<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Press and Policy &#187; First Amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/first-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pressandpolicy.wordpress.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:32:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<cloud domain='pressandpolicy.wordpress.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/osd.xml" title="Press and Policy" />
		<item>
		<title>CFAF: FCC said ban would &#8220;constitute a prior restraint&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/cfaf-fcc-said-ban-would-constitute-a-prior-restraint/</link>
		<comments>http://pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/cfaf-fcc-said-ban-would-constitute-a-prior-restraint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:02:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>foiguy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prior Restraint]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/?p=129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A judge has upheld a ban on radio ads sponsored by the Coalition for America&#8217;s Families, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.
In a press release issued Sunday morning, the Coalition for America&#8217;s Families (CFAF) said Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Lister was told by the Federal Communications Commission that a temporary restraining order against radio [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=pressandpolicy.wordpress.com&blog=4148912&post=129&subd=pressandpolicy&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class='snap_preview'><br /><p>A judge has upheld a ban on radio ads sponsored by the Coalition for America&#8217;s Families, the <strong>Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</strong> <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/33719104.html" target="_blank">reports</a>.</p>
<p>In a press release issued Sunday morning, the Coalition for America&#8217;s Families (CFAF) said Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Lister was told by the Federal Communications Commission that a temporary restraining order against radio stations would be unconstitutional.  Here&#8217;s an excerpt of the press release:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Judge Lister said he was informed that an action was headed his way early Friday afternoon at which time he contacted the FCC. The FCC informed the Judge that a temporary restraining order against the radio stations would constitute a prior restraint of free speech and would therefore be unconstitutional.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>However, the temporary restraining order is not against the radio stations, but is instead against CFAF.</p>
<p>The CFAF is also arguing that Radcliffe does not have the authority to seek civil relief under Wis. Stat<strong>. </strong>§ 12.05.  The press release appears to include a portion of CFAF&#8217;s motion:</p>
<blockquote><p>8.  The entry of this ex parte temporary restraining order at the request of a private party is unprecedented given that Wis. Stat. § 12.05 is not a statute that provides for civil relief or a private cause of action.  Instead, it is a statute that must be initiated and prosecuted by the State. “[T]he decision to prosecute a possible violation of a criminal statute is ordinarily within the discretion of the District Attorney or the Attorney General.”  Tatur v. Solsrud, 174 Wis.2d 735, 744 (1993) (examining and rejecting civil application of Wis. Stat. § 12.05).</p></blockquote>
<p>Update: (2:04 p.m.) Assembly candidate Mark Radcliffe has released a statement in response to today&#8217;s ruling, which can be found <a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=140617" target="_blank">here</a>.  An excerpt:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Upon hearing their false ad I decided to draft and file an action against them asking the court to preserve my rights against such false statements. I am a solo practicing attorney and as such have always fought for the rights of those who otherwise wouldn’t have a strong voice.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<ul>
<li><strong>Milwaukee Journal Sentinel <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/33719104.html" target="_blank">posting</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Wisconsin State Journal <a href="http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/312487" target="_blank">posting</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Democratic Party of Wisconsin <a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=140616" target="_blank">statement</a> in response to today&#8217;s ruling</strong></li>
<li><strong>Republican Party of Wisconsin <a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=140620" target="_blank">statement</a> in response to today&#8217;s ruling</strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/081102RADCLIFFEvCFAF.pdf" target="_blank">Download</a> transcript from Sunday hearing<br />
</strong></li>
</ul>
  <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/comments/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/" /></a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/delicious/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/" /></a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/stumble/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/" /></a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/digg/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/" /></a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/reddit/pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/129/" /></a> <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=pressandpolicy.wordpress.com&blog=4148912&post=129&subd=pressandpolicy&ref=&feed=1" /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pressandpolicy.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/cfaf-fcc-said-ban-would-constitute-a-prior-restraint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">foiguy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>