On a July afternoon in the Thai coastal town of Samut Sakhon southwest of Bangkok, hundreds of Myanmar migrants queued in the rain outside a government office, the last place in Thailand where they can get a Certificate of Identity, or CI, which allows them to live and work legally in the kingdom.
Until very recently, similar scenes played out at seven other such offices across Thailand. But on July 7, the government shut those offices, leaving hundreds of thousands of Myanmar workers fretting about how to get hold of the vital paperwork.
“After the other centers closed, about 900 people would come to the center per day,” said one job broker in Samut Sakhon, who helps migrants get the documents, declining to be identified for fear of reprisals.
Thailand is home to about two million people from Myanmar toiling in jobs in agriculture, hospitality, fishing, manufacturing and other sectors, but labor advocates say that many live undocumented after arriving through the porous border.
Thousands have fled for their lives after protesting against a 2021 military coup and again in early 2024 when the military began conscripting young people into their army, and the closure of the CI offices has sent shockwaves through the community.
Htoo Chit, executive director of the Foundation for Education and Development, estimates that more than 200,000 Myanmar nationals still need to apply for a CI, saying that some have not been able to afford the fees and may need more time.
Workers caught without documentation can be sent to prison, hit with heavy fines and deported, under Thai law.
“It’s really dangerous for the migrant workers,” said Htoo.
The government has said that workers have had sufficient time to apply for the proper paperwork since the offices opened in October. The Department of Employment did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Radio Free Asia.
Fewer options
For many migrant workers, the alternatives to obtaining the CI are daunting. They can risk returning to Myanmar – which has been in turmoil since the 2021 coup – to try to get a passport but they run the risk of being refused or of being drafted into the army. Or they can approach the Myanmar embassy in Bangkok to ask for a passport, a prospect that terrifies those who fled for political reasons.
“It will be more difficult. I have many friends who are trying to get a CI, but they won’t get it if the offices are closed,” said one man living on the border who asked to remain anonymous to protect his status to stay in Thailand.
The man said he applied and received his CI in 2023 near Bangkok, but his friends may not be so lucky, adding that more than 15 people from his circle of friends won’t be able to make a similar trip hundreds of kilometers south to Samut Sakhon for fear of arrest and the cost of travel.
“They’re trying to think how to do it but they don’t really know. They’re living here with police cards,” he said, referring to an unofficial system by which migrants pay a monthly fee to local police to avoid arrest. “The police are always asking for documents and they arrest our people who don’t have them so it will be hard.”
People cross the Thailand-Myanmar Friendship Bridge as a stream of people queued at a border crossing to flee Myanmar early on Friday, a day after the strategically vital town of Myawaddy adjoining Thailand fell to anti-junta resistance that has been growing in strength, in Mae Sot, Thailand, April 12, 2024. (Athit Perawongmetha/Reuters)
But labor advocates argue this ignores the complex realities faced by migrant workers.
Brahm Press, director of the Migrant Assistance Program in Thailand, said the CI was a vital first step for people trying to set themselves up in Thailand, especially for those in fear of persecution by the Myanmar junta.
“The problem is that when documents expire, people who are in Thailand and don’t want to return and don’t want the government to know where they are, they’re the ones who are going to have the problem,” Press said “The CI is kind of the starting point for re-entering the system.”
The Foundation for Education and Development’s Htoo shares similar concerns.
“Who’s going to provide it? If you didn’t have a CI or you didn’t want to work with the Myanmar government, where are you going to get this kind of certificate?” he said.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Kiana Duncan for RFA.
New York, July 22, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists strongly condemns Friday’s sentencing of U.S.-Russian journalist Alsu Kurmasheva to six-and-a-half years in prison on charges of spreading “fake” news about the Russian army.
“Russia’s appalling assault on the media continues to escalate with the secret sentencing of Alsu Kurmasheva,” said CPJ Director of Advocacy and Communications Gypsy Guillén Kaiser. “The U.S. government should immediately designate Kurmasheva – a dual U.S.-Russian citizen – as ‘wrongfully detained,’ leave no stone unturned to obtain her release, and stop Russia from using journalists as political pawns.”
