A state judge ruled Tuesday that any article published by Tribuna in which the governor is mentioned must be approved by the court.

In addition, the judge directed González, who was the editorial director of the newspaper for 30 years until his retirement in 2017, to submit to the court for review any future material in which Sensores is mentioned.

“The verdict against Jorge Luis González and Tribuna is nothing less than a gag order that constitutes a clear case of the courts siding with a state governor in overt efforts to silence any critical reporting of her administration,” said Jan-Albert Hootsen, CPJ’s Mexico representative. “CPJ is alarmed by the sharp increase in lawfare against critical media in Mexico, where journalists continue to be attacked with almost complete impunity.”

The ruling by the Campeche state court is only the latest episode in the ongoing legal assault by Sansores on Tribuna and González, both of whom she sued on June 13, 2025, accusing them of spreading hatred and causing moral damages in coverage of her administration.

It is unclear which specific reports caused the governor to sue Tribuna, González told CPJ. It is also unclear why the lawsuit targets González, as he is no longer with the paper after his retirement in 2017. 

A previous ruling ordered González to pay “moral damages” of $2 million pesos (about USD$110,000) to Sansores and prohibited both the reporter and Tribuna from mentioning the governor in any reports, according to news reports. That sentence was suspended on July 9, after González successfully filed an injunction, which CPJ has reviewed, citing the Mexican Constitution’s prohibition of censorship before publication.

González said he planned to appeal, but it wasn’t immediately clear what strategies were available to him.

Several calls by CPJ to Sansores’ office for comment were unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Jan-Albert Hootsen/CPJ Mexico Representative.

A state judge ruled Tuesday that any article published by Tribuna in which the governor is mentioned must be approved by the court.

In addition, the judge directed González, who was the editorial director of the newspaper for 30 years until his retirement in 2017, to submit to the court for review any future material in which Sensores is mentioned.

“The verdict against Jorge Luis González and Tribuna is nothing less than a gag order that constitutes a clear case of the courts siding with a state governor in overt efforts to silence any critical reporting of her administration,” said Jan-Albert Hootsen, CPJ’s Mexico representative. “CPJ is alarmed by the sharp increase in lawfare against critical media in Mexico, where journalists continue to be attacked with almost complete impunity.”

The ruling by the Campeche state court is only the latest episode in the ongoing legal assault by Sansores on Tribuna and González, both of whom she sued on June 13, 2025, accusing them of spreading hatred and causing moral damages in coverage of her administration.

It is unclear which specific reports caused the governor to sue Tribuna, González told CPJ. It is also unclear why the lawsuit targets González, as he is no longer with the paper after his retirement in 2017. 

A previous ruling ordered González to pay “moral damages” of $2 million pesos (about USD$110,000) to Sansores and prohibited both the reporter and Tribuna from mentioning the governor in any reports, according to news reports. That sentence was suspended on July 9, after González successfully filed an injunction, which CPJ has reviewed, citing the Mexican Constitution’s prohibition of censorship before publication.

González said he planned to appeal, but it wasn’t immediately clear what strategies were available to him.

Several calls by CPJ to Sansores’ office for comment were unanswered.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Jan-Albert Hootsen/CPJ Mexico Representative.

The Al Jazeera Network has condemned the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent by Palestinian security services as a bid by the Israeli occupation to “block media coverage” of the military attack on Jenin.

Israeli soldiers have killed at least 12 Palestinians in the three-day military assault that has rendered the refugee camp “nearly uninhabitable” and forced displacement of more than 2000 people. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said the Jenin operation was a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and human rights”.

Al Jazeera said in a broadcast statement that the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent Muhammad al-Atrash by the Palestinian Authority (PA) could only be explained as “an attempt to block the media coverage of the occupation’s attack in Jenin”.

• READ MORE: International media’s reluctance to show solidarity with Palestinian journalists could backfire
• Bulldozer or Butcher: Netanyahu follows in Sharon footsteps from Jenin to Jabalia: Marwan Bishara
• Killing of five Gaza journalists by Israel strike highlights weak NZ media response
• Other media freedom reports in occupied Palestine

We’re following with concern the arrest of journalist Mohammed Al-Atrash by the Palestinian security forces in connection with his work at Al Jazeera and call for his immediate release./1 pic.twitter.com/M2ZcEoWqJl

— Al-Haq الحق (@alhaq_org) January 23, 2025

“The arbitrary actions of the Palestinian Authority are unfortunately identical to the occupation’s targeting of the Al Jazeera Network,” it said.

“We value the positions and voices that stand in solidarity and defend colleague Muhammad al-Atrash and the freedom of the press.”

The network said the journalist was brought before a court in Hebron after being arrested yesterday while covering the events in Jenin “simply for doing his professional duty as a journalist”.

“We confirm that these practices will not hinder our ongoing professional coverage of the facts unfolding in the West Bank,” Al Jazeera’s statement added.

The Israeli occupation has been targeting Al Jazeera for months in an attempt to gag its reporting.

Calling for al-Atrash’s immediate release, the al-Haq organisation (Protecting and Promoting Human Rights & the Rule of Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory) said in a statement: “Freedom of opinion and expression cannot be guaranteed without ensuring freedom of the press.”

Rage over AJ ban
Earlier this month journalists expressed outrage and confusion about the PA’s decision to shut down the Al Jazeera office in the occupied West Bank after the Israeli government had earlier banned the Al Jazeera broadcasting network’s operation within Israel.

“Shutting down a major outlet like Al Jazeera is a crime against journalism,” said freelance journalist Ikhlas al-Qarnawi.

Also earlier this month, award-winning Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab criticised the Israeli government for targeting journalists and attempting to “cover up” the assassination of five Palestinian journalists last month.

He said a December 26 press statement by the Israeli army attempted to “justify a war crime”.

“It unabashedly admitted that the military incinerated five Palestinian journalists in a clearly marked press vehicle outside al-Awda Hospital in the Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip,” Kuttab said in an op-ed article.

Many Western publications had quoted the Israeli army statement as if it was an objective position and “not propaganda whitewashing a war crime”, he wrote.

“They failed to clarify to their audiences that attacking journalists, including journalists who may be accused of promoting ‘propaganda’, is a war crime — all journalists are protected under international humanitarian law, regardless of whether armies like their reporting or not.”

Israel not only refuses to recognise any Palestinian media worker as being protected, but it also bars foreign journalists from entering Gaza.

“It has been truly disturbing that the international media has done little to protest this ban,” wrote Kuttab.

“Except for one petition signed by 60 media outlets over the summer, the international media has not followed up consistently on such demands over 15 months.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The Samoan government’s attempt to control the media for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is a slap across the face of press freedom, democracy and freedom of speech.

It is a farce and an attempt by a dysfunctional government unit to gag local and overseas media.

No international forum of such importance does this. The United Nations, the Pacific Islands Forum or other CHOGMs never had to deal with such dictatorial policies for journalism. What is the sub-committee thinking?

• READ MORE:  Samoan journalists blast ‘ridiculous’ media restrictions at Commonwealth summit
• Media restriction is in CHOGM Bluebook: Samoa govt
• Update on Samoa CHOGM 2024 Media and Communications planning

We are not living under a dictatorship, neither are the media organisations coming to cover the event. The message to media organisations like the BBC, ABC, AFP and others is you will only publish and broadcast what we tell you to.

To the people who came up with these policies, what were you thinking? This goes to show the inexperience of the press secretariat and the media sub-committee. It would have been good if you had involved experienced journalists who have covered international events.

There is never a restriction on media to cover side events, there is never a restriction for photographers and cameramen to take pictures, and there are never restrictions for media to approach delegates for interviews or what content they can get their hands on.

In any international forum, the state or the organisation’s media uploads their content, interviews, pictures and videos and makes it accessible for all to use. It is at the discretion of the media to choose to use it. In most cases, the media come with their issues and angles. To say that this will be dictated, makes it sound like this is not Samoa but China.

Next thing, the sub-committee will announce prison terms for not following the policies set by them. The CHOGM is the biggest international event Samoa has ever hosted and this decision is going to cause an international nightmare. The media in Samoa is furious because this is choking media freedom.

The hiring of a New Zealand company will not solve the matter. They can help the government as they have done sporting bodies for the Pacific Games but who are you to dictate to the media what to publish and what to report?

Each of the heads of delegations will be followed by the media from their country including their state media. All these people will not be allowed at the closing and opening ceremony. ABC, Nine News and other Australian media will follow Anthony Albanese, RNZ, New Zealand Herald, and Stuff will be behind Christopher Luxon and the British media with the King.

