records and processes of government in Rhode Island. It consists of organizations that work on open government issues, including Common Cause RI, the ACLU of RI, the RI Press Association, the New England First Amendment Coalition, and the League of Women Voters of RI. The ACCESSRI letter urges the council to reject the request for approval of PCR 34-25,  because it weakens the standards contained in the state Access to Public Records Act (APRA). “We do not believe the residents of Warwick are looking to the City Council to support efforts to make access to the public’s business more difficult and more expensive to obtain rather than less so. We firmly believe that too many barriers currently exist in the public’s ability to obtain access to records that shed light on the activities of the state and municipal agencies that serve them. We are therefore deeply troubled by efforts such as those contained in H-5457 that seek to make access to government records more, rather than less, difficult by weakening the standards contained in the Access to Public Records Act (APRA), the ACCESSRI letter argues.

Committees are a Pillar of City Government. Concord Keeps the Public at Arms Length
Concord Monitor 3.22.25

“They’re acting on our behalf,” said Greg Sullivan, president of the New England First Amendment Coalition. “We have a right to know about what’s being said.” . . . Whether a minor committee or a major board, “Any government agency,” Sullivan noted, “the rules are the same.” . . . “Anything a quorum of a committee is seeing is a public record and ought to be provided publicly,” Sullivan said. “Then, at least, people can see what it is they’re talking about.” Sullivan noted the preamble to the state’s Right to Know law, which entitles the public to “the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies.” Recording government meetings isn’t required by the law, but it is a best practice, Sullivan said. “The goal is the public knowing what the government is up to to the maximum extent possible.”

Insular Legislature Reinforces Vital Role of Sunshine Week
Sentinel & Enterprise 3.20.25

Given lawmakers’ prevailing attitude, which so far has frustrated the auditor’s attempt to remove Beacon Hill’s shroud of secrecy, the press and the public must redouble their efforts to bring transparency to this out-of-touch institution. That’s why we stand with open-government groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Common Cause Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association and the New England First Amendment Coalition, in promoting the public’s right to know by endorsing Sunshine Week.

Aldermen Will Revisit Public Comment Limitations
Manchester Ink Link 3.19.25

The impetus for the change came from public comment provided by Mark Hayward, speaking on behalf of the New England First Amendment Coalition and himself. Hayward praised the BMA for its public comment policies, but also felt it was worth modifying Rule 3 of the BMA’s Rules, which addresses public participation in BMA meetings.

How Feds Took Control of the Narrative in Deportation of Brown Medicine Kidney Doctor
Rhode Island Current 3.19.25

Ed Fitzpatrick, a reporter at The Boston Globe who also serves as a board member for the New England First Amendment Coalition, did not think limiting public access to the electronic documents was helpful for either side in the case, or for the public’s trust in the courts. “I received so many questions on this story, and a lot of the answers to those questions lie in those documents,” he said. “The government is the one who always says, ‘We want one official record.’ It’s going to be a lot easier to get that record and have it be absolutely correct if it’s publicly accessible.”

Mass. Lawmakers Don’t Have to Follow the Public Records Law. Few of Them Say That Should Change.
The Boston Globe 3.17.25

“The survey shows the vast majority of legislators couldn’t have been bothered to simply respond. That indicates to me that transparency is just not a priority — and it needs to be and the public should demand nothing less,” said Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition.

Maine Has Spent Millions to Digitize Court Records — and They’re Still Mostly Not Online
Portland Press Herald 3.17.25

New England First Amendment Coalition Executive Director Justin Silverman said the policy shift to remove that access amounts to courts reneging on Saufley’s promise. “If a document is public, then it should be public in the courthouse and online,” Silverman said. “There shouldn’t be a distinction between the two. I don’t see much justification for denying that kind of access. … It doesn’t matter what categories of record we’re talking about. If they are public, then they are public, regardless of where they’re located.” . . . Silverman and the ACLU of Maine continue to press for more access, they say, as a matter of equity and accountability. It’s about “making sure that everyone in Maine can have access to their courts without having to potentially drive hours to a specific courthouse and take time out of their busy days to get information about cases they have an interest in,” Silverman said.

Second Circuit Grants Immediate Media Access for All Newly Filed Vermont Cases
FindLaw 3.13.25

Claiming a violation of the First Amendment by denial of access to public documents, plaintiffs filed suit in November of 2021. The group suing consisted of several Vermont media entities, such as the Vermont Community Newspaper Group, LLC, Gannett Vermont Publishing, Inc., the Vermont Press Association, Inc., and the Sample News Group, LLC. Out-of-state members included Courthouse News and the New England First Amendment Coalition.

