Our next member meeting is Sunday, April 6th. We start at 8pm and will end once our agenda is complete or 9pm, whichever comes sooner.

To participate:

• go to communitybridge.com/bbb-room/m…;
• enter your name;
• enter the access code listed on the page;
• click the Join button.

Summaries of the meetings and agendas are at our wiki. You can view the 2025, 2024, 2023 and 2022 meeting recordings.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/03/2…

Our colleague from the Pirate Party of Germany in Munich, Alexander Kohler, recently attended the Paris Defence and Strategy Forum (PDSF). The event was held at the École Militaire in Paris from March 11 to 13. The 2025 forum was themed “Europe at the Crossroads”. The event focused on defense alliances, geopolitical challenges, and the evolving global landscape. Mr. Kohler is the leader of the Pirate Security Conference, which takes place in February each year. For over 10 years the PSC has provided a space to discuss how technological advancements redefine security. ​The event takes place alongside the Munich Security Conference, drawing in experts who participate in both events. The insights gained from the PDSF help to engage diverse perspectives on digital rights and security policies.​

If you are interested in learning more about the PDSF, please read here: parisdefenceandstrategyforum.c…

For more information about the PSC, please read here: events.pirate-secon.net/

pp-international.net/2025/03/p…

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

Attacks on press freedom that used to seem outlandish or unlikely in the United States are happening across the country. Here’s the latest.

Targeting student op-ed writers threatens the free press

On Wednesday we published an article about how India’s revocation of American journalist Raphael Satter’s overseas citizenship to punish him for his reporting was a “not-so-farfetched” cautionary tale for the United States. “Once a government claims the power to use residency status as a cudgel to regulate speech, things escalate quickly and unpredictably,” wrote our advocacy director, Seth Stern.

But cautionary tales become realities quickly these days. The same day we published that piece, news broke that the Trump administration had abducted Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University graduate student from Turkey. Masked men grabbed her off the street after an organization called Canary Mission had flagged her “anti-Israel activism,” which apparently consisted solely of cowriting an op-ed that was critical of the Israel-Gaza war. She has reportedly been transferred to a facility in Louisiana, despite a court order against moving her out of Massachusetts. The arrest comes weeks after reports that Columbia University investigated an op-ed writer in response to pressure from the administration.

We said in a statement that “if reports that Ozturk’s arrest was over an op-ed are accurate, it is absolutely appalling. No one would have ever believed, even during President Donald Trump’s first term, that masked federal agents would abduct students from American universities for criticizing U.S. allies in student newspapers. Anyone with any regard whatsoever for the Constitution should recognize how fundamentally at odds this is with our values.” We also joined a letter from the Student Press Law Center and other press freedom and collegiate organizations condemning the abduction and calling upon Tufts and Congress to take action and put themselves on the right side of history.

Max Frankel’s press freedom legacy

Max Frankel, a New York Times reporter and editor who helped push for the publication of the Pentagon Papers, died Sunday at the age of 94. A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Frankel was well known for his decades of reporting. But it’s another piece of writing, not initially published in a newspaper, that holds a special place in First Amendment history.

An affidavit by Frankel filed in New York Times Co. v. United States, better known as the Pentagon Papers case, has become one of the most important public documents laying out the realities of national security reporting and Washington’s unspoken rules around government secrecy and leaks. Read more about Frankel’s legacy from FPF Senior Advocacy Adviser Caitlin Vogus.

NPR and PBS are just low-hanging fruit

At a congressional hearing this week, lawmakers attacked NPR and PBS for perceived bias and questioned whether there is still a need for the government to fund media these days. Trump separately said he wants both outlets defunded.

The stunt would’ve been concerning in normal times, but it’s particularly worrying now. Whether or not you think there’s a legitimate debate to be had about the government funding journalism, it’s clear that public media is just the low-hanging fruit — this administration intends to seize upon any and every legal theory, however far-fetched (or just ignore the law entirely), to punish the free press.

We joined a letter with the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) about the dangers of the administration’s attacks on NPR and PBS. Stern also had more to say on DW’s The Day, which also airs on several PBS stations.

New executive order gives DOGE more control over agency records

A new executive order has the potential to grant the Department of Government Efficiency more control over agency records, and hints that the Trump administration may be considering issuing a new executive order on classification.

Both could spell bad news for the public’s right to know. Read more here from our Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy, Lauren Harper.

Texas anti-SLAPP bill wouldn’t only impact journalists

The nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen understands the importance of laws against frivolous lawsuits targeting speech, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs.

That’s why their litigation group has represented several Texas consumers who have been sued over their speech. For the latest in a series of interviews about the implications of attempts to weaken Texas’ anti-SLAPP laws, Vogus talked to Public Citizen attorney Paul Levy. Read the interview here.

What we’re reading

Israeli strikes kill two Gaza journalists, including Al Jazeera reporter (The Washington Post). Journalists are civilians, and targeting them is absolutely illegal and inexcusable. Everyone involved in these assassinations should be held accountable, including U.S. officials who bankroll war crimes.

Security lessons from a Signal group chat (FPF). Our digital security team explores what journalists can learn from this week’s big story — Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg’s accidental inclusion in a sensitive Signal group chat about bombing apartment buildings and whatnot.

The AP’s freedom of speech — and yours (The Wall Street Journal). “Today the U.S. government wants to control the AP’s speech. Tomorrow it could be someone else’s.” Read why you should care about the White House banning the Associated Press, regardless of your political views.

Leakers to Musk: We’re ‘not Elon’s servants’ (Politico). “The public deserves to know how dysfunctional, destructive, and deceptive all of this has been and continues to be,” a Food and Drug Administration employee told Politico.

Was chaotic JFK declassification marred by National Archives firings? (The Classifieds). Harper questions whether errors in the recent declassification of JFK records, including exposing social security numbers, had something to do with Marco Rubio taking over the National Archives while also serving as Secretary of State.

freedom.press/issues/student-a…

Local newspapers play an indelible role in American journalism, reporting some of the country’s biggest stories from its smallest communities.

