Gag rules stifle financial journalism

Dear friend of press freedom,

Here are some of the most important stories we’re following from the U.S. and around the world. If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please share it with your friends and family. Did a friend share with you this newsletter? You can subscribe on LinkedIn here or through our website here.

Gag rules stifle financial journalism

The Securities and Exchange Commission requires defendants who settle cases it brings to contract away their right to deny the SEC’s allegations. So does the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That means potential sources can’t speak to financial journalists.

We wrote for The Hill about why it’s a problem when financial regulators — known for occasionally crashing the global economy — use their leverage to stifle criticism.

We explained that “the First Amendment rejects the notion that the government can protect its reputation by silencing critics. … It’s an excuse that could be used to rationalize any form of censorship by any agency.” Read the full op-ed here.

Journalists’ source material isn’t stolen property

Back in January, we warned about the dangers of authorities characterizing journalists’ source material as “stolen goods” to circumvent the First Amendment and prosecute journalists for lawfully receiving information from their sources.

But our lead example then was the investigation of Project Veritas for obtaining Ashley Biden’s diary from a thief — not exactly a sympathetic set of facts. Recently, though, the Los Angeles Times reported that the LA County Sheriff’s Department secretly investigated reporter Maya Lau between 2017 and 2021 for obtaining a list of “problem deputies” from a source. The basis for the investigation? That Lau “knowingly received stolen property.”

The Supreme Court has protected journalists’ right to report on information their sources obtained illegally, but a stolen property exception would render that meaningless — reporters can’t report what they can’t possess. Read more on our website about the threat posed by this nonsensical legal theory, especially in light of a recent appellate opinion in the aforementioned Project Veritas case that comes dangerously close to legitimizing it.

Pass the PRESS Act 

Investigative journalist Catherine Herridge is appealing an order holding her in contempt of court for refusing to burn her sources. She appeared on The Lead with Jake Tapper yesterday to talk about her case and why Congress needs to pass the PRESS Act right away. 

The PRESS Act is a federal “shield” bill to protect journalists from being surveilled by the federal government or forced to out their confidential sources by federal judges. As we’ve said before, it’s the most important press freedom bill in modern history, and it has bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. 

You can watch Herridge’s appearance on Tapper’s show here, or read her recent op-ed about the bill in The Free Press. Vanessa Leggett, a journalist who spent months in jail for refusing to divulge her sources, also wrote about the urgent need to pass the PRESS Act last week. 

What we’re reading

WSJ reporter Evan Gershkovich is free (Wall Street Journal). Great news: The U.S. has secured the releases of three American citizens imprisoned in Russia, including Wall Street Journal journalist Evan Gershkovich and Russian-American Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reporter Alsu Kurmasheva, through a prisoner exchange with Russia.

KARE 11 investigates: Judge Joy Bartscher’s gag order (KARE 11). Minnesota judge Joy Bartscher barred journalists from reporting on a publicly filed court document. It’s the latest example of a disturbing increase in blatantly unconstitutional prior restraints and clawback orders. Some of these judges need to get off the bench and go back to law school.

Clarissa Ward on the incredible challenge of reporting on Gaza (Rolling Stone). "You can’t help but wonder with this conflict: How different would it have been if dozens of us, from many different countries, were on the ground from Oct. 8, 9, 10, and onwards?"

Journalists sue Massachusetts TV corporation over bogus YouTube takedown demands (Electronic Frontier Foundation). Using bogus copyright takedown notices to censor news is an increasingly common and concerning tactic. Good for the Electronic Frontier Foundation for fighting back in court.

Federal court says warrant required for device searches at the border (Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University). “Letting border agents freely rifle through journalists' work product and communications whenever they cross the border would pose an intolerable risk to press freedom.” Great work by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Free digital security clinic

We are pleased to announce the fourth installment of our free digital security clinic for documentary filmmaking professionals! Co-hosted with Field of Vision, this four-session course will feature practical training on how to keep your footage, subjects, and crew safe from pre-production to post-premiere. Participants will also have the option to sign up for free individual consultations with our digital security trainers. The clinic, which entails one 90-minute session each week, runs from Aug. 13 to Sept. 3. Complete the intake form to participate and tell your friends! Reach out to training@freedom.press with questions.