Bangor Changes Its Public Comment Policy for City Council Meetings
Bangor Daily News 3.7.25

Though the change can be inconvenient for attendees who may have to wait until the end of a meeting to speak, it doesn’t necessarily violate Maine law, according to Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition. While Maine law states that the public has a right to attend and record public proceedings, such as city council meetings, it does not give the public the right to participate in meetings. If a public body gives residents the opportunity to speak, however, Silverman said everyone must be treated equally, regardless of their stance on an issue. For example, if the council is weighing a contentious ordinance, those in favor of the proposed rule can’t be allowed to speak before or for longer than those against it. While Silverman said Bangor’s new policy doesn’t “raise red flags,” that doesn’t mean that there isn’t opportunity for the policy to be misused in the future. “I’m not saying what they’re doing is unreasonable, but I wonder if there are better ways to move forward that would allow everyone to be treated equally in terms of when in the meeting they could speak,” Silverman said. Instead of breaking public comment into two parts, Silverman wondered whether there’s any way the council could allow everyone to speak either at the beginning or the end of the meeting, especially if the council anticipates many people will come to speak at a certain meeting. “By splitting them up, there’s more likelihood that the policy will be abused,” Silverman said. “There seems to be some other, more reasonable ways to deal with the situation.”

First Amendment Audits Impact Government Buildings, Police
InDepthNH 3.4.25

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said that the activities could even be beneficial. “Having someone go around and do an audit can be a public service,” he said. “It’s helpful to know when there are agencies – and in some cases law enforcement agencies – where we can’t exercise our rights. And it can be helpful to share with the public when those right are being infringed upon somewhere.” . . . Silverman said some auditors interact with government employees or officials in ways that seem to invite dramatic responses. “They become unnecessarily contentious,” he said. “I’ve spoken to some individuals who have intentions that are to educate and inform. But with some, you get a sense that their intent is to create some kind of conflict because that will be most attention when viewed on YouTube.” . . . Still, there are people who might find harsh, vulgar and boorish language that some auditors use to be triggering. Silverman said that that it could even be illegal although only in the strictest sense of that word. There is a New Hampshire law dating back to 1942 against using language that could be considered “incitement,” or “fighting words” enacted after someone was called a “damn fascist” and a “damn racketeer.” “But in the years since, that case has really come into question,” Silverman explained. “The consensus among most First Amendment scholars is that that (court) decision is not good law. Generally, we’ve decided that the government shouldn’t be in the position of defining what use of language is offensive.”

Massachusetts Student ‘Only Two Genders’ Shirt Case Could Get Boost From Trump Executive Order on ‘Two Sexes’
Boston Herald 3.2.5

“The dress code of the school prohibits clothing that targets groups based on, among other things, gender identity and sexual orientation,” NEFAC President Gregory V. Sullivan told the Herald. “Now according to the current federal administration, gender identity is not even a valued concept,” Sullivan added. “Therefore, you wouldn’t be able to demean someone based on the basis of gender identity.”

Prosecutors Seeking Journalists’ Information Raising Press Freedom Concerns
WCVB 2.25.25

“These are troubling cases,” said Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition. Silverman said journalists need to be able to keep promises of confidentiality, whether it’s off-the-record conversations or protecting sources, in order to be able to gather all the information the public should have. “Sometimes you have sources that want to provide information, want to share a story, but in doing so, might open themselves up to legal risk,” said Silverman. “Their personal safety might be at risk. We’re talking about very sensitive information that’s only going to be shared if reporters can make certain assurances to them that they’ll be protected.” . . . “This is an issue that affects everyone because what we’re talking about here is staying informed, making sure that we in our communities have all of the information we need, particularly about government. And when journalists aren’t able to get that information, they’re unable to inform us,” Silverman replied.

MA Bill Could Limit Access to Local Government Meetings
Dorchester Post 2.23.25

The New England First Amendment Coalition, ACLU of Massachusetts, Boston Center for Independent Living, Disability Law Center, Common Cause Massachusetts, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, MASSPIRG, and New England Newspaper & Press Association released a statement criticizing the bill. The organizations said that if cities and towns are only encouraged, but not required, to offer online access, many people could be shut out. This includes individuals with disabilities, older adults, people without transportation, and those who can’t attend in person for other reasons.

The Pandemic Led to More Access to Local Town Meetings. Beacon Hill Will Decide What Comes Next.
CommonWealth Beacon 2.12.25

A coalition of advocates are criticizing the section that would allow cities and towns to opt into providing hybrid and remote meetings. The section weakens the state’s Open Meeting Law, because it sets up hybrid or remote access as completely discretionary, they argue, adding that passing it into law under the Municipal Empowerment Act could mean less access to people with disabilities and the elderly if local entities opt to hold meetings that are only available in person. The groups include the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the Disability Law Center, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the New England First Amendment Coalition, and the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, and Common Cause Massachusetts.

