Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 136th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and the 55th day that Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest. Read on for more, and click here to subscribe to our other newsletters.

Paramount’s $36 million babysitter

Paramount and Skydance Media finally completed their merger this week. To get there, Paramount paid $16 million to settle President Donald Trump’s absurdly frivolous lawsuit against CBS News, while Skydance reportedly will chip in $20 million in Trump-friendly PSAs.

So now Trump will leave them alone, right? Of course not. Skydance also committed to Federal Communications Commission chair and Trump bootlicker Brendan Carr to appoint a “bias ombudsman.” Skydance CEO David Ellison assured skeptics that the position will be a “transparency vehicle, not an oversight vehicle.” He promised that “we’re not being overseen by the FCC or anyone else.”

Carr sees it differently. He told The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr that the FCC is in a “trust but verify posture,” noting that “when you make a filing at the FCC, we have rules and regulations that deal with false representations to the agency.” He added, “I’m confident that we’re going to stay in touch with [Skydance and Paramount] and track this issue.”

It sure sounds like Carr’s leaving the door wide open to threaten regulatory action whenever CBS broadcasts something he doesn’t like. Carr — who intends to monitor bias while wearing the president’s bust as a lapel pin — is the poster child for why the Constitution bars the government from meddling in newsrooms’ editorial decisions. Carr has also said he’s keeping his FCC’s nonsense investigation into CBS open, giving him another cudgel to wield if journalists forget who’s boss. There’s $36 million well spent.

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Director Seth Stern talked more about Carr’s censorial antics and our attorney disciplinary complaint against him on Legal AF’s “Court of History” podcast on the MeidasTouch network. Watch it here.

FPF’s barrage of FOIAs seeks to combat secrecy

Since our Freedom of Information Act request exposed the lies underpinning the Trump administration’s crackdown on leaks to journalists, FPF has filed over 100 more FOIAs to learn how the administration is targeting journalists and stifling dissent.

We put together a list of our top 10 most urgent FOIA requests. Read more here.

How federal law enables retaliation against incarcerated journalists

These days the president of the United States files frivolous lawsuits at an alarming clip, including against news outlets that displease him. He’s far from the only prominent public figure abusing the federal court system in this way.

And yet, Congress has not seen fit to pass a federal “anti-SLAPP” law to stop powerful billionaires and politicians from pursuing strategic lawsuits against public participation. But powerless prisoners? That’s another story. If they want access to the federal courts, they need to navigate the Prison Litigation Reform Act — a maze of onerous procedural requirements.

We hosted a webinar with incarcerated journalist Jeremy Busby and two attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Nina Patel and Corene Kendrick, to hear more about how the law silences journalism. Read and watch here.

Don’t let the leading voice for digital journalists be silenced

For decades, the National Press Photographers Association has protected the rights of news photographers and videographers. But recently, NPPA announced that it faces financial difficulties. We spoke to NPPA’s longtime General Counsel, Mickey Osterreicher, about NPPA’s work and the impact on the First Amendment if it shutters. You can support the NPPA’s programs here.

Privacy policy update

We’ve updated FPF’s privacy policy to include a new payment processor and our use of Fight for the Future’s activism APIs. See the updated policy for details.

What We're Reading

The price of approval: How Paramount sold out the First Amendment for a merger

Protect the Protest
FPF’s Stern spoke to Protect the Protest — a coalition of nonprofit organizations fighting back against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, of which we are a proud member — about what the Paramount merger means for press freedom.

Ohio reporter’s notebook searched by Secret Service at Vance fundraiser

U.S. Press Freedom Tracker
This is an obvious violation of reporters’ rights. Secret Service members should have basic First Amendment training, especially if they are going to be dispatched in the field.

New York Times responds to Benjamin Netanyahu’s lawsuit threat: “An increasingly common playbook”

Deadline
The government that has killed more journalists than all other countries combined over the last few years shouldn’t be lecturing a newspaper about anything — let alone an obviously true story.

US appeals court upholds SEC ‘gag rule’ over free speech objections

Reuters
An unfortunate decision, but this might be one of the rare instances when this Supreme Court accidentally does some good. We wrote last year about how this rule impacts the press.

