Shield journalists to help inform the public

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]) .

Guian Bolisay, via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0. Journalists have long learned about breaking news by listening to police radio chatter, but a new trend of encrypting police radio channels threatens their access.

NYPD’s latest anti-transparency move: Encrypted police radio

Late last month, six New York City Police Department precincts in Brooklyn quietly switched to encrypted radio, despite public assurances ([link removed]) from the NYPD that encryption wasn’t coming until late 2024. The change makes the NYPD the latest ([link removed]) law enforcement agency to follow the troubling trend ([link removed]) of encrypting police radio channels that were once open to the public.

In this week’s blog ([link removed]) , we explain how encrypting police radio makes it harder for journalists and photographers to report on breaking news. While the NYPD claims that encryption is necessary to stop unauthorized transmissions over police channels and keep “bad guys” from listening in, those explanations either don’t make sense or the problems haven’t been shown to be pervasive enough to warrant a total ban on public access to police radio.

Conveniently, by making it harder for journalists to report the news, encrypting police radio makes it easier for the NYPD and city officials to dodge accountability. There’s no justifiable reason for the NYPD and other police forces’ decision to encrypt radio communications. It’s time to buck this anti-transparency trend.

Shield journalists to help inform the public

We joined Utah First Amendment lawyer Michael Judd ([link removed]) in the pages of The Salt Lake Tribune ([link removed]) to commend Sen. Mike Lee for supporting the PRESS Act and to encourage other legislators to do the same.

Our op-ed by Judd and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Director Seth Stern explained ([link removed]) :

“The PRESS Act ([link removed]) is the strongest journalists’ ‘shield’ bill ever introduced. It restricts the government from spying on journalists or forcing them to burn sources, except in serious emergencies. It protects not only mainstream media but alternative publications and freelancers, with no regard for politics, because the First Amendment isn’t only for establishment-approved viewpoints.

….

News sources do not risk their careers when they fear the government will force reporters to out them. That means journalists can’t expose malfeasance, the public misses important news and voters arrive at the ballot box less informed. As Lee said ([link removed]) , ‘in a world where information is power, the role of reporters as truth-seekers and watchdogs cannot be understated.’”

The PRESS Act unanimously passed the House Judiciary Committee with broad bipartisan support ([link removed]) last month but there's still plenty of work to do before it hopefully becomes the law of the land. You can tell your representatives to support the PRESS Act here ([link removed]) .

Source protection must survive journalist’s death

The federal PRESS Act isn’t the only shield law needed to protect journalists, sources, and the public’s right to know. We also need strong protections at the state level. That’s why this week FPF joined an amicus brief ([link removed]) led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in support of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is challenging ([link removed]) a draft order that would allow police and prosecutors to search the devices of murdered journalist Jeff German ([link removed]) .

Police and prosecutors want to search the devices as part of the trial of a former county official accused of German’s murder. But the Review-Journal has argued that the First Amendment and Nevada’s reporter’s shield law bar the searches. We agree ([link removed]) . It would be perverse to weaken the reporter’s privilege — a key protection for journalists and their sources — in the name of prosecuting a man accused of murdering a reporter.

You can learn more about the latest developments in the case and the amicus brief on our blog ([link removed]) .


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

Will the Public Get to Watch Donald Trump on Trial? ([link removed]) Public interest in the three criminal cases against former President Trump is immense. But despite long-standing calls ([link removed]) for cameras in the courtroom, federal courts’ anachronistic camera bans mean the public probably won’t be able to watch the trials live. (Ridiculously, in some federal courtrooms, journalists have to ask permission ([link removed]) even to use their phones to relay text during proceedings.) With everyone from journalists and court watchdogs to former prosecutors and Trump’s own lawyers asking that the proceedings be broadcast, there’s no reason to continue the status quo in these cases or any others. Federal courts should adopt new rules to allow the public to watch court proceedings live, and if they don’t, Congress should pass a law
requiring it.

Meta to end news access in Canada over publisher payment law ([link removed]) . In a tantrum worthy of a toddler, Meta has announced ([link removed]) that it has “begun the process of ending news availability in Canada” in response to a Canadian law that would require it to pay news publishers. (As of press time, there was no word yet on whether Meta also plans to take its ball and go home.) Whatever you think of the Canadian law, it’s hypocritical of Meta — which claims it cares about human rights ([link removed]) and combating misinformation ([link removed]) — to cut Canadians off from authoritative sources of news. Maybe Meta needs to be sent to bed without its supper until it comes to its senses.

US Spies Are Lobbying Congress to Save a Phone Surveillance ‘Loophole’ ([link removed]) . When Congress returns from recess this fall, it will take up must-pass national defense legislation. Included in the final version of the bill could be a provision that ends a loophole allowing U.S. military agencies to buy private data they otherwise couldn’t collect without a warrant. We’ve written before ([link removed]) about how this amendment — and a stand-alone bill known as The Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act — would help shield journalists from surveillance by closing the data broker loophole. While the NSA may prefer to be able to spy without restrictions, Americans’ constitutional rights shouldn’t disappear just because they use cellphones or the internet.
[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])
.