« Birthday Cats | Main | Nader's "Majoritarian" Agenda »
Lawyers for the City of Portland have cited the production of the documentary Alien Boy in arguing why the media and public should still not be able to see certain documents about the officers involved in James Chasse’s death, which are currently covered by a gag order, in the case filed by Chasse’s family against the city.
Full disclosure: I’m working on the film with director Brian Lindstrom and the Mental Health Association of Portland.
The original gag order, signed on May 25, 2008 October 23, 2007 by Judge Denis Hubel, prohibits the release of broad categories of documents associated with the case to the public. Now, attorneys for the Chasse family are asking that the gag orders be reviewed so that the following documents can be made public: Internal affairs documents; documents from Officer Humphreys and Nice’s personnel files; PPB training documents; PPB after action reports; and City of Portland records involving in-custody deaths.
On page seven of its response, the city says Alien Boy’s production presents a safety risk to the officers involved:

Releasing the requested evidence, says the city, could result in hostility towards the defendants that is prejudicial to the trial. This begs the question: What’s in those documents, exactly? In addition, the city has attached two pages of posts from the Alien Boy blog as exhibits, intending to suggest the film’s supposed dangerousness.
Hold on, I'll just toss it to one of our nineteen other news reporters...
Throw it to Ezra. He seems to have the requisite sensibility.
"The original gag order, signed on May 25, 2008 by Judge Denis Hubel, prohibits the release of broad categories of documents associated with the case to the public."
Technically, I don't think its news until it actually gets signed, in only 16 short days.
Seems to me the film is nothing more than an extension of Matt's previous writings for the Mercury. Should the entire paper recuse itself? When the very issue is the police citing potential media coverage as a reason not to release things to the media? I think not.
I suppose you could say there is more of conflict if the film is being made for profit and Matt shares in that profit but A) I doubt it (Matt?) and B) he gets paid to write for the paper too.
@4—It's corrected. Thanks.
When you're involved in a project that you're reporting on, it is no longer reporting. It's lobbying. Whether or not he's being paid by the paper or the film or both is inconsequential.
I think your definition of reporting is different from mine, but I appreciate your comments.
Disclosing that you're working on the project isn't enough. Maybe best to let someone else follow up on this story for the Merc.