Every Thursday of the week, Bastian’s Night is broadcast from 21:30 CET.

Bastian’s Night is a live talk show in German with lots of music, a weekly round-up of news from around the world, and a glimpse into the host’s crazy week in the pirate movement.

If you want to read more about @BastianBB: –> This way

piratesonair.net/bastians-nigh…

Every Thursday of the week, Bastian’s Night is broadcast from 21:30 CET.

Bastian’s Night is a live talk show in German with lots of music, a weekly round-up of news from around the world, and a glimpse into the host’s crazy week in the pirate movement.

If you want to read more about @BastianBB: –> This way

piratesonair.net/bastians-nigh…

Estefany Rodríguez’s First Amendment case may be just getting started, but it’s already revealing how far the government will go to stifle journalism and speech it finds inconvenient.

The Nashville journalist, originally from Colombia but with authorization to work here, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 4 and released on bond last week. Rodríguez argued her detention was in retaliation for her work as a journalist, in violation of the First Amendment.

In response, the government has taken an extreme position that could have impacts far beyond Rodríguez’s case. In a recent court filing, it suggested that Rodríguez — and anyone the government asserts is an “unlawful alien” — does not have any First Amendment rights at all.

This appears to mark the first time that the Trump administration has argued that a journalist who it claims is living in the United States illegally has no First Amendment rights. Even as it has argued against First Amendment claims made by Mario Guevara and Ya’akub Vijandre, the government did not claim that the First Amendment didn’t apply because of their immigration status.

The government also hasn’t taken that position in cases involving noncitizens who are lawfully present in the United States, like those of Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk, since Supreme Court and other legal precedent is clear that the First Amendment protects them. Rather, the government argued that immigration law gave it the power to deport Khalil and Öztürk, and that courts don’t have the authority to review First Amendment claims in the context of immigration proceedings.

That’s still wrong, but it’s different from saying that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone in the U.S. at all because they’re living in the country illegally. If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a person who is in the country without legal permission, the government wouldn’t just be able to deport them for their speech. It would theoretically be free to jail them for writing a news article or a book or for speaking critically about the government or its policies to the press.

If that sounds obviously wrong, that’s because it is.

Here’s another absurd twist on the government’s argument: The First Amendment also protects free exercise of religion. If those lacking legal status have no First Amendment rights, the government could forbid them from exercising their religion or require them to follow a particular religion.

That can’t be right. The First Amendment, which restricts the government’s power to restrict speech or religious exercise, shouldn’t depend on whether the person speaking or worshiping has legal status or not.

Legal experts agree that, as a general matter, constitutional rights apply to those living illegally in the United States on the basis of their personhood and presence here. The Supreme Court has also explicitly held that certain constitutional rights apply to immigrants in the country without legal permission, including the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process.

The government’s argument is inconsistent with that precedent. It would stifle speech from many immigrants who have built lives and developed strong ties to the United States, including those who may believe they have the legal right to be here. Rodríguez, for instance, entered the country legally and had authorization to work here, yet the government claims it can silence her by declaring her an “illegal alien.”

But the government’s interpretation of the First Amendment wouldn’t just harm people like Rodríguez. It’s bad for Americans, too.

Immigrants to the U.S. who the government says lack legal status but who hold valid work permits that allow them to work as journalists, like Rodríguez, can report important news stories about immigration enforcement because they are part of the community being targeted. Book authors here without legal status have written firsthand accounts about the immigrant experience. Sources lacking legal status have told American journalists about deplorable conditions at detention facilities and Kafkaesque immigration proceedings.

All of this speech is invaluable for informing public understanding and debate over immigration policy. Saying that these people have no First Amendment rights means that Americans will be far less likely to hear from them and thus less knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that the government has argued that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to those lacking permanent legal status in the United States.

In 2015, the Department of Justice (under President Obama) argued that a group of mothers in the country without legal permission who protested while in immigration detention couldn’t bring a First Amendment claim because, as “non-resident aliens” who did not have established connections to the U.S., they had no First Amendment rights.

But because the case was later voluntarily dismissed, the government’s theory was never tested in court. The government seemed to have abandoned that argument by not raising it again — until now.

The government’s signal in the Rodríguez case that it’s reviving this argument should alarm everyone. So should its continued efforts to deport Rodríguez, which you can and should speak out against.

The First Amendment was written to limit government power, not let officials decide whose voices are worth hearing. Targeting people because of their legal status and declaring them outside the First Amendment targets every American’s right to know the truth.

freedom.press/issues/no-first-…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, March 24, 2026 — After a federal judge struck down the Pentagon’s media access policy last week, the Defense Department enacted a new policy that retains the same core constitutional problem as the original one — it allows the government to punish the press for asking questions.

