---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Freedom of the Press Foundation
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 18:15:29 +0000
Subject: NYPD has a serious press freedom problem
To: fuzzytew@gmail.com
DOJ: Dispersing journalists from protests violates First Amendment
View this email in your browser
(https://mailchi.mp/freedom.press/nypd-has-a-serious-press-freedom-problem-ju...)
Dear friend of press freedom,
Here are some of the most important stories we’re following from the
U.S. and around the world. If you enjoy reading this newsletter,
please forward it to friends and family. If someone has forwarded you
this newsletter, please subscribe here
(https://freedom.press/subscribe/) .
Credit: Rhododendrites, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0. NYPD
officers respond to a protest.
Last month’s arrest of veteran photojournalist Stephanie Keith
(https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/photojournalist-arrested-at-can...)
at a vigil for Jordan Neely was just the latest in a series of
egregious press freedom violations by the New York Police Department.
Other notable examples include officers showing up at a journalist’s
home to arrest him for larceny after beating him with a baton (they
falsely claimed he tried to steal the baton while trying to protect
himself), and officers assaulting a journalist and stealing his
bicycle after seeing him put a notepad in his backpack. Officials’
efforts to blame the abuses on the chaos of 2020 are no longer
credible as they persist three years later.
A coalition of press rights organizations has demanded
(https://cpj.org/2023/06/cpj-partners-call-for-charges-against-new-york-journ...)
that prosecutors drop the charges against Keith. But the damage is
already done — Keith wasn’t able to do her job at the vigil, and her
arrest sent an ominous message to other journalists about the
consequences of reporting on cops in New York.
Read more on our blog
(https://freedom.press/news/the-nypd-has-a-serious-press-freedom-problem/)
.
** DOJ: Dispersing journalists from protests violates First Amendment
------------------------------------------------------------
As recently as 2020, Department of Justice lawyers argued that police
orders to disperse crowds of protesters apply to journalists covering
those protests, regardless of whether the journalists pose any
threat.An appellate court rightly rejected
(https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/index-newspapers-v-city...)
the DOJ’s arguments then, and a recent investigation of the
Minneapolis Police Department reveals that the department has finally
changed its position:
“The First Amendment requires that any restrictions on when, where,
and how reporters gather information ‘leave open ample alternative
channels’ for gathering the news. Blanket enforcement of dispersal
orders and curfews against press violates this principle because they
foreclose the press from reporting about what happens after the
dispersal or curfew is issued, including how police enforce those
orders.” (Emphasis added)
As we wrote on our blog
(https://freedom.press/news/doj-dispersing-journalists-from-protests-violates...)
, it’s certainly a step in the right direction, but for now it’s only
on paper. Let’s hope it leads to the end of arrests and prosecutions
of journalists covering protests for doing their jobs.
** Protecting journalists, whistleblowers, and activists from SLAPPs
------------------------------------------------------------
This week, we wrote about a recent victory for Greenpeace
(https://freedom.press/news/journalists-whistleblowers-and-activists-must-be-...)
— and free expression — over a strategic lawsuit against public
participation, or SLAPP, that the environmental group faced because of
its activism.
A SLAPP is a lawsuit brought to chill the exercise of First Amendment
rights, often to silence and punish the plaintiff’s critics, including
local news outlets
(https://padailypost.com/2023/01/11/ex-candidate-loses-suit-against-local-new...)
and individual journalists
(https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-04-18/journalist-seeks-dismiss...)
. In many cases, powerful individuals or corporations know their
critics are protected by the First Amendment but sue anyway, hoping to
drain their bank accounts through legal costs. Thankfully, in most
states (https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/) , targets of
SLAPPs can fight back by using anti-SLAPP laws.
However, there’s still no federal anti-SLAPP law, leaving reporters
exposed to SLAPPs in federal courts. That could change if Congress
acts. For too long, we’ve allowed the comfortable to abuse the law to
afflict the press. It’s time for Congress to pass a federal anti-SLAPP
law (https://raskin.house.gov/_cache/files/f/b/fbb6b8d1-fa69-4c17-adbb-6445ff63b8...)
so that the press can instead be truly free to afflict the
comfortable.
** What we’re reading
------------------------------------------------------------
A resounding reaffirmation of Times v. Sullivan
(https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-resounding-reaffirmation-of-times-v-sullivan-...)
. This week the Supreme Court reaffirmed the continued viability of
New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case prohibiting
politicians from suing journalists and others over unintentional
errors. The court explained that Sullivan is “based on fear of
‘self-censorship’ — the worry that … the uncertainties and expense of
litigation will deter speakers from making even truthful statements.
The First Amendment … ‘requires that we protect some falsehood in
order to protect speech that matters.’” It’s a welcome development
following recent attacks on Sullivan by politicians
(https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2023/02/15/gov-desantis-hides-behind-little...)
and judges (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/politics/clarence-thomas-first-amendment-libe...
eme-court/index.html) alike.
Time is running out for Julian Assange. If MPs do not act, how can
they say they value free speech?
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/27/julian-assange-extradi...)
We’ve repeatedly condemned
(https://freedom.press/news/trump-administrations-new-charges-against-wikilea...)
the unconstitutional Espionage Act charges faced by Julian Assange for
the “crime” of obtaining and publishing classified documents, just
like other investigative reporters do routinely. Not only could the
U.K.’s members of Parliament be doing far more to stop Assange’s
extradition to the U.S. but the Biden administration could end this
threat to journalism in an instant by dropping the case
(https://freedom.press/news/fpf-statement-on-rejection-of-julian-assanges-ext...)
.
Judge agrees to narrow but not lift gag order in University of Idaho
student slayings case
(https://apnews.com/article/kohberger-gag-order-idaho-killings-first-amendmen...)
. Almost six months after the fact, a judge narrowed a clearly
unconstitutional gag order in a notorious criminal case about the
killings of four college students. As we wrote when it was issued
(https://freedom.press/news/unconstitutional-gag-order-creates-mass-confusion...)
, this order created widespread confusion and wreaked havoc on the
free press trying to cover the trial. While the judge’s more recent
order is good news, it’s seriously problematic that the press and
public were deprived of their rights for so long. Courts must expedite
these matters.
Top NIH official advised COVID scientists that he uses personal email
to evade FOIA (https://theintercept.com/2023/06/29/covid-nih-personal-email-foia/)
. We’ll say it again louder for the public officials in the back:
Using personal email for government business is not a “get out of jail
free” card when it comes to FOIA. And it’s deplorable when public
officials treat public records laws as something to avoid and evade,
rather than an important protection for the public’s right to know.
Shame on this National Institutes of Health official for trying to use
personal email as a workaround to FOIA requests — and on every other
public official doing the same thing, even if they’re sneaky enough
not to write about it in an email.
https://twitter.com/freedomofpress
https://www.facebook.com/FreedomOfThePressFoundation/
https://freedom.press/
============================================================
Copyright © 2023 Freedom of the Press Foundation, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
Our mailing address is:
Freedom of the Press Foundation
49 Flatbush Ave, #1017
Brooklyn, NY 11217
USA
