IN THEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JASON D. KNIGHT, DAVID WEBB,

ANDJOSHUA WIKHOLM

Plaintiff CASE NO. ________________

V.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TENNESSEE

COMPLAINT

Comes now the Plaintiffs JASON D. KNIGHT, DAVID WEBB, and JOSHUA

WIKHOLM, represented by attorneys BRAZIL CLARK, PLLC, and for their

complaint would show:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free speech in the context of live-

streaming public county legislative meetings.

JURISDICTION

2. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3)-(4) because this civil action is brought for the redress of

deprivations of constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

 VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the parties

reside in and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action

occurred in Montgomery County, Tennessee.

PARTIES

4. JASON D. KNIGHT is a commissioner for District 18 of the Montgomery

County Commission and a citizen and resident of Montgomery County.

Plaintiff Knight live streams meetings from his commissioner’s chair.

5. DAVID WEBB is a citizen and resident of Montgomery County Tennessee,

and a disabled veteran of the United States Air Force who frequently

views livestreamed Montgomery County government events, including the

August 12, 2019, meeting referenced herein.

6. JOSHUA WIKHOLM is a citizen and resident of Montgomery County,

Tennessee, and a disabled veteran whose sole employment is

livestreaming local government meetings, including county commission

meetings in Montgomery County.

FACTS

7. Live streaming is a term used to refer to the transmission of live video

and audio coverage of an event over the internet.

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2

 8. County commission meetings have a long history as open public forums

operating for the purpose of exchanging ideas.

9. Montgomery County’s government operates a YouTube Channel on which

it broadcasts local county commission meetings.

10. Some citizens and even county commission members, including Plaintiffs,

operated live streams of the Commission meetings from their individual

electronic devices to private social media accounts.

11. On August 12, 2019, during the formal Montgomery County, Tennessee,

Commission Meeting, Resolution 19-8-3 was presented to the legislative

body for consideration. (Attached as Exhibit 1).

12. Resolution 19-8-3 states that “No live broadcast from within the

Commission Chambers of its proceedings in whole or in part is allowed. A

simultaneous broadcast of the proceedings is available on the internet at

“YouTube” and the same is preserved there for an extended period.

13. The justifications offered by other Commissioners supportive of 19-8-3

included vague concerns for “safety” and for “disruptions.”

14. Essentially, Montgomery County eliminated competing sources for

information and data in favor of its government-operated YouTube

Channel. 1

1The August 12, 2019, meeting is viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8uvMDgzok8 . The

government apparently believes (as expressed in § 7 and by the legislators during the August 12, 2019,
meeting) that operating an “official” YouTube obviates the need for citizen live streamers. This is the
modern equivalent of insisting that a State-run newspaper obviates the need for local press.

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3

15. During the meeting, Plaintiff JASON D. KNIGHT offered an amendment

to the Resolution which would have established a procedure by which a

citizen wishing to exercise his right to live stream could, with 48 hours

prior notice to the appropriate authorities, continue live streaming.

16. No articulable safety concerns justifying § 7 exist, because there is no

physical activity prohibited by § 7. The only prohibited activity is live

streaming, which is the transmission of an audio/video recording

instantaneously over the internet. A citizen could, under § 7, walk into

the meeting, turn on his phone, and set it to record. So long as the

recording is not “live streaming” to the internet, he has not run afoul of

the law. However, if he instead, performed all the same physical actions,

and his phone were set to stream the recording, § 7 prohibits his behavior.

17. During the debate on the amendment, Commissioner Joshua Beal asked

whether the alleged safety concerns raised by the Sheriff and other

commission members would be resolved by the amendment.

18. The amendment failed, and Resolution 19-8-3 was passed by the

Commission.

19. Significantly, recording itself is not proscribed, as § 6 and § 8 of Resolution

19-8-3 reiterate that audio and video recording is allowed. Only the real-

time transmission of that same data over the internet is prohibited.

20. One obvious benefit Montgomery County receives by banning alternative

channels of live stream public meetings is the silencing of speech on

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4

 secondary public forums like Facebook in the comment sections moderated

by someone other than the Montgomery County government.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

21. At all times relevant herein, all Plaintiffs had a right to free expression,

as provided by the First Amendment and at all times relevant herein,

Plaintiff was protected by the same and by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22. In public forums, the state may only enact content-neutral time, place,

and manner restrictions that are necessary to serve a compelling state

interest and are narrowly drawn to achieve that end.

23. No compelling government interest exists in the government

monopolization over live streams for public meetings, and no compelling

governmental interest exists in discriminating between live streams and

“dead” recordings.

24. Additionally, § 7 is unconstitutional because of the severe limitations it

imposes on secondary public forums such as Facebook comment threads

that are not moderated by the Montgomery County government YouTube

account.

25. Alternatively, no rational basis exists for imposing a government

monopoly on live streams of public meetings, and no rational basis exists

for discriminating between live streams and “dead” recordings.

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5

 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

26. Equal Protection requires the government to treat an individual in the

same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

27. Under Resolution 19-8-3, an individual who walks into the area

designated for audio and video recordings at Montgomery County

Commission meetings and pulls out his phone to records the meeting to

archive on his personal device is lawfully allowed to continue recording.

28. However, a second individual could behave in an identical manner,

pulling out his phone and recording the meeting. But the moment he

chooses to “share” his recording on the internet by way of live stream, he

runs afoul of Resolution 19-8-3.

29. Montgomery County can show no rational basis for this differential

treatment based solely upon the individuals’ choice to transmit live, as

opposed to storing the recordings for later use, because no rational basis

exists.

DAMAGES

30. As a result of the Defendant’s conduct above alleged, all Plaintiffs have

suffered emotional distress and deprivation of federally protected

constitutional rights.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request:

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6

 I. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct violated Plaintiffs’

protected constitutional rights;

II. For nominal damages;

III. For compensatory damages;

IV. Reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses;

V. Such further and general relief as the court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________
Wesley Clark, #32611
Frank R. Brazil, #34586
BRAZIL CLARK, PLLC
2706 Larmon Avenue
Nashville, TN 37204
615-730-8619
615-514-9674 (fax)
wesley@brazilclark.com
frank@brazilclark.com

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7

Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8
Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9
Case 3:19-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10