Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

For 164 days, Rümeysa Öztürk has faced deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and for 83 days, Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest. Read on for more, and click here to subscribe to our other newsletters.

Recording police is not ‘violence’

It was bad enough when government officials claimed that journalists are inciting violence by reporting. But now, they’re accusing reporters of actually committing violence.

The supposed violence by reporters? Recording videos. At least three times recently, a government official or lawyer has argued that simply recording law enforcement or Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers is a form of violence. Read more here.

Thanks for citing us, House Republicans. Now do something

Congressional Republicans introduced our farewell article to the former president, titled Biden’s press freedom legacy: Empty words and hypocrisy, into the record at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week.

That’s great — it’s always nice to have our work recognized. But if these lawmakers agree with us that former President Joe Biden was bad on press freedom, someone should really tell them about this Donald Trump character who’s in office now. All the abuses we identified in the article Republicans cited have (as the article predicted) worsened under the new president, and he’s come up with plenty of new ones too.

We wrote a letter to let the committee know that if it’s serious about addressing the issues our article discussed, regardless of who is in office, we’re here to help. We’ll let you know if they reply (but don’t hold your breath). Read the letter here.

Will secret law prevail in drug boat massacre?

The Trump administration has not provided any legal justification for blowing up a boat carrying 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers on the Caribbean Sea. We filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out if lawyers at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel were consulted before the slaughter and, if so, what they said.

If there is an OLC opinion about the targeting of the Venezuelan boat, the public and Congress should be able to debate it right now. Unfortunately, the government has long taken the position that OLC opinions should be secret, even though there should be no such thing as secret law in the United States. Read more here, and, if you want to learn more about government secrecy and what we’re doing to combat it, subscribe to The Classifieds.

Stop the judicial secrecy bill

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would allow lawmakers to scrub information about themselves from the internet. The bill fails to achieve its stated purpose of keeping lawmakers safe — except from investigative journalism.

This week we helped lead a letter to senators from press freedom and civil liberties organizations objecting to the misguided legislation. Even if the NDAA amendment does not succeed, it’s likely that this bill will be back, and we’ll be ready to fight it. Read the letter here.

ICE revives contract for spyware

In 2023, Biden issued an executive order limiting government use of commercial spyware. Subsequently, the Biden administration issued a stop-work order on a $2 million contract between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Paragon, a spyware vendor that makes products that have reportedly been used to spy on journalists.

It now appears ICE is reinstating this contract. Read more here and subscribe to our Digital Security Tips newsletter.

What we’re reading

Inside Trump’s decade-long war on the press: 75,000 posts, 3,500 direct attacks

Editor and Publisher
Trump’s anti-press rhetoric is “not bluster; it is not a personality trait. It is deliberate,” our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker’s Stephanie Sugars said. “It is very much at the cost of the strength of our social fabric and our shared reality.”

RSF and Avaaz launch international media operation

RSF
Great work by our friends at Reporters Without Borders organizing this response to Israel’s slaughter of journalists in Gaza. It’s unfortunate that more U.S. outlets did not participate. If the outlets you support were not among the few, ask them why.

Illinois restores protections for press targeted with frivolous lawsuits

The Dissenter
We spoke to The Dissenter about the Illinois Supreme Court’s ridiculous ruling that the state’s law against strategic lawsuits against public participation doesn’t protect reporting, and the recently passed bill to repair the damage.

He plagiarized and promoted falsehoods. The White House embraces him

The New York Times
We talked to the Times about influencers replacing journalists at the White House. Yes, it’s awful that Trump won’t grant reporters the honor of getting lied to at press briefings. But the decimation of FOIA — a source of facts, not spin — is even more concerning.

Noem accuses CBS of ‘deceptively’ editing interview about Abrego Garcia

The Hill
Kristi Noem’s complaints underscore why news outlets can’t settle frivolous lawsuits. Now, the door is wide open for government officials to question every editing decision news outlets make, whether to shorten an interview for time or to not air lies and nonsense.

Police body cameras are supposed to shed light. Rhode Island rules let officers keep footage in the dark

Rhode Island Current
When rules restrict police body cameras from being used to provide transparency, the only use left for them is surveillance.