So when authorities in Marion, Kansas, and Clarksdale, Mississippi, attacked their local newspapers for coverage with which they disagreed, the outlets themselves became the story. And outrage quickly ignited across the U.S.

In February, a judge granted the City of Clarksdale an order requiring The Clarksdale Press Register to delete an editorial raising questions about transparency within the city’s government. And in 2023, police raided the Marion County Record’s newsroom and its publisher’s home over the paper’s use of a public website to verify a news tip.

In both cases, the officials involved had longstanding grudges with the newspapers over critical coverage long before the attacks made national headlines.

To get a first-hand perspective on the fight against these unconstitutional efforts to quash free speech, we spoke to Clarksdale Press Register Publisher Wyatt Emmerich and Marion County Record Publisher Eric Meyer in an online webinar on March 26, 2025.

Meyer said the similarities between his and Emmerich’s experiences are “just overwhelming.” One of those similarities was the backlash that followed.

“When they were raiding our office, I said, ‘This is going to be on the front page of The New York Times,’ and they laughed at me,” Meyer said. “It was on the front page of The New York Times.”

The police raid of the Marion County Record and the takedown order issued to The Clarksdale Press Register both stem from prior butting of heads with their local governments. In Meyer’s case, the paper had a “contentious” relationship with the town because “we had the audacity to actually report news and reported in a way that was not positive and uplifting to the city.”

Similarly, Emmerich said Clarkdale’s mayor took issue with their editorials “because he didn’t like our coverage,” and even organized a boycott against the paper. “The mayor offered me $30,000 to fire the editor,” Emmerich said. “We were the fly in the ointment, and he wanted to get rid of us as best he could.”

“He’s a younger mayor and just doesn’t understand the role of a traditional newspaper,” Emmerich continued. “He assumed that because he was mayor, the newspaper’s job was to do what he told us to do, and we didn’t do that.”

But even as tensions boiled over and the local governments in Marion and Clarksdale tried to throw sand in the gears of accountability, Emmerich and Meyer kept their papers’ presses rolling.

“It was two all-nighters to put out the paper because we lost everything,” Meyer said. “They took our backup drives. We didn’t even have our name plates.”

Emmerich said stunting a local paper like his, either in court through publishing gags or through other means, could decimate the community’s access to reliable information. Similarly, Meyer said he sees his paper as a challenger to assumption and an excavator of truth — not a placater to the public or the local government.

“We need to understand that there is a role for journalism in society, and that role is not necessarily being the cheerleader for the town,” he said. “We are here to present the views that aren't heard, to explore the facts that aren't explored.”

It’s been over a year since the police chief who led the raid on the Marion County Record resigned, but the fallout hasn’t ceased. Meyer said he is “keeping the lawyers busy” by suing the county, the city, the former police chief, and other individuals involved in the raid.

“We got so many subscriptions out of this. We’re the 121st largest town in Kansas, the 57th largest county. A year after the raid, we had the eighth largest paid circulation in the state.”

Eric Meyer, Marion County Record publisher

Meyer also plans on filing wrongful death suits. His 98-year-old mother, Joan Meyer, died a day after police executed a search warrant at the home they shared. Her death, he believes, was caused by the stress of the raid.

By standing up to intimidation that flew in the face of the journalism their papers produced, Emmerich and Meyer both experienced an outpouring of support thanks to the nationwide attention their cases received.

“We got so many subscriptions out of this. We’re the 121st largest town in Kansas, the 57th largest county,” Meyer said. “A year after the raid, we had the eighth largest paid circulation in the state.” Marion is a town of less than 2,000 residents.

Keeping a small town newspaper’s finances in check is essential, especially at a time when one-third of U.S. newspapers have shuttered since 2005. But Meyer and Emmerich agree that success isn’t just measured in dollar signs or subscriber rates. Their papers must hold power to account in order to fulfill their mandates.

“Because there's so little good local journalism, the good local journalism that is there tends to be very powerful and gets results,” Emmerich said. “And unfortunately, one of those results is pushback from the city council in the form of intimidation tactics and such.”

Despite being lifted, the publishing gag against The Clarksdale Press Register “did hurt us,” Emmerich said, but “we weathered that storm.” The paper is still vulnerable, however, because Mississippi is one of several states that lacks an anti-SLAPP law protecting journalists from legal actions known as strategic lawsuits against public participation that are brought in order to chill speech.

Still, both Emmerich and Meyer believe the risks they are taking to report the truth and hold officials accountable outweigh the consequences of playing it safe. After all, a public that is disengaged from its reality “sure as hell hurts democracy,” Meyer said. And in a country that routinely distrusts and villainizes local news, these attacks did not occur in a vacuum; if they can happen in Clarksdale or Marion, they can happen anywhere.

“People don’t think they can change things. I've written the same editorial probably 50 out of the 52 weeks in the year, just with different ways of expressing it,” Meyer said. “If you don't believe that you can make a difference in something, all you listen to are slogans. If you believe you can make a difference, you'll look at facts.”

youtube.com/embed/Hp0n_oVXqUc?…

freedom.press/issues/local-new…

Chicago journalist Jim DeRogatis is no criminal, but in 2008 he invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying at music superstar R. Kelly’s trial. It’s a strategy that more journalists unfortunately may need to consider.

Years earlier, someone sent an unmarked VHS tape depicting Kelly abusing a young girl to DeRogatis. His reporting led to Kelly’s indictment and trial. (The musician was acquitted but is currently in prison for related convictions over a decade later.)

Subpoenaed to testify, DeRogatis, then with the Chicago Sun-Times, invoked Illinois’ reporter’s privilege law. Judge Vincent Gaughan ordered him to take the stand anyway.

