a Better Bubble™

Freedom of the Press

Senate should not confirm Patel for FBI director

9 hours 10 minutes ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for FBI director nominee Kash Patel. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) opposes Patel’s confirmation — as should anyone who values press freedom.

Patel has threatened to turn the government into a weapon of revenge against opponents of President Donald Trump, including journalists. In a 2023 podcast interview, Patel threatened to “come after the people in the media” and target them “criminally or civilly.” When he realized his remarks could jeopardize his confirmation, Patel later claimed that they apply only to journalists who “broke the law.”

The following statement can be attributed to Caitlin Vogus, senior adviser for advocacy at FPF:

Kash Patel’s confirmation as FBI director would be a new low for the agency when it comes to press freedom and First Amendment rights, and that’s saying something. Senators who vote for Patel’s confirmation will be to blame if and when he supersizes the FBI’s sordid history of targeting journalists, protesters, academics, and activists.

Patel’s claim that he'll only target lawbreaking journalists is cold comfort given his potential boss’s interpretation of "the law." Every corrupt politician and authoritarian regime claims the journalists they retaliate against broke the law or aren’t really journalists. Under a Patel/Trump FBI, allegations that journalism and whistleblowing are crimes in and of themselves will likely serve as pretext to punish those who expose government secrets and hold officials to account.

Under recent administrations, both Democratic and Republican, the FBI has repeatedly surveilled journalists seeking to reveal their sources, including through secret legal demands to phone and email providers. Under the first Trump administration, the FBI conducted an unprecedented number of media investigations in an attempt to “crack down” on leaks to the press.

Historically, the FBI has egregiously abused press freedom by, for instance, digging up dirt on reporters and publishers for reporting on government secrets, accusing Black publishers of acts of sedition during World War II for writing about discrimination in the U.S., and impersonating journalists and documentary filmmakers.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Charges dropped against Oregon journalist

5 days 5 hours ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, Jan. 24, 2025 —

The Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney’s Office dropped its case against Portland-based independent journalist Alissa Azar yesterday. Azar had been set to stand trial Monday on trespass charges arising from her arrest while covering a protest at Portland State University last May.

“Azar and all journalists have a First Amendment right to cover protests, even after police disperse demonstrators. This is not a controversial position — even the Department of Justice agrees. And that right extends to journalists outside the mainstream, including ones that police don’t like. We thank District Attorney Nathan Vasquez for doing the right thing and call on him to go one step further: Publicly commit to allowing journalists to cover protests and their aftermath and not prosecuting any similar cases going forward.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and other press freedom organizations explained in a June letter to then-DA Mike Schmidt that the charges violated Azar’s First Amendment rights — recognized by the 9th Circuit, in addition to the DOJ. Schmidt ignored the letter, but his successor, Vasquez, dropped the case after outreach from FPF and Defending Rights & Dissent, which created a petition seeking the dismissal of the charges against Azar.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Trump’s assault on free press

5 days 8 hours ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please support our work. Our impact in 2024 was made possible by supporters like you. If someone forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here.

Trump’s assault on free press

President Donald Trump’s multipronged assault on the free press is already well underway. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chair revived baseless complaints against networks his boss doesn’t like. More major news networks are reportedly considering settling frivolous lawsuits to get on Trump’s good side. He’s halted police reform agreements that include protections for journalists covering protests. His (alleged) Hitler-heiling homeboy is already threatening to wield his power against critics. 

But that’s just the low-hanging fruit — there’s likely plenty more to come. Read about the three major press freedom threats we’re most concerned over: increased leak investigations, prosecutions of journalists, and surveillance of journalists. 

Government secrecy issues to watch during Trump 2.0

Our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy, Lauren Harper, also gave her forecast for the second Trump administration — and it’s concerning, to say the least. 

There’s Trump’s consistent disregard for preserving presidential records during his first term, which we see no signs will change this time around. He has already resumed his efforts to thwart government oversight. And his administration will likely, once again, undermine the Freedom of Information Act, both by not creating public records and by finding ways to not share those they do create with the public.

Harper also covers the Biden administration’s failures on government secrecy, including refusing to issue a new executive order on classified national security information and neglecting to declassify documents the public has demanded (some of which Trump has now, to his credit, ordered declassified). Biden’s administration also continued to keep secret Office of Legal Counsel opinions, and failed to adequately fund the National Archives and Records Administration. 

Biden’s press freedom legacy: empty words and hypocrisy 

Sure, Trump is likely to make things worse, but that doesn’t mean Biden was a friend of the free press. He deserved one last kick on his way out the door, so here it is: our recap of Biden’s three worst press freedom failures

His prosecutions of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and digital journalist Tim Burke open doors for Trump to prosecute journalists who tell both government and corporate secrets. His support for purported national security laws like the TikTok ban and the “spy draft” amendment to Section 702 of FISA will lead to further surveillance and censorship. And his administration’s silence on journalist killings in Gaza was a disgrace that even Trump would be hard-pressed to top. 

Musk may hide DOGE records in plain sight

The new Department of Government Efficiency was long touted as a panel that would “provide advice and guidance from outside of government” to slash agency regulations and restructure the federal bureaucracy. But that didn’t pan out. The Jan. 20 executive order establishing DOGE says it will very much be a part of the federal government. 

Why the change? Musk reportedly decided that if DOGE were a part of the government, it would be easier to avoid the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s requirements that advisory panels make all of their committee meetings and documents public. By placing DOGE within the government, Musk may have effectively bet that he can more easily flout FOIA than FACA. Harper explains it all here

FPF, partners urge law enforcement to let press report on LA wildfires

We know policing the tragic situation in Los Angeles is chaotic but that's all the more reason reporters must be able to cover the fires. Unfortunately, there have been troubling instances where journalists have been illegally turned away from checkpoints and faced intimidation tactics and other interference.

We're one of 21 organizations calling on law enforcement to follow state law and give the press the access it needs to do its job. The same California law that gives law enforcement the ability to close areas during emergencies explicitly exempts the press. Police need to comply with the law, even in chaotic situations.

DA drops case against Portland journalist

We’ve also got some good news to report. The Multnomah County District Attorney’s office dropped its case against Portland-based independent journalist Alissa Azar. She had been set to stand trial Monday on trespass charges arising from her arrest while covering a protest at Portland State University in May. 

We explained in a June letter to then-DA Mike Schmidt that the charges violated Azar’s First Amendment right — recognized by the 9th Circuit as well as the Department of Justice — to cover the protest, even after police dispersed demonstrators. Schmidt ignored us, but he’s gone. We reached out to his successor, Nathan Vasquez,  who took over on Jan. 1. Our friends at Defending Rights & Dissent also created a petition to Vasquez calling on him to drop the case. Yesterday, he did. 

We thank Vasquez for cleaning up his predecessor’s mess and urge him to go one step further: Publicly commit to allowing journalists to cover protests and their aftermath and not prosecuting any similar cases going forward. 

What we’re reading

Elon Musk’s battle with Wikipedia is part of his war on truth (The Independent). “He is the world’s leading free speech hypocrite, and his actions with respect to Wikipedia are further evidence of that,” we told the Independent following Musk’s call to “defund” Wikipedia for calling an (alleged) Nazi salute an (alleged) Nazi salute.  

Stanford won’t discipline student journalist arrested during pro-Palestinian protest (KQED). It’s nice that Stanford dropped its disciplinary case. But until it does everything it can to push prosecutors to end the criminal case, it's still an anti-press institution. Aspiring journalists and donors who value free speech should look elsewhere.

Will the press fight like tigers against Trump? (Columbia Journalism Review). It’s vital for the press to now band together and fight like hell to protect their rights — just like they did during the Nixon administration. Legendary First Amendment lawyer James Goodale makes the case. 

Court rules warrantless Section 702 searches violated the Fourth Amendment (ACLU). Section 702 of FISA has long been abused to unlawfully surveil Americans, including journalists. Congratulations to the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation and everyone else involved in this significant win for the Fourth Amendment.

Decentralized social media is the only alternative to the tech oligarchy (404 Media). The first days of Trump 2.0 “have made it crystal clear that it is urgent to build and mainstream alternative, decentralized social media platforms that are resistant to government censorship and control, are not owned by oligarchs and dominated by their algorithms.” 

Check out our other newsletters

If you haven’t yet, subscribe to FPF’s other newsletters, including “The Classifieds,” our new newsletter on overclassification and more from Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Three press freedom threats to watch during Trump 2.0

1 week 2 days ago

With Donald Trump’s inauguration today, journalists and whistleblowers can expect four more years of legal attacks, threats, smears, bullying, and other abuses we haven’t even thought of yet — all intended to stop them from reporting the news.

While no one can predict exactly what the next four years have in store, here are three press freedom issues that we’ll be following closely at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF).

Increased leaks investigations

Trump’s first term was marked by a surge in leaks investigations. Unnamed sources close to his incoming administration (ironic, isn’t it?) have told reporters to expect even more of the same during his second term.

That means whistleblowers or anyone even suspected of unauthorized leaking could face invasive investigations, such as surveillance of their movements and activities, and broad legal demands for their electronic records. Those who are caught and prosecuted may also be punished harshly, including with long prison sentences.

The Department of Justice could also issue subpoenas or other legal demands to journalists or their tech providers seeking the identities of reporters’ sources, as it did during Trump’s first term. Journalists who refuse to comply with demands to name their confidential sources could be fined or jailed — Trump has been clear that he would like to see just that.

Unfortunately, a law that would have prohibited that, the PRESS Act, failed last Congress, thanks to Democrats’ stalling and Sen. Tom Cotton’s lying. We’ll continue to press Congress to pass a federal law that would protect investigative reporting, during the Trump years and beyond, by prohibiting jailing journalists for refusing to burn their sources. Congress must also reform the Espionage Act — a law that’s been used by both Democrats and Republicans to prosecute those who leak classified information to the press — to ensure it applies only to spying, not whistleblowing.

FPF will also continue to oppose attempts to undermine secure communication tools such as end-to-end encryption, which will become increasingly important in the absence of strong legal protections for journalist-source confidentiality. Journalists and sources should familiarize themselves with best practices for digital security. Sources should brush up on methods for lessening their own risk and may want to consider using SecureDrop and a Tor Browser to share documents or information anonymously.

Criminal prosecutions of journalists

Journalists could be jailed not only for refusing to reveal their sources but also for publishing information that the Trump administration or oligarchs in its orbit don’t want to be made public.

Thanks in no small part to the Biden administration’s decision to continue Trump’s prosecution of WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, the Trump administration will have an easier time abusing the Espionage Act to prosecute journalists who publish national defense information. Assange pleaded guilty to violating Section 793(g) of the act last June, the first time in U.S. history a publisher has been convicted under the law.

It’s a short legal leap from prosecuting Assange to prosecuting national security reporters at traditional news outlets. Assange’s guilty plea was based on conduct that journalists engage in every day: soliciting classified information from the public, encouraging a source to provide him with classified information, and publishing that information.