This is surely not a move proposed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. If anyone at the press secretariat or any of the state-owned media has covered international events like the COP, CHOGM, UN meetings or even the Pacific Island Forum Leaders Meeting, you will know that this is not how things work. To even recommend that overseas and local media work together to cover the event is absurd.

Imagine the press secretariat journalist following Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa is told at an international event, no stay away from the events she goes to because we will tell where you are allowed to go. That also begs the question, will state media from other countries be treated differently from media who are independent?

Each media outlet has its priorities. They will cover what is relevant to their audience.

Media are given access and the option to choose whichever side event they would want to be part of. Does this also mean that the itinerary or schedule of events will also be not made public?

The prime minister needs to intervene as quickly as possible before this situation escalates into an international incident. Stifling the media is never a good thing and trying to control them is even worse. Let us hope that this is not the legacy of this government. The one that managed to control media from 54 countries. It would be an achievement marked on the international stage.

This year, Samoa jumped into the top 20 in the latest press freedom index released by the global group Reporters Without Borders out of 180 countries and territories assessed.

It is one of only two Pacific nations in the top 20 of the index with New Zealand the other state and ahead of Samoa in 13th position. The other Pacific states below Aotearoa and Samoa include Australia (27), Tonga (44), Papua New Guinea (59), and Fiji (89).

This is not a reflection of that.

To justify this action by saying it is being done for security reasons either shows that you expect journalists to kill delegates with their questions or the lack of security arrangements surrounding the event. Is this an attempt to hide the inadequacies of the preparation from the eyes of the world?

The sub-committee even said this was done to safeguard information that cannot be released. If you have covered an event like this before, you would know how it works. The least you could have done was consult with the Commonwealth media team or Rwanda, the previous hosts. The media know which meetings are public.

The CHOGM is not a private event. It concerns governments from 54 nations and a government is its people. Do not be responsible for breaking the communication between governments and their people. Do not be the people to go down in history as the ones who killed media freedom at CHOGM, because that is what has happened here.

If this is allowed to happen for CHOGM, a dangerous precedent will be set for future local events.

The Samoa Observer editorial on 12 September 2024. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

A Papua New Guinea court application to stop the news media from reporting on an alleged sexual offence incident involving Goroka MP Aiye Tambua has been thrown out.

Magistrate Paul Puri Nii, sitting in the Waigani Committal Court, refused the application by Tambua’s lawyer yesterday, saying media freedom was everybody’s freedom.

“People won’t kill you,” Nil told the MP.

• READ MORE: Other PNG crime reports

“You are a leader, and you are subject to critics [sic]. For me, I am not going to bar the media.

“Being a magistrate, being a judge, being a leader, you are subject to critics, and that’s nothing. That’s going to either correct you or lead you in the wrong direction. But it’s up to you.

“I advocate for media freedom so I think that [for that] aspect of the motion, I will refuse it.”

Nii said the media were “the ears and the eyes of people” and that was why he advocated for media freedom.

Allowed to travel
The magistrate granted the motion seeking orders to allow Tambua, 45, to travel out of Port Moresby, but said he had to return before May 9, which was the next court appearance date.

Tambua, through his lawyer Edward Sasingian, filed a motion seeking orders to:

• ALLOW the defendant to continue to travel out of Port Moresby; and
• RESTRICT the media from reporting on the case on the basis that the media has caused repercussions on the defendant and the victims.

Sasingian also informed the court that he had served a copy of the motion on the prosecution and both had agreed on the position to restrict media until a determination is made in the committal proceedings.

He referred to a District Court decision which barred the media from reporting, but Nii said: “For me, I advocate media freedom. Other magistrates may bar the media but this is court room two, my court, so media has the freedom to report.”

Report on facts
Nii also urged media to report on facts.

“If you want to report on the matter, come to the courts, get the court files and report on the matter,” he said.

Tambua’s case was adjourned until May 9, for further mention, after the prosecution informed the court that police were still doing investigations to establish the allegations and produce a brief.

The MP, from Goroka’s Massy village, Eastern Highlands, was alleged to have committed the sexual offences on the three victims (all family members) on different occasions over a period of time.

Tambua is facing 26 charges and had his bail extended.

Boura Goru Kila is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The New York-based media watchdog Committee to Protect Journalists says the announcement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of his intention to ban Al Jazeera follows a similar pattern of media interference, including the killing of media workers.

“We’ve seen this kind of language before from Netanyahu and Israeli officials in which they try to paint journalists as ‘terrorists’, as ‘criminals’. This is nothing new,” Jodie Ginsberg told Al Jazeera.

“It’s another example of the tightening of the free press and the stranglehold the Israeli government would like to exercise. It’s an incredibly worrying move by the government.”

• READ MORE: Other Gaza media freedom reports

Netanyahu wrote on X on Monday that “Al Jazeera harmed Israel’s security, actively participated in the October 7 massacre, and incited against Israeli soldiers.

“The terrorist channel Al Jazeera will no longer broadcast from Israel. I intend to act immediately in accordance with the new law to stop the channel’s activity.’

The Israeli parliament approved a law granting the government authority to ban foreign news networks, including Al Jazeera. PM Netanyahu pledged to “act immediately” to close the network’s local office pic.twitter.com/L2RXOzVi5t

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) April 2, 2024

The Qatar-based network rejected what it described as “slanderous accusations” and accused Netanyahu of “incitement”.

“Al Jazeera holds the Israeli Prime Minister responsible for the safety of its staff and network premises around the world, following his incitement and this false accusation in a disgraceful manner,” it said in a statement.

‘Slanderous accusations’
“Al Jazeera reiterates that such slanderous accusations will not deter us from continuing our bold and professional coverage, and reserves the right to pursue every legal step.”

Netanyahu has long sought to shut down broadcasts from Al Jazeera, alleging anti-Israel bias, the network reports on its website.

The law, which passed in a 71-10 vote in the Knesset, gives the prime minister and communications minister the authority to order the closure of foreign networks operating in Israel and confiscate their equipment if it is believed they pose “harm to the state’s security”.

White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said that an Israeli move to shut down Al Jazeera would be “concerning”.

“The United States supports the critically important work of journalists around the world and that includes those who are reporting in the conflict in Gaza,” Jean-Pierre told reporters.

“So we believe that work is important. The freedom of the press is important. And if those reports are true, it is concerning to us.”

The legislation’s passage comes nearly five months after Israel said it would block Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen. It refrained from shutting Al Jazeera at the same time.

Move with closure
After the vote on Monday, Israel’s Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said he intended to move forward with the closure. He said Al Jazeera had been acting as a “propaganda arm of Hamas” by “encouraging armed struggle against Israel”.

“It is impossible to tolerate a media outlet, with press credentials from the Government Press Office and offices in Israel, acting from within against us, certainly during wartime,” he said.

According to news agencies, his office said the order would seek to block the channel’s broadcasts in Israel and prevent it from operating in the country. The order would not apply to the occupied West Bank or Gaza.

Israel has often lashed out at Al Jazeera, which has offices in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

In May 2022, Israeli forces shot dead senior Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh while she was covering an Israeli military raid in the West Bank town of Jenin.

A UN-commissioned report concluded that Israeli forces used “lethal force without justification” in the killing, violating her “right to life”.

During the war in Gaza, several of the channel’s journalists and their family members have been killed by Israeli bombardments.

On October 25, an air raid killed the family of Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh, including his wife, son, daughter, grandson and at least eight other relatives.

Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 32,782 people, mostly women and children, according to Palestinian authorities.

Pacific Media Watch and news agencies.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

San Francisco police on Jan. 24, 2024, obtained a warrant to search independent news outlet Indybay’s electronic data, along with a 90-day gag order preventing Indybay from discussing or writing about its existence, according to court documents.

The warrant, which police later decided against pursuing, sought to identify the author of an Indybay post who claimed to have vandalized the San Francisco Police Credit Union.

The nondisclosure order was ultimately lifted on March 7 by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Linda Colfax, allowing Indybay to speak publicly about the warrant. Also on March 7, the San Francisco Police Department said it had decided not to act on the warrant due to potential First Amendment issues.

The warrant stemmed from a Jan. 18 post on Indybay, published under the pseudonym “some anarchists,” in which the author took responsibility for having smashed windows at the credit union earlier that day in an “act of vengeance” on the one-year anniversary of the police shooting death of an environmental activist in Atlanta.

Indybay, a volunteer-run, community-sourced newswire also known as the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center, allows anyone to self-publish articles, photos, videos and other material on the site. The posts are reviewed by Indybay editors, who according to the site’s editorial policies may combine them, make edits for spelling or grammar, or hide them if they are deemed “false, libelous, abusive … or hate speech.”

