Tag: freedom of the press

New EU Media “Freedom Law” Allows for Journalist Arrests if Justified by “Public Interest”

The European Union’s “European Media Freedom Act” became binding law across all member states on August 8, but behind its name lies a set of provisions that could restrict the very freedoms it claims to safeguard.

We obtained a copy of the act for you here.

Alongside language about protecting reporters, the regulation authorizes arrests, sanctions, and surveillance of journalists whenever authorities say it serves an “overriding reason in the general interest.”

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, hailed the legislation’s arrival on social media, saying, “A free and independent press is an essential pillar of our democracy. With our European Media Freedom Act, we want to improve their protection. This allows journalists to continue their important work safely and without disruption or intimidation.”

Although the law outlines protections such as prohibiting spyware or coercion to expose sources, those assurances are undercut by built-in loopholes.

Governments can bypass them if their actions are allowed under national or EU law and deemed proportionate to a vaguely defined “general interest.”

That permission extends to intrusive surveillance technologies in cases tied to crimes carrying a maximum prison term of three years or more, a list that ranges from terrorism and human trafficking to offenses labeled as “racism and xenophobia.”

The legislation also orders each country to maintain registers of media owners and addresses. It targets so-called “disinformation,” accusing some media outlets of manipulating the single market to spread falsehoods.

Large online platforms are portrayed as choke points for access to news, blamed for fueling polarization.

Keep reading

How The British Government Silenced the “Free” Press, Made Truth Illegal

There are cover-ups, and then there’s whatever the British Government just pulled.

Imagine torching £7 ($9.4) billion of public money, risking 100,000 lives, creating an immigration scandal, and then, when the inevitable outrage starts to bubble, slapping a gag order on the entire country and pretending it never happened.

This is banana-republic behavior with better tailoring.

Because for nearly two years, a superinjunction, the kind usually deployed when a Premier League footballer’s pants have wandered off again, was used to silence journalists and the free press, gag Parliament, and stop the public from learning that the Ministry of Defence had done something catastrophically inept.

It began in August 2023 when journalist David Williams discovered that the Ministry of Defence had managed to leak the identities of 18,800 Afghans who had worked with British forces; drivers, and translators. Their families included, we’re talking about 100,000 people now, allegedly, squarely in the Taliban’s crosshairs. All because some bright spark couldn’t handle a spreadsheet.

Someone in Whitehall realized that explaining to the public how a government that wants to introduce digital IDs, biometric databases, and centralized health records, can’t even keep the data of war-zone informants safe might, just might, be a tough sell.

Now, in a functioning democracy, this is the point where the Government admits the error, apologizes profusely, and gets on with fixing the mess. But that’s not what happened.

Instead, the Conservative Government went nuclear. It reached for a superinjunction. A legal instrument so secretive, that you can’t even mention that it exists. It’s the Voldemort of British law: he who must not be named, and also must not be reported on, discussed in Parliament, or even acknowledged in polite company.

Ever since the data hit the fan, ministers, hidden behind a wall of censorship so thick it could double as a North Korean border post, have been quietly orchestrating one of the largest peacetime migration missions in British history.

Keep reading

Bombshell report exposes attempts by Muslim Council of Britain group to censor UK media

The Muslim Council of Britain’s media monitoring unit “acted in bad faith” by trying to suppress accurate reporting about terrorism and risks curtailing press freedom, a bombshell report has claimed.

Policy Exchange tonight released its 94-page report, titled ‘Bad Faith Actor: A study of the Centre for Media Monitoring’, which exposed the organisation’s inadequate methods of documenting Islamophobia and its partisan agenda.

Despite the CfMM claiming that 60 per cent of stories about Muslims are “offending” and negative, Policy Exchange found that just one complaint made by the group resulted in a newspaper being required to make a correction.

Policy Exchange revealed that CfMM, which sat on a working group at press regulator Ipso, counted factual reports of Islamist terror attacks in its 60 per cent figure of Islamophobic journalism, including a Manchester terror attack report by agency AP that accurately used the phrase “knife-wielding man yelling Islamic slogans”.

Keep reading

The First Amendment Protects CNN’s Reporting on ICEBlock and Iran

President Donald Trump has routinely taken umbrage with journalists exercising their freedom of expression to report on the news, which the First Amendment absolutely protects. CNN is the president’s latest target.

At a Tuesday press conference, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that her agency was “working with the Department of Justice” to see if the administration could prosecute CNN for its reporting on an app that alerts users about federal immigration enforcement activity in their area. Noem said CNN “is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement.” Trump immediately followed Noem’s comments by saying, “We’ll maybe prosecute them also for having given false reports on the attack in Iran.”

CNN published a story on Monday covering software developer Joshua Aaron’s ICEBlock app, which lets “users alert people nearby to sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in their area.” CNN reports that the app, released in April, has amassed over 20,000 users. The app, which is only available on the App Store (Aaron is concerned about the mandatory data collection on Android devices), allows users to specify where they’ve spotted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity and alerts other users within a 5-mile radius via push notification. The function of the app is not dissimilar from Waze and Google Maps, which help drivers avoid encounters with police officers monitoring highways and roads for traffic violations.

