25 June 2015 update:
Although the press cannot command access wherever, whenever, and however it pleases, neither can government arbitrarily shroud genuinely newsworthy events in secrecy. . . . The state's rulemaking power is not absolute: if the first amendment is toretain a reasonable degree of vitality, the limitations upon access must serve a legitimate governmental purpose, must be rationally related [**17] to the accomplishment of that purpose, and must outweigh the systemic benefits inherent in unrestricted (or lesser-restricted) access.So the only issue here is whether Defendant had any reason to believe that Plaintiff was going to substantially disrupt the workflow, and given that Defendant Malone stated Plaintiff was there “to address fraudulent documents” the only inference is that he had no intent to disrupt the workplace and barring him from running video at all was at once an unlawful Prior Restraint, Overbroad, and not narrowly-tailored. Simple.(Fn.7)
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.