On Jan. 24, the police obtained the search warrant, which required Indybay to turn over information that would help identify the author of the story, such as IP addresses, website login credentials, and email addresses and phone numbers.

Indybay asked the police to withdraw the warrant on Jan. 29, arguing that it was illegal under California’s shield law and the federal Privacy Protection Act, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which provided the outlet with pro bono legal assistance. The SFPD told Indybay on Jan. 31 that it would take no further action on the warrant.

Indybay filed a motion on Feb. 22 not only to formally quash the warrant but also the nondisclosure order — which remained in effect — arguing that it violated the First Amendment as a “content-based prior restraint on speech.”

Colfax vacated the gag order on March 7, while also confirming that the search warrant had become void on Feb. 3, “as no search occurred and no records were received.”

EFF Staff Attorney F. Mario Trujillo told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker in an email that “SFPD and the judge did not end up taking a position” on the argument that the search warrant was unlawful. “SFPD, instead, took the position that—regardless of whether the warrant was unlawful when it was first issued—it became void after 10 days when SFPD declined to pursue it further in the face of Indybay’s resistance,” he added.

Trujillo went on to say that Colfax supported that interpretation in her order, adding, “It was important for the judge to confirm that and give Indybay certainty on the record.”

SFPD, in a March 7 news release, said that when Police Chief William “Bill” Scott learned of the warrant, he “immediately ordered officers to not pursue it over questions about possible First Amendment and Freedom of the Press issues.”

The statement added that the police department is committed to supporting the free press and has policies and training related to California’s shield law. The SFPD had previously pledged to ensure that all employees were properly trained on journalist protections with regard to police searches and subpoenas as part of a settlement after a police raid and search of a journalist’s home in 2019.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

Reporting on the government institution charged with saving us from the Covid pandemic was restricted enough to leave real holes in what we knew.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—like many other organizations these days, public and private—prohibits its employees from speaking freely to reporters. At many entities, the rules mean staff members cannot have any unauthorized contact with reporters, with media inquiries often redirected to a public information office (PIO).

The forced notification of the higher-ups is quite enough to silence many employees about anything that would displease the bosses. But beyond that, reporters’ requests to speak to someone are often not granted at all.

Unreported gaps in defenses

Washington Post (7/4/20)

Why are those controls not an outrage? Certainly, some CDC shortcomings that led to ill-controlled Covid spread could have been revealed earlier—maybe well before the pandemic—if people were talking to reporters normally. That would include confidential conversations, if that were the agreement between staff member and reporter.

The Covid Crisis Group, in its investigative report last year, pointed out (among many other shortcomings) that neither the CDC nor anyone in government had a well-developed design for screening people at international air gateways. Nor had  CDC or any other agency  “tried to build a rapid-action, interdisciplinary, systematic biomedical surveillance network.” In July 2020, months after the agency’s mistakes with the Covid test hampered the early response, the Washington Post (7/4/20) revealed CDC had made the same mistakes with the Zika virus test four years before.

One could look at each such gap in the nation’s pandemic defenses and think: “There were agency staff who understood the problem—possibly couldn’t sleep at night because of it—and they were banned from speaking freely about it to reporters.”

Quite possibly either a general-interest outlet or a specialized trade newsletter would have been tipped off, if they had  normal contact with such people.

Gradually, over several decades, with almost no public discussion, these gag rules have come to many corners of  society, including public and private entities, businesses, federal, state and local governments, organizations covered by science reporters, schools of all levels, and police departments. The censorship mechanism is taught in at least some communications classes.

Journalists’ responsibility to fight such restrictions, not just get stories, is indicated by regular reports about bad situations that might have been changed earlier: information on generic drug production problems that took author Katherine Eban 10 years to pull out of the system; plans by the Trump administration to separate children from parents; young CDC scientists who knew in early 2020 that Covid could be spread by people who did not seem ill; or the many law enforcement organizations all over the country that stifle reporting on themselves.

Blockages politically driven

Quill (9/22/22)

Former CDC media relations head Glen Nowak (Quill, 9/22/22) has said the agency’s controls grew tighter with each presidential administration, beginning with President Ronald Reagan. Each new administration looked back at what the previous one had done, and saw there had been no adverse political impact from tightening the restrictions. Nowak said the blockages were often politically driven, and frequently effective in controlling information.

When a reporter contacts the PIO for permission to talk to someone at the CDC, the request is sent up through the political layers of government, at least to the Department of Health and Human Services secretary of public affairs, and often all the way to the White House. Behind closed doors, officials decide who may speak to whom, and what may be discussed.

Nowak said:

Administrations, typically, their priority is trying to remain elected. And they’re often looking at policies through: how will this help or not help when it comes to running for election…. A serious health threat can be underplayed or ignored if it doesn’t align with political ideology of the party in power, or a party is trying to get power.

For over 15 years, a number of journalism organizations have been fighting these controls. Letters signed by 25 to 60 organizations have gone to the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, as well as to Congress, calling for an end to the constraints in federal entities.

News outlets have researched or editorialized against the practice. Last year, the Lexington Courier Journal (6/15/23) found that of 35 Kentucky agencies, 70% restrict or prohibit employees from talking to journalists. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette editorial board (9/4/23) said that “governments and other agencies have tightly constricted access to the people who actually make the decisions and know, first-hand, key information.”

Testing the restrictions

There’s been another important step in the last few months. Two journalists filed separate suits against public agencies for having these policies. Some people, including attorneys, have said in the past that journalists could not sue agencies in such instances.  A plaintiff, they said, would have to be an insider, a “willing speaker.”

However, Brittany Hailer, director of the Pittsburgh Institute for Nonprofit Journalism, sued the Allegheny County Jail last August for allegedly prohibiting employees and contractors from speaking to journalists without prior approval of the warden. Her complaint says that the jail, which houses on average 1,553 people, has had a death rate “reportedly nearly twice the national average among local jails of similar size.”

Hailer is represented by the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

In addition, the publishers of the Catskills, NY–based Reporter sued the Delaware County (New York) Board of Supervisors. The board had pulled the county’s legal advertising from the paper, allegedly in retaliation for news coverage the board didn’t like, and then prohibited county employees from speaking to the paper about “pressing matters of public concern.” The board mandated, the complaint said, that all communications with the Reporter be funneled through the county attorney’s office.

The Reporter’s publishers are represented by the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and Michael J. Grygiel.

Both cases are currently pending before the courts.

Foundational thinking for the cases was provided by a 2019 report by prominent First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte, who was then head of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, and is now counsel at CNN. In a summary report, LoMonte said of the constraints:

Media plaintiffs should be able to establish that their interests have been injured, whether directly or indirectly, to sustain a First Amendment challenge to government restraints on employees’ speech to the media. The only question is whether the restraint will be treated as a presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint, or whether a less rigorous level of scrutiny will apply.

Is this authoritarianism?

Is this trend a kind of authoritarianism that is growing out of our public relations culture?

Many types of media—national, local or specialized—publish, with little or no skepticism, information handed out from government agencies. Nor do journalists warn audiences that the staff members who know other parts of the story are walled off from reporters.

Why does the press assume that any human organization will maintain competence or integrity when it is blocking or manipulating information about itself?

Even as climate disruption poses an ever-greater threat, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy have these don’t-talk policies, as do most federal agencies.

Last year, the Department of Commerce, with its prominent role in regulating artificial intelligence, put out a policy saying that requests for official press interviews should go through the public affairs officials, and further

should be submitted by email with details to include story angle, background, requested attribution, Q&A, suggested talking points and reporter’s deadline. Please do not agree to attribution terms prior to OPA [Office of Public Affairs] clearance. If possible, please allow a 24-hour turnaround for print interviews. Please allow a 48-hour turnaround for television interviews, due to the extended White House clearance process.

But, again, even with the hazards inherent in such restraints on journalism, the press doesn’t often tell the public about the controls.

At the local level, stories emerge about abuses by law enforcement, like the murder of George Floyd and systemic abuse by sheriffs’ departments. Still, most of the press doesn’t explain that many police departments impose rules that can hide such violations.

The gag rules, or “censorship by PIO,” have become a cultural norm, and millions of people in the United States are now banned from speaking, or speaking freely, to journalists. Even though free speech is necessary for democracy and public welfare, journalists have in large part acquiesced to making routine, permission-to-speak requests through PIOs or others.

A right to control the message?