But his lawyers (I was a clerk at the firm representing him) realized DeRogatis had potentially, albeit involuntarily, possessed a video containing child sexual abuse material, or CSAM. That is, of course, illegal. Gaughan had no choice but to acknowledge that the prospect that DeRogatis could be prosecuted, however remote, entitled him to invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

At the time, DeRogatis’ strategy might’ve been a stretch in non-CSAM cases. Newsgathering is generally safeguarded by the First Amendment. Most journalists need not worry about prosecution.

But things have changed, even if the constitution hasn’t. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of some ways officials around the country have tried to criminalize routine newsgathering in recent years.

• Prosecutors in Kansas claimed that using a government website violated state computer crime and identity theft laws.
• Prosecutors in Alabama charged journalists for reporting on a grand jury proceeding.
• A city attorney in San Francisco, California, accused a journalist of breaking the law by reporting on a tech executive’s sealed arrest report.
• A state senator in Arizona got a restraining order against a journalist who knocked on her door.
• A Tampa, Florida, fire chief called police on a journalist for asking for public records.
• A Chicago suburb ticketed a reporter for calling government officials too often.
• A Texas citizen journalist was arrested for asking police officers questions.
• Another Texas citizen journalist was arrested for filming police in public.
• The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department pushed for prosecuting a journalist who reported on a leaked list of problem deputies.
• Missouri’s governor sought to prosecute a journalist who alerted the state of a security vulnerability on its website.
• A California city sued a blog under computer crime laws for accessing a publicly available Dropbox.
• An Ohio journalist was charged for publishing a source’s recording of a court proceeding.
• Two North Carolina journalists were arrested for reporting on police operations after a park curfew.
• The federal government argued that publishers could be charged with possessing and transporting stolen property for acquiring documents a source stole.
• The Biden administration extracted a guilty plea from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for obtaining and publishing government documents from a source.
• It also prosecuted journalist Tim Burke under computer fraud and wiretapping laws for downloading publicly available materials on the internet. The case remains pending.
• The current interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, has suggested he believes naming federal employees or impeding government work to be illegal.
• President Donald Trump said in a nationally televised address that he thinks reporting he views as biased against him is against the law.
• Masked federal agents abducted a graduate student from Tufts University in Massachusetts, and the government revoked her student visa. Her friends think it’s because she cowrote a pro-Palestine op-ed.

If officials keep telling us they see journalism as criminal, journalists should believe them and exercise their rights accordingly. It’ll understandably leave a bad taste in journalists’ mouths to plead the Fifth, but doing so isn’t an admission that you’re guilty — only that the government might think so.

If nothing else, it’ll make quite a statement about the state of press freedom for journalists to have to plead the Fifth like criminals. And in light of the cases listed above, there are hardly any circumstances under which a journalist asked to testify about sources or newsgathering methods doesn’t have a legitimate concern about self-incrimination.

Published documents from the internet against someone’s wishes? Met a confidential source in the park after dark? Obtained names of government workers? Possessed and transported source documents? Your fear of being prosecuted may be every bit as legitimate as DeRogatis’, and arguably more so, since you can point to examples, not just hypotheticals.

If officials keep telling us they see journalism as criminal, journalists should believe them and exercise their rights accordingly.

This approach isn’t foolproof, particularly when journalists are subpoenaed by the government. Prosecutors can offer journalists immunity, mooting self-incrimination concerns. That’s what the Obama administration did when it wanted then-New York Times journalist James Risen to testify.

But prosecutors don’t always offer immunity, which may require approval from higher-ups and create administrative headaches. And in Trump’s made-for-TV administration, the optics of granting immunity to “enemies of the people” may be so unappealing that they’d rather forgo the testimony.

Plus, many subpoenas to journalists aren’t issued by the government. Some are issued by defense lawyers, others by private litigants in civil lawsuits. The government is unlikely to offer immunity under these circumstances. And agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known to issue its own administrative subpoenas to journalists, don’t have the authority to grant immunity on their own.

Even before the recent wave of anti-press criminal theories, journalists like the Detroit Free Press’ David Ashenfelter were able to successfully plead the Fifth in non-CSAM cases. He was subpoenaed in a federal Privacy Act lawsuit over his reporting on a terrorism investigation. After the court declined to apply the reporter’s privilege, he invoked his right against self-incrimination because he could, conceivably, be prosecuted for receiving confidential Justice Department materials.

And almost 20 years ago, Peter Scheer wrote that journalists should consider the Fifth in light of then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ comments in an ABC News interview that journalists could be prosecuted for publishing government secrets.

That prospect is far more realistic now, after the Assange plea deal. We’re no longer talking about TV interviews, but an actual conviction.

I’m not your attorney. I’m not telling you what to do or how. Every case is different. But if you’re subpoenaed and a judge rejects the reporter’s privilege, consider asking your lawyer if the Fifth is an option.

It’s a shame that journalists need to even think about this kind of thing, but protecting sources is paramount, now more than ever.

freedom.press/issues/if-the-fi…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Earlier today, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) published an opinion piece about how India’s revocation of an American journalist’s overseas citizenship to punish him for his reporting was a “not-so-farfetched” cautionary tale for the United States. Turns out that was an understatement.

The Trump administration has detained Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University graduate student from Turkey. She was previously identified by a pro-Israel group called Canary Mission as having engaged in “anti-Israel activism.” The sole “offense” that Canary Mission flagged was an op-ed Ozturk cowrote criticizing Israel’s war in Gaza.

The following statement can be attributed to Seth Stern, director of advocacy of Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF):

“If reports that Ozturk’s arrest was over an op-ed are accurate, it is absolutely appalling. No one would have ever believed, even during President Donald Trump’s first term, that masked federal agents would abduct students from American universities for criticizing U.S. allies in student newspapers. Anyone with any regard whatsoever for the Constitution should recognize how fundamentally at odds this is with our values and should be deeply repulsed as an American, regardless of political leanings. Canary Mission is aptly named — it may serve as the canary in the coal mine for the First Amendment.”

Video of the arrest is available here.

The news from Tufts follows recent reports of Columbia University investigating an op-ed writer in response to pressure from the Trump administration, and journalism professors being forced to warn non-citizen students against criticizing Israel in articles or social media posts.