Judge Charles Wilson defends New York Times v. Sullivan

Reason
A good recap of why “originalist” attacks on the actual malice standard — which limits defamation claims by public figures — are so disingenuous.

freedom.press/issues/recording…

It was bad enough when government officials claimed that journalists incite violence by reporting. But now, they’re accusing reporters of actually committing violence.

The supposed violence by reporters? Recording videos. At least three times recently, a government official or lawyer has argued that simply recording law enforcement or Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers is a form of violence.

In July, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem proclaimed during a news conference following ICE raids on California farms that videotaping ICE agents performing operations is “violence.” Noem lumped video recordings in with other forms of actual violence, like throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails at agents.

Then, in August, Justice Department lawyer Sean Skedzielewski argued, during a court hearing over the Los Angeles Police Department’s mistreatment of journalists covering protests, that videotaping law enforcement officers “can be used for violence.” He claimed recording is violent because it can reveal officers’ identities, leading to harassment, and can encourage more protesters to join the fray.

Also in August, the government applied similar logic as it fought against the release of Mario Guevara, the only journalist in U.S. custody after being arrested for newsgathering. Guevara, who is originally from El Salvador, was detained while covering a protest in Georgia and turned over to ICE for deportation. In a bond hearing before an immigration court in July, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the government argued that Guevara’s recording and livestreaming of law enforcement “presents a safety threat.”

At the risk of stating the obvious, videotaping someone is not the equivalent of throwing a firebomb at them. Actually, recordings of law enforcement officers made by journalists and members of the public allow the public to see what the police are up to and hold officers accountable for abusing their authority or breaking the law.

That includes holding officers who are violating the First Amendment accountable in court. Adam Rose, chair of the press rights committee for the LA Press Club, said that Skedzielewski also denied in court that DHS officers had pointed weapons at journalists, despite video evidence submitted to the court of them doing exactly that.

Skedzielewski “wound up making our case for us,” Rose told us. “His own argument showed how the government can try to lie in court, and why filming in public is critical to ensure the truth comes out.”

Video recording police in public is also protected by the First Amendment, as both Rose and Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, point out. “The claim that journalists and others video recording police are engaged in ‘acts of violence’ is not only absurd on its face but flies in the face of the law and common sense,” said Osterreicher.

That constitutional right applies even if officers would prefer not to be identified. The government often claims that officers must not be identified because they’re at risk of (real) violence or harassment. But the correct response to those threats is to prosecute and punish those who actually break the law by harassing or physically attacking police, not make up crimes to go after those who exercise their First Amendment right to record them.

The government claims at other times that officers should not be recorded because they’re undercover. The government has been known to abuse this argument, including by making bizarre claims that any officer who may, at some point, go undercover should be treated as undercover at all times. Plus, journalists have no way of knowing whether a particular agent participating in an immigration raid or officer policing a protest is undercover at the moment they’re recording. The responsibility of preserving officers’ cover is on the officer and the government, not journalists and the public who can observe them working in plain view.

These justifications, however, are mere pretext for the government’s true purpose. Officials want courts and the public to believe that recording agents and officers is a violent act because it justifies officers’ own violent response to the press.

In LA, government attorney Skedzielewski didn’t just argue that video recording is violent. He said that meant that justified officers in using force against people videotaping them. This claim—made in a court that’s already restrained police from attacking journalists after they were documented violently assaulting and detaining reporters repeatedly —should seriously alarm journalists and anyone who wants to record police.

“For an officer of the court to conflate the use of recordings to reveal police officers’ identities with the actual making of those recordings, in order to justify the use of excessive force against those doing the recording, shows complete ignorance of the law, disregard for the Constitution, a blatant attempt to demonize those who would dare risk their health and safety to provide visual proof of police behavior, or all three,” said Osterreicher.

That demonization is working, unfortunately, especially when it comes to ICE officers’ beliefs about how they can respond to being recorded. In recent months, ICE officers have knocked phones out of the hands of those recording them, pulled weapons on people photographing or videotaping them, and even arrested U.S. citizens for filming them.

The escalating attacks on journalists and citizens who are recording police show the danger of the government’s rhetoric. All who care about press freedom and transparency must push back on claims equating filming to violence.

When officials say at news conferences that video recording is violent, journalists should challenge that assertion and cite the law.

When attorneys argue that recording police justifies violence or arrest, they should have their arguments confronted by opposing counsel and the judge, who has the power to sanction lawyers who ignore First Amendment jurisprudence to make frivolous arguments on behalf of the government.