The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

“As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, journalists are entitled to publish what their sources tell them. If the Pentagon has a constitutional basis to restrict what its employees tell the press, that’s a matter between the Pentagon and its employees. The press doesn’t work for the government and any policy that purports to require the press to help the government keep secrets from the American public is unconstitutional. The revised policy does exactly that by threatening to revoke journalists’ access if they publish information obtained through ‘unauthorized’ disclosures. The closure of the workspace for the press further demonstrates the government’s censorial and retributive motives.

“We were pleased to hear that The New York Times is headed back to court to enforce the judge’s ruling and we hope the judge is not generous with second chances. The revised policy is not a good faith effort to comply with Judge Friedman’s order. It adds mostly meaningless window dressing while retaining the core constitutional violation — subjecting journalists to punishment for doing their jobs. Noncompliance with judicial orders is punishable through monetary sanctions, attorney disciplinary referrals, and contempt of court, including imprisonment pending compliance. It’s past time that this administration, its officials, and its lawyers start facing real consequences for ignoring court orders and the Constitution.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/meet-the-…

In 2008 a group of MIT scholars published a book focused on IT and how it is used to engage in politics, governance, and democratic processes. The term they coined, “digital citizen”, encapsules this idea of using the internet consistently and effectively in a way that reflects the person’s roles and behaviour in civil society. With the increasing datafication of our societies, we ought to discuss more in depth what does “digital citizenship” mean, is it achievable for everyone, and what are the skills needed to participate effectively in the process?

DIGITALIZATION AND PLATFOMIZATION – CORNERSTONES OF THE CURRENT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT

In 2026 more and more legislative proposals are being passed, focusing on regulating digital technologies and the information environment. The Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), AI Act are few of the examples on European soil of the legislative trend that inevitably follows from the increased digitalization and platfomization of our daily lives. The internet at its very beginning, when it became available for the wider public, was an instrument for democratisation and provided for freer access to information and communication. Today big platforms and companies own quasi-monopolies over the online environment, leading to power asymmetries between those providing data and those controlling and trading it.

Digitalization means that a growing part of the political processes, such as sharing information, political messaging, policy debates, citizens’ mobilisation and organisation, happen online. So being a “digital citizen” extends beyond owning a device and being online. With the advancement of technology, we “get more” in terms of what we can do, but it also means that a new field of political contestation is opened and companies are already trying to fill it. But in an era of growing monopolies, where users’ data is collected and sold to increase the algorithms’ efficiency, where surveillance of communication is becoming a bigger risk every day, how do we ensure not only the safety, but also the inclusiveness of our societies? These are the conditions necessary for preserving the health of our democracies and the effectiveness of civil participation.

THE DIGITAL CITIZEN’S “TOOLKIT”

Being able to actively participate as a citizen in the digital environment requires both technical and cognitive skills, including basic knowledge of the tech, media and visual literacy, and last, but not least, critical thinking. Not only does this prevent people from being taken advantage of online but also ensures the responsible and effective use of technology.

We also need to understand the second part of the equation – “citizenship”. Today it supposes the existence of certain political and social rights of the person, which can and ought to be defended. In modern times societies have reached an understanding that citizens are “born equal” and that principle of non-discrimination is enshrined in many legal traditions, including in EU legislation. But, when we take into account the unequal access to technologies, the varying levels of digital literacy across societies and demographics, and the asymmetrical economic opportunities available to some, can we still claim that we are all equal?

WHAT IS AT STAKE?

All these points are important aspects that need to be addressed by policymakers when they deal with issues related to the digital environment.

Internet freedom: Reports show internet freedom declining globally, with worrying implications for the preservation of human rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and non-discrimination. Even more so, we are starting to see the negative effects that blocking citizens’ access to internet services have during elections and crises. Such restrictions can limit access to information, disrupt communication and hinder civic participation.

Internet access: It is not only governments or regimes that influence who can participate in digital spaces. Other factors can also shape access to the internet. These include living in remote areas without the necessary infrastructure, unreliable network coverage, economic barriers or simply not having the skills necessary to navigate in a digital environment. People of lower socieoeconomic status or the elderly are typically the ones the most affected.

Digital literacy: Reports on the development of digital skills among populations are also worrying. According to data by the European Commission, 90% of the jobs in the EU require at least elementary digital knowledge, while more than 30% of EU citizens still lack basic digital skills with great discrepancies across nationalities and age groups.

Economic opportunities: Information is power and, in a society, where algorithms are used for virtually anything, whoever has access to large sets of data holds power in the decision-making process. Not restricting the ways companies utilize users’ data potentially endangers citizens’ privacy and infringes upon their rights but also leaves the door open for potential security risks.

… AND WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

To tackle these concerns, measures need to be taken in multiple directions:

→ Ensure equal and fair access to technologies and the internet. Improve digital and media literacy to reduce the digital divide.

→ Invest and build technologies that work for the users and not just in the interest of state actors or industrial lobbies.

→ Protect users’ personal data and privacy online.

→ Promote and defend citizen participation and transparency as core pillars of democracy.

europeanpirates.eu/lets-talk-a…