When Portland Tried to Dictate Favorable News Coverage of Its Protest Crackdowns
After months of facing for how Portland has been policing protests, the city’s mayor and police bureau recently invited select reporters to the bureau’s command center to watch their policing in action. The only catch? Well, there were at least three.
But first, some background: The Portland Police Bureau’s harsh crackdown on a recent wave of anti-Trump and anti-racist protests has been biased and almost certainly unconstitutional, with frequent use of explosives, pepper spray, and tear gas on demonstrators, as well as .
And yet, downtown business owners and far-right groups still complained that the city wasn’t doing enough to stop protests in Portland. In response, Mayor Ted Wheeler proposed an unconstitutional emergency ordinance that would have limited when and where protesters could gather and given the police even more authority to stifle free speech. Fortunately, the Portland City Council rejected it.
Around the same time, the city invited two journalists to observe PPB’s command center for an upcoming protest. But they rightfully turned down the offer for several reasons.
For starters, the city invited only reporters to attend. It never announced standards for selection, but the mayor’s office explained that reporters were chosen based on their “” coverage — in other words, their viewpoints.
This is not the only time in recent months that we’ve seen government actors limiting press access on the basis of non-existent standards or even a reporter’s viewpoint.
In November, after months of Trump regularly referring to CNN as “fake news,” the White House attempted to revoke CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press access. The White House briefly claimed that the revocation was in response to Acosta “placing his hands” on a White House intern. But after CNN said in a statement that the White House had lied about what happened, and reported that the video the White House shared of the event was doctored, the White House instead explained that it revoked Acosta’s press pass because he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn’t immediately return the mic.
Part of a reporter’s job is to ask tough questions, and the law on limiting access based on the viewpoint of any such questions is clear: Once the government makes a space available as a source of information, it cannot selectively grant or exclude access based on viewpoint. It also cannot restrict access unless its decision is tied to clear and established standards. As a result, a the Trump administration to restore Acosta’s access.
These First Amendment basics equally apply in Portland.
Problem number two with Portland’s plan? After hand-picking the reporters, the city asked even those individuals to sign in order to gain access to the command center that day. The terms would have barred the reporters from sharing much of the information they learned, and they could also have limited the reporters’ ability to gather or retain information gleaned from their experience at command center; they went so far as to require that any written notes the reporters took that day be “generic.”
Finally, the city told reporters that attendance would require them to . Under the terms of the NDA, even direct quotes from an officer would have been considered confidential until the quoted officer explicitly authorized their publication.
It isn’t hard to imagine how this “pre-clearance” requirement could translate into approval only for favorable coverage. It’s also easy to imagine reporters changing the tone of any draft they submitted for approval, or steering clear of certain pieces of information entirely for fear of violating the NDA. And the approval process itself could hold up publication, potentially impacting the timeliness of reporters’ stories.
Not surprisingly, all of the reporters who were invited declined the mayor’s invitation.
Reporters should have first-hand access to law enforcement practices so that they can effectively serve as a conduit to the public, which has the right to know how it’s being governed. But the access offered in this case was more misleading than meaningful. The city’s proposal threatened to create the impression of an informed press and a transparent government, while in fact allowing only curated and pre-cleared articles to reach the public.
Our democracy is strengthened when journalists have true, meaningful access to information, ask tough questions, and inform the public. Thankfully, Portland’s journalists seem to have a better handle on those vital journalistic roles — and a better grasp of the First Amendment — than the city itself.
Sign up for the and get our finest content from the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
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.