Police1 (7/27/20)

I’ve heard reporters from prominent outlets gripe about the process, and the time it takes to be allowed to talk to someone. But there seems to be no recognition that the public needs to know when none of the thousands of people in an agency are allowed to speak to journalists without that oversight, and most can’t speak to them at all. Nor is there discussion that someone in the agency, in a high or low position, could blow the journalists’ story out of the water, even after publication, or blow their minds about something they are oblivious to.

This may have originated with the long-held journalism convention that news outlets do not complain to the public about the trials they go through when people in power try to block their newsgathering. We may fear that if we admit we’ve been blocked, we discredit our news product.

On the other side, some public relations people or agency leaders try to rebut the idea they are censors, saying they are trying to help the press, or increase transparency, or they want to coordinate the story from different parts of their organization. That, of course, doesn’t address the fact they could serve these functions without banning all unfettered contacts.

Other PR officials are quite straightforward about why employees are silenced: People leading an organization, they say, have a right to set the message.

There is no doubt that agencies and offices have real challenges in this communications era. Carefully crafted, honest messages can be blown apart by careless statements. Employees can be ill-informed, or they can be promoting their own agenda. Statements can come across as coming from the organization itself when they are not—due to what the staffer says, what the news outlet says or how the audience interprets it. Journalists are often time-pressured, and can be sensation-seeking or less than careful.

Those are serious problems that can cause real harm. They need to be continuously addressed by both agencies and journalists, with both sides listening carefully to the other. However, they are not a reason to degrade ourselves to what is one of the most repressive and deadly things in history: people in power controlling information.

There is no reason news outlets can’t fight this. If they stand together, they can fight against these policies, and work to ensure the press and others have normal access to staff. They can work within their associations or build coalitions. They can agree to tell the public routinely when employees are gagged, treating the situation like the corruption it is.

The press has led similar fights for decades, pushing for access to documents with freedom of information laws, and access to official meetings under the open meetings laws. Fighting for normal communication with human beings should not be different.

Why is the press doing this?

Popular Resistance (2/5/24)

Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University, says (Popular Resistance, 2/5/24): “The news system is not designed for human understanding. Even at the top providers, it’s designed to produce a flow of new content today—and every day.”

Media, at their best, do seriously excellent content. In this era of information tsunamis, a lot of stuff is still pushed at the press. There are also masses of information in the public arena that just take work to pull together. By reading the Federal Register or other public documents, a reporter can find something intriguing that’s getting little attention.  And reporters also get material that isn’t public.

The unfortunate side of all this legitimate supply is that it keeps outlets from worrying too much about how people in power are manipulating us away from overall understanding, and from some of the most critical information.

Journalists often respond to questions about these censorship systems with something like, “Good reporters get the story anyway.” It’s possible that we can use our skills to dig out stories that audiences are interested in, and hopefully our news outlet survives. That doesn’t mean that we are doing good enough coverage of the institutions that impact the public—not with nearly everyone in the organization silenced.

The newsgathering controls began to grow well before today’s alarming decline in numbers of journalists and news outlets, or the emergence of other threats to democracy. One can imagine that vicious cycles among those factors will worsen as journalists grow even more dependent “on inexpensive official sources as the credible news source,” as press critic Victor Pickard (Editor & Publisher, 11/15/21) has called them.

It’s up to journalists to fight for the right to talk to people with vital information normally, fluidly, without authorities’ involvement.

Featured image: Creative Commons photo by Carolyn Langton.

The post Government Gag Rules Keep Vital Info From the Public appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by FAIR.

In case you haven’t heard (oh, yes, you’ve heard), former US president Donald Trump faces  criminal charges in various jurisdictions, relating to everything from his business practices to his handling of classified documents to his conduct regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Comes now special counsel Jack Smith, in one of those prosecutions,  asking judge Tanya Chutkan to issue a “gag order” under which Trump would be forbidden to publicly make “certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements.”

I tend toward a dim view of “gag orders” in general, but this proposal is particularly silly and counter-productive. It embodies the same level of evil as any other demand that someone’s public speech be curtailed, but it’s also likely to be ineffectual, or even actually damage Smith’s efforts to convict Trump. To steal a quote incorrectly attributed to French diplomat Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord concerning an 1804 trial and execution, “it’s worse than a crime, it’s a blunder.”

Smith doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know in attempting to justify the request.

Trump, prosecutors claim, “knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets.” His “extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individual — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”

Anyone who’s followed Trump’s career in general or his recent legal troubles in particular knows all that to be true.

“Gagging” him, even if he complied with the order (don’t bet the ranch on that happening,  if you want to keep the ranch) wouldn’t end, or even reduce, the threats or attempts to intimidate.

Trump has plenty of proxies, most of whom he  wouldn’t have to personally ask (and probably doesn’t even personally know), to keep that kind of thing up on his behalf.

Why give him plausible deniability? And why try to prevent him from “tainting the jury pool,” when any such “tainting” will likely be to the prosecution’s benefit rather than his?

Trump never shuts up. Many people believe, with good reason, that he CAN’T shut up. Every time he’s accused of something, he proudly owns it, pronounces it not just non-criminal but “perfect,”  whines that he’s just the little guy facing persecution, and issues open threats against anyone and everyone involved.

How are those chosen as jurors likely to take those threats? As evidence that he should be sent on his merry way to keep doing the same things he’s been doing, or as evidence that perhaps a stiff set of iron bars between him and them is called for?

Because these cases are all inherently political, he’s almost certain to hang any jury anyway —  at least one out of every 12 Americans uncritically buys whatever “AS SEEN ON TV!” goop he’s selling.

But sweeping those threats under the rug will give some otherwise reasonable people time to forget about them. And it’s always better to err on the side of free speech anyway.

Let him talk.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Thomas Knapp.

“Judge Ingrid Opperman’s ruling is another victory for press freedom in South Africa against politically connected individuals who are increasingly abusing court processes to try to prevent journalists from reporting in the public interest,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator, in Durban on Thursday. “This is the third South African court ruling in recent months to favor the press, and we welcome the judge’s statement that those with grievances against the media should seek redress through the Press Council rather than complain to the courts.”

The two businessmen, Bridgman Sithole and Michael Maile, last month filed an urgent request to the court to bar Media24 from calling them members of the “Alex Mafia.” The term refers to a group of former anti-apartheid activists from Alexandra township in Johannesburg, including Mashatile, who rose to positions of influence in the provincial government and later became powerful and wealthy businessmen by winning lucrative government contracts.

In her ruling, Opperman said she was “driven to conclude that this application is an abusive attempt by two politically connected businessmen to gag a targeted newsroom from using a nickname — ‘Alex Mafia’ — by which [Sithole and Maile] are popularly known and called by the public, politicians, political commentators, other newsrooms, and themselves — and have been for at least 16 years.”

The judge also said it was unclear why Sithole and Maile did not pursue the “potentially speedier remedies” of filing a complaint with the Press Council, an independent co-regulatory mechanism that settles disputes over editorial content between members of the public and media outlets. The judge ordered the pair to pay punitive costs in the form of all the legal fees incurred by Media24 in the case.

Adriaan Basson, editor-in-chief of News24, a division of Media24, said in response that the outlet would “continue digging into the businesses” of the “Alex Mafia” and the rest of Mashatile’s alleged funders “so that the country knows the people who are funding the lavish lifestyle of the second-in-charge.” News24’s investigative series details Mashatile’s alleged links to businessmen, including Sithole and Maile.

Sithole and Maile referred CPJ to their lawyer, who did not respond to an email.

Opperman’s judgment is the third South African court ruling in as many months to decide that litigation against the media was an abuse of process

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Kenwyn Caranna, a government reporter for the News & Record, was covering a juvenile court hearing on July 28, 2023, when a North Carolina judge seized her notes and told her she was under a gag order.

News & Record Executive Editor Dimon Kendrick-Holmes wrote that Caranna had been observing proceedings in the Greensboro courtroom most of the day, the only exception being a closed hearing when all observers were ordered to leave the courtroom.

District Court Judge Ashley Watlington-Simms reportedly asked Caranna to identify herself later in the day. When Caranna did so, the judge denied the reporter’s request to speak with an attorney and left the courtroom to consult with Chief District Court Judge Teresa Vincent.

When she returned, Watlington-Simms told Caranna she was under a gag order. The judge then directed bailiffs to seize Caranna’s notes from the day’s proceedings, telling the journalist she could appeal the decision on a later date.

Watlington-Simms entered a formal protective order on Aug. 2, which stated that the prior restraint was necessary to protect confidential information from the juvenile court cases, according to the News & Record. The order also sealed Caranna’s notes and barred her from disclosing information from the cases she observed.