Home Depot and Lowe's share data from hundreds of AI cameras with cops

404 Media
First, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a public records request that uncovered how Home Depot and Lowe’s are cooperating with cops. Then, 404 Media made the story free thanks to their commitment to dropping paywalls for public records-based reporting.

Govt. website ‘glitch’ removes Trump’s least favorite part of Constitution

Rolling Stone
We’re skeptical of the government’s excuses for deleting habeas corpus from an online copy of the Constitution. Let us guess, the next “glitch” makes the First Amendment disappear?

Law strikes back: Lawyers doing Trump’s bidding targeted where integrity still matters

MSNBC
Rachel Maddow discussed our disciplinary complaint against Carr as an example of using the legal profession’s standards “as a way to stand up and push back against” attacks on the press.

freedom.press/issues/paramount…

For decades, one organization has dedicated itself to protecting the rights of news photographers and videographers. The National Press Photographers Association has led countless First Amendment battles to protect visual journalists’ right to document and the public’s right to see and hear the news.

The organization’s general counsel, Mickey Osterreicher, is often at the forefront of those fights. He and NPPA have protected the First Amendment right to record in public, limited senseless government regulations restricting photography and recording, and even won a groundbreaking settlement with the New York Police Department over its treatment of journalists at protests.

But recently, NPPA announced that it faces financial difficulties. Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) spoke to Osterreicher about NPPA’s work and the impact on the First Amendment if it shutters. You can read our full conversation below, and you can donate to NPPA’s programs here.

You’ve been NPPA’s general counsel since 2005, and you’ve also been a news photographer. How have the legal issues facing visual journalists changed over the years, and what are the most pressing issues they face today?

Both from a practical and legal standpoint, being a journalist was a lot simpler when I was a photojournalist. One of the biggest challenges I now face is trying to answer the question from police and lawmakers, “Who is a journalist?” and, during a protest, “Who gets to stay after an order to disperse?”

But once those press access rights have been attained, what good is it if visual journalists cannot make a decent living after risking their health and safety because their images are being misappropriated without permission, credit, or compensation? So it is a combination of dealing with First Amendment and copyright issues that keeps me up most nights.

That is to say nothing of the exponential use of generative artificial intelligence that has economically impacted the market for news photography as well as creating ethical challenges for visual journalists and public perception.

Tell us more about how the rise of AI-generated images and deepfakes is affecting the work and rights of visual journalists.

For visual journalism, generative artificial intelligence is the worst of both worlds, where millions of images (still and video) are ingested to train AI models without payment to the creators and the public can no longer believe what they see without wondering if what they are viewing is a true depiction of what really happened or an artificially created image. Even worse, this technology now provides an additional layer of ambiguity to those who claim that actual images of real events are “fake news.”

You’ve trained many law enforcement officers about journalists’ First Amendment rights, especially when they’re covering political conventions and protests. What are the most important things for police officers to know about press freedom, and how is NPPA uniquely positioned to provide that training?

I have three goals when training police and journalists about press freedoms. One: that police are not sued for abridging First Amendment rights of citizens and journalists, costing taxpayers dearly with money that could be better spent for police recruitment and retention or equipment. Two: that journalists are able to do their jobs without being harassed, injured, or arrested. Three: that the public is informed, which is the basis for the First Amendment — that being the desire by the founding fathers for the right of the public to receive information, and be an informed electorate.

As “the voice of visual journalists” since 1946, NPPA is uniquely positioned to foster improved police-press-public relations in an era when it is most needed by instilling greater respect for the roles each plays in our democracy. We’ve provided these trainings to law enforcement agencies nationwide for almost 20 years, with scores of departments and hundreds of officers being trained, including the entire Minnesota State Patrol as part of the settlement terms of a federal civil rights lawsuit, as well as the start of training with the NYPD regarding the new policies and procedures implemented as a result of the settlement of our lawsuit.

