RI Journalists Call Proposed Law 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'

PROVIDENCE, RI — Several Rhode Island lawmakers introduced a law Wednesday that, if passed, would have limited how and in what way journalists reported stories. The Rhode Island Press Association called the legislation "damaging beyond any comprehension," adding "this bill would have amplified an already legitimate fear journalists have in doing their day-to-day work."

"Any attempt by government, whether by fiat or law, to censor news media or to require certain kinds of content is a violation of the First Amendment right to a free press, which protects all of us," said John Pantalone, the head of the journalism department at the University of Rhode Island.

The bill was quickly withdrawn. It would have allowed the subjects of news stories in the state, particularly crime-related, to demand that media outlets write follow-up stories on their case. If the outlet refused, they would have faced a fine up to $10,000.

"[The accused may] demand to take down any unflattering pictures or mugshots of the accused that were used in the original publication," the bill read in part.

Senator Sandra Cano, one of the bill's sponsors, tweeted that she understood that "the language in this proposed legislation goes too far and, therefore, I am withdrawing this bill."

"Being charged with a crime is a serious, potentially life-altering matter," Cano said in defense of the legislation. "When people are accused of a crime they are often thrust into the media spotlight. However, if they are later found to be not guilty of the charges, there is never any follow up clarification."

Journalists around the state criticized the measure, calling it an attack on the freedoms of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Tim White, a prominent Rhode Island investigative reporter, called the bill "essentially prior restraint."

"The founding fathers specifically had [this] in mind when they, you know, wrote the First Amendment," White tweeted.

The Rhode Island Press Association called the bill "blatantly unconstitutional."

"The fact that this bill ... was even introduced is both laughable and frightening," the statement read in part. "[Reporters], through their work, find factual information on situations that matter to the public, ask the individuals to respond to the information that was found and present the stories to the public as such."