The News & Record has requested a hearing to vacate the gag order as well as unseal and return Caranna’s notes.

When reached by email, Caranna directed the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker to a newsletter about the ruling, but declined to comment further. The newsletter reported that a district trial court coordinator refused to release a copy of the protective order, stating that it is confidential.

This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

“Today’s judgment is a massive victory for media freedom in South Africa and an important vindication of a journalist’s ethical duty to protect confidential sources in the public interest,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator. “Deputy Judge President Roland Sutherland’s judgment reaffirms that the country’s courts will not condone pre-publication censorship without appropriate notice and that investigative journalists have the right to hold and use leaked information in the public interest.”

Quintal has been an amaBhungane board member since October 2013.

A judge granted the original injunction against amaBhungane on June 1—following a secret application by the Moti Group, the subject of the outlet’s coverage—and the action was widely condemned as a threat to media freedom in the country. The injunction ordered the outlet to return leaked documents and refrain from publishing further articles based on them.

On June 3, amaBhungane launched an urgent application in the Johannesburg High Court to overturn the order, in which the parties agreed that the investigative outlet would not destroy or alter the documentation until the matter could be heard in open court. 

AmaBhungane sought another urgent application seeking to overthrow the original order last week; the judgment in its favor was delivered Monday, July 3.

Sutherland called the Moti Group’s application an “abuse of the court process,” according to multiple news reports and a joint statement by the South African National Editors’ Forum, the Campaign for Free Expression, and Media Monitoring Africa, three local press freedom organizations who joined amaBhungane in its legal case. The judge ordered the Moti Group to pay amaBhungane’s and the three organizations’ legal costs.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Mister Speaker, our collective question without notice is to you mister Speaker. We want the Prime Minister and his deputy to take note Sir.

Our question from the Media Gallery is specifically directed to you, Mr Speaker, because of events that have transpired in the last 48 hours in which the freedom of the media in the people’s house has been once again curtailed.

Mr Speaker, we are aware of proposed changes to laws that are yet to reach the House that have been circulated by the Minister for Communications for consultation with all stakeholders in the media industry on the media development policy document, we are still concerned about what these will further impinge on the operations of mainstream media in PNG in covering, questioning and investigating Parliament, politicians and government departments and their activities.

• READ MORE: Media access restricted, says Acting Speaker Koni Iguan
• The beginning of the end for PNG press freedom?
• Other PNG media freedom reports

Last week, our members’ movements in and around the National Parliament at Waigani was further restricted by members of the Parliamentary Security Services.

We are now restricted to the press gallery and cannot further venture around the House in search of news. Mr Speaker, is the media really a serious threat to you and the members of the House that you have to apply such stringent measures to curtail our movements?

Parliament is an icon of our democracy. It is rightfully the people’s House, might we remind you mister Speaker, that we are guaranteed freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom to engage with all leaders mandated by the people to represent them here.

What then is the reason for you to set up barriers around the hallways, offices of MPs and public walkways, Mr Speaker?

Your Parliamentary Clerk is lost, Mr Speaker. In our queries not aware of any order to gag the media in the people’s House. His deputy is muted and cannot find a reason for this preposterous decision to restrict our movements in the House.

Mr Speaker, we consider this a serious impingement on the freedom of journalists to access Parliament House, report on the proceedings, seek out and question MPs on the spot.

Sir, Mr Speaker, we are well aware of the processes, procedures and decorum of the house, and where we as political reporters and photographers can traverse and that we always stay on our side of the fence.

Mr Speaker, let us remind you once again that Parliament belongs to the people. Their voice must be heard. Their MPs must be on record to deliver their needs and wants and their views.

The people cannot be denied. This will be a grave travesty Mr Speaker, if you deny the people their freedom to know what is transpiring in Parliament by silencing the media.

In the past, the media had a very good relationship with your office and we are pleased to say that the Speaker has on more than one occasion, assisted the members of the media with accreditation, and even transportation.

But Mr Speaker, don’t entertain any point of order from other Members on our question. They have had their day on the floor.

Mister Speaker, we members of the media are not primitives. Far from it, we are just the messengers of the people.

One last friendly reminder Mr Speaker. The very people that you are trying to restrict are the ones that you will need to get the message out to the people and to the world.

We are not your enemies. We are here to ensure your all 118 MPs do a proper job transparently without fear or favour.

Thank you Mr Speaker.

This PNG Post-Courier editorial was published under the headline “A Question without Notice” on 12 June 2023. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

In April, amaBhungfane published a series of articles based on leaked documents about South African businessman Zunaid Moti and the Moti Group of companies, which he led as CEO until resigning in March. The Moti Group alleged a former employee stole those documents.

On May 30, the Moti Group launched an urgent application to be heard in secret, in terms of a legal process where no notice needs to be given to the other party concerned, to force amaBhungane to return the documents in its possession and to bar it from any further reporting on the company. On June 1, Judge John Holland-Muter granted an interim order effectively gagging amaBhungane until the matter could be argued in open court on October 3 and ordering it to return the documents within 48 hours, according to a report by the outlet and a statement by the industry body South African National Editors’ Forum. AmaBhungane’s lawyer was only informed about the interim order after it was granted.

“We hope that when the matter is fully ventilated in open court, investigative journalism in the public interest and the protection of confidential sources that are key to exposing massive alleged corruption in South Africa and elsewhere will be vindicated and not eroded,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator. “Not to do so would mean any party can stop investigative journalists from exposing corruption or any other matter of public interest by claiming that the information relied upon is stolen, endangering the lives of whistleblowers or confidential sources by forcing disclosure.”

Quintal has been an amaBhungane board member since October 2013.

David Frankel, executive director of The Sentry, a U.S. outlet that collaborated with amaBhungane on its investigations into the Moti Group, in an email to CPJ described amaBhungane’s reporting as “public interest journalism of the purest kind.”

“Questions about Moti Group’s apparent payments to firms linked to the President and Vice President of Zimbabwe, a cozy relationship with an official at a major South African bank, and the financial motives behind donations to a Presidential candidate in Botswana–these are all important and appropriate subjects for investigative journalism,” Frankel said.

Moti has denied the allegations of impropriety and state capture in media interviews, opinion articles, a TikTok campaign, and paid-for media articles, as reported by amaBhungane.

To protect its sources and not hand over the documents, as well as to continue reporting on the Moti Group, amaBhungane sought an urgent reconsideration of the order on Saturday morning, June 3, ahead of that evening’s deadline to return the documents.

Judge Stephan van Nieuwenhuizen dealt only with the order to return the documents and granted a variation of the order. As a result, amaBhungane would not be compelled to hand over the documents, although the bar on publishing further articles would remain until the case was eventually heard in court.

Van Nieuwenhuizen reportedly said he could not understand how Holland-Muter granted the interim order and criticized Moti Group’s legal representatives for being “unreasonable.”

“While we are disappointed that the gag order issued against us–unjustifiably and abusively in our view–remains in place for now, we will fight this in due course and believe today’s variation was necessary to protect our sources,” amaBhungane tweeted after the revised order was issued.

In its court papers filed on June 6 challenging the interim order, which CPJ reviewed, amaBhungane said that Section 16 of the South African Constitution permitted journalists to receive information from sources on a confidential basis.

“Regardless of the manner in which information has been obtained by a source, it is not unlawful for journalists to hold any information provided by a source, provided they do so in the public interest,” the outlet wrote in those court papers.

Journalists had a right and duty to keep their source material and the identity of anonymous sources confidential, the document said, adding that it was unlawful and unconstitutional to order a journalist to hand over their source material or identify a source to any other party.

“A prior restraint on journalist publication can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and never without notice,” the documents said, adding that it was “unlawful and unconstitutional to interdict a journalistic publication without notice, whether on an interim or final basis.”

AmaBhungane is expected to return to court within the next few weeks.

In an opinion article published Sunday, Zunaid Moti said the legal dispute was “in no way about supposedly ‘gagging’ media” but “preventing journalists from reporting upon stolen information.” 

In that article, Moti accused amaBhungane of having “used the flimsy excuse of ‘public interest’ to participate in theft; published stolen, altered documents and convoluted conspiracy theories as fact; and has even gone as far as to share private banking details and other personal information on public platforms.”

This justification was repeated in a statement to CPJ by the Moti Group’s lawyer Ulrich Roux, which said the June 1 order was not a “gagging order” against the media and amaBhungane but had to be seen in the context of a “clear case of theft committed by an ex-employee,” who downloaded more than 4,000 “editable” Moti Group documents before resigning. 

