|
Late last year, disturbing video emerged of Atlanta police officers baselessly threatening a journalist with a trespassing arrest unless he agreed to delete footage he recorded at the planned site of a police training facility known by its opponents as “Cop City”.
In addition to demanding he delete footage, officers also tried to intimidate the journalist into handing over information about protesters. They ultimately let him go, but only after suggesting he cover police favorably and threateningly noting, “I’m sure our paths will cross again.” It was truly incredible that they did all this while presumably knowing they were on video.
We were glad to learn this week that the journalist, Michael Watchulonis, has decided to sue. For understandable reasons, he was originally hesitant to identify himself, let alone take a public stand, in connection with his detainment. But these officers need to be held accountable and authorities everywhere need to know that journalists won’t take these abuses lying down.
Watchulonis’ lawsuit comes on the heels of Atlanta paying a six figure settlement to another journalist, Sharif Hassan, who was arrested for violating a curfew while covering a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020. Police also allegedly seized his photography equipment. The city has also made news for other recent violations of speech and press freedoms, like charging protesters with “felony intimidation” for distributing flyers naming a police officer and frivolously arguing that judges should assume criminal intentions when people come to protests with legal support numbers written on their arms.
But baseless detainments of journalists are hardly limited to Atlanta. Last week, for example, we wrote about New York photojournalist Stephanie Keith’s arrest for momentarily stepping off a sidewalk to take a picture during a vigil for Jordan Neely. And Asheville authorities are still refusing to drop charges against two journalists whose purported offense was spending their Christmas night in 2021 recording police evicting a homeless encampment at a public park.
Lawsuit challenges Montana’s unconstitutional TikTok ban
Montana became the first state to ban TikTok this week, citing the same vague concerns about Chinese spying and propaganda that federal legislators have seized upon in pushing a national ban. Fortunately, the law was immediately challenged in court by a group of TikTok creators. As the lawsuit puts it: “Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes.”
As we wrote in response to federal proposals, “If there’s proof of illegal conduct on TikTok then [legislators] should specifically target the illegality — not ban the entire app.” The precedent set by a TikTok ban could easily enable future targeting of, for example, foreign newspapers that track Americans’ clicks and comments, or foreign public media outlets that officials believe might “propagandize” Americans.
At the national level, it didn’t take long for hypothetical overreach to become reality — the RESTRICT Act, introduced as the vehicle to ban TikTok, would create unprecedented mass censorship powers extending far beyond any one app. It’s a safe bet that state legislatures, if permitted to ban TikTok based on fear and speculation, will be eager to test the limits of their new authority to silence disfavored platforms as well as the journalists who use them.
Texas seeks to erode protections against abusive defamation suits
Legislators in Texas are looking to significantly weaken the state’s protections against retaliatory lawsuits to silence criticism of the government, often called SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
Current law allows defendants to seek prompt dismissal of SLAPPs and immediately appeal if their motions are denied. The procedure, often used by journalists, allows for early disposal of frivolous lawsuits before the legal fees pile up. But the proposed changes would allow judges to override the immediate appeal and force journalists to defend the cases through trial.
It sounds technical, and it is, but process matters when it comes to protecting press freedoms. And speaking of technicalities, those pushing the changes are looking to avoid scrutiny by tacking the bill onto unrelated non-substantive legislation. Bills affecting First Amendment freedoms deserve to be debated openly, not hidden in fine print.
It’s the latest effort by politicians and their wealthy donors to roll back protections meant to stop them from suing their critics into bankruptcy. Fortunately, recent efforts by Gov. Ron DeSantis and his minions to rewrite defamation law in Florida failed, but he’s said he plans to try again.
It’s crucial that Texas not be allowed to regain the momentum that the anti-press crowd lost in Florida. If it succeeds, other states are sure to follow.
Camera surveillance threatens newsgathering
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) joined a legal brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press opposing admission of evidence obtained by installing a camera across the street from a Kansas resident’s house without a warrant. The brief explained that warrantless camera surveillance threatens journalists’ ability to confidentially gather news, especially as technologies advance and surveillance becomes more precise and persistent.
What we’re reading
Journalists to get more protection under shield law passed by Hawaii legislature. Hawaii will join 48 other states that have adopted “shield” laws to restrict government efforts to force reporters to burn their sources. The outliers are Wyoming and the federal government. It’s time for Congress to pass the PRESS Act and end federal surveillance of journalists.
Biden says U.S. is working every day to free jailed Journal reporter. This week Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich’s detainment in Russia on sham espionage charges passed the 50 day mark. After a House committee advanced a bipartisan resolution calling on Russia to free Gershkovich, President Biden proclaimed that the administration is working “every day” to secure his release. We hope to finally see some progress in the very near future.
Supreme Court won’t hold tech companies liable for user posts. The Supreme Court issued highly anticipated rulings in cases against Google and Twitter where plaintiffs alleged that their algorithms helped terrorist groups recruit. Many believed the Court would decide whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — the law that protects platforms from liability for users’ activities — barred claims of aiding and abetting terrorism, but the Court found the lawsuits deficient without reaching that question. We’ve written that reckless reforms to Section 230 – which has come under political attack from both sides of the aisle — could lead to censorship of journalists by platforms scared to risk liability for news stories they host.
Anti-corruption newspaper shuts down after ‘press freedom hero’ jailed. A Guatemalan newspaper known for exposing government corruption, El Periódico, was recently forced to shut down after its founder and publisher was jailed last year. The Washington Post reports that the paper is “the latest victim of an escalating wave of repression against independent journalism in Central America.”
FPF and Field of Vision host free digital security trainings
We are hosting a series of free digital security trainings geared towards filmmakers and media makers with our partner, Field of Vision! Join us to learn more about how to protect your data in the field, during the edit, and on the circuit. Sign up here.
Subscribe to our digital security newsletter
FPF has a new weekly newsletter on digital security and journalism! It’s a short update on digital security news, what you can do about it, and other news from our team. Subscribe here.
|
