As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before.
Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications,
like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations,
we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open
and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news
and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.
As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.
For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:
- A user experience almost completely free of ads
- Access to our Premium Section
- Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew – Ivrit
- A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel
Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.
Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief
A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a lawsuit by border policy activists challenging the constitutionality of a US government policy requiring advance permission to take photos or shoot film at ports of entry on the US-Mexico border.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, ruled 3-0 that a lower court judge acted too hastily in dismissing Ray Askins’ and Christian Ramirez’s First Amendment claims against the US Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection officials.
It faulted the judge for deciding in a “conclusory fashion” that the case should be dismissed because of the government’s “extremely compelling interest” in border security and general interest in protecting US territorial sovereignty.
While reasonable restrictions on speech might be justified, “it is the government’s burden to prove that these specific restrictions are the least restrictive means available to further its compelling interest,” Circuit Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the appeals court.
“They cannot do so through general assertions of national security, particularly where plaintiffs have alleged that CBP is restricting First Amendment activities in traditional public fora such as streets and sidewalks,” he added.
Andy Reuss, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, declined to comment.