The statement said these documents included proprietary information and intellectual property, which could cause significant monetary damages to the group if confidentiality was not maintained, adding that the papers were not in the public interest and denied that the former employee was acting as a “whistleblower.”

In television interviews, Moti said the secrecy of the June 1 hearing was necessary because he believed amaBhungane could have concealed or destroyed the documents if they had received prior notice about the group’s court action.

In an opinion column published Monday, William Bird, executive director of the local press rights group Media Monitoring Africa, labeled the June 1 interim court order a “travesty of justice” and said, “Even if we accept this argument, had amaBhungane sought to delete the documents, they could still have concealed the material even after the order was granted.”  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

In April, amaBhungfane published a series of articles based on leaked documents about South African businessman Zunaid Moti and the Moti Group of companies, which he led as CEO until resigning in March. The Moti Group alleged a former employee stole those documents.

On May 30, the Moti Group launched an urgent application to be heard in secret, in terms of a legal process where no notice needs to be given to the other party concerned, to force amaBhungane to return the documents in its possession and to bar it from any further reporting on the company. On June 1, Judge John Holland-Muter granted an interim order effectively gagging amaBhungane until the matter could be argued in open court on October 3 and ordering it to return the documents within 48 hours, according to a report by the outlet and a statement by the industry body South African National Editors’ Forum. AmaBhungane’s lawyer was only informed about the interim order after it was granted.

“We hope that when the matter is fully ventilated in open court, investigative journalism in the public interest and the protection of confidential sources that are key to exposing massive alleged corruption in South Africa and elsewhere will be vindicated and not eroded,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator. “Not to do so would mean any party can stop investigative journalists from exposing corruption or any other matter of public interest by claiming that the information relied upon is stolen, endangering the lives of whistleblowers or confidential sources by forcing disclosure.”

Quintal has been an amaBhungane board member since October 2013.

David Frankel, executive director of The Sentry, a U.S. outlet that collaborated with amaBhungane on its investigations into the Moti Group, in an email to CPJ described amaBhungane’s reporting as “public interest journalism of the purest kind.”

“Questions about Moti Group’s apparent payments to firms linked to the President and Vice President of Zimbabwe, a cozy relationship with an official at a major South African bank, and the financial motives behind donations to a Presidential candidate in Botswana–these are all important and appropriate subjects for investigative journalism,” Frankel said.

Moti has denied the allegations of impropriety and state capture in media interviews, opinion articles, a TikTok campaign, and paid-for media articles, as reported by amaBhungane.

To protect its sources and not hand over the documents, as well as to continue reporting on the Moti Group, amaBhungane sought an urgent reconsideration of the order on Saturday morning, June 3, ahead of that evening’s deadline to return the documents.

Judge Stephan van Nieuwenhuizen dealt only with the order to return the documents and granted a variation of the order. As a result, amaBhungane would not be compelled to hand over the documents, although the bar on publishing further articles would remain until the case was eventually heard in court.

Van Nieuwenhuizen reportedly said he could not understand how Holland-Muter granted the interim order and criticized Moti Group’s legal representatives for being “unreasonable.”

“While we are disappointed that the gag order issued against us–unjustifiably and abusively in our view–remains in place for now, we will fight this in due course and believe today’s variation was necessary to protect our sources,” amaBhungane tweeted after the revised order was issued.

In its court papers filed on June 6 challenging the interim order, which CPJ reviewed, amaBhungane said that Section 16 of the South African Constitution permitted journalists to receive information from sources on a confidential basis.

“Regardless of the manner in which information has been obtained by a source, it is not unlawful for journalists to hold any information provided by a source, provided they do so in the public interest,” the outlet wrote in those court papers.

Journalists had a right and duty to keep their source material and the identity of anonymous sources confidential, the document said, adding that it was unlawful and unconstitutional to order a journalist to hand over their source material or identify a source to any other party.

“A prior restraint on journalist publication can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and never without notice,” the documents said, adding that it was “unlawful and unconstitutional to interdict a journalistic publication without notice, whether on an interim or final basis.”

AmaBhungane is expected to return to court within the next few weeks.

In an opinion article published Sunday, Zunaid Moti said the legal dispute was “in no way about supposedly ‘gagging’ media” but “preventing journalists from reporting upon stolen information.” 

In that article, Moti accused amaBhungane of having “used the flimsy excuse of ‘public interest’ to participate in theft; published stolen, altered documents and convoluted conspiracy theories as fact; and has even gone as far as to share private banking details and other personal information on public platforms.”

This justification was repeated in a statement to CPJ by the Moti Group’s lawyer Ulrich Roux, which said the June 1 order was not a “gagging order” against the media and amaBhungane but had to be seen in the context of a “clear case of theft committed by an ex-employee,” who downloaded more than 4,000 “editable” Moti Group documents before resigning. 

The statement said these documents included proprietary information and intellectual property, which could cause significant monetary damages to the group if confidentiality was not maintained, adding that the papers were not in the public interest and denied that the former employee was acting as a “whistleblower.”

In television interviews, Moti said the secrecy of the June 1 hearing was necessary because he believed amaBhungane could have concealed or destroyed the documents if they had received prior notice about the group’s court action.

In an opinion column published Monday, William Bird, executive director of the local press rights group Media Monitoring Africa, labeled the June 1 interim court order a “travesty of justice” and said, “Even if we accept this argument, had amaBhungane sought to delete the documents, they could still have concealed the material even after the order was granted.”  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

The post Media Silence as Biden’s ‘Gag Order’ Censors Federal Scientists appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Vins.

The right-wing campaign to censor what is read and taught at public schools, colleges, universities, and libraries across the United States is only growing more intense, as state lawmakers introduced dozens of educational gag orders in the first six weeks of 2023.

From the start of the new year through February 13, Republican lawmakers proposed 72 educational censorship bills and their Democratic counterparts unveiled two, according to an analysis published Thursday by PEN America, which updates its "Index of Educational Gag Orders" on a weekly basis. At least 85 such bills are currently live, including 11 carryovers from last year.

As the free speech organization previously documented, more than 190 bills aimed at limiting the ability of educators and students to discuss the production of and resistance to myriad inequalities throughout U.S. history—including several proposals to establish so-called "tip lines" that would enable parents to punish school districts or individual teachers—were introduced in dozens of states in 2021 and 2022, with all but one authored by Republicans. In the past two years, 19 laws restricting the teaching of racism, gender, and sexuality were enacted in more than a dozen GOP-controlled states, plus eight measures imposed without legislation.

"The early returns from the 2023 legislative sessions suggest that lawmakers' fervor to censor and ban content from educational institutions has not abated. Far from it," four PEN America experts wrote Thursday. "They have outdone one another in a race to the bottom, finding new, more extreme, and more conspiratorial ways to impose censorious government dictates on teaching and learning."

The analysis highlights trends in educational gag orders across four major categories: efforts to prohibit teaching about race, racism, and U.S. history; expanding censorship of sexuality and gender; legislation targeting higher education institutions; and particularly extreme proposals motivated by the growing influence of conspiracy theories.

Researchers found that so far this year, lawmakers have unveiled:

• 50 educational gag orders across 16 states restricting classroom instruction about the history of racism in America;
• 27 bills across 14 states that mirror Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law, censoring public schools from offering any instruction related to sexual orientation or gender identity—11 of which ban instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity altogether;
• 20 bills across 13 states that specifically restrict higher education classroom instruction;
• 23 bills across 14 states that censor or restrict minors from seeing drag performances; and
• 19 bills across 12 states that would remove exemptions for librarians and educators from being charged with violations of state obscenity laws.

Efforts to Prohibit Teaching About Race, Racism, and U.S. History

Many legislative attempts to undermine teaching about racism "include language copied from" former President Donald Trump's 2020 Executive Order 13950, which has since been revoked by President Joe Biden but previously barred certain so-called "divisive concepts" from being used in federal trainings, the PEN America experts observed. "Despite the free speech concerns surrounding that language, this type of bill continues to be introduced in 2023, with a growing list of topics to be prohibited—ranging from critical race theory to the theory that race is a social construct."

"Two such bills would essentially prohibit teachers from expressing ideas or facts of history that might cause discomfort," researchers wrote, referring to Connecticut's Senate Bill 280 and New Jersey's Senate Bill 598. "Meanwhile, Texas' H.B. 1804 would require public school teachers to always 'present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage' and, when discussing American society, to stress 'the positive contributions of all individuals and groups to the American way of life'—a 'compulsory patriotism' bill of a type we have previously described as censorious."

