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.

Gov. Ron DeSantis had one of his minions in the Florida House of Representatives introduce a bill echoing talking points from his anti-press roundtable earlier this month. As we told Politico, we’ve “never seen anything remotely like this legislation” and would be “quite surprised if any state Legislature had seriously considered such a brazen and blatantly unconstitutional attack on speech and press freedoms.” 

It’s even more alarming that the bill does not come from some rogue representative — it has the full and vocal backing of a governor and likely presidential candidate. The bill, like DeSantis’ roundtable, predictably attacks New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case that restricts public figures from nitpicking at inadvertent errors to sue critics into bankruptcy. But it does not stop there. 

We told Common Dreams that the bill would also “stifle investigative reporting by presuming any statements attributed to anonymous sources to be false despite that (or, given DeSantis' ambitions, maybe because) confidential sources have literally brought down presidents in this country.”

It would even allow defamation plaintiffs who prevail – even in close cases and even when the damages are insignificant – to recover their attorney’s fees. That’s sure to encourage timidity and self-censorship from media outlets fearing exorbitant fee awards that they would have to appeal at their own expense. And that’s not to mention independent journalists, bloggers and other critics of the government who can’t afford their own lawyers, let alone someone else’s. 

Those are only a few of the bill’s outrageous terms. There are plenty more, like the ridiculous provision for additional penalties against people who allege race or gender discrimination. It’s all the more reason why the U.S. Congress needs to codify Sullivan and protect press freedoms before other governors copy DeSantis’ authoritarian antics. 

Bodycam footage of journalist arrests to be released after FPF court petition

A North Carolina judge will grant a petition filed by Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) and its partners to release body camera footage of the arrests of two Asheville Blade journalists while covering a homeless encampment eviction at a public park on Christmas night of 2021. 

The petition argued that transparency is needed so the public can determine for themselves whether the police, who also seized a journalist’s phone, targeted the press in retaliation for reporting their actions. The journalists are not accused of obstructing the police or of any other offense other than gathering news at a public park minutes after its closing time. Our January op-ed in the Asheville Citizen Times questioned whether late night dog walkers and star gazers get similar treatment in Asheville or whether it’s reserved for journalists doing their jobs.  

After numerous continuances, the journalists are set to stand trial on April 19th. This week, the Columbia Journalism Review highlighted their cases, along with other journalist arrests and anti-press rhetoric, as a leading example of the “concentric circles of press threats in America.”

This is the year to pass the PRESS Act

The PRESS Act came within inches of becoming law in 2022 and we’re not giving up on finally protecting journalists from government surveillance. We wrote an op-ed for the Charleston Post & Courier on why Sen. Lindsey Graham, and all conservatives, should protect the First Amendment by supporting the act. 

Graham is the new ranking Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and his support is vital to the PRESS Act’s passage. He’s supported shield laws before and we’re optimistic he’ll do so again. The PRESS Act has bipartisan backing because it does not discriminate based on the political viewpoints of journalists or whether they carry establishment press credentials — it protects all lawful newsgathering. 

We explained in the op-ed that, if the PRESS Act were the law, Republicans would not have to spend time and money investigating allegations that Democratic administrations targeted conservative media. They could stop it from happening in the first place. 

Maybe 2023 can be the year that we both end surveillance of journalists and codify protections against retaliatory defamation cases. But either would be a huge win and a major step toward putting the DeSantises of the world in their place. 

FPF trains student journalists on digital security

February 23rd was Student Press Freedom Day and FPF partnered with the Student Press Law Center to conduct a Digital Security 101 training for student journalists. The webinar, presented by FPF Principal Researcher Dr. Martin Shelton, provided beginner-level digital security tips to students starting their journalism careers, and introduced FPF’s digital security tools, like SecureDrop and Dangerzone. FPF also offers a cutting-edge digital security curriculum for journalism schools.  

What we’re reading 

Spectrum News 13 reporter killed, photographer shot while reporting: Reporter Dylan Lyons was shot and killed on Wednesday, and photographer Jesse Walden was critically injured, after a gunman who had killed a woman earlier in the day returned to the scene and opened fire on their news vehicle. He also killed a 9-year old girl. Walden is reportedly alert and able to communicate. A suspect has been arrested and authorities are investigating whether he intentionally targeted Lyons and Walden because they were journalists. Freedom of the Press Foundation’s U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reports that Lyons is the seventh journalist killed while reporting in the U.S. since 2017.

Supreme Court won't upset Arkansas anti-Israel boycott law: The Supreme Court let a ruling stand permitting the government to withhold ads from newspapers that won’t pledge not to boycott Israel. The Arkansas Times was not itself boycotting Israel but it rightly challenged the law because “we would never sign a contract that’s conditioned on the unconstitutional suppression of free speech.” The Supreme Court should have taken the opportunity to stand up for First Amendment rights because compelling speech is just as dangerous as censoring speech.