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/fpf-state…

A mucha gente le cuesta entender por qué las criptomonedas tienen valor. Piensan que si no están respaldadas por un gobierno o por algo tangible, no pueden tener valor.

Las criptomonedas tienen valor porque los usuarios tienen confianza en estas. Ocurre algo parecido con el dinero fiduciario y el oro. Si nadie creyera que tienen valor, no valdrían nada. Pero ¿por qué hay gente tiene fe en Bitcoin y otras criptomonedas? Además de tener una red que ha estado funcionando sin mayores complicaciones desde 2009, Bitcoin tiene algo que lo diferencia del dinero fiduciario: es escaso. Nunca habrá más de 21 millones de bitcoines.

Por el contrario, los bancos centrales imprimen el dinero que quieren para dirigir la economía desde arriba. Como hay cada vez más dinero, este vale cada vez menos.

Es por ello que, medido en euros o dólares, Bitcoin cada vez es más valioso. Esta escasez digital fue creada en el protocolo de Bitcoin para mantener el valor de la moneda. Si bien es posible crear otra cadena de bloques similar a Bitcoin (al ser este un programa libre) y así crear más monedas, no todo el mundo adoptaría la moneda clon, pues el valor está principalmente en la comunidad de usuarios y en la confianza adquirida con los años. Existen multitud de monedas diferentes que tratan de competir con Bitcoin, pero solo tienen valor porque aportan alguna funcionalidad diferente y cuentan con una comunidad que las respalda.

¿Cómo puede ser algo digital escaso?

A diferencia de otros bienes digitales que pueden ser copiados y pegados sin límite, las criptomonedas funcionan de forma descentralizada con un mecanismo de consenso que garantiza su seguridad y escasez. Este mecanismo de consenso varía según la criptomoneda. El primer mecanismo de consenso utilizado se basa en un proceso conocido como prueba de trabajo, en el cual ordenadores llamados mineros compiten para resolver problemas matemáticos y así validar transacciones.

Como los mineros reciben recompensas económicas por minar, hay una gran red de ordenadores que mantienen la red descentralizada y funcionando las 24 horas, todos los días de la semana. La prueba de trabajo hace que sea casi imposible revertir o modificar una transacción una vez que esta es parte de la cadena de bloque. Como la red es validada por una gran cantidad de actores que reciben recompensas por su contribución y que tienen, por tanto, interés en el correcto funcionamiento de la red, no es económicamente viable acumular más del 50 % de la red para alterar la cadena de bloques maliciosamente.

Cada vez se emite menos

Tasa de inflación de Bitcoin desde sus inicios hasta el año 2040
Cada cuatro años, Bitcoin reduce las recompensas que reciben los mineros a la mitad, por lo que cada vez se emiten menos monedas. Los mineros siguen recibiendo recompensas porque hay comisiones que reciben por validar transacciones. En el año 2140 la inflación de Bitcoin será del 0 %, es decir, no se emitirán nuevas monedas. Actualmente la inflación de Bitcoin es menor que la del oro, haciendo que sea uno de los activos más codiciados y que más aumenta de valor.

Ninguna entidad central puede controlar o confiscar tus bitcoines

Otro atractivo que hace que tenga valor Bitcoin es que no puede ser confiscado por banqueros ni por nadie. Tampoco se pueden revertir pagos, como ocurre en el sistema bancario tradicional. Si mantienes segura la clave privada, nadie podrá quitarte tu riqueza.

Permite comerciar internacionalmente

Gracias a la tecnología de cadena de bloque es posible comerciar con cualquier persona del mundo que tenga acceso a Internet. Las criptomonedas han ganado reconocimiento y usuarios a lo largo del planeta, con lo cual aumenta su valor.

Conclusión

Mientras que siga existiendo Internet y personas que valoren y crean en esta tecnología, Bitcoin y otras criptomonedas similares seguirán aumentando de valor a largo plazo, pues son deflacionarias. Las personas que atesoren dinero fiduciario, por el contrario, perderán poder adquisitivo con el tiempo si los bancos centrales siguen emitiendo más dinero.

freakspot.net/por-que-las-crip…

Free speech advocates are rightly outraged by the Trump administration’s arrest — no, abduction — of Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil. But it’s shortsighted to view the threat as limited to college students, immigrants, or pro-Palestine activists.

Yes, it’s fair to say that the people most similarly situated to Khalil are the ones at the highest immediate risk. But authoritarianism is a slippery slope. President Donald Trump fantasized on social media last week about throwing people who protest Tesla into Salvadorian prisons, without regard for their citizenship status.

Raphael Satter, an American journalist who covers cybersecurity for Reuters, likely has a clearer view than most about where this could all be headed. Until his reporting led to its revocation, Satter also held overseas citizen of India status — a special multipurpose visa designation for certain people of Indian origin or those married to an Indian national.

In 2023, Satter reported on Indian tech executive Rajat Khare and his company Appin’s alleged hack-for-hire business. The revelations in Satter’s reporting prompted a global censorship campaign driven by Khare and his lawyers and facilitated by Indian courts. Through lawsuits and legal threats, they managed to have Satter’s article and other reports about Khare largely removed from the internet.

Reuters recently reposted Satter’s article after a judge lifted an order to delete it. But that wasn’t the end of the story. On the same day that censorship order was first issued, India revoked Satter’s overseas citizenship, stating in a letter that the revocation was the result of Satter “practicing journalism without proper permission,” which had been “maliciously creating adverse and biased opinion against Indian institutions in the international arena.”

Satter recently filed his own lawsuit to restore his status. He told The Guardian that the revocation of his OCI had “effectively cut me off from members of my family and a country I hold in great affection and respect.”

One thing that’s remarkable about Satter’s case is that his article didn’t criticize (or even mention) Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his administration. Nor did it contradict the administration’s position on a major international issue, in contrast with Khalil’s disagreement with the Trump administration’s vision of obliterating Gaza to build resorts.