"In each case, it is hard to see how an accurate account of American slavery, Jim Crow, or Japanese internment would survive such restrictions," they noted. "And should these bills become law, many teachers may simply avoid any content that could even approach the restrictions laid out in this legislation."

The researchers pointed out that South Carolina's House Bill 3779, which would forbid public school history teachers from providing instruction "about persons who owned slaves" and is one of just two educational gag orders introduced by a Democrat so far this year, "is not meant to ever become law."

South Carolina Rep. Jermaine Johnson (D-70), the lead sponsor of the bill, has explained that he proposed a ban on teaching about slaveowners to protest his Republican colleagues' support for educational censorship, saying sarcastically that "we should protect our children from being exposed to this evil by sweeping it under the rug and never addressing it."

Expanding Censorship of Sexuality and Gender

Since Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 1557, which critics refer to as the "Don't Say Gay" Act, into law last year, there has been "a wave of copycat bills in statehouses across the country, and in many instances with even more censorious rules," the PEN America experts wrote.

They continued:

H.B. 1557 prohibits public schools from offering any "classroom instruction related to sexual orientation or gender identity" in kindergarten through grade three, or thereafter in a manner that is not age- and developmentally appropriate. Since the start of the 2021 session, 39 "Don't Say Gay"-style bills have been proposed in 20 states, including 27 bills in 14 states during the current legislative session alone.

The vast majority of these bills follow the template of H.B. 1557, but many are more restrictive. Whereas Florida's law permits instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity from grade four onwards if "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards," 10 subsequent bills would extend the prohibition to grades five or six, and seven to grade eight. Eleven bills—including eight currently under consideration—would ban instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity altogether, from kindergarten right through to grade twelve. And four current bills apply to private schools or colleges.

The scope of materials and ideas these new bills would ban is also greater, raising the possibility that teachers could find themselves muzzled on a confusing and ever-growing array of topics.

Such attempts to purge curricula of references to gender and sexuality are only the beginning. Another subset of bills aims to prevent public schools and libraries from carrying books that contain information about gender and sexuality—just part of the nationwide surge in book bans, about which PEN America has written.

Other legislation seeks to chill teaching about these topics by threatening to slap educators and librarians with criminal charges.

Such legislation, researchers warned, "poses a grave threat to the circulation of information and ideas in public schools and libraries, as well as to the very individuals engaged in this educational work."

Legislation Targeting Higher Education Institutions

PEN America called "the expansion of restrictions on higher education" one of "the most notable educational censorship trends over the past two years."

"Restrictions of this type are particularly concerning because of the principle of academic freedom that applies to teachers in colleges and universities," researchers wrote. "In 2022, 39% of all proposed educational gag orders restricted higher education, up from 30% in 2021. In 2023, higher education continues to be a target, with 20 bills of this nature already introduced in 13 states. This represents 20% of bills introduced this year, but 34% of bills outside of the newly prevalent 'Don't Say Gay' clones—a percentage roughly consistent with previous years."

In addition to legislation proposing "prohibitions on what faculty can teach," PEN America noted that there are "bills that target academic freedom, by either weakening tenure protections or attacking universities' institutional autonomy."

Particularly Extreme Proposals Motivated by the Growing Influence of Conspiracy Theories

"Finally, many of the educational gag orders and other censorious proposals introduced in 2023 reflect the growing influence of extreme ideologies and conspiracy theories among the legislators behind them," PEN America observed.

According to the analysis:

North Dakota’s H.B. 1522 would bar public and private schools from adopting "a policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human." This is a reference to the urban myth, popular along the political fringe and embraced by Rep. Lauren Boebert [R-Colo.], that schools are providing litter boxes for students who believe that they are cats.

[...]

Two Oklahoma bills are worth singling out for special attention. Under both S.B. 937 and S.B. 935, "secular humanism" would be defined as a type of religion, with critical race theory, drag queen story hours, sexual orientation, and gender identity identified as "inseparably linked" to secular humanism. According to the bills' author, should any public or private school in Oklahoma "promote the plausibility" of these concepts, it would therefore "excessively entangle the government with the religion of secular humanism," and violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"It is too early to tell whether any of these bills will garner enough legislative support to become law, but their mere introduction tells us that the 'Ed Scare' remains in full swing," researchers noted. "Advocates of free expression and education should respond accordingly."

In its summary of educational gag orders introduced in 2022, PEN America warned that "there is a legislative war on education in America."

And in its examination of similar proposals unveiled in 2021, the organization stressed that "these bills will have—and are already having—tangible consequences for both American education and democracy, both distorting the lens through which the next generation will study American history and society and undermining the hallmarks of liberal education."

Earlier this month, National Education Association president Becky Pringle argued that DeSantis' attack on a new high school Advanced Placement African-American studies course is part of the far-right's broader anti-democratic assault on public education and other institutions aimed at improving the common good.

"For DeSantis, blocking AP African-American studies is part of a cheap, cynical, and dangerous political ploy to drive division and chaos into public education debates," Pringle wrote.

"He seeks to distract communities from his real agenda, which is to first whitewash and then dumb down public education as an excuse to privatize it," she added. "His ultimate goal? The destruction of public education, the very foundation of our democracy."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Scientists and government oversight watchdogs are expressing alarm over new language in the White House's "scientific integrity" framework, which one group said amounts to a "gag rule" that would harm federal researchers' ability to study issues including the climate emergency and public health threats.

As The Guardianreported Friday, a new draft of the revised Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice was released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) last month, but went largely unreported by the press.

The policy reads:

[Agency] scientists shall refrain from making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on, [an agency] or any other federal government policy, unless they have secured appropriate prior approval to do so. Such communications shall remain within the bounds of their scientific or technological findings, unless specifically otherwise authorized.

Jeff Ruch, Pacific director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), said in a statement after the framework was released that the policy is "unconstitutional" and "serves no discernible purpose" other than muzzling federal scientists whose research pertains to issues that the scientific community has criticized President Joe Biden and previous administrations for, such as allowing planet-heating fossil fuel extraction to continue.

"This restriction on discussing the implications of research has no place in a scientific integrity policy," said Ruch in a statement late last month. "Typically, it is only scientific research that has policy implications that is at risk of suppression or political manipulation."

"Government scientists should not need to cast a profile in courage to openly discuss the implications of their research," Ruch added.

Dr. Carlos del Rio, an infectious disease professor at Emory University, and Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University, both noted that the policy could discourage scientists from working at federal agencies.

"Science is a method that inherently depends on transparency: reproducibility, open disclosure of data, peer review, etc." said Rasmussen. "Preventing scientists from discussing their findings—including implications for policy—hinders them from effectively doing their job... OSTP must reconsider this rule immediately."

Calling on the OSTP to rescind the policy, Ruch late last month outlined a number of scenarios in which the rule "could be used to threaten scientists or stifle controversial research across a wide range of topics," including:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research showing that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or "forever chemicals" are migrating off of military bases due to inadequate controls could be construed as criticism of Pentagon environmental policies or of EPA enforcement oversight at military facilities;
• Centers for Disease Control and prevention research showing that dangerous viruses and other pathogens are at risk of release from federal wildlife research laboratories could be construed as criticism of weak biosafety policies;
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research showing that water degradation is caused by overgrazing resulting from Bureau of Land Management permits on its livestock allotments could be construed as criticism of the bureau for lax permit and health standards; and
• USGS research showing that fish mutations can be traced to rising levels of unregulated emerging chemicals in our waterways could be construed as a judgment on EPA's weak approach on endocrine disrupters.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had a similar policy in place during the Obama administration. As The Guardian reported Friday, a USDA entomologist who was part of a 2014 study on protecting biodiversity among insects was barred from speaking at a conference about the issue.

"Citing the rule, the USDA's political leadership, then under Tom Vilsack, an Obama appointee, ordered Lundgren to remove his name from the study," the newspaper reported.

In addition to the new "gag rule," PEER said, the White House neglected to include in the revised framework procedures that would protect career scientists for "retaliation for presenting findings that may conflict with an administration's agenda."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

The post California Doctors Sue Over Covid ‘gag bill’ appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Lily Meyersohn.

In an email to employees of the University of Idaho, the institution’s general counsel cautioned them against running afoul of various state anti-abortion laws — in effect issuing a gag order on discussions of abortion within the institution. The guidance reflects an extreme level of caution in the face of vague and unconstitutional prohibitions and is likely to chill free speech on campus.

While “academic freedom” supports classroom discussions related to abortion, the email reads, those discussions should be limited to what is “relevant to the class subject.” University employees “must themselves remain neutral,” the email warns, adding that failure to do so could see employees face prosecution, imprisonment, and a “permanent bar from future state employment.”

