CHICAGO — A Wisconsin case that could have nationwide implications for how reporters cover and how parents watch high school sports is making its way through the courts, with crucial constitutional arguments taking place Friday in federal court in Chicago.

The case pits community newspapers against the association that oversees high school sports in Wisconsin. Fans in many states rely on community newspapers for news about high school teams, and the newspapers say they need easy, unencumbered access to sporting events to provide that coverage. But the association says it can’t survive if it can’t raise money by signing exclusive contracts with a single video-production company for streaming its tournaments.

The newspapers argued Friday before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of press should enable them to put such publicly funded events online as they see fit, free of charge.

The case began in 2008, when the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association sued The Post-Crescent of Appleton after it streamed live coverage of high school football playoff games. After a U.S. District judge sided with the association last year, saying its exclusive deal with a video production company didn’t impinge on freedom of the press, the newspaper’s owner, Gannett Co., and the Wisconsin Newspaper Association appealed.

Media lawyer Robert Dreps argued Friday that the newspaper’s streaming of the game was the equivalent of reporting on the event, but Judge Diane Wood said she was “troubled by that.”

The athletic association’s attorney, John Skilton, argued that its deal with the video production company didn’t prevent newspapers from reporting on the game. Reporters can still attend games, write critical comments about them and even display short clips of video they deem newsworthy, he said — they just can’t stream entire games.

“The heart of this issue . . . is the question: Is there any part of these rules that stifle speech?” he said. “The answer is — there isn’t that type of censorship in these rules.”

Judge David Hamilton asked Skilton whether, given that line of thinking, a U.S. president-elect could cut a deal giving one company exclusive right to broadcast his inauguration.

“That’s core speech,” Skilton said, referring to political speech, which receives the greatest First Amendment protection. “So my answer might be different than for this case.”

It’s unclear how long the appeals court judges will take to mull over the arguments before reaching a decision. It could take weeks or even months.

Other athletic associations and newspaper groups are closely watching the outcome of the Wisconsin case, with a decision one way or the other possibly prompting litigation elsewhere.

It’s not likely that college sports will be greatly affected.

Sign up for our Daily Headlines newsletter

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.