Once a government claims the power to use residency status as a cudgel to regulate speech, things escalate quickly and unpredictably.

Instead, it was critical of a corporation and business executive — one who, as far as we know, doesn’t even have close ties to the Modi administration. Most of the events Satter reported on occurred over a decade ago, before Modi came to power in 2014. Khare apparently lives in Switzerland these days.

But a journalist suggesting the mere existence of corporate crime in India was enough for the government to retaliate against him for making it look bad. It goes to show that once a government claims the power to use residency status as a cudgel to regulate speech, things escalate quickly and unpredictably.

Sure, India under Modi is, in many ways, further along on the path toward authoritarianism than the United States. The Modi administration censors its critics in ways that Trump perhaps can’t — at least not yet.

But it would be naive to think we’re that far behind. Case in point: in response to financial pressure from Trump, Columbia is reportedly (and inexcusably) investigating an op-ed writer who criticized Israel. As Chip Gibbons recently detailed in Jacobin, Khalil’s case is just the latest chapter in a long history of abuse of immigration laws to stifle dissent.

And Columbia’s journalism school is already telling non-American student journalists that they’re at risk of deportation for reporting on the Israel-Gaza war or related protests. Professors have been unfairly criticized for acknowledging this reality, but Satter’s case shows how right they are.

The administration publicly justifies its actions against Khalil by citing alleged support for terrorism, but tellingly, the authority the administration is actually using to deport him is not derived from anti-terrorism laws — which there is no evidence he violated.

Instead, it’s citing an amorphous immigration provision that Trump can invoke (unless the courts or Congress stop him) whenever he concocts “foreign policy” concerns. To Trump, that means disagreeing with him on foreign policy, as journalists are prone to do.

Journalists from around the world report from perspectives that American journalists can’t, and reach communities that American journalists don’t. To state the obvious, the ability to live here allows them to do a better job of that.

And in some cases, their work here could guarantee them a prison sentence, or worse, if they’re deported — that’s the situation Voice of America reporters from Russia and other antidemocratic regimes may find themselves in if Trump’s efforts to dismantle the agency are allowed to stand.

In the past, Americans could shake their heads when they read stories like Satter’s and assure themselves that, whatever problems we may have, that kind of thing won’t happen here. No more.

Satter’s case is a not-so-farfetched cautionary tale — if a few years down the line we’re expelling journalists who offend Trump or his oligarchs, we can’t say we weren’t warned.

freedom.press/issues/if-trump-…

This is the third in our series of Q&As with people who have firsthand experience with the Texas Citizens Participation Act. Read the first Q&A with Carol Hemphill here and the second Q&A with Charles Ornstein here.

The nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen understands that strong laws against frivolous lawsuits targeting free speech, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, are when it comes to supporting people’s right to alert others about problematic business practices.

That’s why the Public Citizen Litigation Group has represented several Texas consumers sued over their speech. The state’s anti-SLAPP law, the Texas Citizens Participation Act, has been critical to those defenses.

For instance, the group successfully used the TCPA to defend Robert and Michelle Duchouquette, who were sued by the Dallas pet-sitting company Prestigious Pets for $1 million after posting a negative review of the company’s services on Yelp. Prestigious Pets had tried to silence the Duchouquettes using a nondisparagement clause inserted into the fine-print of the pet-sitting contract.

In another case, the group used the TCPA to ward off a legal claim against Michelle Lanum, a woman who was sued for criticizing a medical study she participated in on social media. The plaintiff dropped the case after Lanum’s lawyers informed her it would defend Lanum using the TCPA — which provides for the mandatory award of attorneys fees to SLAPP victims who win their case in court.

Now, however, the Texas legislature is changing the TCPA to make it more expensive for SLAPP victims to defend themselves and more difficult to recover their attorneys fees. We spoke to Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney Paul Levy about why the TCPA matters to consumers and what impact these changes could have on free speech. The interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

You’ve defended several people sued in SLAPPs in Texas using the Texas Citizens Participation Act. Can you explain how the law helps protect freedom of speech?

It does a few things. First of all, it provides an easy way out from non-meritorious claims, by putting the burden on somebody who has brought a claim to show that they have not only allegations but evidence to support their allegations, and giving the defendant an opportunity to show that it has valid defenses to claims that would make them untenable.

It also not only saves the courts from having to spend their time on frivolous matters, but much of the damage that frivolous or weak claims impose on free speech is the intimidating effect of making people spend their time and their good money on litigation, distracting them from what else is going on in their lives.

This is particularly problematic for people whose speech doesn't bring them any money, but who have just spoken out on a matter of public concern or public interest. If they have to spend a lot of money to defend what they've said, they've already lost in many ways. And the prospect of having to make these defenses shuts people up and deprives the public of the benefit of their speech.

And the final thing that these anti-SLAPP laws do is provide some financial recompense to the people who've had to defend their speech, and it encourages lawyers to take up these cases — just as, for example, the consumer laws provide a guaranteed source of an attorney fee award if lawyers are willing to bring consumer protection cases or wage and hour cases or discrimination cases.

In the same way, the anti-SLAPP laws in Texas and California — and the other jurisdictions that have good anti-SLAPP laws — have encouraged the creation of a bar that's ready to defend free speech. And that's a really important function.

Could you talk about the common types of SLAPP victims in your experience? Who is the type of person who gets SLAPPed and why?

It's somebody, for example, who's posted a comment on a review site about an experience they've had with a local merchant. The Prestigious Pets case is a perfect example of that. These are people who had a bad experience with a pet-sitting firm and got sued for a substantial amount of money for having dared to express negative comments — and really fairly mild negative comments — about this pet-sitting organization. They defeated the case and they were able to get their lawyers paid because they were able to use the anti-SLAPP law.

Another example is when people speak out about political figures. Political figures often have good access to lawyers, and they can bring these cases without much of a sweat because lawyers may owe them a lot and want to bring the cases, but when constituents speak out about public figures, they need assurance that they'll be able to defend themselves when they're sued.

