Whether the act of recording a government employee engaged in his or her duties is inherently expressive activity entitled to First Amendment protection

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner, father of a public school student with special needs, wanted to video-record a “virtual” meeting between himself and school employees that he attended “virtually” from his home. Petitioner sought to video-record this meeting because Respondents omitted important information from minutes of previous meetings. But Respondents refused. Petitioner sued, arguing that he has a First Amendment right to record government employees engaged in their duties. But while many circuits, including the First Circuit, recognize this right in a general sense, the court here announced that the First Amendment only protects recording government officials while they are performing their duties in a public space, and only if the recording would serve the public interests. It based this conclusion on a proposition over which the circuits are divided, namely that video-recording is not “inherently expressive.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether the act of recording a government employee engaged in his or her duties is inherently expressive activity entitled to First Amendment protection. 2. Whether a citizen has a presumptive right to record government employees when that individual is lawfully present.