Latest news with #ReportersCommitteeforFreedomofthePress
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signs law making it easier to dismiss lawsuits targeting free speech
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds has signed a law that will make it easier to dismiss lawsuits deemed frivolous and designed to chill free speech. The law, House File 472, targets what are known as "strategic lawsuits against public participation," or SLAPP cases, which aren't likely to prevail in court but seek to use the threat of an expensive legal fight to intimidate a person or news organization from exercising their First Amendment rights. Reynolds announced the signing without comment in a May 19 news release. Iowa joins 35 other states that have anti-SLAPP laws, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The law passed the Iowa House and Senate unanimously earlier this year. Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, has tried for years to get an anti-SLAPP law passed in Iowa after a Carroll police officer in 2018 sued the Carroll Times Herald for reporting he had sexual relationships with minors, resulting in an expensive legal battle for the paper. The law applies to lawsuits that involve the exercise of freedom of speech, the press, petition or assembly, as well as cases that are related to communication in a governmental proceeding or about an issue under consideration by a government body. In those cases, the law allows defendants to file a special motion for expedited relief seeking to dismiss the case within 60 days of the lawsuit being filed against them. A judge must hold a hearing on the motion no later than 60 days after it is filed, unless there is good cause for delay. The law takes effect July 1. It will only apply to lawsuits that are filed on or after that date, meaning the motion for expedited relief is not available to defendants in any existing lawsuits. Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@ or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on X at @sgrubermiller. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Kim Reynolds signs 'anti-SLAPP' law aimed at lawsuits targeting speech
Indianapolis Star
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Judge rejects journalists' bid to witness Indiana executions while lawsuit proceeds
EVANSVILLE — A federal judge declined to force Indiana prison officials to let journalists witness executions while a lawsuit brought by several news organizations proceeds. Judge Matthew P. Brookman, of the Southern District of Indiana, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that reporters have a First Amendment right to witness executions. The ruling, issued late Friday, comes just before the scheduled execution of Benjamin Ritchie on Tuesday. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection for the murder of a Beech Grove police officer in 2002. Gov. Mike Braun previously declined to halt Ritchie's execution, writing in a letter to the Indiana Parole Board that his office determined Ritchie's request for clemency "does not rise to the level of requiring a commutation of his death sentence." The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed suit against Indiana's top state prison officials on behalf of the five news organizations May 5. The suit seeks to overturn a state statute and Indiana State Prison policy restricting journalists' ability to witness executions first hand. Indiana is one of just two death-penalty states to not afford reporters access to observe executions. Wyoming, the only other state with such a rule, has not carried out the death penalty since 1992, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Under the Indiana State Prison's current policy, it is effectively up to the condemned person to decide whether journalists witness their execution. They are permitted five witnesses — which may include family, friends and media — but journalists are otherwise barred from attending the proceedings. The plaintiffs — including Gannett, which owns IndyStar, the Courier & Press and several other Indiana publications — argue the policy violates the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press and hinders the public's ability to understand a life-or-death issue. Lin Weeks, a senior staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argued during a hearing Friday that Indiana was "uniquely restrictive" in how it handles press access to executions. "There's an importance in allowing the public to see that justice is carried out," Weeks said. In their motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs asserted that reporters should be granted access to witness Ritchie's execution and any other death sentences carried out while the case is litigated. "The balance of equities favors granting preliminary relief because 'injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest,'" the motion states. Brookman determined that however restrictive Indiana may be in how it carries out executions, state law "treats members of the press the same as members of the public at large." "They are not being singled out for disparate treatment, even though Indiana law permits physicians and spiritual advisors to attend executions," Brookman wrote in his order. Clay Calvert, a First Amendment scholar and nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has no affiliation with the plaintiffs, said Indiana's practice of not reserving seats for reporters shields executions from public scrutiny. "The First Amendment should protect journalists' ability to be physically present and watch an execution from the moment an individual enters the chamber through and until the individual dies," Calvert said in an interview prior to Brookman's ruling. "That's because journalists, in this case, serve as proxies and surrogates for members of the public who cannot all be physically present." The defendants — Indiana State Prison Warden Ron Neal and Indiana Department of Correction Commissioner Lloyd Arnold — urged Brookman to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on several grounds, asserting that journalists have no more right than the general public to witness an execution. In the state's view, it's no different than when a reporter visits someone who is incarcerated at an Indiana prison: Access is tightly controlled, can be restricted, and is at the discretion of both the inmate and prison officials. "There's simply no right to witness an execution," Special Counsel Jefferson