It’s a short legal leap from prosecuting Assange to prosecuting national security reporters at traditional news outlets.

A journalist charged under the Espionage Act for publishing newsworthy information will have a strong First Amendment defense. But we shouldn’t rely on courts to make the right call when it comes to protecting press freedom against spurious national security claims. Congress must reform the Espionage Act not only to protect whistleblowers but also ensure that it can’t be used against journalists.

Unfortunately, the Espionage Act isn’t the only threat. Federal prosecutors could use other criminal laws against journalists over the next four years. Computer hacking laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, in particular, have already been abused to go after digital journalists like Florida journalist Tim Burke.

With the possibility of increased protests during the Trump administration, we may also see journalists covering protests arrested for crimes like trespassing. While the DOJ recently issued important guidance and recommendations about the First Amendment protections for journalists covering protests, there’s no guarantee it will continue to follow them under Trump.

FPF will continue to speak out against the criminal prosecution of journalists for doing their jobs and push to ensure that they receive full First Amendment protections.

Abuse of government surveillance against the press

We’re also concerned about increased government surveillance of the press over the next four years, especially through tech providers.

The government already has the power to issue legal orders requiring a tech company to turn over a journalist’s digital records, and it can do so in secret by gagging the company. DOJ guidelines limit the circumstances under which the government can issue those legal demands, but the next DOJ could simply ignore or repeal them.

If the government can’t get a legal order for tech company data, it can often buy it. No law prevents the FBI and intelligence agencies from buying location or other sensitive data about Americans from data brokers that they usually couldn’t get without a warrant. And they’re doing exactly that.

While there’s a real risk of abuse of these spying powers over the next four years, there’s also a possibility of reigning them in.

The Trump administration will also have expanded powers under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress reauthorized and broadened last year to expand the types of entities that can be forced to help the U.S. spy. While some lawmakers promised a later “fix” to that part of the law, that fix has never come. Section 702 is often sold as a purely foreign surveillance law targeting terrorists and drug traffickers, but it’s also been used to spy on Americans, including journalists, without a warrant.

While there’s a real risk of abuse of these spying powers over the next four years, there’s also a possibility of reigning them in. Some of the most vocal critics of government surveillance in recent years have been Republican lawmakers aligned with Trump, who called on the last Congress to kill FISA. Speaker Mike Johnson recently ousted a pro-FISA representative, Mike Turner, from his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.

FISA will be up for reauthorization again during Trump’s second term. MAGA skepticism toward government surveillance may create opportunities to pass FISA reform and other bipartisan laws limiting government spying, like the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act.

At the same time, some Trump appointees have been singing a different tune more recently and embracing government spying powers. Republicans may very well find that they enjoy vast spying powers when they’re the ones who control them, just like the Democrats did. In that case, FPF will be there to remind them that most Americans don’t want to live in a surveillance state.

Also read our article on Biden's three biggest press freedom failures.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Biden’s press freedom legacy: Empty words and hypocrisy

1 week 2 days ago

When it comes to press freedom, last week was a fitting close to President Joe Biden’s term. On Wednesday, he emphasized the importance of the free press in his farewell address. On Thursday, two journalists who demanded answers about the Israel-Gaza war were removed — one forcibly — from his secretary of state’s news conference. On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban he supported despite knowing full well the “data privacy” concerns lawmakers cited were a pretext for censorship.

With “friends” of press freedom like Biden, who needs enemies? The president who loved to proclaim that “journalism is not a crime” ignored warnings from press freedom advocates and handed his proudly anti-press successor a road map to criminalize it.

Here are the three themes that will define Biden’s press freedom legacy.

Anti-press prosecutions

Biden received warning after warning about the dangers of prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for actions investigative journalists take every day — talking to sources, obtaining secret documents, and publishing them. Nevertheless, he persisted — extracting a guilty plea from Assange in exchange for his freedom, normalizing prosecutions of routine newsgathering.

Biden officials might have taken issue with Assange’s methods or believed he wasn’t a “journalist,” but it doesn’t matter — there is nothing in the Espionage Act that would restrict Trump from employing identical legal theories against any publisher of government secrets he dislikes, including conventional journalists.

And then there’s the prosecution of Florida journalist Tim Burke under computer crime laws. That did Trump a huge favor because the Espionage Act only applies to government secrets. But, as Biden knows, Trump also has oligarchs to protect!

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, under the interpretation of Biden’s Department of Justice, will help him do so by criminalizing journalists’ use of the internet to find secrets the powerful don’t want published — even if the powerful accidentally post them on publicly available websites.

Not only that, the government, according to Biden’s prosecutors, can label reporting materials like notes and stories in progress as contraband and permanently seize them, stopping journalists’ stories in their tracks.

Only Biden knows if he finally regrets arming Trump with this impressive anti-press arsenal, but that won’t help Trump’s victims.

Sacrificing the Constitution for ‘national security’

Justice Hugo Black famously wrote in the Pentagon Papers case that “the word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” Black’s probably rolling over in his grave.

It is undisputed that the purported national security concerns underlying the TikTok ban are entirely hypothetical. There is no evidence China is using TikTok to spy on Americans. And why would it, when, absent a comprehensive data privacy law, the information it could conceivably get from TikTok is widely available from plenty of other sources? But there is evidence that lawmakers’ real motivation for the ban was to stop young people from using TikTok to criticize the Israel-Gaza war.

President Joe Biden greets Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with a fist bump in 2022. Later that year Biden’s administration declared Salman immune from liability for his suspected role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP Photo

And yet, the Supreme Court, at the Biden administration’s urging, authorized censorship of not just one newspaper but a whole platform that millions of Americans, including journalists, use to communicate. Biden seemed surprised his political stunt actually becoming law, promising that the ban won’t go into effect immediately. And Trump, who once supported the ban, now opposes it.

That means it’s entirely possible that, at the end of the day, all that will come out of this is a Supreme Court ruling weakening free speech protections just in time for Trump’s return. That and an opportunity for Trump to position himself as restoring the First Amendment rights of America’s youth. Well done, Joe.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court’s TikTok opinion cited China’s law requiring companies from there (like TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance) to cooperate with Chinese surveillance. But it didn’t mention that the U.S. passed a law last year, with Biden’s full support, letting our own government force companies to secretly spy for it.

Biden again ignored repeated warnings that the law could easily be abused by Trump and whoever comes after him to spy on journalists.

For someone so critical of Chinese surveillance and censorship, Biden sure likes copying directly from their playbook.

Turning a blind eye to Gaza

We don’t mean to put journalists on a pedestal. Every civilian death in the Israel-Gaza war is tragic, and press freedom violations are far from the only wrongs by its ally that the Biden administration ignored.

That said, the world relies on journalists for credible information about the war, and Israel has killed a record number of reporters, many of them in seemingly targeted attacks. It has refused to allow international outlets to enter Gaza and retaliated against those that are already there. Journalists report death threats followed by bombs.

The U.S. would surely be quick to condemn the same conduct by an adversary. But in Israel’s case, Biden officials expressed “concern” and spewed other meaningless rhetoric while doing absolutely nothing to hold Israel accountable for its use of U.S. weapons and funds to attack the press. It’s no wonder that journalists, frustrated with all the doublespeak, breach decorum at news conferences.

Yes, Biden’s done some good things for the press. His DOJ passed guidelines that limited subpoenas and surveillance of journalists. Trump will likely repeal those — an outcome Biden could’ve prevented by advocating for the PRESS Act, the bipartisan bill to protect journalist-source confidentiality that he never vocally supported. The Biden DOJ also warned against arresting journalists at protests, including after they’re dispersed.

Biden’s administration helped free journalists Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva from Russia, where they were held on sham charges. There were other highlights, like restrictions on spyware (which Trump may also reverse).

But those accomplishments pale in comparison to his failures. He has not only damaged the press at home, he’s undermined U.S. standing to oppose attacks on the press abroad.

We know things will likely get worse under Trump, but it’ll take a lot to make us miss Biden and his empty platitudes.

Also read our article on three threats to press freedom we’re watching during Trump’s second term.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

TikTok ban weakens First Amendment

1 week 5 days ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please support our work. Our impact in 2024 was made possible by supporters like you. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here.

TikTok ban weakens First Amendment 

The Supreme Court today upheld the federal law passed last year to ban TikTok, accepting the government’s arguments that national security threats posed by the foreign ownership of TikTok’s parent company justify the ban.

This is despite U.S. officials acknowledging they have no actual evidence China is using TikTok to spy on Americans, and lawmakers having admitted the real reason for the ban is that they didn’t like what people were saying on TikTok, particularly about the Israel-Gaza war.

Seth Stern, advocacy director at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), said that the Court’s opinion “practically begs foreign governments to ban American apps for the same reasons America banned TikTok. If we don’t like China’s practices on surveillance and censorship we should stop adopting them back home.” Read our full statement on the ruling. 

Biden must pardon Julian Assange

President Joe Biden was repeatedly warned that prosecuting WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange under the Espionage Act posed an existential threat to investigative reporting by criminalizing routine journalistic conduct that the First Amendment has long protected.

Unfortunately, he ignored those warnings and on Monday a new anti-press president will have the opportunity to take advantage of his mistake. We led a coalition of press freedom and civil liberties organizations in urging him to use his pardon power to lessen the damage to press freedom caused by Assange’s 2024 conviction pursuant to a plea deal. Read more here

Reporter removals a microcosm of Biden administration’s press hypocrisy 

Biden’s farewell address emphasized the importance of the free press. That’s nice. But then the next day, two journalists who asked questions about the Israel-Gaza war were removed — one forcibly —  from his secretary of state’s parting press conference.

We said in our statement that Biden “handed Trump a gift by normalizing punishing journalists for asking questions officials don’t like,” regardless of whether the reporters breached decorum by not waiting for the Q&A period to ask their questions. “Biden officials have been ducking hard questions about their support for the Israel-Gaza war for over a year. Do they expect journalists to just accept their gibberish answers and thank them?” Read more here

Investigating the Haditha massacre

In 2005, U.S. Marines slaughtered 25 Iraqi citizens in Haditha, Iraq, and injured others. The New Yorker used Freedom of Information Act requests to discover evidence of the war crimes.

We hosted an X Space conversation this week with New Yorker journalist Parker Yesko to discuss her reporting on the massacre. Yesko was part of the investigative team that uncovered photos of the carnage that the military tried to bury and other records that helped them build a database of 781 possible war crimes committed by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The reporting takes on renewed significance in light of Pete Hegseth’s nomination as secretary of defense. Hegseth has called service members accused of war crimes “heroes” and lobbied President-elect Trump for leniency in their cases. Listen to the conversation here (or if you’d rather not use X, press play below).

Ask us anything

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) hosted two “ask me anything” boards on Reddit this week to help prepare both ourselves and everyone else for Trump 2.0. 

First, Advocacy Director Seth Stern fielded questions about the threat Trump poses to press freedom. Then, Stephanie Sugars, senior reporter for our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, discussed the Tracker’s plans to monitor Trump’s anti-press rhetoric online. 