The First Amendment protects ICEBlock, just as it does Waze and Google Maps. Even if it didn’t, it still would protect CNN’s coverage of it. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), tells Reason that prosecuting CNN for reporting on ICEBlock “would be like prosecuting a news outlet for reporting on Virginia drivers illegally using radar detectors to avoid speeding tickets.” Moreover, the First Amendment protects the development and use of the ICEBlock app itself because “putting out general information that someone, somewhere might use to evade law enforcement” is not aiding and abetting but “just providing others true information,” says Terr.

(CNN doesn’t provide users the link to download ICEBlock from the App Store, which is also protected speech.)

Trump’s threats against CNN for its coverage of early U.S. intelligence assessments regarding the strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites are similarly unfounded. Trump’s personal attorney, Alejandro Brito, alleged that CNN’s and The New York Times’ June 24 coverage of the strikes was false and defamatory, reports CNN. At the Tuesday press conference, Trump again insinuated that CNN defamed the pilots who carried out the operation. Establishing a defamation claim against CNN for its reporting on the efficacy of the American strikes against Iran would be hard, if not impossible.

To defame somebody, you must identify a person—the identities of the pilots are secret; publish information about them—CNN published information of public interest, but not about anybody in particular; the meaning of the publication must be defamatory—even if the pilots failed to completely destroy the sites, that would not be an indictment of their characters; the statement must be false—the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear sites remains nonspecific; the statement must be an objectively verifiable statement of fact—it is unclear how anybody could prove CNN’s statements as false, especially at the time of reporting (Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said himself that “the impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran”); and the statement must be damaging and cause injury, which CNN’s reporting did not. All of these elements must be met to establish defamation. CNN’s Iran reporting does not satisfy a single one.

Keep reading

How America Gave Up Press Freedom and Nobody Noticed

Did you notice that we’ve lost the press freedom that is essential in our democracy? If you’re like many people, probably not.

Do you believe that a free press is a Constitutional guarantee? Most people likely think it is indeed guaranteed. Actually, it is not.

Here’s the real story as I see it:

“Freedom of the press is an implicit and essential right of the people. It is not just freedom of speech for journalists. If a democracy is going to work, citizens have got to make informed political choices. The media are the people’s primary means for keeping informed. Many believe that press freedom exists if the media are free of governmental control and that pluralism prevails. That view misses the main point. A good share of the media has got to be free to serve the people.”

Those were my opening comments when the World Association of Newspapers invited me deliver the Keynote Address at the Press Freedom Forum of its 2006 World Congress.

Separately, a published report from the US Agency for International Development tells us of another vital point. It is that the press “serves a ‘checking function’ by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.” Often this is called being a “watchdog.”

Now, here in 2024, much of our news coverage is devoid of those fundamental principles. Tune in to CNN or MSNBC and you’ll hear people serving their audiences with bias and persuasion, forthrightly favoring their preferred political candidates. Switch to Fox News and you’ll hear the same thing, but with an opposite political twist.

These biased or dishonest news services are not violating any law. They are free to do what they’re doing. But in those cases voters are not being served consistently honest, unbiased information on which to base reasonable choices of leaders or to detect failures in existing leadership. Real news seeks to report, not persuade.

Network news has bias too. But it is not as consistent as cable news, and not as intense. Nonetheless it is still not a consistently reliable source for honest news.

As to a constitutionally guaranteed free press? Many believe we have that guarantee. For example, a free speech center at an American university states flatly, “Freedom of the press is a Constitutional guarantee contained in the First Amendment, which in turn is part of the Bill of Rights.” That might be a good fundraising line for the university. But it’s not true.

Keep reading

Assange Freed, but Supporters Say Guilty Plea a ‘Big Blow to Freedom of the Press’

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange agreed to a plea deal with the U.S. government and was released on bail, leaving Belmarsh maximum security prison and the United Kingdom (U.K.) on Monday morning WikiLeaks announced on X, formerly known as Twitter.

His wife, Stella Assange, an attorney who has worked for years for his release, celebrated the deal on X.

“This is the result of a global campaign that spanned grass-roots organisers, press freedom campaigners, legislators and leaders from across the political spectrum, all the way to the United Nations,” WikiLeaks wrote. “This created the space for a long period of negotiations with the US Department of Justice, leading to a deal that has not yet been formally finalised.”

A federal judge must still approve the plea deal.

Assange is en route to appear Wednesday in a U.S. federal court in Saipan, the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands near Australia. He is scheduled to return to Australia after the hearing.

In exchange for his release, Assange agreed to plead guilty to a single felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security material in violation of the U.S. Espionage Act, The New York Times reported.

Under the terms of the agreement, Justice Department prosecutors will seek a 62-month sentence, which is equal to the amount of time Assange has served at Belmarsh while he fought his extradition to the U.S. The deal would credit that period as time served, which would allow Assange to return home, according to CNN.

