Speaking of bipartisan reporter shield legislation that would help preserve a free press as the heat wave continued in Washington today, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) reminded the ACLU membership conference, reporters from around the country and everyone watching C-SPAN that there is actually a chill in the air across our country, a chill that could be diminished if the Senate would pass his bi-partisan compromise reporter shield bill, the Free Flow of Information Act. A similar bill passed the House by an overwhelming vote, securing a veto-proof bill. The ACLU applauded his efforts and, of course, urged him to push even harder for a strong federal shield law.
During the panel entitled, “The War on Terror: An Exchange About Censorship, Surveillance and Guantanamo,” Senator Specter remarked “They call it a chilling effect,” discussing the Bush administration’s tough tactics in dealing with investigative reporters. “I call it a freezing effect.”
Senator Specter stated that his reporter shield bill has already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is “ready for action.” Senator Specter not only told conference participants that there is overwhelming support for the bill; he spoke of how he has worked diligently to address a couple of important sticking points.
The first issue is in regard to defining and balancing when the government should be able to invoke national security interests and throw reporters in jail if they refuse to give up their right to protect their sources, a source's right to be protected and the public's right to know.
The second issue focuses on defining who is a journalist or reporter. Senator Specter believes his compromise bill addresses these issues in a balanced, considered approach, an approach that — while it is not as strong as the ACLU would like or as weak as the administration would like — is a “compromise.”
Senator Specter acknowledged that no one is going to be completely satisfied with any bill that would actually have a shot at passing--that's what the compromise is about, finding common ground and balancing all interests. He also promised to continue to work diligently to get the Senate bill passed this Congress.
His words were underscored by those of two highly respected, award-winning journalists.
Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times reporter Jim Risen said for years he didn’t think a shield law was necessary, but today revealed “I believe that’s changed.” Risen, in noting that NYT reporters have been and in China in recent years, asked, “What are we saying about our society if we’ve joined the ranks of Zimbabwe and China?” Risen also questioned whether the US government is enabling dictators around the world by jailing American reporters, and by example, indicating that is an acceptable practice here.
Former USA Today reporter Toni Locy, who is for refusing to reveal her sources on several post 9/11 stories , offered that she believes journalism, or what is left of it, will be destroyed out of fear of retribution for investigating government programs and keeping the government accountable.
You can help. asking him or her to support the reporters' shield bill.
Senator Specter and the panel of journalists also commented on other topics including rendition and the need for the Supreme Court to review executive privilege. Another informative and inspiring panel.
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.