What Will Be the Costs of Whistleblowing in Trump鈥檚 America When They Were Already Extreme Under Obama?
It was around four in the morning when I received the phone call. 鈥淚 was raided by the FBI,鈥� said a trembling voice on the other end. 鈥淚 need help.鈥�
I was immediately alarmed. I was in the middle of production of a highly risky investigation into the U.S. drone war, and I had gained exclusive access to film with two whistleblowers who wanted to go on the record about their experiences in the drone program. The voice on the phone belonged to one of them, and my research would later become the documentary film 鈥�.鈥�
When I answered the phone, I was at a veterans鈥� convention near Denver and had just established contact with a third whistleblower.
I reached out to , a prominent attorney who has represented Edward Snowden and other important whistleblowers. It became clear that my protagonist had become the target of a secret investigation for espionage.
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2Fguwjon1USkg%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20thumb%3D%22%2Ffiles%2Fweb16-blog-nationalbirdthumb-580x315.jpg%22%20width%3D%22580%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
As an investigative journalist who has worked on military and national security issues for over a decade, I understand the risk of reporting in this area. I also comprehend the need for secrecy to protect sensitive government information, such as nuclear technologies or troop movements.
But during the last eight years of President Obama鈥檚 administration, our First Amendment rights have been so seriously undermined that it is threatening our democracy.
It has been widely reported that under Obama鈥檚 leadership under the Espionage Act than in all previous administrations combined. But there is no knowing how many times this law has been used to investigate, raid, and intimidate whistleblowers in secret, like the protagonist in my film.
Considering that whistleblowing means to expose waste, fraud, abuse, crime and other illegal activity, this development is alarming. It has also opened a pathway to even more dangerous civil rights abuses during the presidency of Donald Trump.
Sonia Kennebeck, director and producer of 鈥淣ational Bird.鈥� Photo by Torsten Lapp courtesy of FilmRise.
And it is not only the whistleblowers who have become targets, but journalists as well. James Risen and Laura Poitras were subject to and , but every reporter and filmmaker is affected by electronic surveillance and the storage of data, which could potentially be used against them and their sources. To know that the new administration 鈥� or any subsequent administration for that matter 鈥� will have all this information at its fingertips should concern us all.
Already today we are seeing that the have a chilling effect on public expression. A found that one in six authors who filled out the questionnaire had censored themselves by not writing or speaking on a topic that they thought would subject them to surveillance. Another one in six have seriously considered such self-censorship.
This should be a grave concern for all citizens who believe in a democratic society with freedom of expression and a functioning independent media that keeps the government transparent and accountable.
While organizations like the 老澳门开奖结果 and the Freedom of the Press Foundation are playing important roles in trying to protect our rights, the public has to get involved as well.
I believe most people in America want to live in a society where corruption and other illegal activities can be exposed by whistleblowers, where journalists can report free from political control, and where people do not have to be afraid to speak their minds. It is essential to push our political decision makers to value these rights and to support reporting and filmmaking that fulfills these standards.
Drone whistleblower Heather Linebaugh. Photo by Torsten Lapp courtesy of FilmRise.
Especially now when the campaign and rhetoric of Donald Trump foreshadows a presidency that will suppress these rights even further.
After the raid of my protagonist鈥檚 home by the FBI, we decided in consultation with our lawyers that we would continue to film. It might be the first time that a secret espionage investigation has been captured on camera. To see the impact it has had on my protagonist is heart-wrenching. But his story also shines light on a dangerous suppression of our rights.
In the end, 鈥淣ational Bird鈥� became not only a film about drones, but also about the cost of whistleblowing.
鈥淣ational Bird鈥� opened in theaters on Veterans Day 2016 and premieres on PBS鈥欌赌嬧赌嬧赌嬧赌嬧赌嬧赌�s Independent Lens May 1, 2017. More information is at and .
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.