The deal would also disallow him from later making any claim that his long prison time in Belmarsh, where he was confined to a cell for 23 hours a day, was unjust, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald.

Keep reading

Police are still arresting journalists. Why?

Journalists Carolyn Cole and Molly Hennessy-Fiske were reporting for the Los Angeles Times on the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis on May 30, 2020, when they were brutally attacked by the Minnesota State Patrol. Last week, they settled a lawsuit against the city for $1.2 million.

It’s a welcome sign of accountability for police who violate the rights of journalists covering protests. But nearly four years after the Floyd protests led to a spike in journalists arrested and assaulted, protests remain a dangerous place for reporters.

Just a few months into 2024, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented four arrests or detentions of journalists covering protests in New York, Tennessee, and California.

None of these arrests have received much attention or public outcry. That’s a shame. These arrests violate journalists’ rights, and they undermine the right of the public to learn about newsworthy events happening in their communities.

They also show the disturbing and stubborn persistence of a system of policing that either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about First Amendment rights. A closer look at each of the cases documented by the Tracker so far this year reveals that — even after large settlements or acknowledgments by the federal government that journalists must be allowed to cover protests — police around the country are still routinely arresting reporters who are simply doing their jobs.

Keep reading

Feds Target Journalist Tim Burke With Law Intended for Hackers

People engaged in journalism frequently acquire information others wish would never see the light of day. This often means gathering tips in violation of workplace rules or through other people’s carelessness. That can result in legal battles and, in the age of technology and cybercrime, in governments coming after the curious with tools crafted for malicious hackers. All this appears to be the case with Tim Burke, who has been targeted with a controversial law by the feds after gathering information through electronic means.

“Federal prosecutors in Florida have obtained a disturbing indictment against well-known journalist Tim Burke,” the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) warned last week. “The indictment could have significant implications for press freedom, not only by putting digital journalists at risk of prosecution but by allowing the government to permanently seize a journalist’s computers.”

Specifically, in the February 15 indictment, federal prosecutors say that Burke “intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, and procured another person to intercept and to endeavor to intercept, the contents of a wire, oral, and electronic communication as it was occurring, by means of a device, namely a computer.”

Burke’s home was raided last year after he distributed intercepted video, including outtakes of the rapper Ye (formerly Kanye West) making antisemitic comments during an interview with Tucker Carlson while the host was still with Fox News. Burke has built a reputation with his very online presence and distinctive style. He has also rubbed some people the wrong way with his reporting and, perhaps, the means by which he acquires material. But the prosecutors going after Burke are also accused of resorting to questionable tactics, including invoking the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, an anti-hacking law.

Keep reading

Biden DOJ Indicts Journalist for Tucker Carlson Leaks

A Florida journalist who accessed and made public unaired video footage of an interview that former Fox News host Tucker Carlson conducted with the rapper Ye was arrested this week and hit with more than a dozen federal charges stemming in part from the disclosure, raising immediate concerns from press freedom advocates.

Timothy Burke, a Tampa-based media consultant and former Daily Beast staffer, obtained and disseminated clips of the 2022 Ye interview — during which the rapper formerly known as Kanye West made antisemitic remarks that were edited out of the final version — as well as behind-the-scenes footage of Carlson, who left Fox last year.

The 26-page indictment against Burke, revealed on Thursday, accuses him of “utilizing compromised credentials to gain unauthorized access to protected computers” and “scouring those protected computers for electronic items and information,” among other alleged crimes.

Though the indictment doesn’t explicitly mention Fox or Carlson, the Tampa Bay Times reported that it says Burke “accessed a video stream of an interview featuring a show host for a ‘multinational media company based in New York City’ on Oct. 6, 2022 — the same day Carlson’s interview with West aired.”

Burke and his legal team have denied any wrongdoing and rejected claims that Fox was “hacked,” maintaining that he accessed the video footage using information “publicly posted to the internet.”

Keep reading

Oklahoma State Senator authors bill to limit freedom of the press

If the Oklahoma legislature passes it, the Common Sense Freedom of Press Control Act would place more monitoring requirements and financial obligations on journalists and media outlets.

State Sen. Nathan Dahm (R – Broken Arrow) authored Senate Bill 1837, which seeks to “avoid potential abuse of the freedom of the press.”

Under the proposed requirements, anyone who works for a media outlet would need to submit to criminal background checks and quarterly drug tests.

The bill would also require them to file for a license from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, obtain $1 million in liability insurance, and attend an eight-hour “propaganda-free” safety training developed by PragerU.

The license for individual journalists would cost $290 every five years. Media outlets would also need to pay $250,000 for a license every year and obtain $50 million in liability insurance. That applies to national and local outlets alike.

Those outlets would also be required to provide the following disclaimer before each story, or throughout any video: “WARNING: THIS ENTITY IS KNOWN TO PROVIDE PROPAGANDA. CONSUMING PROPAGANDA MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR HEALTH AND HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC.”

Keep reading