And when ICE officers harass or detain someone for videotaping them, everyone else should take out their phones and hit the record button.

Recording the police isn’t violence. Don’t let officials get away with loud, incorrect claims to the contrary to diminish our First Amendment rights.

freedom.press/issues/recording…

Pirate Parties International supports the
Stop Killing Games Initiative.

Let people keep playing the games they bought!
Provide gamers basic consumer rights.
Give clear notice before shutting down a game.
Offer refunds when access is removed.
Provide offline play or patches when servers close.
Be transparent about data use.
Protect game history and preservation.

Recent commentary by a Youtube games vlogger named “Pirate Software” misstates these aims. The Stop Killing Games Initiative was created to foster an open, inclusive, and democratic dialogue around the future of gaming culture, policy, and rights. Pirate Software’s portrayal distorts these core principles and risks undermining the credibility and positive aims of the initiative.

These recent portrayals of the project are misleading and risk creating division. The initiative’s true goal is to protect consumer rights and ensure game preservation. It is meant to be an open conversation, not an attack on game developers.

We want to build a positive movement. This requires collaboration between gamers, developers, and publishers to find fair solutions. Our focus is on digital rights, transparency, and clear policy.

We urge the gaming community to focus on these core principles. Let’s work together to build a future where games are preserved and gamers’ rights are respected.

The Stop Killing Games Initiative is, and must remain, a space for empowering the global gaming community through collaboration, openness, and respect. We call on all stakeholders to reject divisive or harmful misrepresentations and continue building a future where the voices of gamers everywhere are heard and respected.

pp-international.net/2025/09/s…

On 16 July 2025, EDRi participated in the European Commission’s GDPR Implementation Dialogue. We defended the GDPR as a cornerstone of the EU’s digital rulebook and opposed further attempts to weaken it under the banner of ‘simplification’. The discussion was more divided than the official summary suggests.

The post EDRi warns against GDPR ‘simplification’ at EU Commission dialogue appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

The following is a comment from PPI’s main representative at UNOV, Kay Schroeder, who recently tried to attend the United Nations “Convention against Corruption” (UNCAC) in Vienna.

“This week, the “Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption” has begun in Vienna. Unfortunately, I cannot attend, as civil society is barred from participating. Nevertheless, I would like to share my thoughts on the topic of anti-corruption, the obvious impossibility of addressing this issue by the very suspects themselves, and the accompanying shadowboxing.

UNCAC is the highest decision-making body of the United Nations in the fight against corruption. Its tasks include implementing adopted measures, coordinating new initiatives, and deciding on future anti-corruption efforts. A commendable agenda, yet one that falters due to the nature of the states themselves—being the very subjects of corruption through their own representatives in the UN bodies tasked with oversight and enforcement.

It is evident that an institution composed exclusively of state actors can hardly contribute meaningfully to combating corruption, as its representatives are part of the problem. The exclusion of civil society from participation reinforces this impression, especially since we as Pirates have always stood for transparency and decentralization—two essential pillars of anti-corruption that rarely find their way into these forums.

There is, however, some good news from the perspective of anti-corruption. Quite unironically, Austria has today abolished official secrecy. After 100 years, the Freedom of Information Act is making its debut. That’s longer than the UN has existed.”

We thank Mr. Schroeder and all of our PPI UN representatives for their hard work attempting to represent us at the UN and reporting back to us.

If you or any other Pirates you know would like to participate in UN events, please let us know by filling out the volunteer form: lime.ppi.rocks/index.php?r=sur…

If you would like to help PPI continue to send representatives to these meetings, please consider making a small donation to our organization or becoming a member. If you would like to be involved personally in the movement, by writing about these issues or attending events, please let us know.

pp-international.net/donations…

pp-international.net/2025/09/r…

Mit dem Versand der Abstimmungsunterlagen beginnt für die Piratenpartei Schweiz (PPS) und zahlreiche Unterstützer:innen die heisse Phase der Kampagne gegen das neue E-ID-Gesetz. Die Piraten als Referendumsführer und kritische Stimme der ersten Stunde sind froh, dass am 28. September 2025 die Stimmbevölkerung über eine Vorlage entscheiden darf, die weitreichende Folgen für Datenschutz, Privatsphäre und digitale Selbstbestimmung hätte.