What we’re reading

New bill would seal unproven complaints against officers (City & State New York). Limiting transparency about complaints against police is a recipe for sweeping bad behavior and biased investigation and complaint resolution processes under the rug.

Kansas House speaker bans reporters from chamber floor, doesn’t say why (Kansas Reflector). Reporters in Kansas should take this as an invitation to figure out what this guy has to hide that makes him hate the free press so much.

Outgoing FCC chair rejects TV bias complaints that ‘curtail press freedom’ (The Guardian). Good for the FCC for finally dismissing these complaints. But it won’t stop incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s efforts to turn the agency into a censorship machine focused on serving the interests of the new administration.

Biden administration looks for ways to keep TikTok available in the U.S. (NBC News). What Joe Biden might be thinking: “Oops, my censorial political stunt actually became law. Now what?”

All the president’s invective (U.S. Press Freedom Tracker). As Donald Trump returns to the White House, FPF has resumed its tracking of his anti-press rhetoric online, focusing on his new platform of choice: Truth Social. 

Check out our other newsletters

If you haven’t yet, subscribe to FPF’s other newsletters, including “The Classifieds,” our new newsletter on overclassification and more from Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Banning TikTok enables online censorship

1 week 5 days ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The Supreme Court today upheld the federal law passed last year to ban TikTok, accepting the government’s arguments that national security threats posed by the foreign ownership of TikTok’s parent company justify the ban.

This is despite U.S. officials acknowledging they have no actual evidence China is using TikTok to spy on Americans, and lawmakers having admitted the real reason for the ban is that they didn’t like what people were saying on TikTok, particularly about the Israel-Gaza war.

Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), commented:

“It’s particularly ironic that the Supreme Court is upholding the ban on national security grounds when both the incoming and outgoing presidents are backtracking from their prior support of the ban. Are they implying that neither administration cares about national security? It appears this ban was a political stunt that the Biden administration didn’t expect would ever become law. But now it has, and it might not even be enforced. All we might be left with at the end of the day is a Supreme Court opinion that weakens First Amendment freedoms on the internet.

The Supreme Court cites China’s law requiring Chinese companies to cooperate with government surveillance efforts, but omits that the U.S. Congress passed a law just last year allowing the government to involuntarily enlist U.S. businesses to spy on its behalf. This opinion practically begs foreign governments to ban American apps for the same reasons America banned TikTok. If we don’t like China’s practices on surveillance and censorship we should stop adopting them back home.”

Prior to the TikTok case, the Supreme Court had recognized that Americans are entitled to consume foreign propaganda if they so choose and that hypothetical national security harms are not an adequate justification for censoring speech. The Supreme Court avoided those issues by focusing on data privacy and glossing over free speech concerns.

But Stern said “a ban will not alleviate privacy threats posed by TikTok because the U.S. still does not have a comprehensive data privacy law. It may, however, shut down a platform millions of Americans, including journalists, use to speak freely.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Rights organizations demand Biden pardon Assange

1 week 6 days ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

President Joe Biden was repeatedly warned that prosecuting WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange under the Espionage Act posed an existential threat to investigative reporting by criminalizing routine journalistic conduct that the First Amendment has long protected.

He ignored those warnings, perhaps believing his administration would remain in the White House and have some say over how prosecutors exercise their new powers. That was a serious mistake. Now, a coalition of press freedom and civil liberties organizations are urging him to use his pardon power to lessen the damage to press freedom caused by Assange’s 2024 conviction pursuant to a plea deal.

As Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern explained:

“Julian Assange’s case normalized the criminalization of work national security journalists do every day — talking to sources, obtaining documents from them, and publishing those documents. It gives future authoritarians at home and abroad the perfect ‘whataboutism’ to deflect from their own repressive actions, including imprisoning journalists on bogus espionage charges. A pardon won’t undo the harm the case has done to the free press or the chilling effect on journalists who now know their work can land them behind bars at the whim of the Department of Justice. But it will help reduce the damage. If Biden wants to be remembered as the friend of press freedom he claims to be, he needs to put the future of the First Amendment above his personal feelings about Assange and issue this pardon before he leaves office.”

Rebecca Vincent, director of Campaigns for Reporters Without Borders (RSF) added:

“We remain hugely relieved that Julian Assange is now free and in recovery following his 14-year plight, but the terms of the plea deal leave the door open to future threats to journalism. No one should ever again face such treatment for publishing information in the public interest. In these final days of his administration, we urge President Biden to set the record straight and ensure his legacy is one of protecting press freedom by pardoning Assange. The message must be made loud and clear that the U.S. government means what it says when it comes to press freedom, and that the Espionage Act will never again be misused to target a publisher, journalist, or journalistic source.”

Chip Gibbons, policy director at Defending Rights & Dissent, said:

“The U.S. government’s pursuit of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange remains one of the most abusive attacks on press freedom in recent memory. Everything from illegal covert actions to criminal prosecutions were deployed to prevent WikiLeaks from publishing, destroy its founder, and send a chilling message to silence independent media broadly. While we are grateful this shameful saga has ended, the plea deal obtained by the government states that a journalist receiving information from a source and publishing it constitutes a criminal conspiracy under the Espionage Act. There may be no legal precedent, but right now the Department of Justice has received the message it can get away prosecuting pure journalism under the Espionage Act. No journalist is safe. President Biden must stand for press freedom and grant Mr. Assange a full, unconditional pardon.”

You can read the coalition’s letter here or below.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

This article has been updated to reflect that Amnesty International joined the letter.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Biden administration plays into Trump’s hands by roughing up journalist

1 week 6 days ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Independent journalist Sam Husseini was dragged out of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s final news conference today after interrupting Blinken’s remarks with questions about the Israel-Gaza war. Another journalist, Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone, was also escorted out.

Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, commented:

“Days before the inauguration of an anti-press president, the Biden administration handed Trump a gift by normalizing punishing journalists for asking questions officials don’t like. Quibbling about whether these journalists breached decorum misses the point. Decorum is a slippery slope that Trump is sure to rely on to retaliate against journalists for so-called ‘nasty’ questions. Plus, ignoring decorum is understandable under the circumstances — Biden officials have been ducking hard questions about their support for the Israel-Gaza war for over a year. Do they expect journalists just to accept their gibberish answers and thank them?”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Why covering the prison system matters

2 weeks 5 days ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please support our work. Our impact in 2024 was made possible by supporters like you. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here.

Covering the prison system

With all the talk about threats to U.S. journalists over the next four years, it’s easy to forget that nearly two million Americans are already living in a system rife with censorship, secrecy, and retaliation.

Despite its size and scope, the incarceration system is in many ways invisible. Its facilities operate outside the public eye and with less oversight than other governmental entities. And information about carceral institutions is closely guarded by corrections agencies that have a range of ways to restrict public access and block reporting efforts.

We published a two-part guide by journalist Daniel Moritz-Rabson on ways to navigate the challenges journalists face in covering incarceration facilities and incarcerated people. While the obstacles are daunting, we hope the guide serves as a reminder that facing these challenges is worthwhile.

TikTok isn’t the radio

In addition to making baseless national security arguments, people from opinion columnists to appellate judges have argued that banning TikTok is somehow consistent with existing governmental authority to regulate certain broadcasters.

Before today’s Supreme Court argument, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Senior Advisor Caitlin Vogus explained why they're wrong, both as a legal matter and a policy one, in Tech Policy Press.

“TikTok isn’t a radio station. If the Supreme Court treats it like one, it will open the floodgates to government control of other social media apps and the internet as a whole,” she wrote. Read the op-ed here.

Archivist can still fight secrecy

President-elect Donald Trump said this week he will replace the archivist of the United States, Colleen Shogan. Threatening to fire Shogan over the National Archives and Records Administration’s work (under a predecessor) to recover the records Trump wrongly took to Mar-a-Lago raises genuine concerns about retaliation and future compliance with the Presidential Records Act.

But the threat could have a silver lining if it prompts Shogan to spend her remaining time in the post being candid with the public about what NARA needs to survive. This will help supporters more effectively advocate for NARA during the next Congress. If NARA is undermined or neglected, expect even more overclassification from the federal government.

Read more about how Shogan can fight secrecy in The Classifieds, our new project dedicated to reforming overclassification and government secrecy.

What we’re reading

U.S. Press Freedom Tracker’s Stephanie Sugars on protests, police and the press (First Amendment Watch). Check out this interview with our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker Senior Reporter Stephanie Sugars about the Tracker’s annual arrest report and threats journalists — particularly those covering protests relating to the Israel-Gaza war — faced in 2024.

GOP senator reveals one condition that will get Tulsi Gabbard confirmed (Daily Beast). There are some legitimate reasons why Tulsi Gabbard is a controversial nominee for director of national intelligence. But her support for reforming surveillance programs used to spy on Americans shouldn’t be one of them. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for Gabbard to change her stance.

Over and out? Emergency medical crews denied NYPD radios in move that unions say endangers the public (amNY). Who could’ve guessed that encrypting NYPD radio wouldn’t go well? To be fair, we didn’t see the first responders part coming.

Meta to end fact-checking program in shift ahead of Trump term (The New York Times). More free expression and more news on social media is, of course, a good thing. But based on Meta’s track record and the kind of speech it appears to be prioritizing, this looks like a political move, not a principled one.

Why I’m quitting the Washington Post (Ann Telnaes, Substack). The editorial cartoonist explained why she left the paper after 15 years when one of her cartoons was killed: “We’re talking about news organizations that have public obligations and who are obliged to nurture a free press in a democracy. Owners of such press organizations are responsible for safeguarding that free press.”

Ohio puts police bodycam footage behind a paywall (The Intercept). Some better ways to reduce costs of producing police footage: Put video online proactively, hold police accountable for misconduct before the press starts probing, or maybe even hire better cops.

Check out our other newsletters

If you haven’t yet, subscribe to FPF’s other newsletters, including The Classifieds, our new newsletter on overclassification and more from Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

TikTok should win its case — or we could all lose free speech online

2 weeks 6 days ago

With the TikTok argument headed for the Supreme Court on Jan. 10, it’s become increasingly common to read about the so-called “easy” path for affirming the TikTok ban: Treat it like a radio station, where foreign ownership has long been prohibited.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Senior Advisor for Advocacy Caitlin Vogus explained in Tech Policy Press why that argument is wrong, as both a legal matter and a policy one.

As Vogus explains:

“The lower First Amendment protections for radio and broadcast television don’t just allow the government to prohibit foreign ownership. They also give the government significant control over the speech allowed on those mediums, control that isn’t currently allowed online or in the real world. That’s why the FCC can punish a radio station for playing George Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” but not HBO, or require “equal time” for political candidates on broadcast TV stations when it could never require the same in the pages of a newspaper.

“If we give the government a freer hand to regulate the internet the way they do radio and broadcast TV, it won’t be long before officials are trying to ban speech that embarrasses or criticizes them and stamp out content they disagree with.”