Kurmasheve’s closed-door hearing took place on the same day that Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was sentenced to 16 years in jail on espionage charges, and against a backdrop of Russia’s increasing use of in absentiaarrest warrants and sentences against exiled Russian journalists.
The U.S. government has designated Gershkovich as “wrongfully detained” by Russia – a move that unlocked a broad U.S. government effort to free him – but has not made the same determination about Kurmasheva.
Kurmasheva, an editor with the Tatar-Bashkir service of U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), was detained on October 18, 2023, on charges of failing to register as a “foreign agent.” In December, a second charge of spreading “fake” information about the army — related to a book she had edited about Russians who oppose the war in Ukraine — was brought against her.
Kurmasheva has denied both charges. The status of the foreign agent case, which carries a sentence of up to five years, is unknown.
“This secret trial and conviction make a mockery of justice — the only just outcome is for Alsu to be immediately released from prison by her Russian captors,” RFE/RL President Stephen Capus said on Monday.
“My daughters and I know Alsu has done nothing wrong. And the world knows it too. We need her home,” Kurmasheva’s husband Pavel Butorin told CPJ on Monday.
Russia is the world’s fourth-worst jailer of journalists, with CPJ’s most recent prison census documenting at least 22 journalists in prison on December 1, 2023.
Boeing won’t be facing criminal prosecution for ignoring safety concerns with their aircrafts that ended up killing hundreds of people. The DOJ has offered the company a sweet heart deal, and the families of the victims are as angry as you’d expect. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software […]
A magistrate judge ordered a legal journalist on June 20, 2024, not to publish the name of a plaintiff that had mistakenly appeared on court documents in a revenge porn case. The ruling was overturned a month later.
Eugene Volokh — co-founder of the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy, a law professor emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University — was singled out in the ruling by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney as the only person who was barred from using the plaintiff’s name.
The case, initially filed in 2019, involves a woman who ended an extramarital affair with a man, who she said then posted revenge porn to several adult websites. The case was sealed to protect her privacy. She and the defendant later settled, but the question of whether the case was improperly sealed remained.
Volokh told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker that he initially noticed the case in an alert from Westlaw, a database of legal documents, and thought it raised First Amendment questions that he might want to write about, given his expertise as a free speech scholar.
Even though the case was sealed, the names of both the plaintiff and defendant were published in an opinion available on Westlaw, along with other documents that should have been sealed under the judge’s order. It’s not clear exactly why they were published, but Volokh said it appeared to be an error.
“It was just a simple mistake,” he told the Tracker.
Volokh moved to intervene in the case and have it unsealed. Chestney, the magistrate judge, agreed on July 18, 2022, to let him intervene but ruled that Volokh could not write about the case until a decision was made on unsealing the case.
“Professor Volokh may not blog or write about this case until any renewed motion to unseal has been granted,” the ruling ordered.
Volokh appealed the case to District Judge Xavier Rodriguez, who on Aug. 3, 2022, vacated the prior restraint language and said the entire case should be unsealed. Volokh then published the plaintiff’s name in a blog post in August 2022 since, he said, it was also the name of the case.
The plaintiff appealed the unsealing of the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that it should be partially sealed with certain personal information redacted.
The case then returned to Chestney to determine what exactly should be redacted and whether the plaintiff could retroactively use a pseudonym, Jane Doe.
In her June 20, 2024, ruling, Chestney ruled in favor of the retroactive pseudonym.
“And then to my surprise, she says that even though I don't have to take down past writings that mention the plaintiff’s name, I cannot use her name in future writings,” Volokh told the Tracker.
The ruling stated: “Professor Volokh may not, however, publicly disclose Plaintiff’s name or personal identifying information in any future writings, speeches, or other public discourse.”
“The order restricts Volokh from sharing information that is publicly available through his prior writings but allows for any of Volokh’s readers to share that same information,” Rodriguez wrote. “As such, the language at issue here is an unconstitutional prior restraint.”
The plaintiff could still appeal the ruling to the 5th Circuit.
Volokh said he was deciding whether to go back to his August 2022 article and redact the name.