“Should our voice be muted, its silence will be deafening.“

Mickey Osterreicher

What I believe also adds to NPPA’s credibility is my background as a photojournalist with over forty years’ experience in print and broadcast, my experience as a First Amendment attorney, and my understanding of the challenges facing law enforcement from having been a uniformed reserve deputy sheriff with the Erie County Sheriff’s Office since 1976 and working closely with law enforcement through various associations and committees.

That experience working with police departments — which not many press freedom organizations have — has also allowed you to get involved in many other issues that are important to all journalists, not just visual ones. Tell us about your work on police radio encryption and other ways you’re able to leverage the work you’ve done training police departments.

The encryption of police radio transmissions is a growing problem nationwide, because for almost a century, newsrooms and journalists have relied on the monitoring of those broadcasts to cover breaking news and other matters of public concern.

One place where such coverage is critical is New York City, where so many newsworthy events occur and where, because of the congested vehicle traffic, time is of the essence in getting to the scene. A few years ago, the NYPD announced that it would begin encrypting its transmissions. NPPA joined a consortium of news organizations asking to work with NYPD to allow journalists to continue to have real-time access to those broadcasts. Despite meeting with police officials, testifying before the city council and submitting a white paper on the subject, the NYPD has refused to discuss this issue further, and many of the important police frequencies have already been encrypted.

The consortium then supported a state bill that would allow for press access. That bill passed both houses and is awaiting the governor’s signature. NPPA has also worked with press groups around the country to address this issue.

Another problem we helped to solve was an exemption for journalists to a New York law that banned anyone in the state (except for certain “eligible professions”) from the “purchase, taking possession of, sale, exchange, giving or disposing of body armor.”

Additionally, NPPA was instrumental in opposing an Arizona bill that barred anyone recording police from getting closer than 15 feet to an officer without their permission. I drafted several letters to the legislature joined by 30 press organizations cautioning against the unconstitutionality of the proposed law, which was ultimately passed after the measure was amended to an 8-foot distance. I then worked with the American Civil Liberties Union and Arizona Broadcasters Association to obtain a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law. NPPA has also filed amicus briefs in two other constitutional challenges to similar laws in Indiana and Louisiana.

When the White House restricted the Associated Press’s access over its use of the term ‘Gulf of Mexico’ (a move that NPPA and FPF condemned), it raised concerns about the chilling effects of such retaliation on journalists. If presidents can exclude outlets or photographers from the press pool for editorial decisions, what does that mean for press freedom and the role of visual journalists?

As NPPA stated, such actions by the administration are unacceptable as both an attempt at prior restraint and a blatant retaliation and chilling abridgment of the First Amendment rights of the AP and its journalists.

Unfortunately, we have seen both the federal district court as well as the circuit court hearing the appeal in this case give wide latitude and discretion to the White House as to who it admits to cover certain events. Additional fallout from this has been the White House Correspondents Association losing its long-standing control over the press pool rotation as well as other “disfavored” media outlets being barred from inclusion in the pool.

All these actions taken by the administration are having a chilling effect on press coverage of the government and are eviscerating press freedom. The NPPA continues to work with news and press freedom organizations to advocate and support the right of the public to be informed.

Over the years, NPPA has had to oppose a number of laws that prohibit or limit taking pictures in public places as well as using drones to capture aerial footage. What should journalists do if they’re stopped and told they can’t take pictures or record in public?

Our staunch advocacy has led to the right to photograph and record in traditional public forums being “clearly established” in three-quarters of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, which is key to successfully bringing civil rights claims against those who try to limit or interfere with those rights.

While NPPA was initially successful in challenging Texas drone regulations, that decision was reversed on appeal. But we have been effective in ensuring that language protecting the First Amendment rights of journalists to use drones for newsgathering be included in government regulations.

NPPA has provided extensive training as to what journalists can do if they’re stopped and told they can’t take pictures or record in public. The foremost advice is to meet with law enforcement on a regular basis to ensure that these rights are honored by police and to discuss how best to improve police-press interactions. While in the field, it is crucial to maintain situational awareness and pay attention to police and crowd movements to avoid being encircled (kettled). Always have an exit strategy, as it is always better to move to a different location than be arrested. If police stop or question you about your activities, make sure to identify yourself as a journalist.