Read the Tech Policy Press article here.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Covering the mass incarceration system, Part 2

3 weeks 2 days ago
Overcoming barriers to information

In Part 1 of this series, we covered the challenges of visiting and communicating with incarcerated people. Here, we’ll talk about how to handle issues in accessing information held by jails and prisons.

Understanding the system

Though the number of incarcerated people has roughly quadrupled since 1980 and government spending has ballooned as well, there’s little standardized data about incarceration and its outcomes.

Each of the nation’s more than 3,000 counties collects its own jail data using different methods and agencies. Similarly, each state gathers data according to local legislation. Every jurisdiction considers varying categories and has different disclosure laws.

This lack of data can complicate reporting. Statistics as basic as national crime surveys are hard to find because thousands of law enforcement agencies do not report their data to the FBI. Accurate and granular information about recidivism, pretrial detention practices, and the financial status of defendants may not be tracked by government officials.

Data about conditions within incarceration facilities can also be exceedingly difficult to gather. Oregon, for example, requires staff to document each time they give naloxone to an incarcerated person. But state corrections officials told the Oregon Capital Chronicle in 2023 that the government did not have important information about overdoses that would have assisted reporting. "Corrections officials say they do not have information on the number of complaints filed against corrections staffers, how often a prison goes on lockdown or how often inmates suffer opioid overdoses,” it reported.

Data gathered may not be published until years after the information is collected, meaning it's out of sync with the latest legislation and changes in material conditions.

What sweeping data does exist often faces extensive delays before being released to the public. The Bureau of Justice Statistics collects a range of information about prisons and jails, as well as probation and parole data. But the data gathered may not be published until years after the information is collected, meaning it's out of sync with the latest legislation and changes in material conditions.

In many cases, advocacy organizations, academics, legal groups, or legislators may have been able to gather data that can help answer a question. But sometimes, the information you are looking for has simply not been tracked.

Sometimes, corrections departments may have the information you are seeking but are unwilling to share it with you. Like other entities, these agencies often fiercely seek to defend their reputations and will selectively release information to shape public perception. In many cases, a spokesperson may offer a canned, opaque response.

Many legal scholars believe it is unconstitutional for government agencies, including departments of correction, to restrict employees other than spokespeople from talking to journalists. An agency in Pennsylvania recently settled a case alleging such a policy was unconstitutional and revised the policy.

Still, agencies have those policies on the books and the cost of challenging them in court is often prohibitive. Agencies may also tell you that they cannot provide the information that you’re seeking, but that you can file a records request.

Getting public information

Lawsuits are great resources for reporters who cover the criminal legal system. They can point you to newsworthy injustices and provide detailed and nuanced information that helps provide context for your story.

Incarcerated people do face significant challenges in pursuing litigation, including under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which creates legal red tape that is very difficult for any nonlawyer, let alone one who is imprisoned, to navigate.

That means many lawsuits get dismissed for procedural reasons before a judge or jury is able to look at the facts. Claims made early on in lawsuits, whether by incarcerated plaintiffs or the agencies they sue, may or may not be accurate and require further investigation.

On the other hand, just because an incarcerated person’s lawsuit was dismissed doesn’t mean the claims are not valid or worthy of looking into.

So, if you’re reporting on abuse in a particular incarceration facility, past legal filings can help you establish a paper trail of misconduct at that jail or prison. You can see if a particular corrections officer or medical worker has been previously accused of misconduct. Sworn testimony may provide useful insight that can be incorporated into your reporting, and past cases may provide insights about which lawyers might be useful to speak to.

An attorney holds a photo of the bedbug-invested Georgia jail cell where Lashawn Thompson died in 2022.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Christina Matacotta via AP

For federal court cases, records can be found in PACER. Costs for these records add up quickly, as each page downloaded costs 10 cents. Document prices are capped at $3, even if the documents are longer than 30 pages.

For many cases, you will be able to find documents through CourtListener, a free legal website operated by the Free Law Project that has nearly 9.8 million legal opinions from federal, state, and specialty courts. The Free Law Project has also developed a browser extension called RECAP. If another RECAP user has previously downloaded an opinion, deposition, trial transcript, or other document in a federal court case, those documents will be available for free on CourtListener.

Each state will have different methods of accessing court records. Some states and counties make court records available online, but others don’t, meaning you may need to visit the courthouse in person to try to obtain them. Try calling the local clerk of court if you’re unsure how to obtain a system’s records.

In many cases, lawyers working on a particular lawsuit will provide relevant legal filings to journalists for free. For federal cases, you will also be able to set up notifications so that you are alerted by email when new documents are uploaded to the case, enabling you to break stories.

Other government entities, like an oversight body, might also have useful reports. More regulatory bodies for prisons and jails are emerging, according to Michele Deitch, who directs the Prison and Jail Innovation Lab at The University of Texas at Austin.

“Those oversight bodies are a tremendous source of information,” she told Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF).

Requesting records is often a lengthy, uphill battle that requires specificity, persistent follow-ups, appeals, and knowledge of local laws.

Deitch and Alycia Welch, the lab’s co-director recently set up a website providing information about the prison oversight bodies in each state. Nineteen states and Washington, D.C., have independent entities that provide prison oversight and can be a source of information that incarceration agencies seek to obscure.

Meanwhile, eight states require you to be a resident of the state to file records requests. To pursue records in one of these states as a nonresident, you can ask transparency and advocacy organizations to file the request on your behalf.

Privately operated prisons, which are widely used to detain immigrants, are exempt from the federal Freedom of Information Act. A proposed law seeking to change this failed in 2023.

“It’s just a giant gaping loophole” in federal records laws, Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told FPF.

Even so, there are still ways to find information about the operations of privately run prisons. In many cases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel will be copied on emails about private prisons, meaning those communications can be FOIA’d, Sus said.

If ICE has a contract with a state or county government to operate an incarceration facility, you can file records requests with more local agencies. On top of these potential workarounds, ICE is required to publish contracts and facility inspections, as well as information related to detention.

Either way, requesting records is often a lengthy, uphill battle that requires specificity, persistent follow-ups, appeals, and knowledge of local laws and legally permitted exemptions.

Transparency organizations like MuckRock may have solutions to these problems or examples of appeals that you can use.

Tapping legal resources

National organizations like the National Freedom of Information Coalition, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, or state chapters of the ACLU may be able to provide insights on how to challenge a FOIA determination you feel violates state law. If these organizations can’t help, they may be able to connect you with other lawyers or legal activism groups that can.

At the same time, these organizations can also assist in situations other than public records disputes — for example, by filing constitutional challenges to access restrictions that make it more difficult for journalists to communicate with incarcerated people or department of corrections employees.

The Pennsylvania case mentioned above – which challenged a policy routing all media communications through public information officers – is one example. Flimsy pretexts to deny media access, like the denial due to “victim protest,” can also be challenged. In jurisdictions with the death penalty, the media may (depending on the circumstances and local law) be able to object when excluded from attending executions.

That said, journalists should keep in mind that the court system moves far slower than the news cycle and can rack up costs. That means even if you’re able to eliminate monetary costs by finding counsel who will represent you pro bono, a court case may or may not be worth the time and energy investment. These challenges are compounded for freelancers, as government agencies know that these reporters are unlikely to have the legal assistance given to staff journalists at large news outlets. Freelancers should contact organizations like those listed above for assistance.

Read Part 1 of this series, focused on the challenges of interviewing incarcerated people.

Resources/Guides

Daniel Moritz-Rabson

Covering the mass incarceration system, Part 1

3 weeks 2 days ago
Interviewing incarcerated people

The American incarceration system is a behemoth.

Around 1.9 million people in the United States are locked up in jails, prisons, immigration detention facilities, and other confinement centers. Federal, state, and local expenditures on corrections amount to more than $81 billion each year. Legal costs, criminal policing, and assorted other fees, like bail payments and prison phone call fees, end up costing taxpayers and families an additional $100 billion annually.

But despite its size and scope, the incarceration system is in many ways invisible. Its facilities operate outside the public eye and with less oversight than other governmental entities. And information about carceral institutions is closely guarded by corrections agencies that have a range of ways to restrict public access and block reporting efforts.

These barriers make covering stories about carceral facilities and incarcerated people different from many other types of journalism. As a reporter on this story, you will face logistical challenges that impede your ability to communicate with sources and verify information as you navigate a maze of bureaucracy.

While this guide is not intended to provide a comprehensive blueprint for all the obstacles you may face as you report on incarceration, it will offer broad insights into some common problems you will encounter and how to overcome them. And we hope it’s a reminder that facing these challenges is worth it in the name of transparency on this consequential story.

First, in Part 1, we’ll discuss the challenges of interviewing incarcerated people. Then, in Part 2, we will discuss how to handle barriers to obtaining documents and information.

Know the risks, share the risks

Many incarcerated people have no experience speaking with reporters. So when talking to someone behind bars, be sure to share as much detail as possible about your project, the scope of your reporting, and how their voice will be used in your story.

Be sure to define any journalistic terms you’re using, explaining what you mean, for instance, by “off the record” or “on background.” If anonymous sourcing is an option for your project, offer it at the beginning of an interview to encourage people to speak with you.

Even in cases where your source is comfortable being identified, be cautious about including names or details that might identify other incarcerated people and subject them to potential retaliation, whether by prison and jail officials or other incarcerated people.

Explain the conditions of your conversation to build trust so that the incarcerated person will not pull out of the project once you are closer to publication. Ensure they understand the risks they’re taking by talking to a journalist and are willingly taking those risks. Keep checking in throughout the reporting process to be certain this doesn’t change.

Be aware that jails or prisons may retaliate against those accused of causing problems — such as by unsanctioned communication with media. Retaliation can result in an incarcerated person spending time in solitary confinement, being moved to a facility further from family, or having their cell raided by corrections officers. Officials may also retaliate by confiscating devices or other means of communication. Incarceration facilities and departments could even trump up disciplinary charges to justify this conduct.

Be aware that jails or prisons may retaliate against those accused of causing problems — such as by unsanctioned communication with media.

You should also consider whether you are adequately protecting the identity of anonymous sources. Keri Blakinger, an investigative reporter who covers the criminal legal system, noted that small details you might consider innocuous, like the background of a photo taken with a contraband cellphone, could reveal the identity of someone who wishes to remain anonymous.

“When it comes to things like photos and videos, the biggest question I ask myself is, ‘Will this identify the source?’” Blakinger told In These Times. “This means asking yourself, ‘Is this photo of inedible-looking prison food with mold on it going to identify the unit that it came from, and if prison officials can identify the unit, is that sufficient for them to identify the person who took the image? Will they identify how the image got to me and any intermediaries involved? Will the source face consequences? Are they OK with that?’”

If you are communicating with incarcerated people using contraband cellphones, you should ask before publishing the method of communication. Indicating that your contact has a prohibited device can lead to repercussions. If the source sends you a photo, make sure to clarify whether or not you can publish or describe it.