S. Garn, of the Indiana Attorney General's office, said Friday. Garn argued that having to adapt the "highly coordinated operation" days before Ritchie's execution places an undue burden on the state. Appearing in court remotely from his office at the Indiana State Prison, Neal testified that allowing journalists to attend could "force us to substantially change policies." The state also took issue with the notion that reporters are barred outright from witnessing executions in Indiana. Indiana State Prison policy states that "media personnel shall not be permitted to witness the execution or to be in the execution chamber" — unless the condemned person invites a journalist as one of five friends and family they choose as a witness. "Indiana code treats members of the press the same as members of the public," Garn told the court. Brookman appeared receptive to the argument, writing in his order that "members of the media can attend (executions) the same way that members of the public can." The state argued the timing of the lawsuit was reason enough to oppose a preliminary injunction. The Indiana law at issue has remained unchanged for years, Garn said, but the plaintiffs filed suit less than one month before Ritchie's scheduled execution, leaving the state and the court just days to craft new procedures that would allow for journalists to serve as witnesses. "They knew this execution was going to be scheduled even in September," Garn said. "To ask the department to make changes at the last minute should be denied." In their complaint arguing that journalists should be afforded greater access, the plaintiffs cited the 1985 execution of William Vandiver by electrocution. Because no reporters were present in the death chamber, news outlets relied on conflicting testimony from prison officials and Vandiver's attorney to piece together what happened during the 17 minutes it took to put Vandiver to death. A prison doctor described the ordeal in plain terms, saying that after an initial application of 2,300 volts, the electrical current "was applied three more times before (Vandiver) was pronounced dead 17 minutes later." A Department of Corrections spokesperson admitted the execution "did not go according to plan" but disclosed few other details. Vandiver's attorney said the process was "outrageous," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in the complaint. Ted Bridis, a former AP reporter who witnessed executions in Kentucky and Oklahoma as a news media observer, likewise pointed to Vandiver's case to illustrate the value journalists can afford the public when they serve as eyewitnesses. "This is the ultimate use of force by the government," said Bridis, who now teaches journalism at the University of Florida. "We need to be there as independent observers, as representatives of the public and our readers and viewers and listeners, to make sure they understand exactly what happens in these cases." Earlier this month, a U.S. District Court judge in Idaho ordered state officials there to grant media witnesses "audio and visual access" to view the preparation and administration of lethal drugs during executions after the AP and two Idaho newspapers filed suit. In her order, Judge Debora K. Grasham wrote that reporters' ability to witness every step of the execution process "concerns the public's First Amendment right of access" to what is "the most severe penalty enforced by our state." In Indiana, attorneys for the state took issue with the notion that journalists have any role to play in ensuring executions are carried out in accordance with the Constitution. "(The plaintiffs) argue that the press serves an important role in the 'proper functioning' of executions in ensuring that they comport with the Eighth Amendment, i.e., it isn't cruel and unusual," they wrote. "This argument is misguided..." Garn said prison officials, including a specially trained execution team and an on-site physician, are responsible for ensuring executions are carried out in a humane manner, not journalists.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana execution procedure gives ultimate punishment behind a veil of secrecy
A view of the death chamber from the witness room at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility shows an electric chair and gurney August 29, 2001 in Lucasville, Ohio. (Photo by) If the state of Indiana moves forward with the execution of convicted murderer Benjamin Ritchie on May 20 as planned, the Indiana news media — and by extension the public — will have no legal right to witness the proceeding. Our government will impose the ultimate punishment behind a veil of secrecy, with no objective witnesses. It's time for that to change. Indiana is one of 27 states with the death penalty, but one of only two that prohibits professional media witnesses to its executions. Under state law, execution witnesses are limited to a small group of people, including the warden, immediate family members of the victim, no more than five friends or relatives of the convicted person, the prison physician, and the prison chaplain. The Indiana Department of Correction's implementing policy explicitly states that the press 'shall not be permitted to witness the execution or be in the Execution Chamber.' Late last year, the state of Indiana executed death row inmate Joseph Corcoran, who was convicted of murdering four people in 1997. It marked the first time in 15 years that the state carried out the death penalty. Members of the news media were barred from witnessing Corcoran's death by lethal injection except for one. Indiana Capital Chronicle Senior Reporter Casey Smith witnessed Corcoran's execution, but was only able to attend after being specifically invited by Corcoran to take one of the seats that the statute reserves for an inmate's friends and relatives. Smith's access to Corcoran's execution was an outlier. When the state carries out Ritchie's execution later this month, journalists will be prevented from officially observing it. Death row inmate Joseph Corcoran executed for quadruple murder Earlier this week, attorneys from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's ban on media access to executions on behalf of The Associated Press, the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Gannett, WISH-TV, and TEGNA. Our lawsuit argues that the media ban violates the First Amendment. The public relies on journalists to serve as its eyes and ears, and Indiana's exclusion of the news media from