Case Status: Pending
Reform Councilman Fights Illegal Ban on Video Recording of Council Meetings
VICTORY:
Councilman Matthew Tortorice is once again free to record and publish public city council meetings, in Margaret, Alabama, following a settlement and agreed-upon court order that provides him a total victory against the city’s attempts to silence him.
When Matthew was elected to the Margaret city council in 2020, he made transparency a top priority, recording meetings and making the videos publicly accessible for anyone unable to attend in person. This common practice is routine in many cities nationwide, yet fellow council members greeted this modest reform effort with hostility. They harassed Matthew, threatened him, and ultimately banned his recordings altogether.
In response, CIR filed a federal lawsuit on Matthew’s behalf challenging the council’s unconstitutional prohibition on video recording. Just over six months later, the case ended with an extremely favorable settlement that not only fully restores Matthew’s First Amendment right to record public proceedings, but also strengthens the rights of local journalists going forward.
Crucially, the city of Margaret formally acknowledged that the “First Amendment protects the right of the public, including Mr. Tortorice, to attend public sessions of the meetings of the City Council and to make audio and video recordings of the same.” Now, the city council and mayor must take proactive steps to ensure that both Matthew and members of the press have free and unobstructed access to record the council’s proceedings. The city also agreed to pay Tortorice $1 in personal damages and $40,000 in attorney’s fees, a costly lesson that violating constitutional rights comes at a steep price.
As many Americans recognize the significant impact that local politics plays in their daily lives, victories like this are vital to ensure that local boards remain open, transparent, and fair.
Tortorice v. City of Margaret
Matthew Tortorice was elected to Margaret, Alabama’s city council in 2020 as a reform candidate. He anticipated some resistance, but over the last several months, city officials have systematically suppressed his First Amendment rights.
Since his election, Matthew has proposed modest reforms to bring his city in line with reasonable government practices. He advocates for detailed, public budgets, redrawing the outdated and illegal district lines to correspond with city population changes, and most relevant, to increase transparency by providing video recordings of council meetings.
To thwart the last of these efforts, fellow council members passed a rule prohibiting the use of video recordings in public council meetings, in violation of both Alabama law and the First Amendment. As Matthew fought to defend his rights and those of his constituents, he faced hostility, even threats of violence.
On October 10, 2024, CIR filed a federal lawsuit to stop this violation of Matthew’s free speech rights, which also supports the free speech rights of the public to view the unfiltered council proceedings.
Illegal Ban on Public Recordings from Public Meetings
In keeping with Alabama’s Open Meetings Act, Matthew has worked hard to increase the visibility of the Margaret City Council. Because the City was taking no steps to do so, Matthew began video recording the Council’s public meetings in February 2023 and posting the videos to his YouTube channel.
No disruption has ever resulted from these recordings. Matthew placed his camera on a tripod near a side wall of the council room to keep his equipment from blocking anyone in attendance. Between February 2023 and June 2024, Matthew recorded every meeting that he attended.
The council first took action to suppress his filming at the July 2, 2024, meeting, which Matthew was unable to attend. The council voted to prohibit all audio or video recordings of its meetings. Matthew was not notified until the August 6 meeting, when the Mayor Pro Tem Daryl McIntyre asked him to remove his recording equipment.
Two weeks later, Matthew again set up his camera. This time, City Attorney Erskine Funderburg made a statement about the need to enforce the Council’s ban on recording. Matthew protested that the ban violated state law and the First Amendment, but on McIntyre’s instruction, Police Chief Fields ejected Matthew from the room.
Violent Speech Suppression
At a special meeting on September 10, Chief Fields would not allow anyone with a camera into the room. Matthew participated without his camera. WBRC Fox 6 News was prevented from bringing a camera into the meeting room. And two freelance YouTube reporters were prevented from entering at all.
After the meeting, McIntyre – gesturing with his fists from three feet away – yelled that he would “fix [Matthew] permanently.” Council Member Darius Crump then started yelling at Matthew. At this point, Chief Fields urged Matthew to leave for his own safety. Crump followed Matthew out of the building, then lunged at him, before a police officer restrained him. Crump yelled – “They won’t be here for you every time.”
Because the original recording ban was clearly unsustainable, McIntyre secured approval of a new set of written rules at the next meeting on September 17 that were more targeted to violate Matthew’s rights. The new rules provide that: “No employee, officer or agent of the city will be able to record a meeting other than in the designated press areas along with other members of the press.”
At a Council meeting on October 1, Matthew again attempted to set up his camera. Though no one prohibited him from bringing it in, he was instructed to move his camera to the rear of the room, near a loud air conditioning unit that made it nearly impossible to hear the council members, especially those who did not use a microphone.
The City’s persistent efforts to prevent Matthew from recording public meetings and targeting him based on his disfavored views violate Matthew’s First Amendment rights. They also violate the right of the public to listen to the City Council’s public deliberations. CIR has filed a lawsuit seeking damages for past injuries, a declaration that the city’s recording ban is unconstitutional, and an injunction against its enforcement.