Earlier this week, all signaled their support for a federal shield law. Hopefully, the combined voices of three presidential nominees will spur Congress into action. Last year the House passed its version of a federal shield law for journalists, the , by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote. The Senate...well, the Senate is taking its time with a version of the bill that fails to provide the same level of protection, particularly in the national security arena. Without those protections, the current administration's overzealous efforts to intimidate reporters will be more likely to continue unabated.
Frankly, a federal law is long overdue since forty nine states currently have shield laws on the books and with the absence of a federal statute, those state laws when appealed to higher courts can be easily undercut. We at the 老澳门开奖结果 are urging the Senate to take up the House shield bill, H.R. 2102, instead of Senator Spector's valuable yet flawed legislation. H.R. 2102 has more meaningful protections for the free flow of information to the public and for journalists. It's a better bill and there's no reason the Senate can't take it up - preferably sooner rather than later.
One of the latest journalists to be is New York Times reporter James Risen. After chapters in his book, 'State of War,' piqued the interest of the Justice Department he was to appear before a grand jury in an effort to root out his sources. The Justice Department went further last week when the reported that authorities have sifted through the phone records of former and possibly current contacts in an attempt to draw connections between Risen and possible sources.
Risen is one of the Times reporters - along with Eric Lichtblau - responsible for breaking the story of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program in 2005. Since day one, this administration's priority has been to expand the role of the executive any way it can - more often than not secretly. So when journalists keep pulling back the curtain, the administration .
The wiretapping story and the Washington Post's coverage of the CIA black sites, like Watergate before them, are all stories that have opened the public's eyes to government misconduct. They are stories that have shaped the last five years of this country's debate over the limits of our government's reach and they are stories that would absolutely not have been possible without confidential sources. Since the relationships between sources and reporters are so entwined and so vital to an informed electorate, we should be doing everything we possibly can to protect it.
Those who have read Lichtblau's book, 'Bush's Law,' can tell you that the decision to publish the wiretapping story was a . But in the end, and quite correctly, the public's right to know outweighed the administration's impending embarrassment. The role of the press is to keep the public informed and educated. These are bedrock principles of a democracy and in order to keep ours functioning we need Congress to pass a federal shield law. And we need it yesterday.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.