witnessing executions goes beyond safety or security. Indiana's law and policy runs counter to the First Amendment and denies transparency to the public. When state lawmakers hold hearings to discuss health care, public education, or property tax reform, we expect members of the news media to be there to document the debate and help us understand what it all means. When a mayor announces plans for a new economic development project, we expect reporters to be there to ask questions about how much it will cost and how it will impact the local community. We should expect the same level of journalistic scrutiny when the government uses taxpayer dollars to carry out one of its gravest responsibilities — capital punishment. Media witnesses play a crucial role in ensuring that executions are carried out lawfully. Their reporting provides the public with an accounting of execution protocol and proceedings, from start to finish. If the lethal injections go as planned, news reporting from media witnesses can help the public have greater confidence in the process. If things don't go as planned and an inmate suffers a painful death at the hands of the state, journalists should be there to tell us about it. The need for media witnesses is arguably more important today, as states increasingly use controversial methods to end the lives of death row inmates, despite mounting concerns that they don't always work — or aren't always administered — as intended. Reporting by independent media witnesses has shown that prison officials sometimes have conflicting accounts. Indiana's execution of Corcoran last December was the first in which the state used only a single drug, pentobarbital, rather than a cocktail of drugs as it has done in the past. (I am currently representing Indiana Capital Chronicle in a lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Correction seeking access to the cost of the drug. The lawsuit recently prompted officials to disclose that the state paid $900,000 to acquire the drug, but the government continues to resist disclosing important related information, including how much of the drug was purchased.) Advocates for and against the death penalty will always debate its merit. But we should all agree that when the government carries out its ultimate punishment in the public's name, it cannot be allowed to do so in secret. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Security report into arson at Pennsylvania Gov. Shapiro's home won't be made public
The Brief A consultant paid to review security at the residence of the Pennsylvania governor says his team's findings won't be made public. Retired state police Col. Jeffrey Miller said that the "sensitive nature" of the findings "precludes their release to the public for obvious reasons." The dangerous breakdown in protection has raised questions about how the intruder was able to elude state police security. HARRISBURG, Pa - A consultant paid to review security at the official residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro after it was firebombed by a late-night intruder said Friday that his team's findings will not be made public. What they're saying Retired state police Col. Jeffrey Miller said in a statement that the "sensitive nature" of the findings he has given to Shapiro and state police "precludes their release to the public for obvious reasons." The dangerous breakdown in protection has raised questions about how the intruder was able to elude state police security as he climbed a 7-foot (2-meter) fence and smashed two windows, then crawled inside and ignited destructive fires with two gasoline-filled beer bottles. "I am confident that if fully implemented, the key recommendations that we have made will prevent an attack of this nature from succeeding in the future," Miller said. His San Diego-based security consulting firm is being paid more than $35,000 for the work. Paula Knudsen Burke, the Pennsylvania lawyer with the nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said portions of the report could be released even if the full report isn't. "It seems we're spending taxpayer dollars to review taxpayer paid employees working in a taxpayer owned building," Burke said. "It seems taxpayers should have some visibility into what their money is used for." Dig deeper Miller and his team assessed security at Shapiro's official residence and has recommended how to "mitigate the gaps discovered," as Miller put it in a contract document filed with the state. They interviewed state police employees about duty assignments the night of the attack and about security monitoring systems that were in place. They also looked into fire suppression, the outer and inner perimeters, training and other factors. State Police Col. Christopher Paris said some of Miller's recommendations have already been implemented. "The State Police value the trust of the people we serve, and I believe that this review by an independent examiner with first-hand knowledge of our Commonwealth government will help us continue to earn that trust," Paris said in a release. Myles Snyder, the state police's communications director, said Friday that Paris agrees with Miller that the report should not be made public, and Shapiro press secretary Manuel Bonder deferred to state police about disclosing the details. The Associated Press has filed a request that state police release the document under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law. Shapiro has thanked police and firefighters for rescuing him and his family, but also said there were security failures at the three-story brick Georgian-style residence that sits along the Susquehanna River more than a mile (1.6 kilometers) north of the Capitol. Pennsylvania House Minority Leader Jesse Topper, a Bedford County Republican, has pressured the administration to give parts of the report to lawmakers that show what went wrong with the governor's security. He has said, however, that he understands that plans to enhance the security shouldn't be made public if it compromises the governor's safety. "However, in terms of the accountability of what happened and how it happened, I think that is a question that needs to be answered and that those answers need to be provided to the people's representatives here in the House and the Senate," Topper said Thursday in his Capitol office. Topper said Friday that he had not received a response to an inquiry about whether lawmakers — who may be called upon to approve more money for enhanced security — will be allowed to read parts of the report. Miller was named to lead the state police in 2003 by then-Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, and spent nearly six years in the top job. He has also been a senior security official with the National Football League and held other security related posts. The backstory A Harrisburg man, Cody Balmer, 38, has been charged with attempted homicide, arson and other offenses for the attack on the state-owned Harrisburg residence about 2 a.m. on Sunday, April 13. The fire caused an estimated millions of dollars in damage but no one was hurt. Shapiro fled the residence along with his wife and their kids — he has since clarified that only three of their four children were home — after being awakened by police. They and their guests had participated in a Passover Seder the previous evening. A message seeking comment was left for Shapiro. Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo has said investigators are assessing whether religious or political bias could explain why Balmer expressed "hatred" for Shapiro, who is Jewish. Balmer, who denied having a mental illness despite his family's comments to the contrary, is accused of breaking into the residence in Harrisburg in the dead of night early Sunday and starting the fire. "As bad as the outcome of the attack was, we are grateful that the actions of members of the Executive Services Office in immediately evacuating the Governor and his family to safety prevented any injuries or loss of life," Miller said in the statement. Shapiro splits his time between the Harrisburg mansion built in the 1960s and the family home in Abington, a Philadelphia suburb. The Democrat is seen as a potential White House contender in 2028. In a 911 call less than an hour after the fire, Balmer said, "Gov. Josh Shapiro needs to know that Cody Balmer will not take part in his plans for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people," according a recording released by Dauphin County. When asked what he might have done had he encountered Shapiro, Balmer said he would have hit the governor with a sledgehammer, police said. Balmer subsequently turned himself in at the state police's headquarters in Harrisburg and remains jailed without bond. Balmer's family has said he has a history of mental illness, which Balmer denied at a brief court appearance. Proceedings in the criminal case are on hold while he is evaluated to see if he is mentally competent to stand trial. The Source Information from this article was provided by the Associated Press.
Gulf Today
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Bondi ends Biden-era policy to smoke out leaks to journalists
Journalists can be subject to court orders and search warrants for their phone records, notes and testimony as Donald Trump's administration tries to hunt down 'unauthorised disclosures' to reporters, according to a new memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi. The measure reverses Department of Justice policy under Joe Biden's administration, which intended to protect freedom of the press from government interference and unlawful intimidation. But an internal Justice Department memo from Bondi's office claims that dropping the policy is necessary to prevent the release of not just 'classified' information but 'privileged and other sensitive information' — a much broader set of information that civil rights advocates fear could open reporters to law enforcement scrutiny for typical newsgathering, including revealing sources. 'Some of the most consequential reporting in US history — from Watergate to warrantless wiretapping after 911 — was and continues to be made possible because reporters have been able to protect the identities of confidential sources and uncover and report stories that matter to people across the political spectrum,' Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce D. Brown said in a statement. 'We'll wait to see what the policy looks like, but we know reporters will still do their jobs, and there is no shortage of legal support to back them up,' he added. Prosecutors can use court orders and search warrants to 'compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media,' according to the memo. The policy also states that members of the press are 'presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,' and subpoenas are to be 'narrowly drawn.' Warrants must also include 'protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities.' Before deciding whether to subpoena news organisations, prosecutors must determine whether there's a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and that the information the government is seeking is needed for prosecution, according to the memo. But 'the Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorised disclosures that undermine President Trump's policies, victimise government agencies, and cause harm to the American people,' Bondi wrote. The policy advances Trump's antagonistic relationship with the press after he spent three campaigns and his time in office raging against journalists and publishers he labels 'fake news' and the 'enemy of the people.' Last year, he demanded congressional Republicans block the bipartisan Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, or PRESS Act, which intended to enshrine that Biden-era Justice Department policy protecting journalists' information. 'REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!' Trump wrote on Truth Social last year. During his first term in office, Trump's attorney general William Barr had secretly pursued records from reporters at CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Attorney General Merrick Garland later issued a rule that banned prosecutors from trying to seize records and notes from reporters. The PRESS Act was ultimately shelved. 'Every Democrat who put the PRESS Act on the back burner when they had the opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill codifying journalist-source confidentiality should be ashamed,' Freedom of the Press Foundation director of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement. Trump has threatened to revoke broadcast licenses for news networks over critical coverage and is currently suing CBS for $10 billion over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Trump's Federal Communications Commission's chair Brendan Carr has launched probes into public broadcasters and revived complaints against network news outlets.