Access is allowed, but can be restricted and erratic

The First Amendment covers journalists’ ability to report on incarceration facilities, but two 1974 Supreme Court rulings determined the press has no privilege beyond that of the general public to talk to people who are incarcerated.

This means that incarceration agencies and facilities can invoke a series of restrictions to impede journalists’ access and ability to do their jobs. Often these restrictions will be presented as measures to ensure the operational security of staff and incarcerated people.

These restrictions can mean that in-person interviews may be ended by prison or jail staff at any time, that prison or jail staff can select who journalists may talk to, or that interviews may be severely time-restricted.

If general visitors (like family members and friends) are prohibited from using cameras or recording devices at an incarceration facility, the facility may forbid reporters’ ability to bring those items into the facility as well. Facilities may also legally deny media members the right to interview particular incarcerated people. However, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press notes, “Even though courts have rejected a First Amendment right to interview specific prisoners, most states have statutes or prison rules allowing for some type of access.”

Even so, some states have created enormous barriers to speaking with incarcerated people. Last year, the South Carolina Department of Corrections issued a press release saying that people incarcerated in its system “are not allowed to do interviews.” The ACLU sued the state over that policy in February 2024.

If you are denied the right to an interview, you should ask for a copy of the regulation that dictates access to determine whether the agency is violating its own policy.

Visits require time, jumping through hoops

Even once granted access, visits with incarcerated people are often difficult to arrange and require significant lead time. Many states have online instructions for scheduling a media visit and gaining approval for an in-person interview, or require you to contact the agency’s public information officer.

Media visits in Texas prisons, for example, require at least two weeks’ notice. You will only have an hour for the interview. In California, the subject must send you a visiting questionnaire, which the state corrections department may take approximately 30 working days to review and approve.

Once you gain approval, you will have to schedule a date and time for a visit. This visit could be abruptly canceled for a range of reasons, including facility lockdowns, that the person you want to interview has been subject to discipline by corrections officials, or because someone harmed by the offense that led to your source’s imprisonment has protested the interview.

Journalists exposed serious health and safety concerns at the infamous “F House” in Illinois' recently closed Stateville Correctional Center.

AP Photo/Richard A. Chapman

Some states place stringent restrictions on what you can bring into facilities and bar equipment like audio recorders. In California facilities, cameras and recording devices are not permitted, though the agency says it will provide pencil, pen, and paper “as needed.”

Policies around in-person interviews of those who are incarcerated can also be changed abruptly. In 2020, Arizona reporter Jimmy Jenkins was surprised to discover that the state’s corrections department had suddenly altered its media policy and now only permitted reporters to communicate with incarcerated people via paper mail.

Last year, an incarcerated Texas journalist was scheduled to be interviewed by another reporter. Though the state prison agency had previously approved the in-person conversation, the department revoked that permission prior to the meeting. The ombudsman explained via email that the interview had been canceled “due to victim protest.” The scheduled call was not related to the charges that led to the journalist’s incarceration.

Multiple means of (monitored) messaging

Beyond visits, there are other ways to contact incarcerated people. As with in-person visits, though, you should assume that phone calls, messages sent through electronic systems, and regular mail are being read and monitored by corrections officials.

All forms of communication with incarcerated people can be disrupted and be subject to unpredictable delays. While physical letters in some cases previously served as a work-around to unreliable phone and messaging systems, a number of jurisdictions have taken steps in recent years that alter how incarcerated people receive mail.

At least 14 states have started delivering scanned versions of physical mail sent to incarcerated people. (Though corrections officials have claimed they’re taking this step to stop contraband from entering facilities, there’s little evidence these policies are working.)

Until the beginning of the 2010s, reporters who wanted to communicate with people who were incarcerated were restricted to phone calls, in-person visits, or mail. In the last decade, private telecommunications companies started distributing and selling personal tablets in incarceration facilities (and earning large profits by doing so). Most states and the federal prison system now have an electronic messaging system.

Typically, you must create an account on the electronic messaging platform used by the particular corrections facility or system, add the person you want to message to your list of contacts using their state-assigned ID number and then add money to your account.

Messages sent via systems like JPay may be delayed by days or even weeks before they reach their recipient. Since messages are monitored by corrections officials, some communications may be heavily redacted by the time they reach the person you contacted.

Also, many incarcerated people do not have personal tablets and so must view messages via a centralized kiosk, limiting access to communications. (This was often a problem during the early pandemic, as persistent lockdowns hindered access to kiosks where people could respond to messages.).

Like electronic messages, phone calls with incarcerated people are monitored by the corrections agency and can be costly to them. Unlike with electronic messages, you will not be able to contact incarcerated people. Instead, they will have to call you. Even if you have agreed to talk at a certain time, they may be delayed in contacting you, as lockdowns, long phone lines, or other problems may impede phone access.

You should assume that phone calls, messages sent through electronic systems, and regular mail are being read and monitored.

Incarcerated people do not earn a living wage, and the meager amount of money they may make from a job inside does not cover the cost of communicating with family members and friends, let alone journalists.

Both phone calls and messages on electronic systems can be exorbitant for them. In Alabama, for example, a 15-minute in-state call will run over $3.75. Like phone calls, electronic “stamps” that allow messaging range in price across states. A pack of 10 stamps costs $1.50 in New York and $4.40 in Florida.

So they may not be able to afford the cost of contacting you and could ask to place collect calls, or for you to send stamps so they can respond to your messages. It is typical for reporters who cover the criminal legal system to pay for a return stamp when contacting an incarcerated source and foot the bill for communicating with sources.

Although two main communications systems are used across most prison systems in the U.S., you will need to add separate funds for each state correction system (i.e., Florida stamps cannot be used to message people in New York prisons.).

In Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, and Texas, correspondence with the news media is considered to be “privileged communication,” according to the Prison Policy Initiative. This designation means that prison staff can’t open and read the letters like they can with other correspondence. Even if you have this protection, at any point in your reporting process, your source may lose their ability to communicate with you.

Partnering to find additional sources

In some cases, you may have a good tip for an article but no incarcerated sources to help move the story forward. Cold-messaging incarcerated people isn’t guaranteed to get you any reliable information, and it could endanger the safety of the people you contact. In these cases, you may be able to find helpful sources through local organizations.

Public defenders or other legal advocacy groups will likely know if there are incarcerated people who are willing to speak for your story and might be able to facilitate communication. Activist groups will also often have information and incarcerated contacts who can assist with sourcing.

In some cases, activists may agree to organize a three-way phone call. This can both protect the incarcerated source from being identified (if they have asked to be anonymous) and speed up the process of getting in touch, as these activists will already be entered in the corrections agency’s communications system.

Many family members are part of Facebook groups focused on their particular state’s incarceration facilities or the place their loved one is imprisoned. They can direct you to useful sources at the facility who might provide critical insights.

In other cases, incarcerated writers can help, as they have a wealth of knowledge about their institution and the broader incarceration system that detains them. In recent years, grassroots organizations like Empowerment Avenue have helped incarcerated journalists get their work published in outlets like The New York Times, The Appeal, and The Marshall Project. Reading the work of these writers, which can also be found at websites like Prison Writers and the Prison Journalism Project, can provide insights about how to approach a story.

Due to the restrictions placed on incarcerated journalists — such as departments attempting to limit what work they can publish, censored communications with news outlets, and retaliation for writing negative stories — these writers may have information they chose not to publish. If you are building on the work of an incarcerated writer, you should offer them the chance to collaborate on a publication, co-report the story, and get paid for their contributions to the writing process.

Read Part 2 of this series, focused on obtaining documents and information about jails, prisons and incarcerated people.

Resources/Guides

Daniel Moritz-Rabson

EPA has known for 20 years that it promotes toxic fertilizer

3 weeks 3 days ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

I’m Lauren Harper, the first Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), and welcome to “The Classifieds.” This is FPF’s weekly newsletter highlighting important secrecy news that shows how the public is harmed when the government keeps too many secrets.

EPA’s silence on ‘forever chemicals’ in fertilizer a public health risk

For over 20 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has promoted a fertilizer it knows contains “forever chemicals” linked to birth defects and cancer.

An investigation by veteran environmental reporter Hiroko Tabuchi for The New York Times shows that, in the early 2000s, chemical manufacturer 3M found high levels of the toxic chemicals it produced in the nation’s sewage supply. Because the wastewater was used to fertilize farmland as part of a practice promoted by the EPA, the company concluded its “chemicals were being unwittingly spread on fields across the country.”

3M told the EPA about its findings during a 2003 meeting.

The EPA sat on the study, continues to promote the fertilization method that may “permanently contaminate” soil, and does not require testing for forever chemicals in wastewater. The only reason we know about the public health risk at all is because Tabuchi dug through thousands of pages of records — all stored on CDs — that were released by 3M as part of a legal settlement.

For more information on the dangers of these same chemicals found in drinking water, which the EPA only recently began regulating, read here and here.

CIA’s mind-control programs declassified

The National Security Archive (where I used to work) recently published a collection of over 1,200 declassified documents on the CIA’s infamous mind-control research programs, projects MKULTRA, BLUEBIRD, and ARTICHOKE. The publication comes 50 years after journalist Seymour Hersh broke the story about the existence of the illegal programs in The New York Times.

The most infamous example of the CIA’s illegal experiments — often conducted on U.S. citizens who had no idea they were being targeted — may be Operation Midnight Climax. As part of this 1950s program, prostitutes working under the direction of the agency lured unsuspecting men back to CIA-run brothels in San Francisco and New York City. The CIA’s own records show the victims were unwittingly fed a variety of drugs, including LSD manufactured by companies like Eli Lilly. The prostitutes then attempted to coax information from the drugged victims so CIA officials, hidden behind one-way mirrors, could assess the drugs’ impact on the men’s ability to tell the truth.

The legacy of these projects, and the medical community’s willingness to support the agency’s illegal and unethical work, goes beyond mind-control experiments. Former New York Times journalist Stephen Kinzer notes that MKULTRA in particular “contributed decisively to the development of techniques that Americans and their allies used at detention centers in Vietnam, Latin America, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and secret prisons around the world.”

Federal police accountability database issues first report. Will Trump maintain it?

The Justice Department released its first annual report assessing statistics from the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database. The database was mandated by President Joe Biden’s 2022 executive order, “Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices To Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety,” and mirrors similar efforts by the Biden administration to bring accountability and transparency to local policing.

The database, which is used by agencies when making personnel decisions like hiring and promotions, contains information on federal law enforcement misconduct for 2018 through 2023. It currently consists of 4,790 records and shows 63% of incidents “were for sustained complaints or records of disciplinary action based on findings of serious misconduct.”

While the order mandates annual reporting, it’s possible President-elect Donald Trump will rescind the requirement and discontinue the database.

Incentivized lying plagued U.S. efforts in Afghanistan across decades

The Special Inspector General on Afghanistan Reconstruction will issue its final report this year.