Bereits bei der Ausstellung werden sensible biometrische Daten wie Gesichtsvideos erhoben und bis zu 15 Jahren gespeichert. Unternehmen können bei jeder Nutzung der E-ID zahlreiche persönliche und staatlich verifiziert Informationen anfordern. Dass diese Daten nicht ausgewertet und „veredelt“ werden dürfen ist nicht verboten – sie werden so auch zu einem heiss begehrten Ziel für Hacking.

Stefan Sergi, Präsident Piratenpartei Aargau: „Kein IT-System ist abschliessend sicher, es ist nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis massenhaft gestohlene Identitäten im Umlauf sind.“

Melanie Hartmann, Vorstandsmitglied Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Wer Privatsphäre ernst nimmt, sagt Nein zu dieser E-ID“

Die E-ID ist nur theoretisch freiwillig. Gesetze und aktuelle Vorstösse verlangen die Identifikation beim Medienkonsum, auf Social Media, für Kommentare auf Newsseiten, Tickets für Sportanlässe etc. Für den Widerruf bei der Organspende ist die E-ID bereits fix eingeplant und für Tickets bei OeV und Events ist der Ausweiszwang heute der Quasi-Standard. Das führt zur digitalen Ausweispflicht im Alltag und öffnet alle Pforten für Profiling, Social-Scoring und die tägliche Überwachung, Analyse und Bewertung unseres digitalen Verhaltens – auch durch Firmen und Plattformen wie TikTok oder Disney+ oder Steam. Die andauernde Identifikation wird damit zur neuen Normalität.

Ivan Buechi, Präsident Piratenpartei Ostschweiz: „Wir laufen nicht durch die Bahnhofstrasse mit unserem Namen über dem Kopf und weisen uns im Laden oder Kino laufend aus. Aber genau das wird mit der E-ID geschehen.“

Pascal Fouquet, Vizepräsident Piratenpartei Kanton Bern: „Gute Digitalisierung braucht keine Überwachung. Auch mit dieser Vorlage wurde eine grosse Chance für gute Digitalisierung verpasst.“

Die E-ID wird von Bund und Wirtschaft als Fortschritt verkauft – doch sie bringt kaum Mehrwert für die Bevölkerung. Für digitale Behördengänge existieren bereits heute sichere, staatliche und datensparsame Lösungen wie AGOV.

Jorgo Ananiadis, Präsident der Piratenpartei Schweiz: „Die E-ID wird als Fortschritt gepriesen – doch sie löst keines der grundlegenden Probleme der Schweizer Digitalpolitik: Die Strategielosigkeit und mangelnde Digitalkompetenz bleiben bestehen und statt Lösungen bringt uns dieses E-ID-Gesetz neue Risiken – ohne spürbaren Nutzen für die Bevölkerung.“

Die Piratenpartei fordert ein E-ID-Gesetz, das folgende Kriterien erfüllt:
– Echte Freiwilligkeit – statt diskriminierendem Zwang
– Datensparsamkeit – statt noch mehr Datensammlung
– Digitale Selbstbestimmung – statt kollektive Gefährdung
– Eine vertrauenswürdige E-ID für uns – nicht für Konzerne oder einen Fichenstaat

Entsprechende Vorgaben müssen gesetzlich verankert sein, damit sich Verwaltung und Bundesrat nicht mehr über Verordnungen und Ausführungsbestimmungen hinwegsetzen können, so wie das aktuell beispielsweise beim BÜPF geschieht.

Die Piratenpartei Schweiz ruft deshalb alle Stimmberechtigten auf, sich zu informieren und am 28. September ein deutliches Zeichen für digitale Freiheit zu setzen: Wer Privatsphäre, Sicherheit und echte Freiwilligkeit will, sagt Nein zur E-ID.
Weitere Informationen zur Kampagne: www.referendum-eid.ch

piratenpartei.ch/2025/09/03/ab…

Every Thursday of the week, Bastian’s Night is broadcast from 21:30 CEST (new time).

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…

Narratives around age verification and restriction of access for minors are gaining traction in the EU, amid similar efforts being pursued in the UK, US and Australia. This blog analyses different EU policy files and warns that relying on age-gating risks undermining more holistic, rights-respecting and effective solutions to online harm.

The post Age verification gains traction: the EU risks failing to address the root causes of online harm appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).