But whether he uses her name in future articles, he added, should be a matter of editorial discretion, not a judge’s ruling.
“I think it’s important that this be a decision for the individual journalist, the individual speaker, and not something that they’re ordered to do,” Volokh told the Tracker.
Volokh said he sees this case as an example of the system working. But he noted that he was uniquely positioned to fight these instances of prior restraint.
“I should also acknowledge that maybe if I weren’t a law professor, if I weren’t a specialist on the subject, if I had to pay a lawyer to challenge the prior restraints, maybe the situation might not have come out as well,” he told the Tracker.
America’s Lawyer E106: Donald Trump managed to walk away from a failed assassination attempt this past weekend, just days before the start of the Republican convention. This event has changed the political landscape going forward, and we’ll explain what this means for the presidential race. Corporations aren’t just hoarding your data to send you targeted […]
Mexico City, July 18, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists supports the urgent appeal filed to UN officials by an international legal team on behalf of Guatemalan investigative journalist José Rubén Zamora, who the appeal says has been wrongfully imprisoned since 2022 and held in conditions “that amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
The appeal, sent to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says Zamora, age 67, has been deprived of light, water, and sleep, subjected to “sadistic humiliation ceremonies,” unnecessary restraints, and “has been detained in unsanitary conditions that pose a danger to his physical health and well-being.”
“Jose Rubén Zamora’s treatment in prison and pre-trial detention is appalling and constitutes a grave violation of international human rights standards,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s Program Director. “The international community must act urgently to ensure his immediate release.”
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recently declared Zamora’s imprisonment arbitrary and in violation of international law. Likewise, a February report from TrialWatch gave a failing grade to Zamora’s legal proceedings, citing numerous breaches of fair-trial standards.
The UN working group asked Guatemalan authorities to report within six months on Zamora’s release status, any compensation or reparations, the results of the investigation into his rights violations, and whether Guatemala enacted legislative amendments or practical changes to align with international obligations.
Zamora, president of elPeriódico newspaper, was sentenced to six years in prison in June 2023 on money laundering charges, but an appeals court overturned his conviction in October 2023 and ordered a retrial. However, numerous delays have prolonged the new trial in 2024.
Grand Jury documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case have finally been released after almost 20 years, and these documents are somehow even more disgusting than anyone could have predicted. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
Paris Hilton has come a long way since her days of being the media’s favorite party girl. These days she’s working to bring attention to the rampant abuse of children at reform schools – something she personally experienced growing up. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so […]
Berlin, July 15, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists on Monday urged Russian authorities to stop the prosecution of exiled journalist Masha Gessen and immediately drop all charges against them.
On July 15, the Basmanny district court in Moscow convictedRussian-American journalist and writer Masha Gessen, who uses the pronouns they/them, in absentia on charges of disseminating “fake” information about the Russian military and sentencedthem to eight years in jail, according to mediareports. The court also banned Gessen from managing websites for four years.
“The nearly year-long prosecution of exiled journalist Masha Gessen, culminating in their conviction and sentencing, is emblematic of Russian authorities’ extreme measures against independent journalists,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna, in New York. “Authorities must immediately drop all charges against them and cease Russia’s transnational repression of critical voices.”
According to documents that Gessen shared with CPJ via email, the case against them was opened in late August 2023 and stems from their September 2022 interview with Russian journalist Yury Dud. Russian authorities accused Gessen of telling “false” information about the Russian army and its involvement in the Bucha massacre, the documents said.
In December 2023, Russian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Gessen, who is based in the U.S., before ordering their arrest in absentia. The journalist told Russian exiled broadcaster Dozhd TV (TV Rain) that their arrest and international search could complicate their movement around the world. Gessen considers the case against them as an “attempt to intimidate [them] and prevent [them] from doing their professional activity”, they said in a July 1 letter addressed to the Basmanny district court.
Russian authorities have not responded to CPJ’s previous requests for comment.