What will journalism lose if NPPA is forced to close its doors?

It would be a significant loss to not only visual journalists but to journalism itself if NPPA were to cease as an organization. For almost 80 years, NPPA has strongly advocated for the rights of visual journalists and now more than ever that unique voice is needed as more journalists are required to report not only with words but images. It also comes at a time when the importance of truthful images could not be greater.

While there are many other organizations supporting the First Amendment and press freedoms, none is more exclusively dedicated to the advancement and protection of visual journalism in its role as a vital public service than the NPPA. Our code of ethics is often cited as exemplary of what visual journalism should strive to achieve. Should our voice be muted, its silence will be deafening.

Donate to NPPA’s programs here to help protect the rights of visual journalists and the public’s right to know.

freedom.press/issues/the-leadi…

These days the president of the United States files frivolous lawsuits at an alarming clip, including against news outlets that displease him. He’s far from the only prominent public figure abusing the federal court system in this way, steering scarce judicial resources away from meritorious lawsuits by ordinary people who have suffered serious damages.

And yet, Congress has not seen fit to pass a federal “anti-SLAPP” law to stop billionaires and politicians from pursuing strategic lawsuits against public participation. But powerless prisoners? That’s another story. If they want access to the federal courts they need to navigate the Prison Litigation Reform Act — a maze of onerous procedural requirements. It’s supposedly intended to stop the courts from being burdened by inmates’ frivolous lawsuits.

We held a webinar to discuss the PLRA’s impact on incarcerated journalists and the journalists on the outside who cover the prison system, featuring Jeremy Busby, a journalist and Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) columnist who is incarcerated in Texas, and American Civil Liberties Union attorneys Nina Patel and Corene Kendrick. Patel is senior policy counsel at the ACLU Justice Division and Kendrick is the deputy director of the ACLU’s National Prison Project.

As Kendrick explained, the PLRA originated as one of the Clinton administration’s “tough on crime” initiatives as it pivoted right in preparation for the 1996 presidential election. The law was enacted despite a lack of evidence that incarcerated people file baseless lawsuits any more frequently than anyone else, presidents or otherwise. She said the law “singles out one disfavored group of people and categorically denies them equal access to the courts.”

youtube.com/embed/wiGxxwp8byI?…

She described how the harm extends beyond the impacted litigants, as the kinds of court filings foreclosed by the PLRA are “oftentimes the best way that information about conditions in our nation’s prisons and jails reach the public and members of the media.”

“The PLRA has, in practice, served as a real barrier for journalists to get any sort of information” about facilities that “get billions and billions of dollars a year to lock up human beings,” Kendrick said. “The ability to communicate with the outside world is so circumscribed and is monitored and recorded. And you know, once something gets to a federal court and it’s filed on the docket, it is out there.”

But when the court dismisses a case for procedural reasons without any consideration of whether the claims are true, all journalists are left with are untested allegations that they rarely have the resources to corroborate. “That happens all the time, and unfortunately, and it adversely affects journalists greatly,” Kendrick said.

Lawsuits are also the only recourse available to incarcerated journalists, who often report relentless retaliation when their work upsets prison officials. That’s what happened to Busby when he helped expose deplorable conditions inside the prison where he was housed when the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020. Busby said he was transferred to four prisons, each overcrowded with people sick with COVID, before landing in a cell without a mattress or sheets, where he was kept for six weeks. His property was damaged or seized, and he was written bogus disciplinary charges that were later overturned.

He brought a federal lawsuit, but because he was retaliated against in four different prisons, the judge said the PLRA required four separate lawsuits in four different courts. “I wasn’t able to successfully keep up with four active litigations in four different courts in four different counties, from the solitary confinement cell that I was being held in,” Busby explained, resulting in his lawsuits each being dismissed on procedural grounds before the merits of his claims could be adjudicated.

Busby is a college graduate and accomplished writer — if he can’t navigate the PLRA, it is all the more difficult for an average member of the prison population to do so. Even the experienced lawyers on the webinar acknowledged how challenging it can be to comply with the PLRA when representing their incarcerated clients. Incarcerated litigants, Busby noted, must also pay court fees — in his case, a $400 fee became $1,600 when his lawsuit was split into four.

