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

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 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 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 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 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 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 by politicians or eliminated altogether by the Supreme Court.

Thomas’ isolation follows conservative backlash against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ unconstitutional efforts to pass state legislation undermining Sullivan. As we wrote on our blog, 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.” 

What we’re reading

L.A. city attorney’s attempt to weaken public records law is harmful and wrong. The same L.A. city attorney who embarrassed herself by suing a journalist 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. 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.