| Home | 用中文 | Espaņol |
 |
||
|
Enter your e-mail to receive our bi-weekly FLASH newsletter:
Search CFAC
   |
View Flash: First Amendment and Open Government News Archive FLASH: COMMENTARY Disclosure--or the lack of it--is a root cause of the current financial crisis By Peter Scheer Economists and historians will be debating for years the causes of the financial crisis that, like a global array of dominoes, now threatens to take down the “real” economies of countries big and small, both developed and emerging, in a massive flight from investment risk unlike anything experienced since 1929. To the experts’ lists of causes, let me add a lack of information--specifically, the systemic failure of lenders to disclose ample information about the risks of the mortgage loans being made to thousands of borrowers whose homes have since tanked in value, resulting in unprecedented rates of default. These defaults leave the holders of the affected mortgage investments--primarily banks around the world--with sizeable loan portfolios that they can’t value and for which there is no functioning market. It is the absence of information that prevents the markets from valuing so-called mortgage-backed securities--a failure which, in a vicious cycle, forces banks to write down the securities’ value on their balance sheets, resulting in huge losses that precipitate a sell-off in the banks’ stock. The fall in the stock price, in turn, causes the banks to stop lending in order to preserve much-needed capital--which leads to, what: A recession? A depression? Whatever, it isn’t pretty. ========================================= DON'T MISS! 2008 Open Government and Free Speech Assembly THIS WEEKEND! ARMED AND DANGEROUS Friday and Saturday, Oct. 17 & 18 Featured Speaker: Controversial and colorful Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court Panelists: Evan Hansen, Wired.com editor-in-chief; Xiao Qiang, expert on internet censorship in China; Roy Sekoff, Editor, Huffington Post; Jon Eisenberg, lawyer for Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in leading national security case; Rosie Rosenthal, Executive Director, Center for Investigative Reporting; Olivia Ma, News Manager, YouTube; Lauren Gelman, Executive Director, Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society; Sandy Close, Director, New America Media; David Satterfield, Managing Editor, San Jose Mercury News--and many, many more top experts in law, journalism and public policy. PLUS! A screening of the critically-acclaimed film Secrecy and Q & A with the film's directors Robb Moss and Peter Galison ========================================= Directory:
CFAC in the News: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Orange County Register Berkeley Daily Planet Santa Rosa Press Democrat San Jose Mercury News Legal News Line San Diego Union Tribune Opinion & Editorial Los Angeles Times CityWatch LA
Associated Press CorpWatch OMB Watch Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press Citizen Media Law Project
The Hotline is CFAC's online legal information service. Questions from reporters, government officials, civic activists and the occasional crackpot are answered by media law specialists Roger Myers and Rachel Matteo-Boehm at the San Francisco Office of Denver Law Firms, Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP.Have a legal issue? Submit your question here. ----------------------------------------------------- Q: During a city-sponsored event - open to the public for free and held on roped-off city streets – two candidates for city council were asked to stop passing out campaign fliers. The city said it was to protect visitors from a nuisance and be fair to vendors who had paid to have a booth (four other candidates were passing out fliers from paid booths). Would this be a first amendment violation to free political speech? A:As a general rule, city streets are considered a public forum in which people, including candidates, are free to engage in free speech, including handing out of campaign fliers. The fact the streets were blocked off for an event should not change the public forum nature of the blocked off streets because it was open to the public anyway. While the city can impose reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights in a public forum, there is a good chance that forcing people to pay to have a booth to distribute campaign fliers would not be a reasonable time, place and manner restriction. If not, then it would be a First Amendment violation. It would also be a First Amendment violation if the two candidates could show they were really denied the right to distribute the fliers because the city is favoring the other candidates. Stolen Meeting Notices Last week, members of the public noticed that no notices were posted for a planning commission meeting, even at city hall, which has a locked glass case. The day of the meeting, I pointed this out to city staff, and they stated that the notices must have been stolen, even from inside the glass case. Is there any responsibility for agencies to post items in relatively secure locations, or to reasonably maintain the posting(s) in case they are taken? Is there any remedy for failure to post notice, when they can just claim the notices are "stolen"? A: I certainly would take issue with the city's repeated response that the notices were "stolen." As you seem to know, the Brown Act provides that "[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting including items to be discussed in closed session." Gov't Code § 54954.2. While there is no express provision in the Brown Act requiring that agencies reasonably maintain the integrity of the posted notices, to the extent there does not appear to be any concern by the city to take care of the "stealing of the notices" problem, this would seems to violate the spirit of the Brown Act, which is intended, among other things, to ensure that members of the public have advance notice of items to be discussed at meetings so that they may decide whether they wish to attend. Thus, if the city is on notice that these agendas have been continuously stolen and, yet, it fails to take reasonable steps to resolve the problem, there may be room for arguing that the city is in violation of the notice provisions of the Brown Act. If you determine that the city is acting in violation of the Brown Act, the Act provides the public with certain remedies. The one that would likely be applicable here is the filing of a lawsuit for injunctive or declaratory relief to stop or prevent violations or threatened violations under California Government Code section 54960. If you are considering engaging legal counsel to represent you in this matter, you might try using the CFAC Lawyer's Assistance Request service at http://cfac.org/Lawyers/lawyers_rfp.html. ================================================= Do
you find these questions and answers helpful? If so, you ABOUT US The California First Amendment Coalition is a non-profit public Our offices are at: 534 Fourth Street, Suite B, San Rafael, CA. Phone: 415.460.5060, Fax: 415.460.5155, Email: cfac@cfac.org Visit CFAC on the web at http://www.cfac.org We need your support. Join CFAC. Have an item for FLASH? Please send it to cfac@cfac.org Have
a comment or question for executive director Peter Scheer? |
 CFAC Blog Posts
Obama make real strides in transparency with Web 2.0 government
China backs off new control on Internet Governor signs bill for transparency of electronic date in civil cases Foundation creates web service to support transparency Newspapers set up blog networks Water District tries to block news as it struggles with debt Law project announces opening of training center for aspiring reporters Government questions use of privacy law to prevent scrutiny of athletics Sebastopol hospital board members may have violated open meeting law Open government advocates urge federal government to join transparency revolution New U.S. information czar unveils ‘spending dashboard’ Iranian realities emerge through Internet blogging Electronic Frontier Foundation sues for release of FBI surveillance guidelines Court bans interviews of death row inmates Stars and Stripes reporter banned for failing to report favorable news in Iraq Supreme Court may lift ban on corporate spending in federal elections Defense bars writer from trial, citing her as potential witness Grand Jury urges more comment in Marysville schools contract awards Residents want more information from Rio Dell City Council San Bernardino Sun backs amendment for open government Lompoc: Ex-school board members accuse board of violating Brown Act Atherton town council members fear agenda censorship ACLU challenges secret housing units for terrorists Teacher’s blog disrupts so no First Amendment protection United States asks for talks on China’s online porn filters  |
| Copyright © CFAC: California First Amendment Coalition. | ||
