I'm working on a case, where Reveal is suing the Dept. of Labor (DOL) to obtain workplace injury reports about Amazon workers - and the government has characterized Reveal's newsgathering as exploiting "back doors." (1/9) 
As background: DOL's OSHA Regulations require Amazon to submit the reports to ensure worker health and safety. Also OSHA's 2016 regulations obligated the agency to publish the reports online. See 2016 Final Rule @ 29,648; 81 Fed. Red. 29,632 (2/9)
While the reporter had requested the records through FOIA, Reveal also asked sources for the OSHA records which they are legally permitted to obtain. (revealnews.org/article/help-u…) (3/9)
Also the regs forbid companies from limiting the use of reports. 66 Fed. Reg. 6,058 (stating an “employer may not require an employee, former employee, or designated employee rep. to agree to limit the use of the records as a condition of viewing or obtaining the records”) (4/9)
That said, the government brief characterizes Reveal's newsgathering as an “attempt to exploit the employee record-sharing regulations to secure this information through the back door” where Reveal asked sources to legally obtain OSHA records! (revealnews.org/article/help-u… (5/9)
Here is the problem: It is well-established that the government cannot punish the publication of lawfully obtained information. Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97, 99 (1979). (6/9)
Similarly, “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 707 (1972). (7/9)
Thus, “a journalist is free to seek out sources of information not available to members of the general public…and that government cannot restrain the publication of news emanating from such sources.” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 834 (1974). (8/9)
So maybe DOL shouldn't characterize newsgathering as exploiting backdoors. Just a thought... (9/9)