Maine Leaders Debate Changes to Maine’s FOAA Law
WGME 2.5.25

The New England First Amendment Coalition says it’s concerned about unintended consequences, allowing agencies to take all 30 days to respond to requests that in some cases happens now in a fraction of the time.

Karen Read Prosecutors Won’t Get Reporter’s Off-the-Record Interview Notes, Judge Rules
WBZ 2.3.25

Cannone’s new ruling says the prosecution can have audio recordings of on-the-record conversations, but not the reporter’s off-the-record notes. The judge acknowledged support for Voss from the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, the New England First Amendment Coalition and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Proposed Bill Seeks to Speed Up Responses to Maine Public Records Requests
WGME 2.3.25

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said while any deadline is an improvement over the current law, a 30-day window could encourage agencies to take the full month to respond—even to simple requests. “Some requests only require minutes or hours, but certainly not 30 days to fulfill,” Silverman said. “I’m concerned that if this legislation passes, the new law will implicitly give permission to every agency to take a month to fulfill a request, no matter how simple it might be.”

Judge in Karen Read Case Rules Reporter Does Not Have to Turn Over Off-the-Record Interview Notes
The Boston Globe 2.3.25

Cannone said in her Friday ruling that she was siding with Voss on the off-the-record material after reviewing filings from groups including the New England First Amendment Coalition and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, as well as the judge’s own private review of the notes. “The Court concludes that the content of the ‘off-the-record’ notes at issue are of a different character than the unredacted recordings of the ‘on-the-record’ interviews,” Cannone wrote.

Merrimack Valley Non-Public Meetings Prompt Questions About How District Leaders Disclosed Overspending
Concord Monitor 1.31.25

The meetings should not have been closed to the public at all, according to Gregory V. Sullivan, the president of the New England First Amendment Coalition. “There shouldn’t be anything confidential about the way the taxpayers’ monies have been spent by a school district,” said Sullivan, who reviewed the meeting minutes, including the reasons the boards cited to enter into the non-public sessions. . . . Sullivan said a resignation would not satisfy the first carve-out unless the employee had been “facing discipline or dismissal had been discussed,” and he said none of the other portions of the law cited would satisfy conducting discussions about the school budget in non-public session. “I would question whether or not the school board is being sufficiently transparent with respect to their non-public sessions,” he said.

Police Heavily Redact Records From Two Domestic Violence Calls Made Just Days Before a Double Homicide
WMTW 1.15.25

Typically, police reports are provided to the public to give all of us a good sense of what our police departments are doing within our communities,” said Justin Silverman, executive director and legal expert at the New England First Amendment Coalition. There are limited exceptions. Police cited privacy concerns as the primary reason for the redactions, but in this case, everyone involved is dead. “The privacy interest there just doesn’t exist,” said Silverman. “So, all we have is secrecy on behalf of the police department as far as how the investigation occurred, what was investigated, and how, and we’re left wondering, was there an opportunity to prevent this tragedy in the first place?”

Roped-Off R.I. State House Rotunda Seen as Part of ‘Playbook’ for Muting Dissent
The Boston Globe 1.15.25

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said the administration needs to explain “why the most prominent area in the State House for people to speak their minds was closed off.” He said it’s “very suspicious” that the administration would reserve that rotunda and leave it unused when protesters had planned to use that space to criticize the governor. “This area has always been open to the public for expression and now all of a sudden a policy that very few people are aware of is enforced,” Silverman said. “This certainly is not a good look for the governor and his staff. Even if there was a preexisting policy, last night would not have been the best time to begin enforcing it.” . . . Over the years, government officials and politicians have established so-called “First Amendment areas” at political conventions and others events, Silverman said. “Often they are a very restricted area with limited visibility,” he said. “The purpose is typically to make sure that protesters are not seen and heard and do not cause any kind of disturbance or embarrassment for the organizers for the event.”

Worcester’s Revamped Online Spending Portal Omits Police Settlements, Court Judgments
Telegram & Gazette 1.13.25

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said in an interview Friday that it was unfortunate information on court judgments that had been available online in the past is no longer being posted. “In that respect, it’s a step backward,” said Silverman. “We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid out by the city.” Silverman said while privacy concerns shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, it didn’t appear to him the city’s justification for them was specific enough to justify the broad withholding of all legal payments. “Whose privacy is the city looking to protect here?” he asked.

‘Protect Public Participation’: Greenfield Codifies Remote Access to Meetings
The Shoestring 1.12.25

Justin Silverman, the executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, told The Shoestring that having access to governance and the ability to engage with representatives is a “civil rights issue” and that access to hybrid meetings is “a matter of equity.”