PRESS Act advances in Congress 

Great news! The PRESS Act unanimously passed the House Judiciary Committee this week and has been offered as an amendment to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.

We commend the bipartisan coalition of lawmakers already supporting the PRESS Act for protecting press freedom when so many politicians fear it. Now it’s time to build on this rare bipartisan momentum and make the act the law of the land.

The PRESS Act is the strongest federal shield bill for journalists we've ever seen. It protects journalists — regardless of their political leanings or establishment credentials — from being surveilled by the government or forced to burn sources, except in serious emergencies. It also restricts workaround efforts to unmask journalists' sources through their technology providers.

The act’s protections are crucial so that sources can help reporters expose malfeasance and inform the public without risking their careers or freedom. It would create a more robust Fourth Estate, a more informed citizenry, and a stronger American democracy.

Read more about the PRESS Act here and ask your representative to support it here. And if you happen to be represented in the Senate by Chuck Schumer or Lindsey Graham, it’s especially important that you reach out — their support will be crucial to the act’s inclusion in the NDAA. The good news? They’ve both sponsored shield bills before. 

Don’t let Congress censor public records and the internet 

A bipartisan proposal recently introduced in the Senate would make it far more difficult for journalists to expose corruption among lawmakers. 

The proposal, offered as an amendment to the NDAA, is purportedly a security measure for federal lawmakers. It’s modeled after the also terrible Judicial Security and Privacy Act that Congress snuck into last year’s NDAA. 

But what the amendment really allows is censorship. It would let legislators scrub certain information about themselves and others from public records and prohibit the posting of that information by people and websites if a lawmaker demands that it be removed.   

Dozens of civil society organizations, including Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), oppose the amendment. We explain that it will compel broad censorship — including of information routinely reported by journalists and others investigating corruption and misconduct. A similar law in New Jersey has already chilled reporting and is being challenged in court. 

In addition, as we wrote in Tech Policy Press, the amendment foolishly trusts social media companies to moderate content well and to act in the best interests of users and the public. These companies will inevitably end up removing journalism that is in the public interest, either because they mistake it for prohibited information or because they just don’t care enough to check.

There are plenty of ways to protect legislators without undermining the First Amendment. The Senate must reject this proposal.

What money can’t buy: Congress should bar government purchases of Americans’ private data

The Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act — a bill that would prohibit police and intelligence agencies from buying sensitive information about Americans that they otherwise couldn’t access without a warrant — is speeding its way through Congress. 

As we wrote in last week’s newsletter and on our blog, the current loophole in federal law that allows the government to purchase Americans’ data from data brokers threatens journalists and whistleblowers. The House has approved a provision that would close this loophole for the Department of Defense, but the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act would apply to all federal agencies and state and local law enforcement too. 

Congress must close the data broker loophole to protect the confidential communications of journalists and sources, and the privacy of all Americans. 

We are thrilled to announce that Jack Dorsey — Block Head, Chairman, and co-founder of Block Inc. — has donated $1 million to FPF through his philanthropic initiative, #startsmall, to help establish the Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy.

Ellsberg, the legendary whistleblower and co-founder of FPF who passed away last month, made it part of his life’s work to protest the U.S. government’s out-of-control classification system and its corrosive effect on democracy. To honor his legacy, we recently announced an ambitious mission in Ellsberg’s name to shed light on the abuses of over-classification and aggressively push for reform.

“We are beyond grateful for this incredible investment from Jack Dorsey for the Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy,” said FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm. “Jack’s gift will not only ensure Daniel Ellsberg’s life's work is carried forward but will be crucial in leading the charge for transparency nationwide.” Read more here. 

What we’re reading

Who is protected as a journalist? Everybody, suggests court ruling. A judge rejected an effort to dismiss First Amendment claims by an Indiana citizen journalist who was excluded from a press conference because he was supposedly “not media” and, in a separate incident, arrested for recording police. As his attorney rightly explained, “the government … does not get to pick and choose who will cover their activities.” The First Amendment is not limited to professional journalists — let alone ones that authorities like. Just as everyone who speaks, not just those who do so for a living, is protected by the First Amendment’s speech clause, everyone who gathers and reports news is protected by its press clause. 

News Analysis: Outrage over Times' journalism exposes LAPD's ignorance of a free press, experts say. What is it about knocking on doors to seek comment — a routine act of journalism — that politicians and police don’t understand? Hot off the heels of a court in Arizona striking down an outrageous restraining order against a journalist who dared to knock on a state senator’s door to ask questions, the Los Angeles police union has made the ridiculous claim that reporters who went to the home of an officer to seek comment on a report were “stalking” the officer. Perhaps this disregard of First Amendment rights shouldn’t be surprising from a police force that beats, detains, and frivolously sues journalists. But it’s still unacceptable for the police to try to intimidate reporters who are just doing their jobs. 

Meet the man who sues the government for information (video). Bloomberg Originals profiles investigative journalist Jason Leopold, who the FBI has called a “FOIA terrorist” for his persistent use of the Freedom of Information Act to hold public officials accountable. He says he’s filed over 5,000 FOIA requests. He’s broken plenty of important news and exposed plenty of government misconduct, but he’d be able to do even more if government agencies would invest in fixing the FOIA backlog. Perhaps that’s exactly why they don’t.