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