Drones Are Revolutionizing Journalism, but Congress Could Curb This New Tool
At a time when journalists face unprecedented attacks, Congress is now considering legislation that may make it even harder for them to do their jobs.
Earlier this year, Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) introduced legislation that would grant the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice enormous power to intercept, surveil, seize, and even destroy privately owned drones in a wide array of circumstances without ever once requiring approval from a judge. That alone is reason enough to oppose the bill. However, the bill may also impinge on the First Amendment by allowing the government to prohibit drones from being flown in a wide range of areas, including those where individuals may have a legitimate First Amendment interest.
Since 2015, when drones were first commissioned for press use by the federal government, media organizations have found new and innovative ways of incorporating drones into their reporting. This new style of journalism, or , has enabled media outlets to gather information in often inaccessible locations and obtain groundbreaking reporting. However, under this bill, journalists and others could be prohibited from flying drones where there is a legitimate public interest in gathering information.
would grant the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice — in consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration — the authority to prohibit any drone from accessing areas that they deem to be “covered asset[s] or facilit[ies].” As written, the bill’s definition of what may constitute a “covered asset or facility” is broad and vague — for example, a covered asset or facility could include areas related to “active Federal law enforcement investigations, emergency responses, or security operations” — and could have far-reaching consequences.
For example, during , when media outlets were struggling to find ways to cover impacted areas, outlets were able to . These images provided the public with a more intimate and close-up perspective, helping to promote safety within the impacted areas. However, under this bill, these journalists would likely be precluded from doing the same thing in the future as emergency response areas could be closed to nongovernmental drones.
Additionally, the bill’s definition of “covered asset and facility” is so broad that it could include areas where journalists seek to report on government activities or . For example, in the weeks following the Trump family separation crisis, journalists began touring immigration detention facilities, but they were specifically barred from taking photos or interviewing families. The only images that journalists were able to obtain were pre-sanctioned pictures released by the government.
It wasn’t until journalists began using drones to capture aerial views of the facilities that they were able to provide independent , helping to expose another layer of this cruel policy. However, if this bill were to become law, drones would likely be prohibited from flying in these areas, and journalists would be unable to capture this footage.
To put it in perspective, this bill would allow the Trump administration, which has labeled the press as the “,” to make determinations about where privately owned drones can fly with broad authority and limited oversight. If they were to get this wrong — by, for example, designating a prohibited area that adversely impacts First Amendment activities — the bill does not specify avenues to appeal this decision.
In addition, if a journalist flies a drone in one of these prohibited areas, even in error, and is perceived as a “threat,” the bill would allow the government to surveil or seize the drone without approval from a judge. As a result, sensitive First Amendment materials could end up in the hands of the government and could be used for a wide range of purposes.
To be clear, flying of drones can raise security and privacy concerns, and there may be situations where government action is needed to mitigate these threats. But this bill is the wrong approach. It fails to recognize that there are significant First Amendment implications to allowing the government to designate large swaths of areas where drones cannot fly. And by giving broad discretion to the executive branch to make this determination — with virtually no opportunity to appeal or challenge government action — it invites abuse.
The Senate is currently considering attaching the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018 to the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization. Congress can help protect press freedom by blocking this legislation and all others like it.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.