As an Emeritus Professor at UC and the owner of a consulting company that does research, offers online modules and provides expert evidence in the areas of family and sexual violence (and unconscious biases). From 2001 to 2018 as a Law School academic, I taught the subjects Women and the Law,Employment Discrimination and the Law and Family Law while publishing more than 20 academic books and reports that focus on women and the law (and the intersections with violence against women or VAW).
This work has been acknowledged with a number of awards including an ALTC Excellence Award in Teaching in 2008, being named the Australian of the Year for the ACT in 2010 and appointment as a Member of the Order of Australia the same year.
In a nutshell, what’s your new book Dancing with Demons about?
The cover of ‘Dancing with Demons.’
This is my first work of fiction.
It has been described as an idiosyncratic psychological novel. It is pitched particularly to those who enjoy a book that tackles heavy subjects with a light touch and novel approach.
It’s about the life and times of ‘Triple F,’ a North American Jewish woman who migrates to Australia with the legacies of family violence and dysfunction and sexual abuse. Triple F is the moniker for Daddy’s Princess Franny, the precocious survivor of family violence and sexual abuse; then Frankie, whose extended adolescence is spent numbing trauma’s toxic effects in unhealthy ways such as starvation and substance abuse that lead to the salvation of twelve-step programs; and finally, Francine for whom the transformative power of therapy teaches her to accept and dance with her demons.
The story is told largely through an intriguing and at times humorous line-up of people who have been a part of Triple F’s life and endure as an inner presence. These include a substantial cohort of mental health practitioners, Al-Anon, Alcoholics Anonymous, Adult Children of Alcoholism and Codependency Anonymous members, romantic partners, her PGA (Personal Guardian Angel), parents Henry and Miriam, sister Sandy, brother Jake and her four children.
Do you consider this to be a feminist book? If yes, why?
Definitely. It is written by me – a feminist. And the reader sees how feminism is born, develops and flourishes for Triple F despite, or perhaps because of, her upbringing in a family where the patriarch, Henry, was King.
Why have you included the themes of family violence and sexual abuse?
Although not a memoir, Dancing with Demons does draw extensively on my life experiences and academic expertise with family and domestic violence, sexual violence, its effects and recovering pathways.
Who are your main characters? Why is the therapist-patient narrative so important in this work?
The three main characters are the child Franny, teenager and young adult Frankie and Francine who migrates to Australia in her late 20s.
As I write in the book, although most of this story takes place during Franny and Frankie’s time, Francine, the ‘work in progress’, is seen and heard as she looks at her past selves and through the reflections of those who witness the post-trauma awakening and recovering years in the southern hemisphere.
Patricia Easteal. Picture: Supplied
The therapist-patient narrative is indeed crucial to the story. As stated in a Literary Titan review: “The dynamic between Francine and her therapist, Dr. Jaye, is a key element in the narrative, showcasing the therapeutic process as a means of self-reflection and empowerment. Dr. Jaye’s role in Francine’s story emphasizes the importance of taking ownership of one’s healing journey, a central theme in Dancing with Demons.”
What are you hoping your readers will take away about abuse, resilience, trauma, and healing?
The same reviewer accurately captured the essence of what I hope readers take away: “Easteal’s work is a profound exploration of the complexities of surviving trauma, particularly in contexts rife with abuse, addiction, and violence… She portrays recovery as a multifaceted journey, one that requires the protagonist to confront and reconcile with deep-seated inner turmoil. Even as Francine makes strides in her healing process, Easteal realistically presents the lasting impacts of her past, highlighting that growth often involves grappling with ingrained behaviors and responses shaped by prior adversities.”
You’ve mixed up genres in this work. Why have you done that?
Writing with different literary styles wasn’t a conscious decision but an organic process.
The story is told by those who have passed through Triple F’s life and continue to live rent-free in her head. As some of these cerebral residents – such as husband #3 Richard – are academics, the novel at times does have a scholarly tone. In other chapters though, the 12 step program members and the mental health practitioners who play a major role in Triple F’s recovering journey, conjure up a self-help ‘feel’ to the book. And readers may find that in parts of Dancing with Demons, they feel as though they’re in a theatre.
By taking the reader within the mind of a person experiencing and recovering from traumas and by its original writing style, Dancing with Demons offers fresh and original insights into the violence against women space.
