the politicians we elect to serve us

 

Breanna spits on the First Amendment that she took an oath to uphold. This is the precedent I am bringing to court to bring Lungo Koehn and Caraviello to justice for their nasty, illegal and blatant censorship. The politicians we elect to serve us

 

 A federal district judge in Springfield, Mass., ruled on Feb. 28 that a public access television station in Athol, Mass., wrongly restricted free speech rights and interfered with the newsgathering ability of two producers who used the station, one of whom was barred from further production.

 

 

the politicians we elect to serve us A federal district judge in Springfield, Mass., ruled on Feb. 28 that a public access television station in Athol, Mass., wrongly restricted free speech rights and interfered with the newsgathering ability of two producers who used the station, one of whom was barred from further production.

 

Judge Michael A. Ponsor found that the station must allow the journalists to continue production and they are now producing a similar show. He found that rules adopted by Athol Orange Television Inc. violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because they were content-based.

https://www.rcfp.org/journals/the-news-media-and-the-law-spring-2002/judge-invalidates-rules-pub/

 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION   https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/188/82/2576984/

The plaintiffs Patricia Demarest ("Demarest") and Vicki Dunn ("Dunn") (together, "plaintiffs") produced a show called "Think Tank 2000," which aired on a local public access cable television station, Athol *84 Orange Television, Inc.^[1] Think Tank 2000 concerned itself with issues of local concern, and some of its broadcasts focused on the behavior of local officials in Athol, Massachusetts. In particular, Demarest criticized one local official as having a conflict of interest, and camped outside another local official's home, broadcasting a segment in which she accused him of using his position to get special treatment. When these officials complained to defendants, AOTV suspended Demarest for thirty days from using AOTV facilities and revised its Policies and Procedures Manual.

The suspension and the revised AOTV Policies and Procedures Manual (the "Revised Manual") brought plaintiffs to this court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs contend that suspending Demarest violated the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and § 531 of 47 U.S.C. §§ 522 et seq. (the "Cable Act"), and that certain provisions of the Revised Manual are in violation of the First Amendment or the Cable Act. Plaintiffs also argue that AOTV has violated Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. They have filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief.