​Freedom of expression withers when governments are always watching. Our First Amendment freedoms to think, speak, publish, and worship as we choose are strengthened by the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment.

For this reason, defenders of the First Amendment have much at stake in the looming reauthorization debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This surveillance authority, which Congress enacted to allow the surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil, has been used extensively by the FBI to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans millions of times in the last five years.

Section 702 was last reauthorized with a two-year extension in April 2024 under the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA). It is now up for a reauthorization by April 20. Will the U.S. House reauthorize Section 702 the right way – by installing robust constitutional guardrails? Or will the House choose a “clean” reauthorization – rejecting all reform amendments – and continue to allow Americans’ personal communications to be swept up in a web of warrantless, at-will surveillance?

Protect The 1st General Counsel Gene Schaerr described how disregard of the Fourth Amendment has directly undermined the pillars of the First Amendment in testimony before Congress:
​

• Freedom of Religion: Under Section 702, the FBI illegally searched the communications of religious leaders who applied to the FBI's “Citizens Academy.” The FBI has shown an appetite to spy on the religious, from surveillance of “traditional radical Catholics” to Americans who attend their local mosque. If federal agencies can use collected data to generate comprehensive “religious dossiers” on every American, what’s next?

• Freedom of the Press: The expansion of what is called the “make-everyone-a-spy provision” under RISAA allows the government to force providers of office space, including landlords for media organizations, to facilitate warrantless surveillance. The FBI’s searches of journalists’ and political commentators’ communications have become a recurring practice.

• Freedom of Speech and Political Expression: “Backdoor searches” are another favorite FBI tactic – and when used to illegally surveil presidential campaigns and transitions, they amount to interference in political expression. Not to mention the warrantless search of the communications of 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. “Political dossiers,” anyone? Better watch what you post on social media.

• Freedom of Assembly and Association: By purchasing sensitive digital data from brokers, the government acquires information that reveals Americans’ political activities and associations. Case in point: The FBI searched (without a judge-approved warrant) the communications of individuals participating in mass gatherings, specifically Black Lives Matter and January 6 protesters.

• The Right to Petition the Government: In a direct affront to citizens interacting with the justice system, the FBI conducted warrantless searches of victims who approached the Bureau to report crimes. The FBI also spied on a state judge who reported suspected civil rights violations committed by a local police chief.

As these examples illustrate, attempted reforms like RISAA in 2024 offered little in the way of meaningful guardrails on Section 702 operations. Congress has one more chance to get this right. The House must legally require government agents to obtain a warrant to search through Americans’ communications, with reasonable exceptions for emergencies.

Given that 80 percent of Congress’s constituents want these changes to become law, it seems like it should be easy. This is the time to reinforce that the “consent of the governed” still matters.

We briefly wondered if Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was having a bad day when he threatened ABC if it did not fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he told a podcaster, suggesting the regulatory options available to the FCC to punish the network.

Carr also used his authority over media mergers to force Paramount into paying a $16 million settlement to the Trump library project. Paramount, then seeking to complete a merger, was forced to settle the president’s nuisance complaint against its CBS News division for how it edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris.

On Saturday, Chairman Carr left no doubt where he stands on censorship – he is for it and he is the would-be censor. He doubled down by threatening to revoke broadcasters’ licenses if they do not stop the “hoaxes and news distortions” about the Iran war. If they want to stay in the good graces of the FCC, Carr wrote that broadcasters must “correct course” and toe the administration’s line or risk losing access to the airwaves.

One can argue that networks have focused too much on the blowback to U.S. actions against Iran. This is perhaps more of a matter of proximity than of bias. It is much more visually compelling to show an Iranian drone strike on the Dubai International Airport than it is to show a map of Iran with an explosion emoji designating a strike on an Iranian airfield.

It is also true that the media is sometimes sensational and biased. Consider the recent story about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “blowing” millions of dollars on lobsters and steaks. What was left out in many accounts is that the U.S. Department of Defense has made such expenditures for decades – as an occasional morale booster for deployed troops who often subsist on the preserved food of Meals Ready-to-Eat.

All of these are fair points. Similar criticisms can be made about much of the current war coverage.

But would we be better off if these content decisions were made by the FCC? Is the “public interest” standard of the FCC Act too easily defined as the agenda of whichever party is in power? Would officially sanctioned coverage be more objective or trustworthy? Ask the people of Russia, of China, and of Iran.

The threat in Carr’s message is unmistakable. Some of the strongest objections to Carr’s attempts at censorship come from conservatives. Sen. Ted Cruz, who oversees the FCC as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, likened Carr’s statements to a mobster’s threat – “nice bar you have here… it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Conservatives, who were victimized by secret acts of censorship by the Biden administration, should be especially wary. If the power of the FCC to punish networks for content becomes institutionalized, Fox News, Newsmax, and other conservative outlets are sure to be targeted by a future Democratic administration.

We expect Russia to crack down on media for spreading “distortions” and undermining national unity. We do not expect to see the idea of licensed speech in America.

Chairman Carr: the First Amendment protects speech that you find disagreeable, biased, or wrong. It exists to protect all speech and a free press. The government does not supervise or license journalism. Period.
​
Conservatives who were righteously angry about the ham-handed jawboning of the Biden administration should be furious about this far-greater abuse of the First Amendment, and the roadmap it creates for future administrations. These breaches of principle, as Sen. Cruz said, “are dangerous as hell.” They are also profoundly un-American.

Censorship is making a comeback as extremists in both parties try to use the mechanisms of government to shut down the bad speech of all those stupid people who just won’t shut the @#%$*& up!
 
On the left, the Biden administration engaged in an official censorship program by deploying 80 FBI agents to secretly jawbone social media companies into shadow-banning and removing conservative content. It also had a State Department program that quietly funded efforts through a London-based NGO to scare off advertisers from conservative news outlets.
 
On the right, Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, apparently determined to leave no bad idea behind, is flirting with censorship by asserting the right of his agency to regulate the editorial decisions of a journalistic enterprise and a media rater.
 
We could credit Ferguson with doing publicly what the Biden administration did secretly. But the brazen, public assertion of FTC authority over private, journalistic enterprises is perhaps the greater danger – one that if accepted by the public and the courts would transform the United States from a First Amendment society into a semi-free, authoritarian country like Hungary.
 
Apple News and Journalistic “Deception”

The previous FTC chair, the progressive Lina Khan, gave a broad interpretation to Section 5 of the FTC Act that empowers the agency to bring legal actions against private actors for “unfair or deceptive practices.” Her predecessors in both parties interpreted this vague authority with modesty, choosing to go after phony claims of cancer cures or the selling of worthless swamp land. Khan used it freely to investigate businesses.
 
But not even Khan asserted that this vague authority gave her the ability to regulate news outlets. That bit of pioneering belongs to Ferguson. He recently fired off a “warning letter” to Apple CEO Tim Cook accusing Apple News of violating its terms of service and the “reasonable consumer expectations of tens of millions of Americans.”
 
Apple News is an aggregator that features content from outlets ranging from Politico to The Wall Street Journal to USA Today. Ferguson accuses Apple News of favoring liberal content while ignoring stories from conservative media – which to be clear, the First Amendment would protect even if true.
 
What about Ferguson’s “terms of service” claim? We pored over the terms of service for Apple News (so you don’t have to) and found that this document eschews any promises about quality, neutrality, balance, or editorial fairness. It’s not even as if its marketing catchphrase is “Fair and Balanced,” or “All the News that’s Fit to Print.” In fact, this document explicitly disclaims responsibility for content accuracy or quality arising from Apple News’s curated, third-party material. And apart from any disclaimer, accusations of editorial slant or an assumed obligation of balance or good judgment ultimately boil down to matters of opinion – of the editors and the readers – not government diktat.
 
Quite simply, Ferguson is attempting to extend consumer protection laws to allow the government to regulate the editorial decisions of a news organization and impose its own editorial slant on organizations it dislikes. That is not consumer protection. It is phony concern about terms of service to promote terms of censorship.
 
FTC Seeks to Ransack the Files of Media Rater
​
The FTC also issued a civil investigative demand related to an antitrust investigation, requiring NewsGuard – a for-profit organization that rates the credibility of news organizations – to produce all its documents. This order includes any documents NewsGuard created or received since its founding in 2018, including reporters’ notes and lists of subscribers.
 
Many conservatives had their suspicions raised when they learned that this business received $25,000 in 2020 from the Pentagon and the State Department to identify hoaxes about COVID-19. On the other hand, as The Wall Street Journal has noted, NewsGuard rates Fox News ahead of MS Now, and National Review above CNN.
 
Of course, even if one thinks it is biased, NewsGuard and its viewpoints are protected by the First Amendment. NewsGuard understandably responded to the FTC’s actions by suing the government for attempted censorship.
 
Regardless of whether you privately agree with Ferguson’s underlying point about overall media bias against conservatives, that is a private opinion for you to make and others to reject. That opinion can control your choices about which media to follow, praise, or criticize, but other individuals get to make those same choices for themselves. Giving the government the means to regulate editorial decisions, and to constrain those choices from on high, guarantees abuse and censorship. Conservatives should be the first to recognize this. If Ferguson’s tactics stick, they will surely be used against conservatives tomorrow just as they are being used against allegedly biased news organizations today.
 
More and more, leaders on the right and the left seem dedicated to living out what Ray Bradbury predicted in 1953 in his dystopian novel, Fahrenheit 451: “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, has an underlying architecture in which each principle and right rests on – and reinforces – the others.

We hope that when the U.S. Supreme Court considers Chatrie v. United States, the Justices will see that surveillance, privacy, and expressive freedom are all facets of human liberty. At stake isn’t merely the correct application of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement – that a neutral magistrate must find probable cause and specify the persons or places to be searched – but also the very conditions under which Americans can think, speak, and publish freely.

In Chatrie, the question is concrete: whether a geofence warrant – a broad data dragnet that compels companies to disclose the location information of all devices within a specific place and time – satisfies the Fourth Amendment. But the constitutional implications extend to conditions essential for our First Amendment freedoms to flourish.

Why the Supreme Court Should Not Try to Untangle Americans’ First and Fourth Amendment Rights

In an amicus brief, the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA) urges the Supreme Court to rein in geofence warrants. PPSA explains that these are “digital general warrants” incompatible with the Constitution because they invert the Fourth Amendment’s core design. Instead of naming a person or place based on individualized suspicion, they authorize the government to sift through massive data sets to identify potential suspects after a crime has occurred. This practice is not targeted policing. It is suspicionless data mining. 

These “reverse warrants” are consequential for more than location privacy. The same digital dragnets now being used to capture location data are being deployed in other contexts – keyword warrants, genetic data searches, and other forms of “reverse” searches that sweep up innocent Americans’ information merely because they intersected with a place, word, or characteristic.

The chilling effect is real – when people know that their movements, associations, or digital footprints can be turned over to the government without particularized cause, they think twice before seeking information, attending meetings, joining protests, or talking to journalists.

Thus, the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections are not some narrow procedural right that disappears in the face of convenience. A world in which the government can collect comprehensive data about who attended a political rally or who was near a place of worship at a given time – without a warrant – is a world in which expressive liberty is chilled.

The Chatrie First Amendment Amici Make This Connection Explicit

The amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) drills down on the point that Fourth Amendment privacy protections are also about protecting the informational foundations of a free society.

“Few investigative tools are more invasive than those that allow government to identify who met with a reporter,” Mara Gassman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said in a statement. “There are longstanding safeguards designed to prevent law enforcement from intruding on confidential newsgathering because those intrusions endanger sources and impair public interest reporting.

“Dragnet location searches bypass those protections and threaten the independence of the press far beyond a single investigation,” Gassman said.

Without the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for particularized description of the targeted person or place, sweeping digital dragnets become the default – location data, communications, browsing behavior, social associations, and even journalists’ sources become vulnerable.

And when that happens, the law becomes a tool for monitoring who is where, talking to whom, and concerned about what. Even the perception of surveillance can dampen speech. When combined with the real potential for government access to rich troves of data, the effect is even greater.

The Constitutional Order Must Be Preserved

The Founders tied the First and Fourth Amendments together because a free society depends on privacy from arbitrary governmental intrusion and liberty of thought, speech, and press. When courts dilute the requirements for probable cause and particularity – as the Fourth Circuit did in Chatrie – they undermine that constitutional order. 
​
Chatrie presents the Supreme Court with a chance to reaffirm the Fourth Amendment’s historic protections and avoid acquiescing to a surveillance state.

​When federal agents clamped handcuffs on independent journalist Don Lemon at the Beverly Hills Hotel as he prepared to cover the Grammys, this made-for-headlines arrest immediately raised a serious question: Do journalists enjoy First Amendment protections when they are embedded in an unlawful protest?

Lemon was arrested after covering an anti-ICE demonstration that disrupted a Sunday worship service in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18. This case exposes questions about the constitutional boundaries separating worshippers, protesters, and journalists.

Can you protest during a church service?

The protesters entered Cities Church, shouting “Justice for Renée Good!” This church was apparently targeted because one of its pastors, David Easterwood, heads an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office in that city. At least two of these protesters have been arrested, along with Lemon.

A federal indictment naming Lemon and other defendants portrays the protesters entering the church in a “coordinated, takeover-style attack” that caused congregants to flee and children to panic. The indictment claims one protester told two crying children: “Do you know your parents are Nazis? They’re going to burn in hell.”

The protesters might be found guilty of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a federal law from the Clinton era that protects both abortion clinics and churches from interference by protesters. Does the First Amendment, which is the supreme law over any statute, override the statute and protect these protesters on the basis of free speech?

Short answer: No.

Of course, churches are open to all. The protesters had every right to enter, just like anyone else. But if a church official considered them disruptive and told them to leave – and they didn’t – they were trespassing and also possibly guilty of a FACE Act violation. A first offense carries a penalty of up to six months in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Wait, how is the FACE Act not a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause?

If anything, the First Amendment protects the church, not the protesters.

While the “right of expressive association” is not explicitly articulated in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that this right of expressive association is inherent in the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. And it is likewise inherent in the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. Indeed, if the government were to make a church exception to the enforcement of ordinary trespass laws, that would be blatant discrimination against religion in violation of the free exercise clause.

Think of it this way: How could any group of people, banding together for the same expressive or religious purpose, enjoy any associational and collective speech or religious rights if anyone could storm in and shout them down?

This principle applies to mosques, synagogues, churches, private university classrooms, board meetings, award ceremonies, and even Don Lemon’s online show.

So Lemon is in big trouble, right?

It depends on whether the allegations in the indictment hold up.

The federal government charges that Lemon met with other defendants at a shopping mall to plan the entry into the church. It also alleges that Lemon stood close enough to the pastor to restrict his freedom of movement in an effort to “oppress and intimidate” him. Did he do that, or was it an attempt to interview the pastor that he perceived as an attack?

What we can see online is that Don Lemon went into the service with a camera and interviewed both protesters and worshippers. Walking around a church sanctuary interviewing people is potentially disruptive, but it will take a trial to test the government’s allegations. Did Don Lemon lead or follow the protesters into the church? If he merely followed the protesters, he may have been reporting on a newsworthy disruption, not causing it. But if the government’s portrayal of Lemon being involved in planning the protest is proven, Lemon faces legal jeopardy.

C’mon, Lemon is a left-wing activist himself. Now he’s a “journalist”?

Lemon, who was fired by CNN for alleged rudeness and misogynistic remarks, is no Walter Cronkite. He’s an opinion journalist with a leftward, progressive slant. He is undoubtedly sympathetic to the protesters and their cause. That still makes no difference in this case.

A thought experiment brings home the principle protecting Lemon: Imagine if a Fox News reporter had been at Cities Church to cover the trashing of its service for an outraged audience. That hypothetical reporter’s sympathy in favor of the church would leave no one questioning his First Amendment rights (unless, of course, he was asked to leave and didn’t).

The same applies to Lemon and his sympathies. As long as he didn’t plan the protest – but merely followed up on a tip that there was a story brewing at the church – and did not ignore a proper request to leave the premises, he is likely protected as a journalist.

What will be the practical effects of this arrest?

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Lemon was arrested at her direction, posting: “WE DO NOT TOLERATE ATTACKS ON PLACES OF WORSHIP.”

That’s all well and good, with the all-caps warranted. But to convict Lemon, the government will need to prove its allegations.

If the government’s allegations don’t hold up in court, and Lemon is acquitted, it would hard be to imagine a greater gift AG Bondi could have granted a left-wing, web-based, independent journalist than to arrest him as an anti-ICE, free speech martyr in the very epicenter of his progressive base of viewers.
​
What we can definitively say is that the losers will be anyone – including Lemon – properly found guilty of violating the FACE Act. Tip to the protest community: Wrecking a church service is not a good look for you, nor a help to your cause. It’s also against the law.

On January 14, FBI agents raided the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson and seized her phone, two laptops, and a Garmin watch.

This story has brought the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) of 1980 back into focus. In theory, that law protects journalists from having their notes or “work product” seized unless they themselves are criminal suspects. And while the affidavit has yet to be unsealed, Natanson and The Post were told that they are not targets of the government’s probe. Yet clearly, she is being targeted as if she were a criminal. First Amendment watchdogs are understandably barking mad.

As Chris Cillizza recounts in his concise summation of recent history on the law and past raids on reporters, the PPA has inspired creative ways by administrations of both parties to circumvent it. The government doesn’t like it when a reporter knows more about a crime than the Department of Justice does. In such cases, what’s an administration to do? In the case of Fox News reporter James Rosen, Obama’s Justice Department in 2013 declared Rosen a co-conspirator with an actual criminal in order to confiscate that reporter’s notes. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder later admitted he never suspected Rosen of an actual crime.

To quote Cillizza, after the Obama Administration “stretched the rubber band” on First Amendment press protections, it “never went back.” The First Trump Administration stretched the rubber band some more. So did the Biden Administration. And now the second Trump Administration appears to be giving the method for getting around the law even more elasticity. Gabe Rottman of Reporters Committee has meticulously chronicled the long struggle between free press advocates and these successive administrations.

It is not a tale that inspires hope. Consider how the Department of Justice embraced an internal policy of protecting reporters, only to violate its own policy, then rescind it altogether.

As dysfunctional as the media may sometimes be, it still performs a vital role in national hygiene – bringing to light corruption and malfeasance in government. Time after time, we’ve seen administrations act under the banner of “national security,” when they are in fact seeking primarily to avoid political embarrassment.

This worsening trend in press freedom in recent years suggests that the Privacy Protection Act is an insufficient guarantor of journalistic rights. As aggressive and overreaching as Attorney General Bondi’s move against Natanson was, it is the logical continuation of the policies of the last four presidential administrations.
​
Only by passing the Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying (PRESS) Act – a genuine press shield law – will the feds respect the role of journalists in a First Amendment society.

​A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied President Trump’s lawsuit against CNN for saying that his claims about the 2020 election were a “Big Lie.”

What’s the big deal about the Big Lie?

That propaganda term was coined by Adolf Hitler in the 1920s to describe a technique in which many people – who might doubt a small, unfounded accusation – are apt to believe an absurd, outlandish falsehood. Say that your opponent is beholden to special interests, and people shrug. Say that he sacrifices stray dogs to the Roman God Mars, and a surprising number of people will believe it must be true.

Why do some react this way? Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that it is because most people believe that no one “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

So, when CNN ran a story accusing Trump of peddling the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, the president was understandably offended by the comparison. He sued. But was he correct in telling the court that audiences would assume that he was doing exactly what “Hitler did in his monstrous, genocidal crimes against humanity”?

A cursory search shows that the “big lie” trope has been watered down by commonplace usage. During President Trump’s first term, then-Attorney General William Barr described the allegations that Trump’s 2016 victory occurred with an assist from Putin as a “big lie.” Sen. Mitch McConnell, then-Minority Leader, accused Democrats of pushing a “big lie” about Republican proposals for voter IDs. President-elect Joe Biden castigated Sen. Josh Hawley for being “part of the big lie” about the 2020 election.

The term “big lie” might have been defamatory in 1938. By 2025, it has been used so often and so elastically that it has surely lost much of its sting. That is one reason why the appeals court panel ruled:

“To be clear, CNN has never explicitly claimed that Trump’s ‘actions and statements were designed to be, and actually were, variations of those [that] Hitler used to suppress and destroy populations.’”

Two of the three judges were Trump appointees. The judges harked back to failed defamation cases in which one plaintiff was described as a “fascist” and another as “an outspoken proponent of political Marxism.” Courts found that such terms were, in the ruling on the first case, “so debatable, loose and varying that they were insusceptible to proof of truth or falsity.”
​
Courts have long recognized that political speech deserves the widest latitude when it comes to defamation. Politics is not for the easily bruised. Still, with great freedom comes great responsibility. We would all be better off as a country if politicians and journalists alike were to dial back the rhetoric and stick with the facts.

The Pentagon is no longer content to manage information. According to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times, it now wants to control the press itself.
 
In a sweeping First Amendment challenge, The New York Times and national security reporter Julian E. Barnes have sued the Department of War over a new press-access policy that would allow Pentagon officials to revoke journalists’ credentials for publishing stories the government disfavors – even when those stories rely on unclassified information obtained entirely outside of the Pentagon complex.
 
At the center of this case is a new rule for PFACs – Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials – the badges that have allowed reporters to move around the building and cover briefings, hallway encounters, and day-to-day operations for nearly 80 years. From World War II to 9/11 to Iraq and Afghanistan, that access has been essential to independent reporting on the military.
 
Under the new rule, Pentagon officials can immediately suspend and ultimately revoke a journalist’s PFAC if they conclude the reporter has “solicited,” received, or published “unauthorized” information – even if the information is unclassified and the newsgathering happened entirely outside the building.
 
Such punishments would have clearly aimed to prevent The Washington Post’s scoop that a secondary missile strike killed survivors on a presumed drug-smuggling vessel. This is a revelation so disturbing that some leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate are demanding public disclosure of an unedited video of the boat strike.
 
Would the public and Congress be better off not knowing about these strikes? That sort of “unauthorized” – read: embarrassing – journalism appears to be precisely what this policy is designed to deter.
 
Even routine acts of reporting are swept into the danger zone. Asking questions of Defense Department employees, or publicly posting a call for tips on social media, can be deemed “solicitation” and used as grounds for revoking a reporter’s credentials.
 
Worse still, this policy authorizes officials to pull access for vaguely defined “unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.” The Times says this gives Pentagon leadership “unbridled discretion” to punish disfavored reporters and outlets – exactly the sort of standardless power courts have repeatedly said violates both the First and Fifth Amendments.
 
The Pentagon compounded the crackdown on the media by demanding that reporters sign an “acknowledgment” stating they had read and “understood” the policy. Journalists from nearly every major news organization refused, warning that signing would legitimize a system that punishes routine newsgathering. As a result, they turned in their PFACs and lost day-to-day access to the building.
 
The New York Times, perhaps predictably, criticized the Pentagon’s inclusion of the “next generation of the Pentagon press corps” – which includes, commendably, new and wider media. But, as The Times notes, it also includes influencers friendly to the administration. The lawsuit argues that this is not a neutral security policy, but a viewpoint-based press-access regime.
 
If the policy takes hold, The Times warns, the longstanding adversarial tension between press and government will collapse. It will be replaced by a system in which only approved narratives are permitted, forbidding stories like the missile strike on survivors of a sunken boat, conducted in the name of the American people.
 
That would not be press oversight. That would be press censorship.

​The University of Alabama shut down two student run-magazines – one for women, one for Black students. Why? The university holds that these publications’ targeting of readers among its 43,000 students constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

The theory suggests that the university is acting to protect Crimson Tide men who are writhing in pain from their exclusion from Alice, “the University of Alabama’s fashion and lifestyle magazine.” The same can be said for all the white, Asian, and Latino students who are in agony over their exclusion from Nineteen Fifty-Six, a publication dedicated to “Black culture, Black excellence, and Black student experiences.”

In other words, the university is singling out these publications for directing content to women and African-American students, which sounds a lot like – and is – viewpoint discrimination. “You cannot have a more blatant First Amendment violation here,” Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel for the Student Press Law Center, told the student-run The Crimson White.

We would add that it would be hard to have a more profoundly stupid violation, either. This ranks up there with the decision by the U.S. Naval Academy to protect its non-Black students by removing Maya Angelou’s autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings from its library.

Why is this happening? Universities have an understandable desire to stay on the right side of the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. To be fair, DEI ideology and administrative departments had become domineering presences in campus culture and speech, threatening academic careers over faux pas and linguistic misdemeanors. A correction was certainly needed, but we are now veering into overcorrection.

The University of Alabama is acting on its interpretation of a July 29 memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi. That memo included “non-binding suggestions” to help institutions that receive federal funds avoid “unlawful proxies” and “ostensibly neutral criteria that function as substitutes for explicit considerations of race, sex, or other protected characteristics.”

Somehow, that has become a directive to avoid any channelization of communication or free association between Black Americans (12 percent of both the U.S. and the University of Alabama population), and women (51 percent of the U.S. population and 56.5 percent of that university’s population). Taken literally, any lawful interest magazine would have to cater to everyone, of all races, both genders, of all backgrounds, faiths, and national origins. Maybe Fencepost magazine, courtesy of the American Fence Association, fits the bill. (Although some might find its “modern wood designs that keep us coming back” a tad bit risqué.)

The bottom line is that the university’s actions constitute blatant viewpoint discrimination – one of the clearest violations of the First Amendment imaginable.

We draw this conclusion from the U.S. Supreme Court in Rosenberger v. Rector, which slammed the University of Virginia in 1995 for denying standing to a Christian-based student publication. The Court majority’s abiding concern was viewpoint discrimination, not that somehow non-Christians would be discriminated against by the publication’s existence.

A society based on free speech is one that respects pluralism – Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, women, men, gays and non-binary folk, fashionistas, sci-fi geeks, and football fanatics. An effort to enforce an artificial homogeneity is not anti-discriminatory. It is just a new form of discrimination: viewpoint discrimination.
​
We would not be surprised if between the time we post this piece and you read it the university will have listened to its lawyers and reversed these twin cancellations rather than face these students in court. As Nick Saban said, it’s never okay to lose a game.

Enraged by The Marion County Record’s reporting on a public document about a restaurateur’s DUI, officers of the Marion, Kansas, police department and the local sheriff’s department raided the newspaper, and seized its computers, servers, and cellphones. Editor Eric Meyer had his home raided while his 98-year-old mother Joan – a former editor – watched the police ransack her home in great distress.
 
Joan Meyer died the next day.
 
Marion County has now agreed to pay a total of $3 million to the victims of this raid in 2023 and to Joan Meyer’s estate. The Marion County Sheriff’s Office, for its part in the raid, issued an apology as well as a check:
 
“This likely would not have happened if established law had been reviewed and applied prior to the execution of the warrants.”

The Freedom of the Press Foundation responded by saying:
 
“You think? Any police officer or judge with half an understanding of the First Amendment should’ve known better than to ask for or sign off on the raid on The Record and the home of owners Eric and Joan Meyer.
 
“But apparently, police don’t always read the law, and judges may need a refresher, too. Let’s break down the flashing red lights any judge or cop should heed before storming a newsroom.
 
“The First and Fourth Amendments strongly protect against searches of journalists and newsrooms.
 
“Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause, which means a likelihood that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place. The government must also specify the place to be searched and the thing to be seized.
 
“When a search warrant targets materials protected by the First Amendment — like notes, recordings, drafts, and materials used or created by journalists — the Fourth Amendment’s requirements must be scrupulously followed, the Supreme Court has said.
 
“This means that judges must be extra strict in applying the Fourth Amendment’s requirements when a search impacts First Amendment rights, which it will any time it involves a journalist or newsroom. What judges should never do is allow overly broad searches where police rifle through journalists’ desks and computer files willy-nilly in the hopes of turning up something ‘incriminating.’”
 
The Freedom of the Press Foundation also noted that Kansas, like most states, has a press shield law that would have required a court hearing before law enforcement could rifle through journalists’ confidential sources. The federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980 requires law enforcement to obtain a subpoena, not just a warrant, thereby giving The Record an additional opportunity to challenge the demand in court.
 
The Freedom of the Press Foundation concluded:
 
“Journalists also have a right to publish information given to them by a source, even if the source obtained it illegally, as long as the journalist didn’t participate in the illegality. That means that if a source gives a journalist a document or recording that the source stole, the journalist can’t be punished for publishing it.
 
“Because these things are not crimes, it also means that accessing publicly available information or publishing information that a source illegally obtained can’t be the basis for a raid on a newsroom or search of a journalist’s materials.
 
“Next time, think before you raid.”

​The history of American journalistic liberty begins about 350 years ago, in the era of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. When the British Crown gave the censorious Puritans a taste of their own medicine by ending their theocratic rule, printed dissent began to take root in the colony. Eventually, patriots like James Franklin and his younger brother, Benjamin, would push these ideas even further.

Massachusetts thus became the birthplace of America’s free press. No less than six anti-crown publications existed there on the eve of the Revolutionary War in 1775. At first, they were propelled by courage alone, but by 1791 a free press had become a foundation of the new republic. The Founders feared that without formal protections, freedom of the press wouldn’t mean much – and was therefore unlikely to last.

Which is why we're glad the inheritors of that rich tradition – the editorial board of The Boston Globe – recently pointed out a stinging historical irony: Massachusetts has failed to enshrine into law a fundamental journalistic right – the protection of confidential sources, the identity of whom prosecutors often demand. In fact, the board observes, a proposed press protection law hasn't even come to a floor vote in the state legislature for fifteen years. The Globe hopes this year will be different:

“The free press in a democratic society should not be expected to be a tool of the criminal justice system. It defies logic that prosecutors should feel the need to obtain reporters’ notes when they have vastly more power – via subpoenas and other means – to obtain information on their own.”

Libel and defamation laws will continue to protect us from shoddy journalism, they note to critics. Protecting confidential sources isn't simply a shield anyway – it's also an enabler of ethical reporting:

“Sound journalism requires that confidential information be verified in other ways – and when done properly, such reporting can reveal vital secrets about government, business, and other powerful institutions that the public has a right to know.”

Here's hoping Massachusetts remembers its proud history of press freedom and joins the 40 other states that have already protected confidential sources by statute. And wouldn't it be great if the federal government joined this little statutory party and passed the Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying (PRESS Act)?
​
Journalists have no protections in federal court from prosecutors seeking their notes and sources. If Massachusetts adopts a press shield, would Washington continue to remain far behind the states? Probably. But sometimes revolutions occur in small steps. Let the next step be in Massachusetts.

​The walkout over the Pentagon’s restrictive new press rules continues. On Tuesday, Fox locked arms with ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC to declare in a joint statement:

“We join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to the Pentagon’s new requirements, which would restrict journalists’ ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

As CNN’s Aaron Blake points out, Fox’s participation also represents a deeply symbolic rebuke of the former Fox News commentator: “This is Hegseth’s own former employer saying he’s undermining freedom of the press.”

It’s not like Secretary Hegseth was all that chatty anyway. As many outlets have reported, he has only given two briefings during his time in office:

“We're barely getting any information at all from the Pentagon,” wrote NPR’s Tom Bowman, a 28-year veteran of the Pentagon press pool, adding: “And there have been virtually no background briefings, which were common in the past whenever there has been military action anywhere in the world.”
​
Even the ever-acerbic Donald Rumsfeld, noted Bowman, gave press briefings twice a week. And, we might add, he was an actual wartime secretary.

​Et tu, Newsmax? 

We’ve held off writing about the Department of Defense’s restrictive new rules for Pentagon-beat reporters, waiting to see the results of intensive negotiations between the Department and journalists.

Now we know the results of those negotiations – by Monday afternoon, CNN, The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and NPR said adios to the E-Ring. Even Newsmax – not known as a bastion of mainstream media critics of President Trump – rejected the First Amendment-killing terms of the Pentagon’s new policy for beat reporters.
​

• The original policy issued Sept. 18 would have required journalists to sign a pledge acknowledging that they had to secure the Pentagon’s permission before publishing any information, including unclassified reports.

 

• A new version issued on Oct. 6 clarified that journalists do not, in fact, have to submit their writings for Pentagon approval. But it did warn journalists against “solicitation” – a word normally used by police when arresting johns for prostitution.

 

• The policy read: “Solicitation may include direct communications with specific (Defense) personnel or general appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging (Defense) personnel or general appeals, such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging (Defense) employees to share non-public (Defense) information.”

This language essentially forbids journalists from asking what, from an official standpoint, are “wrong questions.” Angela Fu of Poynter reported:

“In essence, the new memo shifts from attacking journalists’ ability to publish the news to attacking their ability to gather it, experts say. From a press freedom standpoint, the dangers of the revised version are ‘clearly no better’ than the ones in the initial version, said PEN America journalism and disinformation director Tim Richardson.”

Worse, restricting unclassified and politically sensitive information amounts to… oh, what is that phrase? Oh yes, “prior restraint” – the cardinal crime against the First Amendment.
​
Now a wide spectrum of journalistic outfits will be turning in their credentials and reporting from outside the building. In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a goodbye emoji:

​We applaud these news organizations, left, right, and center, for standing up to a demand to only publish approved news. We further predict this will turn out not to be a bright move for Secretary Hegseth. These journalists will no longer be seen walking the halls and checking in with the Pentagon’s press offices to get the official scoop. Instead, they will work their stories with smartphones, using encrypted messaging apps to cultivate insiders willing to dish out stories the Pentagon would probably prefer to keep under wraps.
​
We cannot think of a better way to encourage the kind of bad press that leads to trouble. We’ll see who gets the final bye-bye.

​Police in Allentown, Pennsylvania, have long drawn the scrutiny of civil libertarians over claims of excessive force and occasional brutality. Since 2015, the city has paid out more than $2 million in police misconduct claims.
 
Phil Rishel, a 25-year-old Allentown resident, is determined to drive home Allentown’s lack of training in the First Amendment for its police force. He has often filmed police to demonstrate the point that he has a constitutional right to do so. In one of his recent posts, in which Rishel filmed a police garage through widely spaced bars from a public sidewalk, an officer sternly told him that “filming is not a First Amendment right.”
Courts have long held the opposite – that a citizen’s right to film in public is a vital form of public oversight, as seen in the arrest of a citizen-journalist who dared to film a public hearing in Texas. (Here’s a good guide on your rights and suggestions on how to film the police from the ACLU.)
 
Rishel’s recent posts have blown up the internet in which he has an insulting interaction with a police officer in the garage. In that recent video, the officer loses his cool and drives his police car down the sidewalk toward Rishel, who gleefully films him. When the officer inadvertently bangs the side of his car against a sidewall, Rishel responds with profane insults about the officer’s intelligence.

​Rishel has beaten charges of “verbally abusing, harassing, and screaming obscenities on the public street.” Local courts have recognized that swearing and even flipping the middle finger amount to constitutionally protected speech. Now the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) is backing Rishel in his First Amendment lawsuit to protect his right to film and criticize police activities.
 
As Rishel tells an officer in his video, “there is no purer form of protest than on a public sidewalk.”
 
Well put. But can the same be said for Rishel’s pointed insults? They almost certainly fall far short of the Supreme Court’s “fighting words” threshold for what would constitute an actionable offense.
 
One likely – and commendable – result of this incident will be enhanced First Amendment training for Allentown police. Still, we don’t feel like breaking out the champagne over this one. Yes, the U.S. Constitution protects Phil Rishel’s right to act like an insulting jerk who provokes police officers into overreacting. But provoking police officers in a very personal way – who are, after all, human – is not a good way to test the boundaries of the First Amendment.

​In any democracy, the justice system and the Fourth Estate are bound to clash. When they do, the clash often reveals much more about the status of constitutional freedoms than the details of a given case. Case in point, a headline from July 22 on Bloomberg Law: “Journalist’s Wiretap Prosecution Exposes First Amendment Risks.”

Here's the backstory behind a case fraught with First Amendment implications, one Protect The 1st has followed since 2022.

• Journalist Tim Burke obtained deleted clips from Tucker Carlson’s controversial interview with Kanye West when Carlson was still with Fox News. Burke then shared those with Vice and Media Matters for America, which published them. This was embarrassing to Carlson, who framed the interview as showing Kanye West – now Ye – to be an iconoclast worth listening to. The deleted portions were, to put it in strictly scientific terms, absolutely bonkers.

 

• Fox apparently invited this embarrassment by uploading the outtakes to a public online site and neither securing nor encrypting them. But that didn’t stop the Justice Department from raiding Burke’s Tampa home and seizing his electronic devices.

 

• Now the case against Burke is proceeding in a federal court in Florida. It represents, warns Bloomberg’s Holly Barker, an invitation for prosecutorial abuse, potentially turning what doesn’t even seem to rise to the level of misdemeanor molehills into felony mountains. The prosecutors’ “felonizer” here is an expansive over-interpretation of the Wiretap Act, which DOJ appears to be using to turn possible Computer Fraud and Abuse Act infractions into far more serious violations – 14 of them, to be exact.

At the heart of the case is the relevance of the First Amendment in the digital age – and, to a lesser extent, what constitutes a journalist in the modern sense and perhaps even the meaning of what is “public.” For the moment at least, the court is taking the case and these constitutional questions seriously, seeing it as the high-level referendum on freedom that it is.
Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle acknowledged: “Burke’s arguments raise novel questions with potential wide-reaching impact.”

An ACLU-led coalition, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have all filed amicus briefs outlining what’s at stake in this case.
​
Protect The 1st believes that making use of materials left in open view – whether posted online or put out on a public sidewalk – is in no sense a wiretap. Worse, the FBI raid on Burke’s home was overkill that deserves to be slapped down. We hope Judge Mizelle will stand for a free press and rule against this attempt by prosecutors to narrow the First Amendment.

Congress last week rescinded $1.1 billion earmarked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) – a move that severs federal support for National Public Radio (NPR) and its member stations.
Weeks before, in a lawsuit before a federal court, NPR claimed that an executive order by President Trump to cut off its funding was “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.” Does this view fairly characterize the subsequent vote of a conservative Congress to silence a media organization widely seen as left-leaning?
We say no. Protect The 1st firmly supports the congressional cut-off. Why we think so, however, has nothing to do with the prevailing partisan narratives of Washington, either of the left or the right.
 
Conservatives argue that NPR’s left-leaning reporting and the self-parodying ideological pronouncements of its president and chief executive officer, Katherine Maher, justify the cut-off. Among NPR’s top Washington-based editors, 87 are registered Democrats and exactly none are Republicans. This latter fact was revealed by NPR journalist Uri Berliner, who was pressured to leave after he issued a public essay in which he accused NPR’s bias of costing it the public’s trust.
 
During the 2020 election, NPR haughtily dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story (one editor declared “we don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories”). When NPR found itself on the chopping block before a Republican Congress, Maher apologized, “NPR acknowledges we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively and sooner.”
 
All true. These are the viewpoints that had conservatives sharpening their axes. But we are unmoved by these concerns. We have a different, deeper problem with NPR: Regulating editorial viewpoints necessarily involves the federal government in the regulation of speech. We would also object if NPR had trimmed its sails to the prevailing wind and became an echo chamber of conservative media and the Heritage Foundation. Maher’s editorial pliability on the Hunter Biden laptop story demonstrates this potential for government influence over news coverage.
 
Our stand is simple: Government should not be in the business of subsidizing viewpoints. The law requires NPR to practice “objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” But objectivity and balance are subjective judgments that can never be well defined by a statute and regulated by law.
 
Defenders of NPR note that only 2 percent of NPR’s budget came directly from CBP and taxpayer dollars. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) demonstrated, these taxpayer funds were intermingled with funds from “left-wing non-profits looking to advance their own narratives in the press.” We add that “mega-donors,” be they left-wing, right-wing, or libertarian, have every right under the First Amendment to subsidize any speech they wish. The problem arises when American taxpayers are compelled to enrich those subsidies. Mingling the funds of private donors with the funds of the federal government is not a healthy elixir.
 
Unlike many, we take no joy in this moment. We hope that smart NPR content like Radiolab and news service to rural and underserved communities will continue. But we also see government-subsidized speech as inherently problematic. A government forbidden by the First Amendment from abridging the freedom of the press should also be forbidden from subsidizing the news – because official sponsorship of the news is the flip side of censorship.

​In a move that is drawing widespread condemnation and ignited a press freedom firestorm, Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle President Trump’s lawsuit over CBS’s editing of a “60 Minutes” segment. The settlement, which includes legal fees and a donation to Trump’s future presidential library, appears less like a legal resolution and more like a political payoff designed to grease the wheels of a corporate merger.
 
Seth Stern of The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), slammed the settlement as “a thinly veiled effort to launder bribes through the court system.” FPF is preparing a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Paramount’s leadership for what it sees as a betrayal of journalistic integrity and a violation of fiduciary duty.
 
Let's be clear: This lawsuit, based on a Texas statute “outlawing false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices” in business is beyond a legal stretch. CBS aired edited clips from an interview with Vice President Harris – standard practice in broadcast journalism – with no evidence of factual inaccuracies.
 
The lawsuit claims that CBS hid the former vice president’s propensity for answering questions with nonsensical “word salad” answers – a breathtaking assertion of legal control over editorial decisions that are clearly subjective. If this standard were widely adopted, all manner of news and editorial content would become subject to adjudication.
 
The settlement only makes sense when you look at the bigger picture. Shari Redstone, who chairs Paramount, stands to gain if the company’s merger with Skydance Media goes through. Trump’s lawsuit, and his Federal Communication Commissioner’s opening of a “news distortion complaint” of CBS, created the leverage. Paying $16 million to settle this lawsuit starts to look less like a legal decision and more like a calculated move to secure the deal.
 
Seth Stern’s warning is especially apt: “Corporations that own news outlets should not be in the business of settling baseless lawsuits that clearly violate the First Amendment.” As Stern notes, this doesn’t just damage CBS’s credibility, it makes every newsroom in America more vulnerable to future intimidation.
 
To be sure, CBS has its journalistic flaws. Since the days of Dan Rather, some of CBS’s reporting has been comically biased against Republicans. But editorial bias is not, and must never be, a matter for governmental scrutiny or political reprisal. The First Amendment is not a quality control mechanism for press content. It is an absolute – “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of the press. It is a firewall between the state and the newsroom.
 
Conservatives should be especially wary of this precedent. If a sitting president can sue a media company over edits backed by the implied threat of merger obstruction, what stops officials in the next administration from doing the same to Fox News? Or your favorite influencer who gets under their skin?
 
This case should alarm anyone who values an independent press, even if they disagree with the views generated by such independence. When an administration uses the threat of regulatory power to extract money and editorial concessions from a news organization, it’s not just CBS on trial. If this strategy proves successful, every newsroom becomes a target, and every critical story a liability. And that’s flatly incompatible with the First Amendment.

​Jeff Davis County in Texas is almost the size of Delaware. Home to the Davis Mountains, it is a place of stark beauty and small towns.
 
Covering this vast region is The Big Bend Times, “news for the Trans-Pecos,” a website with strong social media reach, amassing 285,000 followers on Facebook. It carries news about local jobs, business openings and closings, economic development, and local feature stories. It currently features a poignant and frightening account from a county politician about how he and his family barely escaped the recent floods in Central Texas.
 
With content like this, it is easy to see why regional public radio and other news outlets often turn to The Big Bend Times and its independent publisher, David Flash, for stories and leads. The Big Bend Times helps many far-flung communities keep up with developments in this vast region, including the public meetings of local officials.
 
Carlos Nogueras Ramos in the Texas Tribune reports on an incident at one such meeting held by Jeff Davis County commissioners on June 27. Flash set up a camera and then moved around the room, taking photos of the commissioners meeting from various angles. He had previously been banned from coming within 300 feet of county officials, employees, and buildings over “claims of harassment and terroristic threats.” Flash denies that he harassed or threatened anyone, unless you count news coverage of public figures as such.
 
In this incident, the sheriff warned Flash that his movements were distracting the commissioners. Ramos reports that after Flash tried to take a photo of a deputy sheriff, she handcuffed and forcibly removed him. Flash was later hit with a charge of “disorderly conduct.”
 
In many ways, Flash’s case is reminiscent of that of another Texas citizen-journalist, Priscilla Villarreal of Laredo, who was arrested for “misuse of official information”’ – reporting police information about a fatal traffic accident. While undergoing the booking process, Villareal reported that she was subjected to jeers and ridicule by the police, many of whom did not consider this citizen-journalist with a Facebook news site to be a “real” journalist.
Officials question whether Flash should also be treated as a journalist. Although he has a journalism degree, Flash’s LinkedIn page shows him serving as the sales and marketing director for a steam cleaning company. But his status as the publisher of a news site should render that question moot.
 
More important than his status as a journalist, however, is Flash’s status as a citizen, freely exercising his rights under the First Amendment. Texas law, like those of most states, allows any citizen to record any open meeting.
 
To be fair, there are signs in Ramos’ account that Flash may have distracted the hearing with his pacing around. Public commissions in Texas do have the right to impose reasonable rules of decorum in hearings. But his treatment was surely an overreaction.
 
So what might one conclude from this case?
 
First, local officials in Texas (and elsewhere) need to do a better job of acquainting themselves with the First Amendment. There is no reason for officeholders to get flustered, panicked, and angry when they are confronted by a journalist. Second, Flash’s management of a news site should dispel any questions about his status as a journalist protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press. Third, there is perhaps too much focus on the “journalist” part of “citizen-journalist.”
 
You have the right to ask your public officials questions, and to memorialize their public meetings with a camera, whether you consider yourself a member of the press or not.
 
Perhaps the most important part of the moniker “citizen-journalist” is “citizen.”

​Georgia Dillane did not attend the pro-Palestinian sit-in at Barnard College in March. She wasn’t out in the crowd; she was in the school’s WKCR radio studio anchoring a broadcast. Yet weeks later, she found herself accused by Barnard of “disorderly conduct, disruptive behavior, failure to comply, unauthorized entry, threatening behavior, and theft, vandalism or damage to property.” All for doing her job as a journalist.
 
Her colleague, Celeste Gamble, was at the scene, but only as a credentialed student reporter. She left when told by police to evacuate. There is no reason to believe she was anything but professional in her role as an objective observer. Yet, like Dillane, Gamble received emails from Barnard’s CARES (Community Accountability, Response, and Emergency Services) office demanding she meet without legal counsel to “refute any suggestion” of wrongdoing. Neither student had been disruptive. Neither had committed any known infraction. Yet they were treated as suspects.
 
Dillane’s offense appears to be little more than journalism. Her real “crime” was that a man later arrested by immigration authorities could be heard in her audio report. That connection, however tenuous, was enough to get her flagged as a potential wrongdoer just weeks before graduation, which had temporarily been put in jeopardy.
 
This is not an isolated incident. As we’ve noted in our coverage of Tufts Ph.D. student Rumeysa Orturk, moral panic over campus protests is now being weaponized against students with the flimsiest of links to the turmoil. Orturk, too, was no ringleader – just a signatory to a student op-ed, sober and serious, that was critical of Israel. Orturk was arrested and nearly deported before a judge intervened.
 
The recent spike in antisemitism on college campuses is real, troubling, and must be countered and kept from happening again. Hate speech and threats of violence must always be taken seriously by college administrations. But the solution cannot be to launch witch hunts against students who write, report, or question. Colleges and universities are where the principle of free inquiry – so foundational to our democracy – is meant to be practiced.
 
If journalism is rebranded as “disruption,” and if signing an op-ed becomes a pretext for arrest, we risk sliding from law enforcement into the realm of viewpoint persecution. Institutions like Barnard should be defending their students’ right to report and speak freely, not joining in the chorus of overreaction.
 
Even though New York’s shield law provides strong protections for journalists, including an absolute privilege for confidential sources, it doesn’t cover unpaid student reporters. Still, courts in the Second Circuit have found that student journalists can claim a qualified First Amendment privilege if they gather news for public distribution. Undermining their independence betrays both press freedom and the core mission of higher education.
 
In this age of guilt by association, the pursuit of actual wrongdoers can give way to the harassment of innocent people, even those who (unlike the two student journalists) have opinions we detest. We should remember freedom means protecting dissenters we disagree with, and standing up for process even when we’re angry. Otherwise, we lose not only our cool, but our constitutional compass.

​Sarah Palin’s long-running defamation suit against The New York Times came to an end last week, with a federal jury again ruling against her claims. The jury found, after just two hours of deliberation, that The New York Times had not defamed the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate by mistakenly linking her political action committee’s rhetoric to the mass shooting in Arizona in 2011 that killed six people and severely injured then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.
 
Of course, the media landscape today is fragmented and biased in ways that can frustrate fair public discourse. Outlets across the spectrum cater to their audiences’ ideological appetites, much as newspapers did in the early Republic. This partisanship is far from ideal, but the First Amendment still steadfastly protects it – even when bias tilts against conservatives.
 
In Palin’s case, The New York Times made an undeniable error when it published a 2017 editorial implying a link between the Arizona shooting and a map distributed by Palin’s PAC that contained congressional districts with stylized crosshairs. The mentally ill shooter had, in fact, a long-standing grudge against the congresswoman that predated the map. But mistakes, even careless ones, are not the same as “actual malice,” the standard set in New York Times v. Sullivan for public figures like Palin to prevail in libel suits.
 
The Times moved quickly, issuing a public correction less than 14 hours after publication and clarifying that there was no established connection between Palin’s map and the shooting. James Bennet, then-editorial page editor, tearfully apologized to Palin in court, acknowledging the mistake and his efforts to fix it. These actions matter. Corrections are not only an ethical obligation for journalists; they help defray the risk of defamation liability by showing good faith and a commitment to accuracy.
 
If Palin had prevailed in court, that ruling would have made corrections meaningless. Rather than encouraging media outlets to promptly and transparently acknowledge their errors, a Palin victory would have discouraged self-correction and made the political climate far more hostile to the open debate the First Amendment is designed to protect.
 
There is legitimate debate to be had about whether the Sullivan standard needs adjustment. There is clearly room in for more journalistic accountability in cases in which an untruth leads to the loss of an election or the termination of a contract. Courts and commentators alike have argued whether the line between public and private figures has blurred too much, making it unreasonably difficult for individuals to defend their reputations. Some argue that the precedent could use fine-tuning to address egregious falsehoods that are not caught by today’s high bar. But as this case shows, even high-profile plaintiffs can win under the current doctrine when facts warrant it – as Dominion did against Fox News.
 
Conservatives are right to be concerned about media bias. It is real and often glaring. But the answer cannot be to dismantle the constitutional protections that allow ideas – good, bad, and ugly – to compete in the marketplace. As we have written before, the solution lies not in empowering judges and juries to police editorial decisions, but in cultivating a discerning public that reads broadly and thinks critically.
 
The First Amendment guarantees a free press, not a fair one. Palin’s loss, while surely disappointing to her and her supporters, is a victory for that freedom, and for the principle that honest mistakes must not become fatal mistakes for a free and independent press.

​The Department of Justice has rescinded its policy shielding journalists from being compelled to produce records or testify in federal leak investigations. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo that the move is needed for “safeguarding classified, privileged, and other sensitive information.” The memo also reportedly discusses the danger of leaks that “undermine” the president’s agenda.
 
This is a step in the wrong direction. DOJ’s former policy was a laudable and necessary bulwark against government meddling in the collection and dissemination of free information. It is an own-goal for conservatives feeling wronged by lawfare and official censorship. The confidence of sources to expose secret transgressions made it easier for conservative journalists to reveal the IRS campaign to harass conservative non-profits during the Obama administration, for The New York Post’s to stand by its brave and lonely investigation of Hunter Biden’s laptop, for the independent reporting of Catherine Herridge, and for Matt Taibbi’s exposure of the extent of social media censorship.
 
In recent years, we’ve seen federal intrusion into the records of the AP, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and even morning raids to confiscate the phones of activist journalists. For decades, journalists have been held in contempt and jailed for refusing to reveal their confidential news sources.
 
As a result, almost every state in the country has a “press shield” law that protects journalists’ sources and notes, with reasonable exceptions. But the federal government has no such law.
 
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce Brown said in response to the decision: “Some of the most consequential reporting in U.S. history – from Watergate to warrantless wiretapping after 9/11 – was and continues to be made possible because reporters have been able to protect the identities of confidential sources and uncover and report stories that matter to people across the political spectrum. Strong protections for journalists serve the American public by safeguarding the free flow of information.”
 
That’s why there has been strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives for the Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying (PRESS) Act, passing it twice. The PRESS Act would prohibit federal authorities from spying on journalists through collection of their phone and email records while imposing strict limitations on when the government can require a reporter to give up their sources. It reasonably grants exceptions for emergencies.
 
In the Senate, the PRESS Act has strong bipartisan support, including from Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), as well as Democrats Sen. Ron Wyden (R-OR) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). But it has yet to make it out of committee.
 
Congress must act now. Enshrining protections for journalists is a logical policy fix designed to protect newsgathering, which is our primary means of directing the disinfecting rays of sunlight towards government corruption and malfeasance. Doing so would be consistent with the aims of the founders, who took great pains to ensure the First Amendment had a place of primacy in the Bill of Rights. And it would protect against increasing constitutionally illiterate, illegal acts by government officials against reporters. 
 
General Bondi promises that warrants should “limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities.” That is a subjective and potentially politicized assessment. We need a brightline rule. Laws to protect journalists’ notes and sources have worked well across America’s red and blue states. The PRESS Act will work just as well in Washington, D.C.

​Student journalists and their supporters across the United States are celebrating the eighth annual Student Press Freedom Day. This year’s theme, "At the Forefront," emphasizes the resistance of student journalists and the challenges of prior restraint, censorship, and even the threat of arrest they face. How these challenges are met today will shape the future of tomorrow’s journalism, already facing stiff challenges from collapsing business models and social media fragmentation.
 
Student Press Freedom Day, organized by the Student Press Law Center, brings together students, educators, and press freedom advocates to raise awareness about the struggles of student journalists. Participants advocate for legal reforms, such as “New Voices” laws, which safeguard student journalists from administrative censorship.
 
Consider how the University of Northern Iowa handled student journalists, imposing unconstitutional prior restraint by requiring resident assistants to obtain approval before speaking to the media. The student newspaper, The Northern Iowan, exposed this policy, leading to its revocation and earning the publication the First Amendment Award at the Iowa College Media Association Awards.
 
Student Press Freedom Day also shines a light on precedents that threaten student press freedom.
 
The 1988 Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier weakened protections for high school journalists by allowing administrators to censor school-sponsored publications if they could justify doing so for “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Though the ruling was meant to apply to K-12 institutions, its logic was later extended to colleges in Hosty v. Carter in 2005. In that case, the Seventh Circuit Court ruled that a university could exert prior review over a student newspaper if it was not designated a public forum.
 
Courts have also upheld the rights of college journalists. Over the past four decades, more than 60 cases have addressed censorship in public college and university student media, with decisions consistently affirming that the First Amendment prohibits most administrative censorship of student-edited publications.
 
The challenges faced by student journalists are not limited to administrative censorship. In 2024, Stanford University student journalist Dilan Gohill was arrested while covering a protest after following demonstrators into the university president's office. Despite wearing a press pass and acting in his capacity as a reporter, Gohill faced potential disciplinary action and criminal charges. After seven months of uncertainty and advocacy from First Amendment groups, Stanford President Jonathan Levin confirmed there would be no disciplinary action from the university.
 
With changing business models and a polarized society, quality, independent journalism struggles to exist. Whether or not quality journalism can continue will require, at the very least, cultivating young reporters and editors who are free to learn their chosen profession by practicing it without restraint.
 
Protect The 1st is pleased to join student journalists in celebrating Student Press Freedom Day.