“You don’t get paid for work here in Texas, and so most guys, they don’t even want the $400 thing against their account because their family members can maybe send $20 for toothpaste and deodorant every month or so, or every two or three months, and they don’t want to sacrifice their deodorant and toothpaste money to pursue this lawsuit,” he said.

So what’s the point of the PLRA? As Patel noted, “The courts are well equipped to throw out lawsuits that are frivolous,” and do so every day in cases involving non-incarcerated people. Patel believes the real problem the PLRA is meant to address isn’t that incarcerated people file so many invalid claims — it’s that they file so many valid ones.

With around two million people incarcerated in the United States, “a functional system where someone can go to the courts and have their constitutional violations in prison litigated and then compensated would break most prison systems in this country,” Patel explained. “That is the dirty truth of the PLRA.”

She added, “Everyone knows, and it’s not a secret, that it would bankrupt the system, and it would break it, and that we couldn’t do what we do in this country, which is lead the world in mass incarceration.”

Watch the full webinar here, and subscribe to our newsletters to get notice of future events.

Note: FPF Advocacy Director Seth Stern, who authored this article and moderated the webinar, is on the board of Busby’s nonprofit organization, JoinJeremy.

freedom.press/issues/federal-l…

Ahoy Pirates,

Our next PPI board meeting will take place on 26.08.2025 at 14:00 UTC / 16:00 CEST.

All official PPI proceedings, Board meetings included, are open to the public. Feel free to stop by. We’ll be happy to have you.

Where:jitsi.pirati.cz/PPI-Board

Minutes of the meeting: wiki.pp-international.net/wiki…

Agenda: Pad: etherpad.pp-international.net/…

All of our meetings are posted to our calendar: pp-international.net/calendar/

We look forward to seeing visitors.

Thank you for your support,

The Board of PPI

pp-international.net/2025/08/n…

PrivacyCamp25 will take place on 30 September, 2025 online and at La Tricoterie, Brussels. Curious about what we have planned? Check out the draft programme.

The post #PrivacyCamp25: The draft programme is out now appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act came into force on August 1, 2024. This blog takes stock of the political and legal landscape facing its implementation and enforcement one year on, especially efforts to delay or even gut the law which would have far-reaching effects on people’s rights, especially when it comes to migration and law enforcement use of AI.

The post One year of the AI Act: What’s the political and legal landscape now? appeared first on European Digital Rights (EDRi).

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…

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA230), specifically section 230(c) which reads:
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
is the reason we have user shared content on millions of sites around the Internet. It is what protects the comment sections of our site and all others on the Internet.

Efforts to tamper with Section 230 have made people worse off and harmed our 1st Amendment rights. With FOSTA and SESTA, Congress excluded consensual sex work from Section 230 protections. The resulting law has made consensual sex work more difficult and more dangerous for sex workers while not stopping sex-focused human trafficking.

The Massachusetts Pirate Party categorically opposes efforts to exclude any human activity from Section 230 protections or to limit or expire Section 230 protections in whole or in part.

Adopted at our July 13th, 2025 member meeting.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/08/0…

Steve and James discuss ICE (et. al.) actions, how they are becoming a secret police force and why we need to get rid of them.

youtube.com/embed/SM6kGmzkUFA?…

Sign up to our newsletter to get notified of new events or volunteer. Join us on:

• Mastodon;
• Facebook;
• Blue Sky;
• Twitter.

Some links we mentioned:

• MassPirates 2025 Administrative Coup Memory Bank;
• The IRS Is Building a Vast System to Share Millions of Taxpayers’ Data With ICE;
• 26 USC 6103: Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information;
• Immigration agents demand tenant information from landlords, stirring questions and confusion;
• Flight Manifests Reveal Dozens of Previously Unknown People on Three Deportation Flights to El Salvador;

Image Credit: Public Domain via Wikipedia Commons

masspirates.org/blog/2025/08/0…

Our next member meeting is today, 8/3 at 8pm. The agenda page is up.