Sent just after 4 p.m. on Friday with the subject line “Guidance on Abortion Laws,” the email covers everything from constraints on classroom discussions to restrictions on counseling students regarding reproductive health to advice that the school cease providing any “standard birth control.”

“In every possible aspect of Idaho law, the university has taken the most risk-averse position that just kind of shreds academic freedom.”

Teenagers protest the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion in Driggs, Idaho, on July 2, 2022.

Photo: Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Jordan Smith.

“They were not happy to have me as uncomfortable witness to their unprofessional behavior,” he said in a video call with CPJ. 

The police letter claimed that Díaz Alonso had violated the Law on the Protection of Public Safety, he said. Introduced in 2015 by Spain’s conservative government, which at the time was beset with anti-austerity protests, the law gives extensive powers to police to ensure public order. Critics, including human rights groups, dubbed it the “ley mordaza” or “gag law,” claiming it would be abused by authorities to muzzle protests and sanction dissent. Plataforma por la Libertad de Información (PLI), a local independent press freedom organization, has called it a tool for “camouflaged censorship” to intimidate or retaliate against journalists reporting on police actions by fining them.

Spain’s current government is led by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, which criticized the law when it was in opposition. In April, the party announced that it would amend the law. However, journalists and press freedom advocates who spoke with CPJ ahead of the current parliamentary session, which began September 6, remained skeptical whether the clauses most criticized by journalists, including those on disobeying, disrespecting, or resisting authority, would be removed. Parliament has not yet set a date for discussion of these reforms. 

“I don’t think anything will happen,” said freelance photojournalist Mireai Comas, who successfully appealed a fine under the law. “We have been trying for years to revoke the most problematic clauses of the law, but all our efforts were in vain.”

In June, the PLI, other rights groups, and Pultizer Prize-winning photographer Javier Bauluz—who was fined under the law in 2020—discussed the law’s reform with parliament members from several different parties. The meeting was “not positive,” said PLI secretary general Yolanda Quintana, as lawmakers have not committed to removing or reforming articles PLI says impact journalists. One reason could be the influence of powerful police trade unions, which oppose “gag law” reforms, according to news reports. 

“The law is an obstacle to journalists who independently report on police and who wouldn’t want to buy their version of events,” said Díaz Alonso, who refused to pay the fine, and filed an appeal. He said that the testimony of an emergency services worker as well as a video support his version of events, but he’s not sure these will help his case should it appear before an administrative court. “This law makes is almost impossible to stand up to the police’s version and refute the words of a policeman,” he said.

“The police’s version is the presumed truth,” Quintana told CPJ in an email, explaining why many journalists are reluctant to hire expensive attorneys to appeal the fines. “If they make their calculations, it is often better to just pay the fine,” she said. 

Although PLI has no records on the number of journalists fined under the law, Quintana believes that many covering protests have been targeted under the law’s articles on disobeying, disrespecting, or resisting authority. Between 2015 and 2020, the most recent date for which statistics were available, authorities issued some 397,083 fines under these three articles, out of a total of 1,155,727 “gag law” fines, online newspaper Público reported. PLI has called these the “most harmful articles” for press freedom because they embody “vague concepts” open to interpretation by the authorities. 

Comas told CPJ via phone that she felt “totally powerless” when she received a 601 euro (US$611) fine in January for disobeying a policeman in June 2021 in Terrassa, a city in Catalonia. She was fined after refusing to delete a photo she took of an officer participating in an eviction. Comas, who had been acquitted on accusations of assaulting authorities while reporting in a 2020 case, knew to keep her camera rolling during the incident. This footage was key to convincing an administrative court to drop the fine in February. Comas paid more double the fine (1,400 euros or US$1,394) in legal fees, which were covered by a press freedom organization, she said. 

During the administrative court hearings, Comas said she identified herself as a journalist during the incident and that her refusal to delete the photo did not violate the gag law because she never published the photo. According to a 2018 Ministry of Interior instruction, publishing a photograph that could endanger an officer’s safety is against the law, but simply taking a photograph of an officer is not. 

Comas said that freelance reporters, who don’t have the backing of news organizations, are especially vulnerable to fines, leading them to self-censor. “Reporters become scared and prefer to stay away from reporting on police. For months, I too chose not to take photos when police were present. I just did not want any more trouble,” she said.

In Bauluz’s case, he was issued two fines totaling 1,060 euros (US$1,053) for allegedly disrespecting police and failing to identify himself as reporter as he was trying to document what he described as “inhumane” conditions for migrants and refugees on the docks of Arguineguín on the island of Gran Canaria in November 2020. Police, he said, typically did not allow journalists to get close, but he arrived at the docks before they cordoned the area and began taking photographs. Soon, he said, a policeman arrived and ordered him to leave, grabbing him by the arm and accusing him of insulting him, according to footage Balauz posted on Twitter. The officer also threatened him with a fine under the gag law, he said.

Bauluz, who denies the police allegations, has appealed the fines. He said the law, which he believes police use to prevent reporting on human rights, is “not democratic” because police can issue fines without having to prove the guilt of the fined. “Police says what they feel like saying, they do not need to prove anything, they can just simply issue a fine,” he said. “It treats people as if they were cars and motorbikes which do not have the right to defense,” he told CPJ.

CPJ emailed Spain’s interior ministry, which oversees the police, and a representative refused to comment on both individual journalists’ cases and the planned reform because the law is under parliamentary discussion. 

Quintana, meanwhile, emphasized that pressure, especially from international press freedom organizations, will be crucial in discussions over the reforms. “Freedom of the press is a fundamental right that can only be limited on an exceptional basis,” she said. “These clauses have been used to disproportionately and arbitrarily prevent journalists from informing the public.” 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Attila Mong.

A Philippine court has granted alternative news site Bulatlat’s plea to temporarily unblock its website citing constitutional press freedom rights.

In a decision on Thursday, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 306 granted Bulatlat’s plea for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to temporarily suspend the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)’s memorandum, which blocked the website.

A writ of preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of the legal action or prior to the final order, which requires a party, court, agency, or a person to refrain from performing a particular act or acts.

• READ MORE: Bulatlat seeks to unblock its website, asks court to nullify NTC memo

“The issuance of the writ is conditioned upon plaintiff’s posting of a bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (NZ$2,800), either in cash or by surety, which shall answer for the damages the defendants would suffer by reason of the injunction in case the plaintiff is found to be not entitled thereto,” the resolution issued by Judge Dolly Rose Bolante-Prado said.

After issuance, the writ will remain effective until “final adjudication of the merits of the main case has been made”.

Since Bulatlat’s plea for writ of preliminary injunction has been granted by the court, its motion for reconsideration of the order denying its application for a temporary restraining order is now moot and academic, the resolution added.

Before the end of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s term, his National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. asked the NTC to block Bulatlat and Pinoy Weekly websites.

The former security official used the draconian anti-terror law and justified the blocking by citing excerpts from Pinoy Weekly that mentioned armed struggle and the communist insurgency.

Right to free press, speech
In explaining the decision, Judge Prado highlighted at least two reasons why Bulatlat was granted the writ.

The decision explained that Bulatlat was able to prove that it has a “clear and unmistakable” right to be protected by the Constitution under the freedom of speech and of the press.

Judge Prado noted that these freedoms included the right to publish opinion and commentaries and disseminate them.

Online censorship in the Philippines.               Video: Rappler

The same principle was used by Bulatlat in the filing of case to justify that the NTC order indeed violated their constitutional rights. The alternative news organisation cited Article 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.

Judge Prado also noted that Bulatlat was able to prove that there was “a material and substantial invasion of its right.”

The judge said the news organisation was able to establish that after the NTC memorandum took effect, Bulatlat’s website was no longer accessible.

According to the resolution, the editorial staff could not access and upload stories on their website without using a virtual private network, and their subscribers also could not access the same.

This was a violation of the right to free speech and press freedom, the resolution said, since the publishers’ and readers’ access to the website was limited.

Weeks after the enforcement of the NTC memorandum, Bulatlat said it had lost half of its readership.

“To the Court, any limitation or restriction in the exercise of one’s right, no matter the extent, and for even minimal periods of time, is a form of deprivation, and, clearly, a violation of such right,” the resolution said.

Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The post #24. Silenced in Savannah: Journalist Abby Martin Challenges Georgia’s BDS “Gag Law” appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.

The post #23. “Global Gag Rule” Continues to Compromise Women’s Health around World appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.