New Times Sues County and Special Prosecutor

[Coz]

New Times Sues County and Special Prosecutor
Published: October 11, 2007
New Times

New Times and two of its writers have sued Maricopa County and a special deputy county attorney in U.S. District Court, asking the judge to enjoin the defendants from violating the newspaper's constitutional rights.

Subject(s): First Amendment, Maricopa County As previously reported in these pages, New Times has been threatened with criminal prosecution for a felony crime because the newspaper published the home address of Sheriff Joe Arpaio in 2004 (see "Joe Strikes Back," December 21, 2006).

Phoenix lawyer Dennis Wilenchik was appointed by Maricopa County on July 11, 2007, to be the special deputy county attorney for this prosecution (see "Below the Belt," September 20).

The threats of criminal prosecution have intensified in recent weeks.

As a result, Phoenix New Times LLC and reporters Paul Rubin and John Dougherty engaged lawyers, and a complaint was filed in federal court on October 5.

The complaint alleges that the newspaper and its reporters are suffering a "deprivation of their First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution." It alleges that the state criminal law being used by the special deputy county attorney to threaten felony prosecution (ARS Section 13-2401) "is invalid and unconstitutional because it violates the guarantees of free speech and free press under the First Amendment."

The lawsuit seeks a judgment from the court "declaring and determining that [the law] is unconstitutional and unenforceable" and seeks an injunction prohibiting authorities "from using investigative procedures and compulsion to investigate" or prosecute New Times and its writers and editors.

New Times, Dougherty, and Rubin are represented by Tom Henze of Gallager & Kennedy in Phoenix and Michael Meehan of Munger Chadwick in Tucson.

New Times cofounder and Village Voice Media Executive Editor Michael Lacey remarked, "It is extraordinary and unprecedented for a newspaper to find itself subject to criminal legal attacks for the publication of newsworthy, true facts about such a publicity-seeking, controversial elected official as Joe Arpaio. New Times has no choice but to vigorously defend its constitutional free-speech rights against those in the government who seek to abuse their power."

[BuQueLady]

So, if I get this right, Sheriff Joe says the NY Times says they can't publish his personal info like his address. And the NY Times says that if Sheriff Joe is seeking publicity, they have the right to publish personal info on him because he's made himself a public figure. Did I get that right?

Do you think this would include a person who has several websites of personal photography of his/her own pictures?? They would be seeking publicity for the pictures.

Any updates on this yet??

[SFJ]

No, you don't have it right. First, it is not the New York Times, it's the Phoenix New Times. Also your first sentence is, in part, backwards. The New Times did not say they "can't publish his personal information like his address." It is the other way around, they said that since it was already available on the Internet, it was OK for them to print it.

[imnancy]

Anyone can get joe's address! It's part of the Public Record on several websites including those of the County! He pays taxes. He has a Campaign Committee. He owns property. If you search long enough, you can get just about anyone's address on line. joe is a politician and has no right of expectancy of privacy. You run for political office, you give up many of your rights. Privacy is the major one! If he doesn't want everyone knowing everything about him, perhaps he should give up politics!