I want to talk about some of the changes that are being proposed to the TCPA right now. The law currently provides for a pause on trial court proceedings when a motion to dismiss a lawsuit under the TCPA is denied and goes up on appeal. But there's a new bill that would remove that automatic stay of proceedings during certain appeals. What do you think the impact of that change would be?

That change would make the TCPA much less effective in achieving its purposes.

Much of the burden of weak or frivolous litigation over speech on a matter of public concern is the mere expense and time that a defendant has to spend dealing with a case. If the real facts in the case are such that the case would not likely succeed anyway, what the stay does is save the defendant from that expense, at least in the circumstances where they've got a valid argument that the case ought to be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP law.

Much of the burden of weak or frivolous litigation over speech on a matter of public concern is the mere expense and time that a defendant has to spend dealing with a case.

Paul Levy

There are disincentives for filing frivolous motions to dismiss under anti-SLAPP laws, in that there can be an award of attorney fees for filing one. TCPA has such a rule and most anti-SLAPP laws do.

Another new bill would change the TCPA to make the award of attorneys fees to a SLAPP victim who wins discretionary. There have been two common criticisms of that proposal: One is that the mandatory fees discourage SLAPPs from being filed in the first place and discretionary fees wouldn't. The second is that the mandatory fees makes it easier for SLAPP victims to find a lawyer to defend them. Do you agree with either criticism?

Yeah, I think both. A lawyer in private practice has to figure out, “How am I going to make money from defending this case?” Much litigation on behalf of middle class people and working people is financed because the lawyer knows that if in the lawyer's evaluation of the case, it can produce a pot of money as damages, the lawyer can get a contingent fee out of the damages.

But for defendants, that possibility is not available. What you're trying to do as a defendant is avoid an award of damages and not obtain an award of damages. And so what the mandatory attorney fee provision does is create an incentive for lawyers to take cases for people who otherwise couldn't afford to defend themselves.

What the mandatory attorney fee provision does is create an incentive for lawyers to take cases for people who otherwise couldn't afford to defend themselves.

Paul Levy

Deterrence doesn't work if the plaintiff is Elon Musk, doesn’t work if the plaintiff is George Soros. It's a nonpartisan thing. People for whom money is really no object aren't deterred by anti-SLAPP laws.

But most anti-SLAPP plaintiffs are small or middle-size businesses or folks who are wealthy enough to afford a lawyer charging by the hour or able to get lawyers because their influence makes them attractive clients, but for whom an award of $20,000 or $30,000 in attorney fees against them would be a major hit. So if there's an anti-SLAPP law that's effective and has a mandatory award of attorney fees, they have to take that into consideration in deciding whether to bring the case.

And I have no doubt, for example, that in the case involving Michelle Lanum, the threat that we sent to the plaintiff's lawyer that we would file an anti-SLAPP motion if he didn't quickly dismiss the case had a significant impact on his decision to dismiss the case and therefore save Lanum from having to defend herself in litigation over her criticism of a device that, to me, looked to be a prime example of medical quackery.

I've seen that work time and time again. It basically forces the plaintiff's lawyer into the position of having to explain to his client what the costs of a loss would be. That it's not only that you'll be out whatever fees you paid me but you might have to pay fees to the other side in addition.

What does it mean for freedom of speech if the Texas legislature makes it easier for regular people to be sued for exercising their freedom of speech, for example by posting a negative review of a business or speaking out against wrongdoing or falsehoods?

I believe in the marketplace of ideas. I think generally speaking, lots of nonsense gets spouted these days and it's often hard to sort the nonsense from the stuff that's worth seeing. But it's my view that more speech is better and that the best way to counter speech that you don't like is to speak out against it and explain your point of view instead of suing to stop it.

The public generally benefits from getting more facts on which they can make judgments about what businesses they ought to patronize, what goods they ought to purchase, what political figures they ought to support or what parties they ought to support, what sports they ought to play, and other topics of public concern.

The public benefits from getting more information and litigation that suppresses speech in an unwarranted fashion therefore hurts the public and it also hurts business. When one business sues to prevent valid criticism of its business activities, of its services, it actually gets an unfair benefit in its competition with other businesses that are operating on the up and up and selling useful goods and providing good services.

So in all these ways, litigation against speech is harmful to the public.

freedom.press/issues/texas-ant…

Ahead of the German national elections last February, Musk declared, on X (ex-Twitter) :

• “If you are unhappy with the situation, you must vote for change, and that is why I’m really strongly recommending that people vote for AfD” in support of AfD.

• “Only the AfD can save Germany,” to reiterate his support while re-posting a video from far-right political activist Naomi Seibt.

A German court ruled that the platform must immediately provide researchers with access to data on politically related content. One of the first major judicial tests of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and specifically its Article 40 on data access and scrutiny.

Varying researches showed that the algorithmic recommender system on X favours AfD content massively and disproportionally (see for example here). This suggests that Musk instructed his staff to align the platform to his personal political believes and to directly interfere in the German elections on 23. February.

Furthermore, there is evidence of Russian interference and misinformation having been spread and amplified by AfD supporters ahead of the German national elections (see here).

The take-away is that social media platforms, with obscure algorithms and no active content moderation are a fertile territory for manipulation.

As pirates, we advocate and call for the effective enforcement of the Digital Services Act, to prevent electoral manipulation in a member state, including through the application of fines. Furthermore, we underline the critical importance of transparency in algorithms especially the ones used by social media as our collective attention is their main trade and for concrete defence mechanisms to be setup to ensure the personal and digital integrity of users, subjected without their knowledge or consent to hostile influence operations.

Authored by Paul Diegel and Florian Roussel

The post Social Media Doesn’t Want What’s Best For You : The Case of Musk and AfD first appeared on European Pirate Party.

Max Frankel, a New York Times reporter and editor who helped push for the publication of the Pentagon Papers, died Sunday at the age of 94.

A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Frankel was well known for his decades of reporting. But it’s another piece of writing, not initially published in a newspaper, that holds a special place in First Amendment history.

