Journalists should not be punished for sources’ actions

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]) .

Sun Valley Airport. Credit: Thomas Hawk

Did you know you paid for billionaires to cover their tracks when they flew to Jeffrey Epstein’s private island?

We blogged about ([link removed]) a taxpayer-funded program through which the Federal Aviation Administration conceals data on private jet flights when the owners request secrecy.

We explained that investigative journalists use flight data to monitor movements of dictators ([link removed]) , identify regimes doing business with spyware mercenaries ([link removed]) , discuss the climate damage ([link removed]) inflicted by private jets, report on alleged misappropriation of funds ([link removed]) by executives, and track whereabouts of newsworthy figures from Epstein ([link removed]) to Elon Musk ([link removed]) .

For now, journalists have other ways of monitoring flight routes despite the FAA’s efforts, but industry groups are pushing to crack down in the U.S., and Saudi Arabia wants ([link removed]) (PDF) a worldwide censorship program. The FAA’s funding is up for reauthorization ([link removed]) this year and Congress should take the opportunity to end secrecy in the skies for good.


** Possessing records from sources isn’t a crime
------------------------------------------------------------

A court-appointed “special master” has opined ([link removed]) (PDF) that the First Amendment does not prohibit investigating and charging media outlets for possession of documents stolen by a source.

It’s a case of bad facts making bad law. Project Veritas argues that charges for possessing and transporting stolen goods (in this case, Ashley Biden’s diary) would be unconstitutional.

It’s citing the 2001 case Bartnicki v. Vopper ([link removed]) , which held that journalists could not be punished for illegal recordings by their sources. The opinion contends Project Veritas’ case is different because it’s being investigated for its own conduct (possession and transporting), not that of its sources like in Bartnicki. But no one claims Project Veritas stole the diary itself. Bartnicki is meaningless if it’s that easy to circumvent ([link removed]) .

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Project Veritas, its founder James O’Keefe and their handling of Biden’s diary, but that’s a distraction. The opinion’s reasoning does not attempt to distinguish Project Veritas from more reputable outlets. It looks like it would have reached the same conclusion if the case involved The New York Times (or, for that matter, Julian Assange). Hopefully the judge will reject the special master’s recommendations and uphold journalists’ long-established right to obtain and publish news regardless of where it came from.


** FPF opposes terrorism charges and detentions of journalists at Cop City protests
------------------------------------------------------------

A documentary photographer is preparing to sue ([link removed]) after police detained him and pressured him to delete his footage while filming at the planned site of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center (known as “Cop City” by opponents of the project). Video of the incident ([link removed]) also shows officers pushing the journalist to provide them with information about the protests and protesters and suggesting he cover police favorably before noting, “I’m sure our paths will cross again.”

We urged the photographer, and another journalist who was detained ([link removed]) and had his notes seized, to file suit when Saporta Report reported the incidents ([link removed]) last December. We hope he recovers enough money to teach police in Atlanta and elsewhere ([link removed]) a lesson about targeting journalists.

We also joined Defending Rights and Dissent ([link removed]) and numerous other organizations to oppose ([link removed]) (PDF) domestic terrorism charges against the protesters. The First Amendment cannot tolerate charges for attempting to “alter, change, or coerce the policy of the government” through speech, especially when the only “criminal” conduct many of the protesters are charged with would otherwise amount to trespassing at most. If permitted to bring these kinds of charges against protesters, it’s a matter of time before authorities do the same against journalists.


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

Israeli authorities shutter Voice of Palestine radio’s Israel operations, question 5 journalists ([link removed]) . Israel cited vague claims of inciting terrorism to shut down Voice of Palestine’s East Jerusalem office and interrogate five journalists. It has not provided any examples to substantiate the incitement claim and none of the journalists have been charged with a crime. Israel should promptly allow Voice of Palestine to resume broadcasting from Jerusalem. If not, the Biden administration should prove it cares about press freedom by standing up to Israel.

Federal judges got the power to remove their private info from the internet—and they're using it ([link removed]) . About 1,000 judges have asked to scrub information about themselves from the internet, leaving the press and public less informed about judicial conflicts. If sites refuse takedown requests, judges can sue at taxpayer expense. As we wrote ([link removed]) about the law enabling the censorship requests, “taxpayer-funded litigation to censor information about taxpayer-compensated judges [is] probably not what the drafters of the First Amendment had in mind.”

Yes, the US government threatening to block TikTok violates The 1st Amendment ([link removed]) . Banning a whole platform over potential illegal use would violate the First Amendment and harm U.S. credibility when opposing speech suppression abroad. Could China use TikTok to spy? Maybe, although probably not very effectively. But journalists and others definitely use it for protected speech. And that’s not to mention the precedent that banning TikTok would set — what’s next, banning foreign public media? Newspaper websites that track U.S. citizens’ clicks?


** New Digital Security newsletter
------------------------------------------------------------

FPF has a new weekly newsletter on digital security and journalism! It’ll be a short update on digital security news, what you can do about it, and other news from our team. Subscribe here ([link removed]) .
[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])
.