SIGAR’s work has been instrumental in informing the public how the U.S. government lied for decades about its progress in Afghanistan, particularly concerning the effectiveness of the billions of dollars spent training Afghanistan’s security forces. A large part of the problem, which IG John Sopko highlights in a recent New York Times op-ed, is the “perverse incentive” for military officials and contractors to justify previous spending levels to keep their budgets from getting cut, no matter how ineffective or useless the programs were.

The IG’s office was, by its own assessment, “the only government agency reliably reporting on the situation” in Afghanistan, and did so in spite of “stiff opposition from officials in the departments of Defense and State, USAID and the organizations that supported their programs.” (SIGAR was not universally transparent with the public, however. Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock had to sue SIGAR under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of the “lessons learned” interviews SIGAR conducted with policymakers, military officials, and contractors who worked in Afghanistan for his book, “The Afghanistan Papers.”)

What I’m reading

The American oil industry’s playbook, illustrated: How drillers offload costly cleanup onto the public (ProPublica). In more environmental secrecy news, ProPublica reports that the Interior Department has known for 35 years that unplugged oil and gas wells can leak dangerous material into the water supply. The public health impact of this problem needs get more attention as the incoming Trump administration works to “increase the number of sales for oil leases on public lands and shrink federal environmental agencies.”

Trump advisers seek to shrink or eliminate bank regulators (Wall Street Journal). The Trump transition team is exploring ways to eliminate the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an agency that maintains “public confidence in the nation’s financial system.” The public regularly demonstrates its interest in the FDIC’s work, filing nearly 700 FOIA requests with the agency in 2023 alone. These requests seek a wide swath of information, ranging from bank acquisitions to communications with Congress.

He leaked Trump’s tax returns. Will Biden protect him? (The Intercept). Tax law professors are encouraging President Biden to commute the sentence of former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn. Littlejohn leaked Trump’s tax returns to The New York Times after Trump broke tradition and refused to release them. Littlejohn also leaked returns of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and other billionaires, showing how the superrich exploit the tax system.

Lauren Harper

Dems fail on PRESS Act

3 weeks 5 days ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please support our work. Our impact in 2024 was made possible by supporters like you. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here.

Democrats surrender on press freedom

Democrats spent election season fundraising by warning America that a second Trump term would kickstart America’s descent into fascism. It’d be logical to assume, then, that after Trump won, they’d do everything in their power to restrain his anti-democratic impulses. You’d think that even before he won, the mere prospect would spur some urgency to check his potential powers. 

But they either didn’t really believe Trump posed the threats they campaigned on, or they don’t care. That’s evident because, despite Trump escalating his threats to retaliate against the media to unprecedented levels in the closing weeks of 2024, Senate leadership gave up on the PRESS Act — the bipartisan “shield” bill to protect journalist-source confidentiality. 

There are no excuses for their failure. The bill passed the House unanimously and had bipartisan support in the Senate, which Democrats controlled. Sure, it didn’t help that Trump called on Republicans to kill the bill, or that Sen. Tom Cotton gave an irrational floor speech opposing it. 

But those obstacles only arose because Senate Democrats waited 11 months to act, after the House passed the bill last January. And there were still opportunities in the closing days of the session, even if Sen. Schumer would’ve had to shorten senators’ holiday break. Bottom line, if leadership saw the bill as a higher priority, it would be the law of the land today.  

The bill’s lead sponsors — Jamie Raskin and Kevin Kiley in the House and Ron Wyden and Mike Lee in the Senate — deserve credit for their diligent efforts. So do the newspapers that endorsed the bill, even though they should’ve done so sooner. But others —  particularly those in leadership positions who could’ve done more —  should be ashamed. If Trump follows through on his threats against the press they will share a significant portion of the blame. 

Mohawk journalist speaks out about being arrested for reporting

Isaac White is a Mohawk journalist from the territory of Akwesasne in northern New York. He was arrested back in May for attempting to cover a demonstration in opposition to a land claim settlement. 

White’s story about his arrest, which we published in December, discusses his shock at being arrested in violation of the Constitution his ancestors inspired and his suspicion that the charges against him and others were intended to silence critics of the settlement. These charges were dropped several months later, after Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and other organizations wrote to local prosecutors.

If White’s suspicions are correct, those efforts failed. “While the thought of spending a year in county jail wasn’t appealing,” he writes, “there was no way I would bend to the state’s bullying.” Read White’s detailed and inspiring reflection on his ordeal here.

News outlets shouldn’t settle defensible cases

FPF Director of Advocacy Seth Stern argued in the Chicago Sun-Times that ABC could’ve defended Trump’s lawsuit alleging George Stephanopoulos defamed him by stating that he’d been found liable for rape, as opposed to sexual abuse. Instead, it settled for $15 million. 

Stern would know — he helped defend the Sun-Times in a virtually identical case over 10 years ago. “Find me the person or company that’s eager to do business with alleged sexual assailants and abusers but draws the line at alleged rapists,” he writes, questioning whether Disney-owned ABC prioritized the interests of its nonmedia holdings over the First Amendment. You can read the op-ed here.   

The 2025 journalist’s digital security checklist

In tumultuous times, we believe in being prepared, not scared. Sound digital security practice often involves forming and relying on good habits. Building these reflexes now will help keep journalists better protected against future threats. 

This is why our digital security team distilled advice our trainers have shared with thousands of journalists over the years into actionable, concrete steps. Read more here

What we’re reading

Federal lawsuit: Asheville journalists sue city, police over alleged illegal arrests (Asheville Citizen Times). Park curfews don’t mean police can evade scrutiny at night. The Asheville Blade had every right to cover a controversial Christmas night encampment sweep three years ago. Asheville officials must be held accountable for retaliating against journalists. 

Indigenous journalism legacy ends in Akwesasne with Indian Time closing (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). Sadly, Indigenous-owned news outlets face the same challenges as other local news outlets. Case in point, Indian Time, the newspaper White was reporting for when he was arrested, was recently forced to shutter. It covered Akwesasne, located at the U.S.-Canada border. 

LA city officials use disappearing Google Chats. The city attorney is investigating (Los Angeles Times). When they’re not trying to sue or prosecute journalists for reporting on public records, Los Angeles officials use disappearing chats to avoid creating them in the first place. LA’s dismal track record on press freedom is a reminder for anyone who thinks it’s solely a Trump or Republican issue.

He leaked Trump’s tax returns. Will Biden protect him? (The Intercept). Charles Littlejohn didn’t leak tax evaders’ returns for personal gain, but because he saw no other path to accountability. We wrote last year that “even murder defendants are entitled to consideration of their motives at sentencing. Whistleblowers certainly should be as well.” 

Meta’s WhatsApp wins ruling holding spyware maker NSO liable for hacking (The Washington Post). NSO Group, the maker of the notorious Pegasus spyware, cannot escape accountability in U.S. courts for its unlawful attacks on journalists and human rights activists in dozens of countries around the world.

Spyware is spreading — and it’s cheaper than ever (Columbia Journalism Review).  Trevor Timm, FPF’s executive director, helped journalists Joel Simon and Ronan Farrow alongside Ela Stapley of the Committee to Protect Journalists come up with five tips for reporters worried about spyware attacks. 

Check out our other newsletters

If you haven’t yet, subscribe to FPF’s other newsletters, including The Classifieds, our new newsletter on overclassification and more from Lauren Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy. 

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Settlement puts Disney’s business interests above First Amendment

4 weeks 2 days ago

A few months ago, Disney made headlines when, rather than settling a wrongful death lawsuit, it argued that theme park guests waived their right to take it to court when they signed up for Disney Plus trials.

But Mickey Mouse appears to have had a change of heart on paying plaintiffs. Disney is now writing a multimillion-dollar settlement check to avoid litigating a defensible defamation lawsuit by Donald Trump. The president-elect claims Disney’s ABC News defamed him by saying he was found liable for “rape” when a jury really found he had committed sexual abuse.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern helped successfully defend the Chicago Sun-Times in a virtually identical case over 10 years ago. A judge threw out a Northwestern professor’s suit over a headline that said he was accused of rape rather than sexual assault.

“Find me the person or company that’s eager to do business with alleged sexual assailants and abusers but draws the line at alleged rapists,” Stern wrote in the Sun-Times, questioning whether Disney prioritized the interests of its nonmedia holdings over the First Amendment.

“Back in the days when news outlets were owned by news companies, a strong First Amendment was fundamental to their economic interests. Unless they’d messed up badly, they rarely settled, even when it would be cheaper than litigating. It’s fair to question whether that equation changes when news comprises just a fraction of ownership’s holdings.”

You can read the op-ed here.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Mohawk journalist’s arrest violates Constitution his ancestors inspired

1 month 1 week ago

“You’re under arrest.”

“I’m a reporter.”

“I don’t care.”

I laughed at the prospect of being arrested for covering a story.

May 21 started like any other for a local reporter: out in my community, Akwesasne, looking for news worth sharing.

Then, I got a call about a potential story on Barnhart Island in Massena, New York. The island is one of our ancestral Akwesasne lands, Mohawk Territory on the northern New York border with Canada, carved apart by colonial powers that decided for themselves how we could access our own Nation’s land.

It’s now home to a New York Power Authority dam that generates billions of dollars in revenue each year. My Nation receives no meaningful benefit, even though the island is rightfully ours. It was stolen.

The call came from my wife, Monica Garrow, who’s always been an excellent source of leads. She often joins me on stories, capturing photos from angles I might miss. Indian Time, the paper I report for, is small and hyperlocal — one of the oldest Native American newspapers in the U.S. Though we’re barely staying afloat, I’ve taken immense pride in writing for it.

“Something might be going on at Barnhart,” Monica said, which piqued my interest. Someone might be demonstrating to remind everyone that the island is ours.

Akwesasne has been in a land claims battle with New York state for over four decades, because by taking our land it violated the Nonintercourse Act, a series of congressional acts that by 1834 prohibited land transactions with Native Americans unless authorized by Congress. This isn’t just my perspective; it’s the 2022 ruling of U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn.

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs are the lead plaintiffs in the case. They are ready to give away large portions of our treaty lands, including Barnhart Island, for next to nothing.

Many in Akwesasne don’t agree with settling the claims by giving away such large pieces of stolen land. I could go on about the Treaty of the Seven Nations of Canada and its validity, but the bottom line is that we should not give up on what is rightfully ours.

After all, our current land base is just a drop in a hundred-gallon drum compared to what it once was — all the land that now makes up the United States.

‘The cops are here’

As we drove down Barnhart Island Road, Monica and I looked for any signs of activity. Eventually, we spotted a couple of vehicles parked along the roadside. I pulled over and saw familiar faces — people I’d worked with to raise awareness about the bogus settlement.

I asked someone I knew what was happening. Even then, it wasn’t clear what their intentions were. I saw people milling around, taking photos. No one was willing to speak on the record. I had nothing I could publish — no interviews, no statements, and nothing corroborated.

I estimate I was there for no more than an hour, and was waiting for something worth documenting. Suddenly, I heard a woman say, “The cops are here.”