An affidavit by Frankel filed in New York Times Co. v. United States, better known as the Pentagon Papers case, has become one of the most important public documents laying out the realities of national security reporting and Washington’s unspoken rules around government secrecy and leaks.

Initially drafted as a memo to the Times’ lawyers, Frankel’s arguments schooled lawyers, the courts, and anyone who believed government secrets should always be off limits to the press.

“What Frankel wrote became one of the most important documents in history of press freedom,” said James Goodale, who was the general counsel for the Times during the Pentagon Papers case. “Not only did it sway our outside lawyers to defend the case in court, but we turned it into sworn statement which helped sway the district court judge to rule in our favor.”

Frankel wrote: “Without the use of ‘secrets’ … there could be no adequate diplomatic, military and political reporting of the kind our people take for granted, either abroad or in Washington and there could be no mature system of communication between the Government and the people.”

Importantly, Frankel explained how government officials routinely reveal “secrets” to the press for their own purposes:

“Presidents make ‘secret’ decisions only to reveal them for the purposes of frightening an adversary nation, wooing a friendly electorate, protecting their reputations. The military services conduct ‘secret’ research in weaponry only to reveal it for the purpose of enhancing their budgets, appearing superior or inferior to a foreign army, gaining the vote of a congressman or the favor of a contractor. The Navy uses secret information to run down the weaponry of the Air Force. The Army passes on secret information to prove its superiority to the Marine Corps. High officials of the Government reveal secrets in the search for support of their policies, or to help sabotage the plans and policies of rival departments. Middle-rank officials of government reveal secrets so as to attract the attention of their superiors or to lobby against the orders of those superiors.”

Of course, what Frankel was defending was not the publication of secrets leaked purposefully by government officials, but rather the publication of a classified study of the Vietnam War leaked without authorization by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. But Frankel and other reporters knew that if they relied only on the official leaks, the public would only be getting part of the story — the part that benefited the government.

They also knew that classification wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. As Frankel explained in his affidavit, classification decisions aren’t always based on the national interest. He wrote that:

“the Government and its officials regularly and routinely misuse and abuse the ‘classification’ of information, either by imposing secrecy where none is justified or by retaining it long after the justification has become invalid, for simple reasons of political or bureaucratic convenience. To hide mistakes of judgment, to protect reputations of individuals, to cover up the loss and waste of funds, almost everything in government is kept secret for a time.”

The manipulation of classification decisions and strategic leaks to the press remain commonplace in Washington today, more than fifty years after Frankel laid it all out. Officials from both parties routinely make public secret information when it serves their purposes, from former CIA director David Petraeus, who leaked classified information to his biographer and received just a slap on the wrist, to President Donald Trump himself.

But what may be changing is the courage of news outlets and other institutions to stand up to government officials, as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous other newspapers did when they published the Pentagon Papers and exposed the government’s lies about the Vietnam War.

It’s not easy to challenge government authority today, especially when the President and his cronies have made no secret of their desire to throw publishers, reporters, and sources in jail. But it also wasn’t easy for journalists and news outlets to challenge President Richard Nixon, who, until Trump, was perhaps the most anti-press president in our history.

Still, Frankel and others who worked on the publication of the Pentagon Papers chose to stick out their necks and stick up for press freedom. The result was the Supreme Court’s decision repudiating government prior restraints on the press in almost all circumstances, perhaps the most important press freedom decision today.

Unfortunately, there’s no guarantee that the Supreme Court today will be as willing to defend the First Amendment and the free press. But that makes it all the more important that reporters defend press freedom to the public and explain why it matters loudly and repeatedly.

Defending press freedom must mean defending the right to publish government secrets, even when the government objects. It also means defending the brave whistleblowers who make sure that the government doesn’t get to control what the public knows.

Enough time has passed that we’re losing some of the journalists and whistleblowers who fought for press freedom during the Nixon era. Today, we must look to their examples, and their words, to make the case that it’s necessary and right for the press to publish government secrets that inform the public.

freedom.press/issues/the-endur…

EP Plenary session – White paper on the future of European defence
Strasbourg, March 12, 2025 – The European Parliament has today adopted a historic resolution on the White Paper on the Future of European Defense. The document emphasizes the need for Europe’s strategic autonomy, reducing dependence on third countries, and strengthening defense cooperation within the EU.

The resolution responds to current security challenges and explicitly identifies Russia and its allies – Belarus, China, North Korea, and Iran – as the greatest threats to the security of the EU and its partners. “We must strengthen our support for Ukraine, expand our defense capabilities, and ensure that Europe is not dependent on the whims of the United States or other powers. There is talk of hundreds of billions for defense, but without a clear plan, these are just empty words. We don’t need more declarations or summits – we need real investments that match the €15 trillion strength of the European economy. Now is the time to show authoritarians around the world that Europe doesn’t just talk – it acts. And we must act now – every day we lose is paid for with Ukrainian blood,” says Gregorová.

“Wars today are not fought only with tanks and missiles but also through disinformation, cyberattacks, and sabotage. I am glad that this resolution clearly states: we must also defend ourselves in the digital space. If we want to protect not only our borders but also our democracy, we need a unified European approach to countering hybrid threats – from cybersecurity to uncovering election manipulation,” warns Gregorová.

As part of the resolution, the European Parliament calls for the swift implementation of the “ReArm Europe” plan, which should ensure long-term investments in the European defense industry and strategic technologies. “If we don’t invest in defense now, we will pay much more in the future – and not just financially. Unpreparedness for the worst-case scenarios would cost us incomparably more than decisive and timely action. We need a clear plan, concrete funding, and real investments; otherwise, we risk not only our security but also our economic stability,” says Gregorová.

“If we are to have real defense capabilities, we must also invest in European arms production and modern military technologies. If we want to protect Europe, we must produce European weapons and send a clear signal to arms manufacturers and investors that this is a long-term commitment by our states,” Gregorová concludes.
The post European Parliament Approves Resolution on European Defense: “It’s Time to Stop Relying on Others,” Says Gregorová first appeared on European Pirate Party.

