JACKSONVILLE, Fla — A constitutional lawyer says a new mug shot law passed in Florida is unconstitutional and goes against both freedom of speech and the press.
The law goes into effect Oct. 1, and on that day it will then give Floridians the legal right to request their mug shot be removed from websites. If it is not removed, the company would face a hefty fine of $1,000 a day.
“The law right now doesn’t encompass news agencies anyways," said Blake Mathesie. He worked with lawmakers to draft this law after his personal experience with his mug shot seemingly everywhere online despite his case being dropped.
"It just goes after these strict mug shot websites," Mathesie said. Despite his intentions, constitutional lawyer Jennifer Mansfield says it will end up impacting news outlets.
“It chills speech," Mansfield said. "It chills the reporting of news because people become afraid of the severe legal sanctions.”
The law targets “a person or entity whose primary business model is the publishing or disseminating of such photographs for a commercial purpose.” Mansfield says "commercial purpose" is vague and can be used against press.
Story continues below.
“The First Amendment says Congress and the states shall make no law to abridge the freedom of speech or the press. This abridges that because you can’t publish something that is already in your possession," Mansfield explains.
She says the law is unconstitutional because it uses prior restraint, meaning “judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful. In U.S. law, the First Amendment severely limits the ability of the government to do this.”
“It’s beneficial for the public to have information about how our legal justice system works and that includes the arrest process," Mansfield said.
Nieman Lab – an organization covering freedom of the press in a digital age - covered a very similar bill in Florida’s legislature in 2013 saying “the First Amendment does not allow the government to regulate content simply because it is distasteful ... Courts have explained that society has to put up with thoughtless, insulting, and outrageous speech in order to “provide adequate breathing room for valuable, robust speech.
Nieman Lab goes on to say that laws like this are too broad, therefore affecting more than what they are intended for. But, since this law was signed by the governor, it would have to be challenged in court to be taken off the books.