Is there anything else you want to say?
As an academic, author and advocate I have been dedicated to turning on mental light bulbs: helping people to understand their unconscious biases and how these affect the legal and community response to VAW. In Dancing With Demons, I also want to turn on switches and, with humour and tears, foster more understanding.
America’s Lawyer E105: President Biden announced this week that he is NOT going to be dropping out of the presidential race, but that announcement hasn’t done anything to calm the concerns of Democrats. The DOJ has given Boeing a sweet heart deal to avoid criminal prosecution after their faulty airplanes killed hundreds of people. And […]
Stockholm, July 11, 2024 – Azerbaijani authorities have extended the pretrial detentions of 11 journalists in recent weeks as part of an ongoing crackdown on the country’s few remaining independent media outlets.
The journalists are among 13 media workers from four independent outlets charged since November with currency smuggling related to alleged receipt of Western donor funding. The charges have been brought amid a decline in relations between Azerbaijanand the West and as the country prepares to host the COP29 climate conference in November.
“Azerbaijan must stop using incarceration and travel bans as a tactic to silence and intimidate journalists,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director, in New York. “The authorities should drop all charges and restrictions on their movements and immediately release those still in detention.”
Authorities have rejectedmultiplepetitions by Mammadli’s lawyers to transfer him to house arrest so he can undergo further tests for suspected thyroid cancer and he has filed a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council following what relatives say was an incomplete medical examination conducted while he was under police guard.
Toplum TV journalists Farid Ismayilov and Elmir Abbasov have been released under travel bans pending trial.
All of the journalists face up to eight years in prison if convicted under Article 206.3.2 of Azerbaijan’s criminal code. Azerbaijani legislation requires official approval for foreign grants, which is routinely denied, while authorities exert pressure on advertisers to squeeze out domestic sources of funding.
Separately, police questioned Shamshad Agha, head of independent news website Arqument.az and a former Toplum TV journalist, on July 5 as a witness in the Toplum TV case and informed him that he was under a travel ban, the journalist told localmedia. CPJ is investigating reports that at least 20 other journalists may also be banned from leaving the country and that some are also subject to bank account freezes.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who secured a fifth consecutive term in February, has rejected criticism of the arrests, saying Azerbaijan “must protect [its] media environment from external negative influences” and media representatives “who illegally receive funding from abroad” were arrested within the framework of the law.
CPJ emailed the Ministry of Internal Affairs for comment on the pretrial extensions and travel bans and the Penitentiary Service for comment on Mammadli’s medical examination, but did not receive any replies.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed an order requiring journalist Rahul Pandita to pay INR7.5 million (US$89,800) in defamation compensation to senior paramilitary officer Harpreet Singh Sidhu, according to newsreports. This stay will remain in effect until the next hearing, scheduled for October 21.
On March 5, an appellate court ordered Pandita, an independent journalist and author, to pay the original ask of INR5 million (US$59,900) plus 6% interest, totaling INR7.5 million, from the date of the suit’s filing. This compensation was for Sidhu’s alleged “loss of reputation and goodwill, mental agony, and hardship due to unfounded derogatory remarks.”
On May 28, the high court stayed the appellate court’s decision after it was revealed that Pandita was not even aware of the trial proceedings against him and had no opportunity to defend himself, according to CPJ’s review of the court ruling.
The order stemmed from a December 13, 2014, report by Pandita, who worked with The Hindu newspaper as an opinion and special stories editor at the time, that has since been withdrawn but was reviewed by CPJ. While it is not clear why the publication withdrew the story, The Hindu initially defended Pandita’s report in a response to Sidhu’s legal notice to the publication as fair comment, according to the Mumbai Press Club.
The report accused Sidhu of negligence in his duties as Inspector general of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) operations in Chhattisgarh. The original defamation suit filed by Sidhu was dismissed by a lower court in Mohali on September 16, 2017, but Sidhu challenged this judgment, leading to the appellate court’s recent decision.