We are pleased to present the following report from Kay Schroeder, PPI’s representative at the United Nations Office in Vienna. This year is the first time since before COVID that we were able to send representatives to all three UN offices (New York, Geneva, and Vienna). Please let us know if you would also like to visit the UN on behalf of PPI.

Report of Kay Schroeder on UNOV Meetings of the UNODC

The UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) invited its member states to attend the 68th Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, held from March 10th to 15th. This marked my first appearance as an ECOSOC consultant for Pirate Party International at an international conference, and I was eager to see what it would entail. I dressed in my best outfit (as shown in the picture) and arrived punctually by bike at 10 a.m. on Monday.

As it was the arrival day, most attendees were busy with accreditation, familiarizing themselves with the venue, and reuniting with colleagues. The main event took place in the Plenary Hall of Building M. On the first day, member states presented general statements outlining their perspectives on the UNODC’s work. It was quite a family atmosphere. People were respectful and most of them seemed to know each other for years. I enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere and the openminded intellectualism in the room. It appeared so unpolitical to me, very different from what I recognized in parliaments.

The 68th CND was chaired by Ambassador Shambhu Kumaran, India’s representative to the UN in Vienna.

The event’s agenda included six resolutions for adoption, outlined in the COW (Committee of the Whole) draft proposals. These proposals were deliberated in the COW sessions, chaired by Andranik Hovhannisyan, Armenia’s ambassador to Austria. Additionally, various side events hosted by member states provided in-depth perspectives on their respective challenges and proposed solutions. These sessions were essential for understanding the complexities underlying the negotiations, as drug-related issues differ significantly between countries.

While synthetic drugs were the primary focus, much discussion centered on the repercussions of decisions made during previous CNDs. One memorable side event, organized by the Colombian delegation, explored the environmental impact of cocaine regulation. They highlighted how the drastic reduction in coca cultivation—from 20,000 hectares to 2,000 hectares—had led to a sharp rise in cattle farming, increasing from 6,000 to nearly 600,000. This raised the critical question of which outcome posed a greater threat to the environment.

Environment besides was one of the critical points of the whole event. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), serving as the foundation for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, faced significant criticism and sparked ongoing disagreements regarding the proposals.

The side events were primarily organized by member states that had submitted proposals, often in collaboration with one another. As a result, these events were also joint efforts. Moreover, there were several lectures discussing the progress of drug management, treatment and prevention in specific countries.

The program was extensive, offering a wide array of insightful sessions. This made it necessary for me to carefully decide which events to attend, as all of them appeared highly engaging.

Throughout the week, the Committee of the Whole (COW) worked to refine the wording of each resolution, aiming to maximize the likelihood of their approval by the greatest number of members during the plenary session. The process strongly reminded me of the Liquid Democracy decision making approach, which we also encountered challenges with at Pirate Party Austria.

Each proposal underwent a series of revisions, as countries sought to add, remove, or rephrase elements until a final version emerged that could gain acceptance from all member states. Achieving unanimity proved to be a significant challenge at the UN, drawing notable criticism during Friday’s voting session. Nevertheless, the process unfolded as a continuous, real-time negotiation, much like the Liquid Democracy system, and faced similar challenges.

The importance of precise wording and language was paramount, particularly as each proposal faced opposition from different member states. To secure unanimity, it became evident that the proposals would need to be diluted to a point of near unrecognizability. The legalistic nature of the discussions, along with the increasing tensions throughout the week, was palpable. What began as a warm, familial atmosphere gradually evolved into a more professional and determined environment —still courteous in interactions but resolute in addressing the issues at hand.

The suspense reached its peak on Friday. It was voting day, and everyone was eager to see how things were unfolding. Certain side events were held privately for consultations, leaving the public uninformed about the progress. The COW faced certain expectations, particularly from the UNODC itself, which is acutely aware of the glaring failures in drug policy over recent years. The growing number of addiction-related impairments, particularly due to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl and Ketamine, as well as the rampant spread of pink cocaine—a drug cocktail containing MDMA, Ketamine, and various painkiller ingredients in South America—has led to harsh criticism of their own work.

This was accompanied by accusations directed at various countries, whether between consumers and producers (e.g., the US and China) or between advocates of legalization and proponents of prohibition. Decisions needed to be made, and resolutions had to be adopted. To keep it short. All proposals put forward by the COW were passed by a majority. However, the voting process highlighted weaknesses within the UN structure, similar to those seen in the EU. The U.S. government rejected all proposals, asserting that including the Sustainable Development Goals— viewed by them as a hidden global political agenda—was unacceptable under the principle of national sovereignty.

This critique arose despite the SDGs forming the foundation of the widely endorsed Agenda 2030.

Furthermore, the U.S. government fully rejected the Agenda 2030, calling for its removal during CND69. Argentina, with only one abstention, consistently aligned its decisions with those of the U.S. This stood out to me as a noteworthy and insightful example of advocacy in action.

The U.S. government’s proposal for removal, introduced as item 9, sparked extensive debate, highlighting the tensions among global interest groups. While the EU and its allies firmly opposed the proposal, it found support from the U.S., China, Russia, Iran, and Argentina. This clearly underscored a significant fault line between the states. The issue exposed weaknesses in the decision making, as the EU and its allies secured a majority in the vote due to their numerical advantage, despite not representing the relative population proportion. This outcome led to frustration among the other member states, as they also asserted their sovereignty of interpretation.

In my view, fostering greater cohesion in the future clearly requires institutional reforms, which can be achieved through further democratization.

Those are my findings of the CND 68. I hope you enjoyed the reading. Check out the pictures and stay alert for future updates on my work as ECOSOC consultant for PPI at United Nations.

For more in-depth information about the event, you can explore the CND Blog for live updates from the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs or visit the official page for the 68th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

CND Blog – Live reporting from the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Session 68 of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

pp-international.net/2025/03/u…