Contact us if you want to add anything or bring it up at the meeting.

It will be a video meeting at our community bridge page.

Previous meeting:

• agenda: masspirates.org/wiki/July_13th…
• recording: youtu.be/r-TOtiFxrBo

masspirates.org/blog/2025/08/0…

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s been 129 days that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like, and the 47th day that Mario Guevara has been imprisoned for covering a protest. Read on for more, and click here to subscribe to our other newsletters.

Lose the law license, keep the lapel pin

This week we filed an ethics complaint with the Washington, D.C., attorney disciplinary commission against Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, calling for him to be disbarred.

Carr’s approval of the $8 billion merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media, which came after Paramount agreed to pay President Donald Trump $16 million to settle his frivolous lawsuit, was the last straw. It’s clear that Carr is abusing his power to help the president, whose face he wears as a lapel pin (seriously), use the court system to extract payments that U.S. senators and plenty others have called illegal bribes.

“Trump’s shakedown of Paramount could not have worked without a credible threat that the administration would not approve Paramount’s merger with Skydance unless it paid up,” Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Advocacy Director Seth Stern told Status. “It seems obvious to us that a licensed attorney should not be able to help his boss make a mockery of the legal system by laundering bribes through the courts without consequence.”

Read the complaint here.

FPF sues over Qatari plane secrecy

Two months ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo giving the Trump administration permission to accept a $400 million jet from Qatar to use as Air Force One.

The memo argued this was permissible as long as the plane was transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation at the end of Trump’s term. But the document, and Bondi’s basis for that politically convenient conclusion, have never been made public.

FPF, represented by watchdog group American Oversight, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit this week to force the Justice Department to release the memo. Read more here.

Google search exploited to censor reporting on censorship

On a Friday afternoon in mid-June, independent journalist Jack Poulson made a curious discovery: An article that we published about the aggressive attempts of a San Francisco-based tech executive named Maury Blackman to censor Poulson’s reporting about his sealed domestic violence arrest had, itself, disappeared from Google search results.

After Poulson alerted us to the issue, we investigated, and found that the article vanished from Google search because of a novel maneuver that apparently hasn’t been publicly well documented before: a sustained and coordinated abuse of Google’s “Refresh Outdated Content” tool. Now that Google says it has fixed the glitch so it can’t be further exploited, we can reveal what we found. Read more here.

The libel-proof president

Trump’s latest frivolous lawsuit, against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, faces plenty of legal obstacles.

One of them should be the “libel-proof plaintiff” doctrine, which theorizes that some people are so reputationally damaged, either across the board or on a certain topic, that even false statements about them can’t make it quantifiably worse.

As Stern wrote for The Palm Beach Post, the doctrine is often used against private litigants with long criminal records. That’s a tough sell to judges who believe in rehabilitation, which is likely why the doctrine is rarely applied. A better use may be as an added layer of defense to libel suits by disgraced politicians and public figures like Trump. Read the op-ed here.

What we’re reading

’If You Can Keep It’: Weakening whistleblower protections (NPR). The Trump administration is trying to portray journalism as a threat to national security. FPF’s Lauren Harper debunked these claims on “1A.”

Anna Gomez’s lonely fight (Columbia Journalism Review). Despite the FCC’s obligation to refrain from censorship, Commissioner Anna Gomez says a local station manager instructed reporters to “be extra careful about how they described the administration, because they couldn’t afford to be dragged before the FCC.” Also listen to FPF’s June conversation with Gomez here.

This U.S. citizen recorded an immigration arrest. Officers told him to delete it or face charges. (Reason). The constitutional right to record law enforcement applies equally to immigration officers, and this story shows why.

The fight for free speech goes corporate (Columbia Journalism Review). “People can’t trust a news outlet that is bribing the same officials it’s supposed to hold accountable,” FPF’s Stern said.

A more perfect media (Free Press). Read this new report on corporate influence on the media from Free Press (not the Bari Weiss one). It accompanies their new Media Capitulation Index.

freedom.press/issues/lose-the-…