The report claimed that Sidhu did not perform his duties properly during a Maoist attack on December 1, 2013, which resulted in the deaths of 14 people. Pandita alleged that Sidhu took nearly four hours to reach the location despite being only 400 meters (440 yards) away. Sidhu contested these allegations, which were summarized in a statement published by The Hindu, asserting that he was the first to reach the troops and provided proper leadership.
In his defense, Pandita’s lawyers argued that the report was not personal, did not invade Sidhu’s privacy, and was written with due care and caution, according to a news report reviewed by CPJ. They emphasized that the articles were published as part of Pandita’s journalistic duties and were based on eyewitness accounts and responses from CRPF officials.
“The articles were published in relation to the conduct of a public servant, in exercise of public duties, and thus the respondent being a public servant cannot question foul play,” Pandita’s legal team argued. Pandita also maintains that he reached out to Sidhu’s superiors for their right to reply, and that their responses were included in the story.
Pandita declined to respond to CPJ’s request for comment, and Sidhu has not yet replied to CPJ’s text message.
New Delhi, July 10, 2024 –The Committee to Protect Journalists on Wednesday called on police in Uttar Pradesh state to drop their investigation into a claim that independent journalists Zakir Ali Tyagi and Wasim Akram Tyagi incited religious enmity through “malicious” posts on social media platform X alleging that a Muslim resident of Shamli district was killed in a July 4 “mob lynching.”
“The criminal investigation against journalists Zakir Ali Tyagi and Wasim Akram Tyagi for highlighting potential police misconduct and sectarian tensions are an alarming misuse of the legal system,” said CPJ India Representative Kunal Majumder. “The authorities should drop this investigation and focus on addressing the issues raised by these journalists rather than punishing them for their work.”
Police opened the investigation into the journalists and three others on July 6 following a complaint by Manendra Kumar, a police sub-inspector at Thana Bhawan police station in the area, according to a First Information Report (FIR) reviewed by CPJ.
Zakir had reported the death and that police were investigating charges of culpable homicide via X on July 5. He and Waseem, who are not related, suggested authorities were trying to help the alleged killers by not classifying the death as a murder.
Kumar’s complaint claims that the posts by Zakir and Wasim violate two sections of the new penal code – section 196 for promoting enmity between groups which is punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine, or both, and section 353 for statements causing public mischief which is punishable up to three years in prison with or without a fine.
Shamli police superintendent Abhisekh, who goes by one name, did not respond to CPJ’s email requesting comment on the investigation.
Abuja, July 9, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists welcomes Monday’s court decision in Nigeria acquitting Agba Jalingo, publisher of the privately owned CrossRiverWatch, of cybercrime charges.
“While we welcome the acquittal of publisher Agba Jalingo of cybercrime charges, Nigerian authorities urgently need to stop the criminalization of journalists for their work,” said Angela Quintal, head of CPJ’s Africa program, from New York. “Authorities must focus on passing legislation that protects journalists and guards against efforts to prosecute the press for reporting on matters of public interest.”
In August 2022, authorities arrested Jalingo and in December 2022 charged him under the Cybercrimes Act over a June 2022 CrossRiverWatch article alleging that Elizabeth Alami Frank Ayade, sister-in-law to Cross River State Governor Ben Ayade, paid someone to take a law school exam for her. If convicted, he could have been imprisoned for three years. In March 2023, he was jailed for a week over the case.
On July 8, the court acquitted Jalingo on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, the journalist’s lawyer First Baba Isa and CrossRiverWatch acting managing editor Ugbal Jonathan told CPJ.
Jalingo’s previous arrest in August 2019 and detention for nearly six months over his reporting on corruption allegations involving Ayade became a high-profile case. In 2021, the ECOWAS Court of Justice, a West African regional court, ordered the Nigerian government to compensate Jalingo for his prolonged detention and mistreatment in custody. Ugbal told CPJ that Jalingo had yet to receive that compensation. In 2022, a Nigerian federal court acquitted Jalingo on all charges related to the 2019 case.
