
Appeal of convictions by NC journalists could impact reporters statewide
To protect the public’s right to know, the court should find that the press has a First Amendment right to cover police activity in public places

To protect the public’s right to know, the court should find that the press has a First Amendment right to cover police activity in public places

Discussion highlights implications of Assange prosecution for journalism in US and globally

Barring the platform would set a precedent for all sorts of future censorship, including bans on foreign news sites

President Biden has said that journalism isn’t a crime. But the DOJ seems to think otherwise

Quote on press freedom impact of today's Assange decision

Most analyses of Monday’s Supreme Court argument in Murthy v. Missouri, the case about government pressure on social media content moderation, agree that the justices are likely to rule that the government can influence platforms’ moderation decisions. But when it comes to alleged threats to “national security,” some justices seemed willing to let the government go even further by coercing — or even requiring — takedowns.

During a week celebrating government openness, three states — New Jersey, Colorado, and California — considered or enacted anti-transparency laws

Iowa senator can further his legacy of supporting whistleblowers and First Amendment freedoms

The Supreme Court seems to understand the First Amendment limits on government coercion of speech — except when it comes to national security

Public records and freedom of information laws are fundamental for government transparency. But when journalists fight for access to wrongfully withheld records at the state and local level, the public is paying the price, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. Over the past year alone, local governments have paid journalists at least $1.6 million in attorneys fees — all of which was financed by taxpayers — following public records lawsuits.