I made a mistake that day — I assumed that because I had press credentials, I wouldn’t be targeted.

At that moment, I had my back to the road. I had moved a few hundred feet from the vehicles, following the others closer to the tree line. I turned back and saw police cars.

There were more than I expected. But their arrival didn’t surprise me. The issue of Barnhart Island as Mohawk land has been contentious for decades. Time and again, Indigenous protests are met with force.

An officer shouted over a bullhorn, telling us to disperse or risk arrest for trespassing. I moved closer to get video footage and photographic evidence of the police actions. Monica and I took the photos and videos, which are still in my possession.

The police made at least two announcements to disperse, though it wasn’t clear where we should go. I stayed near the road, focused on getting good shots.

The threat facing others

I made a mistake that day — I assumed that because I had press credentials, I wouldn’t be targeted by the police.

While I hadn’t fully considered my potential danger, I was acutely aware of the threat facing the others. I knew I had to document what was happening to ensure any impropriety or violence was recorded. I knew things could escalate quickly.

The others held their ground and, soon enough, the police announced that everyone would be arrested. Because I was closest to the road, a state trooper approached me first.

The exchange between us — the words that opened this story — began then.

I found it absurd that the police would disregard the First Amendment’s protections for the press. The irony is that our Mohawk Constitution, Kaienerakowa, influenced the development of the U.S. Constitution, memorialized in U.S. House Resolution 331.

So here I was, a Mohawk reporter being arrested in violation of the constitutional ideals the police are sworn to uphold … that were inspired by my ancestors.

Credentials never checked

The cuffs went on, and I was led to the side of the road. I mentioned again that I was a reporter, and a trooper asked if I had my credentials. I told him that I kept them in the phone/wallet case around my neck — a habit I’ve developed to always have quick access to my phone for recording.

Even though he asked about my credentials, he never checked my case. I don’t think he cared. Maybe he preferred not to confirm that I was a reporter.

I understood fully that the police didn’t care about their supposed allegiance to the Constitution — I was going for a ride, journalist or not.

Meanwhile, I could see a line of police moving in, arresting the others. My main concern was their safety. With my hands cuffed, I couldn’t document anything.

Luckily, Monica was on top of it — she continued recording from outside our car, which was still parked at the roadside. I’m grateful she was there that day — not just for me, but for everyone else. Monica took on the role of a citizen journalist, even if she wouldn’t call herself that. Whether or not anyone else acknowledges it, I will.

I’m fortunate to be married to her — throughout this ordeal, she never wavered in her support for me or my refusal to bend to the will of the state. She’s a true warrior for our people, and I’m proud to share that.

I watched as the other Akwesasronon were taken into custody, relieved that no one was hurt. With my hands cuffed behind my back, I found myself back in a state of comic disbelief.

By then, I understood fully that the police didn’t care about their supposed allegiance to the Constitution — I was going for a ride, journalist or not.

My disbelief turned to disgust when I looked to my left and saw a young Mohawk boy handcuffed beside me. He said he was fourteen. He posed no threat and to put a child in handcuffs like that was simply wrong.

Later, I learned that neither he nor his father had been involved in the day’s actions. But the boy remained calm under pressure, showing no fear — remarkably Mohawk and incredibly impressive.

Coping through gallows humor

I judged that arguing with the cops about the boy’s handcuffs wouldn’t help him. So, I turned to my usual coping mechanism: humor. Gallows humor can defuse situations that might break others. I think it’s part of our DNA — something we all connect on.

“So I guess you’re not going to give me a quote for my story?” I asked. The trooper didn’t look pleased, but I figured if I was going for a ride, I might as well have some fun.

Most other Indigenous people I’ve met from different nations use the same tactic when facing injustice. We aren’t surprised when we’re targeted. In Akwesasne, we’re warriors. We know precisely how the government and some police regard us.

A Mohawk Warrior Society sign at the site on Barnhart Island where Isaac White was arrested.

Courtesy of Garrow Kahnekenhawi

Eventually, we were to be moved to the state police outpost in Massena. The trooper escorting me was polite, quite different from the others. However, I knew there would be a problem when we reached the car.

I’m what you might call large — 6’4” in my shoes and far from slim. I knew they’d need to put me in something other than what they called a “cage car.”

When he opened the door, I immediately told him there was no way I’d fit. He insisted I try. I attempted to sit, legs sticking out, trying to swing them in, but it wasn’t happening.

The trooper finally realized I wouldn’t fit and told me to get out. At that point, I had to tell him I was stuck. My left leg was wedged against the barrier separating the front of the car from the back seat. I rocked back and forth to build momentum, and the trooper pulled my arm to help me out.

I swear I heard a Looney Toons-like “pop” when I finally emerged from the car.

‘It felt surreal’

They moved me to another car, and to my surprise, they put the 14-year-old boy in the back seat with me while his father was seated in the front. My anger flared — not only were they still holding the boy, but they were treating him like an adult in custody. It was disgusting.

They could — no, they should — have let him go with Monica or one of the other adults on the scene.

We rode to the station, and I made jokes to lighten the mood. I knew the penalties for trespassing were minor. I didn’t see any serious threat to our freedom at that moment.

When we arrived, we were led into the station. Eight of us were arrested, but we were informed the boy wouldn’t be processed with us; he’d be released to another adult.

I was held in a room with three Akwesasronon women and the boy's father. We were chained to the bench. Still, we kept the mood light, joking and discussing current events on the rez.

No one handcuffed to those benches showed any fear of the state's heavy-handed actions. Naturally, they asked what the police thought they were doing, especially since everyone knew I was there as a journalist. I told them honestly: I wasn’t surprised.

I was fully aware of the significance of a reporter being arrested for doing their job. It was wrong — wrong of the police, wrong of those who decided to prosecute me — and it felt surreal.

Silencing a journalist?

I’ve read about journalists being arrested, but why would I — a Mohawk reporter for Indian Time, a small local paper — be targeted? I’m proud of my work, and I know our paper is vital to the Akwesasne community.

I have my suspicions about why I was targeted and why the charges weren’t dropped, even after it was clear I was a credentialed journalist.

Land claims are a hot-button issue in Akwesasne and in New York State. They have significant implications, potentially reshaping the areas that were illegally taken from us.

It was inspiring to hear, “You’re a reporter; it’s bullshit they did that; they’re violating their law.”

It’s not unrealistic that the billions in revenue generated by the power dam on Barnhart Island might be a motive for silencing a journalist. The idea that our councils and traditional government could be selling out our people is a serious accusation, but a reasonable one.

I suspected that some elected council members approved of our arrests, pandering to those eager to see “the duly recognized governing body of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe” give away our future for money. I was told the council didn’t know, and I genuinely hope that’s true.

Massena, Fort Covington, St. Lawrence County, Franklin County, New York State, and the New York Power Authority would love nothing more than for this four-decade litigation to disappear — our stolen land forgotten, forgiven for a pittance, and laughed about behind closed doors.

Over the last 20 years, I’ve learned enough about our people’s history and the struggles of other Onkwehonwe Nations to know that those who took our land will do whatever they can to keep it. They will go to great lengths to ensure we never reclaim the land that was ours for thousands of years before their theft.

Alleged video evidence never produced

After a few hours, we were processed and released with appearance tickets for Massena Town Court. My charges? Not just trespassing but also conspiracy. Conspiracy to what? That’s a good question and one I asked myself. Repeatedly.

Apparently, they believed I was involved in furthering a felony. How they reached that conclusion remains a mystery, especially after reading the partial discovery I received from the St. Lawrence County District Attorney's office.

In those documents, no witness statements mentioned a 6'4", 300-plus pound man in a green polo shirt. There was allegedly video evidence, but the prosecution never produced it despite my repeated requests. Yes, that’s right — I couldn’t even obtain the full evidence they intended to use against me.

Over the next six months, there were multiple court appearances for me and the others. I requested a dismissal at my first appearance, citing the state’s violation of the First Amendment. Unsurprisingly, the request was denied.

But I witnessed something beautiful that day: a large turnout of supporters for what some began to call the “Akwesasne 8.” I wasn’t a huge fan of the term, but my pride swelled seeing Akwesasronon lined up to support us.

The people arrested that day are at the forefront of the movement against the settlement. They’ve done incredible work educating the community about the relinquishment of our land.

It was inspiring to hear, “You’re a reporter; it’s bullshit they did that; they’re violating their law.”

Delays seemed intentional

For a while after the arrest, I felt disheartened. I wanted to write about what I’d seen, but with the criminal case hanging over me, I knew it was wiser to hold off. Part of me suspected that was precisely what they wanted.

As time passed, the push for settlement continued from the state, the elected councils, and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs. We were losing time, strengthening my belief that the delay was intentional.

During this process, I contacted several journalist advocacy and protection organizations. I was overwhelmed by how quickly offers to help came in. I sent those emails to see if anyone would provide advice, but I never expected the enthusiastic support I received.

Angel Ellis of the Muscogee Nation, and a member of the board of the Indigenous Journalists Association, was among the first to respond. We spoke on the phone and exchanged texts and emails, and her support was incredibly comforting. Angel had faced her own battles with government overreach, and our shared experiences helped me understand what I was dealing with.

While the thought of spending a year in county jail wasn’t appealing, there was no way I would bend to the state’s bullying.

Angel also connected me with Seth Stern, director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). Seth provided valuable insights and a different perspective on my situation. He and his organization were a force to be reckoned with.

At Seth’s urging, FPF drafted a letter, signed by more than 20 press advocacy and rights groups, and sent it directly to St. Lawrence County District Attorney Gary Pasqua.

At some point, one of the others who were arrested mentioned they were offered a deal: The charges would be dropped if they stayed out of trouble for a certain period. They refused, and I would have refused, too, as I was set on taking this case to trial.

My original plan was to represent myself. After all, I have paralegal experience and was trained by an attorney I deeply admire. When I mentioned this to him, he reminded me of the saying, “The man who represents himself has a fool for a client, right big guy?”

After that, I told Seth I wanted to get an attorney, and he suggested contacting the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. It contacted attorneys on my behalf. Finding someone in northern New York was difficult, but I’m forever thankful for their efforts.

Refusing to bend to the state’s bullying

I was ready to see this through and so were the others. My case had an added dimension — press freedom. A journalist friend told me not to downplay my situation — my being targeted was a threat to all of us. He was right.

While the thought of spending a year in county jail wasn’t appealing, there was no way I would bend to the state’s bullying. That they threatened the others only fueled my justifiable anger.

More importantly, I had my 18-year-old son to think about. My wife and I have always taught him to stand up for his rights, to defend our people in Akwesasne, and to fight for justice. There was no way I would let him see his father fold under government pressure.

Monica, the woman I’ve always known and loved, stayed strong. When I told her I’d take this to trial, no deals, she looked at me and said, “I know. I love you.”

Then, at my last court appearance, I was informed that my case was being dismissed. When I asked the assistant district attorney why, he rudely told me they didn’t have to disclose their reasons for dropping the case against me and all but two others.

