Anti-drone bill threatens journalism

More and more journalists at the national and local level are using drones to document the impacts of climate change, war, protests, and more. But a new federal bill would threaten journalists’ ability to use drones to document the news. 

The proposal, The Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, has the worthwhile goal of protecting critical infrastructure, like power stations, from attacks by drones. It would give federal and local governments the power to track, intercept, and even damage or destroy drones if they believe the unmanned aircraft pose a threat. 

This sounds reasonable, until you know that the government has used made-up “safety concerns” in the past to abuse its authority over the airspace and suppress free speech, like when authorities restricted the skies around Ferguson, Missouri, during protests to shut out news helicopters. As the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has reported, journalists also face criminal charges and  harassment over their drones, or their seizure, by officials or private security for no good reason. 

The bill should but doesn’t require authorities to take the First Amendment into account when they act against drones or to provide the transparency the public needs to hold the government accountable for its counter-drone activities. That’s why Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) joined a letter on behalf of civil society organizations, led by the Center for Democracy & Technology, opposing the bill. Read the letter and our analysis of exactly how the measure would harm reporters and the public’s right to know on our blog.

Lawmakers seek to limit recording of police

Courts around the country have upheld the First Amendment rights of citizens and journalists alike to record police. That means police departments wishing to avoid scrutiny have had to resort to workarounds, like requiring those recording them (or even just observing) to stand so far away that they can’t see or hear what’s really happening. 

Police often claim recording up close interferes with their work or threatens their safety. But we’re not aware of any evidence that’s ever happened and we’ve certainly seen no evidence that the issue is pervasive enough to overcome the First Amendment. 

That’s why last week a judge in Arizona held unconstitutional the state’s law criminalizing the recording of cops from within eight feet. The Arizona attorney general previously agreed not to contest a lawsuit opposing the restriction. And last month, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed a bill that would’ve made it a crime to come within 25 feet of officers on the job. 

But others continue siding against transparency. An Indiana law that went into effect this month allows imprisonment of those who stand within 25 feet of police performing their duties. Florida legislators introduced a similar bill earlier this year. A similar bill failed to advance in New York, but authorities there nonetheless baselessly arrest those who record inside police stations. 

It’s a troubling trend that needs to stop now. Read more on our blog. 

Civil society speaks out against bad internet bills 

Fight for the Future and the ACLU organized a week of action against “bad internet bills” that would expand government surveillance and allow censorship of online speech, including journalism. 

Bills that would undermine encrypted services — like the EARN IT Act, Cooper Davis Act, and STOP CSAM Act — pose serious threats to journalists’ ability to securely communicate with sources. Supporters of these bad internet bills say they’re meant to make us safer, but how does weakening one of the most important tools journalists and others use to stay safe online protect people?   

Rather than focusing on destroying encryption and giving legislators the power to censor unflattering information about themselves online,  Congress should get serious about real threats, like government surveillance. Might we suggest reforming Section 702 and passing the PRESS Act as good places to start?

What we’re reading

Congress should protect journalists from government prying. The Dallas Morning News editorial board becomes the latest to urge Congress to pass the PRESS Act and protect journalists from government surveillance. The Morning News observes that “[o]ne of the pillars that an authentic democracy stands on is a free press with many voices. … [T]he PRESS Act could at least protect reporters from fears of government retaliation and targeting — shoring up the Fourth Estate in a time when good journalism is sorely needed.” 

Corporate misconduct increases after local newspapers shut down, study says. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports on a national study finding that legal violations by corporations increased, and the fines they were assessed spiked, when local newspapers went out of business. Prior studies focusing on the effects of newspaper closures on public corruption have reached similar conclusions. The new study is noteworthy if not surprising. The findings are especially concerning because corporations are not subject to public records laws and experienced journalists are needed to expose their wrongdoing.

In 'big deal' case, DeSantis argues he can invoke 'executive privilege' to conceal records.  An appellate court will decide whether Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis can invoke a purported “executive privilege” to withhold public records. A state judge recognized the previously nonexistent privilege earlier this year. For now, DeSantis is looking to withhold details about the “conservative heavyweights” he has claimed advise him on state Supreme Court nominees but, if the “privilege” is upheld, there’s no telling what information the secretive governor and presidential candidate might withhold next. DeSantis has repeatedly made his contempt for the First Amendment clear. It’s up to the courts to put a stop to his anti-transparency antics.