Dear Friend of Press Freedom:
A Texas man was sentenced to decades in prison for transporting political publications. We break down what his case means for press freedom. Plus, more on Brendan Carr’s latest attack on the media and journalist Catherine Herridge’s fight to protect her confidential sources.
Can’t punish reporting it? Punish transporting it
We’ve often written about the bipartisan trend of criminalizing mere possession or transporting of information. This week it became more real than ever.
Texas artist Daniel “Des” Sanchez Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in prison for transporting a box of leftist political pamphlets, allegedly to prevent them from being used as evidence against his wife, who attended a protest where a police officer was shot. She was sentenced to 70 years.
But the pamphlets said nothing about the protest or the shooting, which his wife was not alleged to have been involved with anyway. In fact, they aren’t far off from the pro-Revolution writings the framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment’s press clause.
We said in a statement, “Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings.” Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern and columnist Jeremy Busby also wrote about the draconian sentence and what it means for journalists in The Intercept.
Tell Trump’s censorship czar to stop retaliating against ABC
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr is going after ABC again, this time over the decades-old “bona fide news” exemption that protects its daytime talk show, “The View,” from the regulator’s equal-time rules.
Everyone with a smidgen of common sense knows what Carr’s up to: Retaliation for ABC’s exercise of First Amendment rights. President Donald Trump has a long-standing grudge against ABC, and Carr publicly endorses Trump’s campaign to silence his critics and reshape the media — and ABC specifically — to be more gentle to his fragile ego.
ABC is urging the public to file comments with the FCC reminding it of the Constitution. You can use our action center to do so quickly and easily.
Judge to journalist: Burn your source or pay $800 per day
The government flouts court orders constantly and faces no meaningful consequence. At worst, it gets scolded by a judge.
But when an independent journalist like Catherine Herridge seeks to keep her word to confidential sources who relied on her to protect their identities? That’ll cost $800 a day, even though she’s seeking Supreme Court review of the anti-press ruling holding her in contempt.
As we said in a statement, “The prospect of crippling fines will especially impact independent journalists like Herridge, at a time when corporate outlets are increasingly compromised. Congress needs to provide clear statutory protection against compelled disclosure of journalists’ sources by passing a strong shield law like the PRESS Act.”
Government agencies: Repeal gag policies before you get sued and lose
The Coconut Grove Spotlight, a small nonprofit newsroom in Miami, is the latest outlet to challenge a policy funnelling press inquiries through a public information office. These PIO policies are unconstitutional, but government agencies across the country still maintain them.
And they normalize even worse abuses by the feds. The Trump administration recently pushed to have government employees sign corporate-style nondisclosure agreements, and the Defense Department shut off access to journalists who wouldn’t promise to only report what the Pentagon authorizes.
FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm explains why any agency that still has one of these policies needs to drop it before they’re next to get sued and lose.
California schemin’ to erode transparency
Our friends in Sacramento must have whiplash after a series of extreme changes to a proposed public records law that would have severely undermined transparency. Ultimately, a coalition of press freedom advocates salvaged an important victory, as lawmakers backed down and removed the problematic additions to the bill.
Prior to the retreat, FPF Deputy Director of Advocacy Adam Rose explained why the legislation was one of the most anti-transparency bills in recent memory. It would have even allowed the government to sue people for daring to request public records. Yikes! Successfully gutting such awful provisions is a reminder of the work it takes to ensure state capitals preserve the public’s right to know.
What we're reading
Leaked Kanye West tape prosecution stalls as DOJ weighs appeal
Bloomberg Law
“There are far better uses of prosecutorial resources than going after a journalist who used publicly available information” to expose antisemitism, FPF’s Stern said about the case against Tim Burke.
CBS News’ independent watchdog stays quiet amid ‘60 Minutes’ turmoil
The New York Times
Who would have thought that an “ombudsman” handpicked to appease Donald Trump and his lapdog Brendan Carr would have nothing to say about “60 Minutes” being gutted to ... appease Donald Trump and Brendan Carr.
Al Jazeera cameraman Ahmed Wishah killed in Israeli strike on Gaza
The Guardian
The shameful killings of journalists in Gaza by the Israeli military continue. Targeting journalists is wrong, and it must stop.
Free-speech fraud Bari Weiss would rather deport than debate
The Nation
It’s shameful for a news outlet to call on the government to deport people it doesn’t like. Nobody who values the First Amendment would encourage kicking people out of the country for their speech.
Why reporters don’t belong in front of grand juries
The Washington Post
If whistleblowers can’t speak to reporters in confidence, government corruption, abuse, and wrongdoing will never see the light of day.
Some senators want more grandstanding at the Supreme Court
The Washington Post
This is an outrageous take by the Post editorial board. Transparency, including cameras in the court, is how power is held to account.
Tennessee Supreme Court raises bar for secrecy, unseals docs on former judge
The Tennessean
Judicial records can’t be kept secret without a compelling interest, says the Tennessee Supreme Court. This is a major win for public access.
Are you subscribed to our other newsletters? Sign up for news on excessive government secrecy, and for digital security tips and advice at the link below.
Subscribe Here
stLouIST