Was this entire half-year ordeal just a smoke screen for the state to push through an unjust deal with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, while sidelining their most vocal “agitators”? It seems a reasonable conclusion.

After all, my record as a journalist in Akwesasne has involved shedding light on what I’ll charitably call questionable decisions by the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.

The others arrested that day also have been thorns in the side of those pushing the settlement, and that resistance continues to grow as I write this.

The New York Power Authority and New York state believe they have their checkmate because our councils are willing to settle. But this colonial grab won’t be accepted.

The nonsense prosecution I faced is nothing compared to the pain and anger Akwesasne will hold if this settlement is signed. I’d gladly take that year in jail if it meant our land would be returned to us, its rightful stewards. Akwesasne, stand up.

Isaac White

TikTok ban threatens journalism

1 month 1 week ago

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please support our work. Our impact in 2024 was made possible by supporters like you. Help us continue protecting press freedom in the year ahead — consider a year-end donation today. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here.

TikTok court dangerously defers to government on national security

The Supreme Court will review a federal appellate court order upholding legislation to effectively ban TikTok in the United States. Before the court agreed to take the case, we wrote about why it should reverse that decision

The TikTok ban threatens fundamental free speech principles that have been the law for decades, like the prohibition on prior restraints and the fundamental principle established by the Pentagon Papers case – that the government can’t just scream “national security” as magic words to make the First Amendment disappear. 

Read more about what’s at stake on our website. Our executive director, Trevor Timm, also has a column on the subject in The Guardian

Executioners used to hide behind masks. Here’s how they hide now

Indiana is one of two states with laws excluding the media from witnessing executions. The other, Wyoming, hasn’t executed anyone since 1992. 

Indiana, however, executed Joseph Corcoran on Wednesday. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern, along with George Hale, who covers the death penalty for Indiana Public Media, wrote for the Indianapolis Star about Indiana’s “dubious honor of being the national standard bearer for taxpayer-funded secret killings.”  

It turned out that a journalist was able to attend the execution, but only because Corcoran and his lawyer apparently gave one of the seats reserved for friends and family to a journalist. The state shouldn’t put the onus on the condemned to ensure transparency around their own killing. The law needs to change. 

Trump SLAPPs, ABC capitulates, independent outlets suffer

President-elect Donald Trump’s war against the press is multipronged, but this week the facet that got the most attention is his lawfare against news outlets that criticize him — or even report polls he doesn’t like. 

ABC’s agreement to pay him $15 million to settle a defensible lawsuit raises serious concerns about self-censorship by the media during Trump’s second term. As Stern told The Intercept, when outlets like ABC settle, “not only are they putting a target on their back, they’re putting a target on the backs of smaller outlets that don’t have those kinds of legal resources.”

And speaking of smaller outlets, Trump also sued the Des Moines Register for reporting on a poll that proved to be wrong. We told The Washington Post that these lawsuits create “an environment where journalists can’t help but look over their shoulders knowing the incoming administration is on the lookout for any pretext or excuse to come after them.” 

Stern also appeared on Texas Public Radio to discuss the threats to press freedom during Trump’s second term — many of which result from powers Democrats handed him on a silver platter during the Biden administration. 

Presidential library? Not quite

Speaking of that ABC lawsuit, many reports said that the settlement money would go to Trump’s official presidential library. That may have seemed like a silver lining to some. But as our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper explained, it’s not true. The money will actually go to a foundation that can build propaganda museums that obscure history rather than preserving it. 

Harper explains the long track record of abuses at these presidential museums, and why Congress needs to step in to reform donations to presidential foundations. 

Swifties should unite to find missing U.S. journalist

U.S. journalist Austin Tice has been missing in Syria for 12 years, but the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime has led to renewed hope that his family might be able to bring him home. 

In Tice’s last tweet before his abduction on Aug. 11, 2012, he wrote that he’d spent that day listening to Taylor Swift’s music at a pool party with members of opposition rebel groups. 

Our deputy director of audience, Ahmed Zidan, calls on Swift and her legion of supporters to bring attention to the case and help bring her fan home.

Substack steps up

Substack and Amazon Web Services were named as co-defendants in a frivolous lawsuit against journalist Jack Poulson. They could have rested their defense on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — which immunizes them from liability for what Poulson publishes on their platforms — but they went above and beyond to defend Poulson’s First Amendment rights. 

As FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus writes, other platforms that host journalism and third-party speech need to take note. 

What we’re reading

There’s still time for the Senate to support the First Amendment (New York Times). The PRESS Act is bipartisan legislation that’s already passed the House. Sen. Chuck Schumer must not let the most important press freedom bill in modern history die in the Senate. 

Senate to act on drone-tracking bill empowering state, local authorities (The Hill). Even as the Senate fails to pass the PRESS Act and protect the public’s right to know, it finds time for a drone bill that makes it easier for cops to harass journalists. Huh.

Congress again fails to limit scope of spy powers in new defense bill (Wired). This is exactly why you don’t pass overreaching spy bills that give the government unprecedented power to surveil journalists and others, and hope maybe you’ll be able to fix them later.

Judge broke rules by criticizing Justice Alito during flag flap (Wall Street Journal). Let us get this straight: Legitimate criticism of Justice Alito’s behavior is muzzled, while Alito faces no consequences for behavior that undermines his impartiality? Sounds about right for this Supreme Court.

US government tells officials, politicians to ditch regular calls and texts (Reuters). Politicians wouldn’t have end-to-end encrypted messaging services to use after the Chinese hack of our telecom system if they’d succeeded in outlawing it or requiring backdoors for the Chinese and others to break into. Maybe something to think about next time this debate comes up in Congress.

Check out FPF’s new secrecy newsletter, “The Classifieds”

“The Classifieds,” a new FPF newsletter by Harper, our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy, highlights important secrecy news stories that show how the public is harmed when the government keeps too many secrets. Sign up here to receive “The Classifieds” in your inbox every week.

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Tech companies platform the First Amendment

1 month 1 week ago

Tech executive Maury Blackman is still trying every possible angle to censor journalist Jack Poulson for publishing a sealed police incident report and accurately reporting that Blackman was arrested in 2021 on suspicion of felony domestic violence. (Blackman was never charged or convicted.)

Not content with suing Poulson and his nonprofit, Blackman also sued Substack, the publisher of Poulson’s newsletter, and Amazon Web Services, which hosts Substack. But recent filings by Substack and AWS in the case explain why the First Amendment dooms not only Blackman’s case against the tech companies but also his case against Poulson.

Substack’s arguments, in particular, show how platforms can defend themselves and press freedom at the same time, and arguments by both companies demonstrate the importance to online journalism of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Substack and AWS are doing exactly what tech companies that make money by publishing journalism — or any third-party content — should do. Journalists and other tech companies should take note.

First Amendment comes first

Earlier this month, Substack and AWS filed separate motions under California’s anti-SLAPP law seeking dismissal of Blackman’s claims. While both briefs explain the First Amendment barriers to Blackman’s case, Substack’s motion does a particularly good job applying the First Amendment not only to the platform but also to the journalists who publish on it.

Substack’s First Amendment argument is simple and correct: The First Amendment bars Blackman’s lawsuit because the information Poulson published was true and newsworthy. The public has a legitimate interest in true information that shows that a “powerful man (had been) arrested for felony domestic violence—without suffering job-related consequences for his role as a CEO with government contracts and a role in national security.”

As Substack points out, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the First Amendment bars enjoining news outlets and journalists from publishing true and newsworthy reporting, as well as prohibiting punishing them civilly or criminally. This black-letter law means that Blackman’s case against Substack — as well as against Poulson and the other defendants — should be dismissed.

To make its case, Substack also relies on another important Supreme Court precedent protecting journalists. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, the court held that the First Amendment protected a journalist’s right to publish materials received from a source about a matter of public concern, even if the source had obtained them unlawfully. Any state law that says otherwise is unconstitutional and can’t be used against journalists like Poulson.

Substack correctly argues that Bartnicki protects its publication of Poulson’s article because there’s no evidence that Substack obtained the incident report illegally. But importantly, it doesn’t stop there. Substack also defends Poulson’s publication of the incident report, noting that he obtained the incident report legally from a source. Under Bartnicki, Substack explains, the claims against all of the defendants must be dismissed.

Section 230 protects independent journalists

Only after going through the litany of First Amendment reasons that the case should be dismissed did Substack argue that Section 230 provides yet another reason to reject Blackman’s claims against it. AWS also relied on Section 230 in its brief.

Substack and AWS have an extremely strong argument under Section 230, which immunizes online platforms like them from claims like Blackman’s based on the publication of third-party content. They probably could have relied solely on Section 230 to argue that the case against it should be dismissed. The tech companies deserve credit for also explaining in great detail why, based on First Amendment principles that apply to both them and Poulson, Blackman’s case fails.

Still, their use of Section 230 as another basis for dismissal is a good reminder of why the law matters to reporters who publish online. By giving platforms a quick and relatively certain way out of lawsuits based on third-party content, Section 230 removes the strong incentive that would otherwise exist for platforms to take down newsworthy reporting when wealthy and powerful people threaten to sue them over it.

In fact, we’ve already seen this incentive structure play out in this case. Before Blackman sued, he tried to intimidate Substack and AWS into removing the incident report and Poulson’s reporting. He even got the San Francisco city attorney involved in threatening Substack.

Substack and AWS refused these demands, and Substack cited Section 230 to the city attorney. (According to an editor’s note published by Poulson, Substack did require Poulson to remove the address where Blackman was arrested, but it did not require Poulson to remove the entire incident report or other details from it.)

Section 230 worked exactly as intended here; Substack and AWS didn’t have to cave to the pressure because they knew they could rely on 230 to defend themselves if Blackman sued. The next time Section 230 is under attack, journalists should remember that the law helps stiffen the backbone of online platforms and that without it, platforms would be more likely to remove their reporting in the face of legal threats.

When deciding where to publish online, independent journalists should also consider which platforms truly care about the First Amendment and will have their backs if they get sued. AWS and especially Substack are walking the walk when it comes to defending the free press in the Poulson case. Other platforms must step up for journalists and for free speech too.

Caitlin Vogus

Executioners find new ways to hide

1 month 1 week ago

Indiana is one of two states with laws excluding the media from witnessing executions. The other, Wyoming, hasn’t executed anyone since 1992.

Indiana, however, executed Joseph Corcoran on Wednesday. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Director of Advocacy Seth Stern, along with George Hale, who covers the death penalty for Indiana Public Media, wrote for the Indianapolis Star about Indiana’s “dubious honor of being the national standard bearer for taxpayer-funded secret killings.”

It turned out that a journalist was able to attend the execution, but only because Corcoran and his lawyer gave one of the seats reserved for friends and family to a journalist. The state shouldn’t put the onus on the condemned to ensure transparency around their own killing. The law needs to change.

Read the Indianapolis Star op-ed here and more on the topic from The Associated Press here.

Freedom of the Press Foundation