About this blog

Case Disclosed is a blog written by students, supervising attorneys, directors, alumni, and friends of the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.

The views expressed on this blog belong to the author(s) and do not represent the views of Yale Law School or the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIA).

[title_1]

2023 NFOIC research paper competition winners announced!
September 27, 2023
Congratulations to the FOI Hall of Fame Class of 2023
September 25, 2023
NFOIC condemns search of Marion newspaper, calls for disclosure
August 14, 2023
Register now for the 2023 National FOI Summit online!
July 27, 2023

View more

Tags

Censorship
International Law
Government Transparency
Online Speech
reporter's privilege
Free Press
Constitutional Access
Law Enforcement
MFIA Docket
Newsgathering
FOIA
National Security
Net Neutrality
Public Forums
transparency
Open Records
Privacy and Surveillance
CRIT
Right to Petition
Administrative Law
Mass Surveillance
Government Accountability
First Amendment Right of Access
Social Media
First Amendment
Internet Infrastructure
Internet Intermediaries
Free Speech
Technology
Fourth Estate
Open Data
Information Fiduciaries
Free Expression
Secrecy

Case Disclosed

Back to Basics: Why Partisan Gerrymandering Violates the First Amendment

March 12, 2019
By Simon Brewer

MFIA filed an amicus brief opposing partisan gerrymandering on behalf of the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School.

Read more

Trump and the Toothless Presidential Records Act

March 11, 2019
By Sara Worth '21

An ethics watchdog group is challenging the use of encrypted messaging apps by senior White House officials.

Read more

The Unreasonableness of "Reasonable" Prepublication Review, Part 1

February 11, 2019
By Katrin Marquez '20

In 1931, the landmark decision Near v. Minnesota established that, as a general matter, prior restraints—“government action[s] that prohibit[] speech or other expression before the speech happens”—are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. As with most First Amendment jurisprudence, the decision recognized that there could be exceptional circumstances in which prior restraints may be allowable, notably in the context of national security.

Read more

Pages