PRESS Act picks up steam

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
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 ([link removed]) .

Chad David, via Flickr. Rep. Rashida Tlaib has introduced an amendment that could stop Espionage Act prosecutions of journalists and their sources without impacting the government's ability to prosecute actual espionage.

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act proposed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib would stop Espionage Act prosecutions of journalists and their sources. It’s vital that Congress pass these reforms and finally end the existential threat to press freedom posed by unconstitutional Espionage Act charges.

The amendment would limit prosecutions for disclosing “national defense” information to cases involving properly classified information disclosed by a government employee under a duty to keep them confidential. Plus it would allow courts to consider whether defendants intended to harm the U.S. (as opposed to exposing and stopping government crimes) and whether their disclosures served the public interest. Those factors are irrelevant under current law, rendering trials of whistleblowers a sham. Read more on our blog ([link removed])

PRESS Act gains momentum

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) board member John Cusack and Advocacy Director Seth Stern, both Illinoisans, thanked Sen. Dick Durbin in the Chicago Sun-Times ([link removed]) for sponsoring the PRESS Act and “protecting First Amendment rights when so many politicians fear them.”

We explained that the PRESS Act’s protections against government surveillance of journalists are essential because “when sources are afraid to come forward, journalists can’t speak truth to power. Corruption goes unchecked, and citizens are less informed.”

But we’re not the only ones taking notice. The Orange County Register ([link removed]) and other papers in the Southern California News Group wrote: “For those of us in that Fourth Estate … it’s incredibly gratifying to see this support from both sides of the aisle for protecting our right to report, and your right to know.” Earlier, CNN wrote ([link removed]) that “The PRESS Act enjoys broad support in the journalism community, with strong endorsements from a number of trade organizations that represent most major news organizations.”

Reflecting the PRESS Act’s bipartisan sponsorship, conservative outlets like the Washington Times have also written favorably ([link removed]) about the bill. But more is needed to inform the public and legislators of the importance of the act. It’s not just about the press, it’s about the public’s right to know.

SCOTUS ruling marks latest setback for abusive defamation claims

The Supreme Court last week reaffirmed ([link removed]) the continued viability of New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case disallowing public officials from retaliating against journalists and others with lawsuits over unintentional errors. Although several justices had previously expressed skepticism about Sullivan, this time, only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

It’s a positive (and somewhat surprising) development given the significant recent concern that Sullivan’s vital legal protections would be weakened ([link removed]) by politicians or eliminated ([link removed]) altogether by the Supreme Court.

Thomas’ isolation follows conservative backlash ([link removed]) against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ unconstitutional efforts to pass state legislation undermining Sullivan. As we wrote on our blog ([link removed]) , threats to Sullivan are likely not over, but “going forward, the focus should be on providing more protection against frivolous defamation suits — for example, by adopting anti-SLAPP laws ([link removed]) .”


** What we’re reading
------------------------------------------------------------

Biden’s DOJ is pressuring journalists to help build its case against Assange ([link removed]) . The Biden administration pressuring journalists to help it criminalize journalism belies its supposed commitment to press freedom. And its desperation to dig up fresh dirt on Assange shows prosecutors know their case can’t survive the First Amendment. With Assange possibly nearing extradition, now’s a great time for journalists to put aside personal feelings about Assange and make some noise ([link removed]) about the case.

Evan Gershkovich: A timeline of his 100 days in detainment ([link removed]) . Today marks 100 days since respected Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was detained in Russia on sham espionage charges. Of course, there’s no evidence that he was doing anything other than his job as a journalist ([link removed]) . Russia needs to release him immediately.

L.A. city attorney’s attempt to weaken public records law is harmful and wrong ([link removed]) . The same L.A. city attorney who embarrassed herself by suing a journalist ([link removed]) for possessing pictures the city gave him is now looking to broaden government authority to withhold information about public employees. Thankfully, legislators in California seem uninterested but one thing’s for sure — this won’t be the last attempt by local officials to weaken open records laws.

Judge says DPS must release documents related to Uvalde shooting response ([link removed]) . The government often uses “ongoing investigation” as magic words to avoid producing records regardless of whether an investigation really is ongoing and whether the requested records really would interfere with it. We’re glad the judge saw through it this time.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
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
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.