It's an understatement to say the Biden-Harris administration will face major challenges immediately that require a lot of attention (pandemic, economy, etc.), but I'm hopeful that press freedom will be a priority, too. A few of my thoughts ... (1/6)
For the last four years, the president has waged an illiberal rhetorical campaign -- at rallies and in speeches and on Twitter -- against the press as an institution. He has falsely accused journalists of fabricating sources and of being "fake news." (2/6)
He has called journalists the “enemy of the people” so many times I've lost count. His supporters, including other public officials, have parroted his rhetoric. And there's been a demonstrable increase in the number of journalists assaulted and arrested in the field. (3/6)
Generally, there's a variety of things any administration can do to shape press freedom and journalism practice (FOIA implementation, leak investigations, subpoenaing journalists, etc.), and they're all important. (4/6)
But what I really hope the Biden-Harris administration does, early on, is make a strong public commitment to journalism and press freedom -- to say emphatically that a free press, however imperfect, is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. (5/6)
One in which journalists work in good faith to inform their communities and to enable democratic participation. This kind of commitment would go a long way toward helping to restore respect for the norms that underlie press freedom and its exercise. (6/6)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jonathan Peters

Jonathan Peters Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jonathanwpeters

20 Jun
(1/x) Coverage of the effort to prevent distribution of Bolton's book should note Trump's remarkable record of attempting to interfere with speech/press activities -- and either failing or not following through. A sample of that record, dating to the announcement of candidacy:
Trump admin suspended journalist Brian Karem's White House credentials. A court found that the suspension violated Karem's constitutional rights.
Trump blocked various critics from his Twitter feed. He got sued, and a federal appeals court held that the blocking was a form of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Read 18 tweets
30 May
A reminder about the general right to record police activities in public places ...
SCOTUS has not determined whether the recording of police officers performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment, but federal appeals courts have held that such a right exists, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
See, e.g., Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); Gilk v. Cunniffee, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).
Read 9 tweets
26 Feb
A few thoughts about the Trump libel suit: The complaint is red meat for the president's base and won't succeed on the merits, but I'm still concerned about it.
The essence of our political system is public participation, and baseless suits like this one can chill speech about newsworthy political issues—intimidating and discouraging others from speaking out, in view of the risk of being sued and the corresponding costs.
This is precisely why we have the First Amendment. The Supreme Court once said that "public discussion is a political duty," and in a landmark case involving no less than The New York Times, in 1964, the Court observed:
Read 6 tweets
13 Nov 18
Adding to this: It's RARE for news orgs & journos to sue White House officials over access. CNN did in 81. Sherrill case in 77. Otherwise, at fed'l level, closest analogues involving access come from other exec-branch depts, often DOD. See examples below.
Flynt v Rumsfeld (DC Cir 2004): Larry Flynt and Hustler sued DOD seeking relief against interference w/ the mag's exercise of a claimed First Amend right of access to US troops in combat operations, and claiming that DOD delay in granting such access infringed that right.
Getty Images News Servs v DOD (DDC 2002): Getty sued the DOD after it was denied access to Guantánamo Bay.
Read 6 tweets
8 Nov 18
Some thoughts on the legal implications of pulling Acosta's hard pass ...
Public-affairs reporting is facilitated by complex system of access rights & norms. Recurring question is whether a journo has a 1st Amend right of access to info or places closed to the public but open generally to press — and some lower courts have said yes.
Leading case was Sherrill v Knight, decided in 1977 by DC Circuit. Sherrill was writer for The Nation, and he sued various govt offices after he was denied WH press pass. Ultimately, DC Circuit said Sherrill had 1st Amend right of access to WH news conferences.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!