newsgathering

Journalist Pedro Rivera has filed a lawsuit alleging the Hartford police violated his First Amendment rights by questioning his use of a drone to record images of a car wreck, the Associated Press reports. Rivera claims that he was told to leave the area and that his TV-station employer was told he had interfered with a police investigation. At the time, Rivera was not working for WFSB-TV but is on call for them. Rivera also alleges violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. The complaint can be accessed here.

The Federal Aviation Administration has opened an investigation into a TV station's use of a drone to investigate a car crash, the Associated Press reports. "The case of the Hartford crash, in which the victim's body was left hanging out of a mangled car, highlights some of the safety, privacy and ethical issues that journalists will wrestle with as interest grows in using drones for newsgathering," the AP notes.

For now, the FAA has not authorized the use of drones for commercial purposes, including journalism, the AP further notes. The FAA isn't expected to propose regulations on the commercial use of drones weighing less than 55 pounds until November.

Two Arizona reporters have received a $3.75 million settlement because they were falsely arrested in 2007 by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The Phoenix New Times reports that their co-founders "Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were taken from their homes in the middle of the night and jailed on misdemeanor charges alleging that they violated the secrecy of a grand jury -- which turned out never to have been convened."

Two-and-a-half years after the paper published the sheriff's address as part of an investigation into the sheriff's commercial real estate transactions, Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas "collaborated to appoint Phoenix attorney Dennis Wilenchik as a 'special prosecutor' to go after the paper. He issued grand jury subpoenas for the notes, records, and sources of the paper's reporters and editors for all Arpaio-related stories over a broad period of time, as well as for the IP addresses of New Times' readers of such stories," according to the New Times.

The Guardian has published an opinion piece arguing against allowing cameras in criminal courtrooms: Television "companies want into the criminal courts because that is where the drama is. Such exposure will put witnesses off, discourage victims even if their faces are not on screen and distort the behaviour of lawyers and judges. As for defendants, they risk being feasted upon by the media with a frenzy that will wholly discredit the system." However, airing proceedings in England's appellate courts is beneficial because "in our common law system, binding law is made in these highest courts as well as in parliament. So, while it may be dull to many, it is perfectly rational to have it available for public information."

A similar line is drawn in Pennsylvania, for example.

The Washington Post has a piece that begins: "Courts from Moscow to Murmansk sent out a broad and uncompromising message Tuesday: Russian authorities will not tolerate protest, not from the weak or the powerful, not on land or at sea." A photojournalist and Greenpeace activists detained after a protest of Arctic drilling were denied bail in one case. In another case, a man with disabilities was confined to indefinite psychiatric treatment after being arrested at a protest when Vladimir Putin was inaugurated.