
u/FreedomofPress

30-Year Sentence for Transporting Zines Is a Five-Alarm Fire for Free Speech
theintercept.comHow Trump is exploiting the Obama Presidential Center’s precedent
ms.nowWhy are N.J. courts taking so long to fix a First Amendment error against a local news site? | Opinion
nj.comIndiana Banned Press From Executions for “Dignity.” It Actually Serves Repression.
theintercept.comTrump DMs don't exist. Oh, wait, actually they do
The Trump Presidential Library recently told The Washington Post that it possessed “no records” of Donald Trump’s first-term Twitter direct messages. The response to the Post’s Freedom of Information Act request was, at best, a bureaucratic failure.
We know that because on the same day it told the Post it had no documents, the library sent Freedom of the Press Foundation, a contradictory response confirming that it does hold those records.
Read more: https://freedom.press/the-classifieds/trump-dms-dont-exist-oh-wait-actually-they-do/
PPE bans not only risk reporters. They risk the public’s right to know
freedom.pressPolice want to decide which journalists can cover the Delaney Hall protests. That’s not their job
theguardian.comWhy are journalists being subjected to search warrants in the US?
theguardian.comJournalists slam proposed Paramount merger as threat to press freedom
freedom.pressHow Paramount and DC Bar enabled Trump’s ‘weaponization’ slush fund
President Donald Trump once again hijacked the court system to launder corruption. He purportedly “settled” litigation with his own Department of Justice in exchange for a $1.8 billion slush fund to compensate political allies who claim to be victims of weaponization, as well as a deal to never investigate alleged tax evasion by the Trump family.
That’s the same DOJ that outside its headquarters flies a giant banner of Trump — making his best tough guy face, with his eyes uncharacteristically open. But before the DOJ unfurled its “Dear Leader” flag, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr pinned Trump’s gilded image to his lickspittling lapel and renounced his agency’s independence.
No prior FCC chair helped a sitting president turn a courtroom into a conduit for bribery.
And even if the First Amendment could arguably acquiesce Carr’s anti-speech investigations of licensees (it can’t — just consult the statute under which the FCC operates or ask the version of Carr from before he put on that lapel pin), that has nothing to do with facilitating presidential shakedowns.
There’s no universe where that’s protected by the Constitution.