“CPJ welcomes the Kenyan High Court’s ruling that the 2022 killing of Pakistani journalist Arshad Sharif was unlawful,” said Angela Quintal, head of CPJ’s Africa program, in New York. “While the verdict marks an important step towards ending impunity in this case, Kenyan authorities should ensure that genuine justice is achieved by prosecuting those responsible for Arshad’s fatal shooting.”
Sharif was shot and killed by police on the night of October 23, 2022, in a remote area outside the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, in what police claimed was a case of mistaken identity. Sharif’s wife, Javeria Siddique, who sued the Kenyan government, believes her husband was targeted for his journalism. Sharif had sought safety in Kenya after fleeing Pakistan in August 2022 following death threats over his reporting on corruption.
The Kajiado County High Court awarded damages to Sharif’s family of 10 million Kenyan shillings (US $78,000) but suspended the payment for 30 days to allow the government to appeal the decision.
Siddique’s lawyer, Dudley Ochiel, told CPJ that the court’s decision was a “great precedent for police accountability” and the “timing could not be better.”
CPJ’s requests for comment, sent via messaging app to Kenya’s Attorney General Justin Muturi, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the Kenyan police, and the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), did not receive an immediate response.
Editor’s note: This statement has been updated to clarify the police explanation for the shooting of Sharif.
Rudy Giuliani suffered another major humiliation this past week, as the state of New York officially revoked his law license. In their decision to strip him of his ability to practice in the state, the state bar said that Giuliani had “intent to deceive” the public and the courts with his legal attempts to overturn […]
President Biden’s campaign is hoping that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling this week will give them an edge in the campaign, which is something they desperately need after last week’s debate. The campaign immediately sent out fundraising emails to warn about the dangers that Trump now poses due to the ruling, specifically telling people that […]
Lawsuits have been filed against the makers of chemical hair relaxers after decades’ worth of studies have shown that the chemicals in these products can cause cancers and other serious health problems in women. But, as usual, the industry covered up these dangers for decades so they could continue to cash in. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. […]
The Committee to Protect Journalists is responding to the needs of journalists in the United States as they face a range of challenges, from confrontations with law enforcement at demonstrations to raids on newspaper offices, and learn to navigate what has become an increasingly hostile environment for many in the media.
The following advice and recommendations are intended to give the reader a high-level understanding of the rights of a journalist when confronted by law enforcement officers while covering a protest or other political event. Given that these incidents often quickly escalate and that some—both protestors and police—do not always conform to legal strictures, it is generally prudent to comply with an officer’s commands, even if they are not lawful, and to protect one’s safety.
Carry your press credentials at all times and ensure credentials are visible to law enforcement.
When covering demonstrations, protests, and campaign or political events, make sure you know in advance what restrictions are in place regarding the public’s right to access, and whether there are any curfew or other restrictions in place.
Do not trespass on private property to gather news; do not cross police lines at crime scenes; comply with location restrictions and barriers, absent exigent circumstances.
You may record video or audio of public events, including of law enforcement activities at such events, as long as you are not interfering with or obstructing law enforcement activity.
Maintain neutrality when covering events. For example, do not join crowd chants or wear clothing with slogans related to the events you are covering.
Comply with dispersal orders or other directives issued by law enforcement. If engaged in an encounter with law enforcement, explain that you are a journalist covering the event and show your credentials. You may continue to record interactions with law enforcement.
If law enforcement requests your audio or video recordings, camera, recording devices, equipment or notes, you may refuse and request that the official contact your media outlet or its lawyers.
During a stop-and-frisk or arrest make it clear to law enforcement that any equipment, memory cards, notebooks, etc. contain journalistic materials or notes.
Police break up a pro-Palestinian encampment at DePaul University in Chicago. (Photo: Jim Vondruska / Reuters)
First Amendment rights of journalists
Right to gather news
The First Amendment protects both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Journalists have a right to access public places to gather and disseminate news. Public places include sidewalks and public parks, but not private property. In addition, for government owned property, even those that allow for limited access to the public, members of the public, protestors, and reporters may be barred if the location is not itself public (for instance, private areas of a courthouse or jail) and hours of access for journalists are generally limited to those when the general public is permitted access.
Private property, such as convention centers or stadiums, may be used by public entities and public property may be used for private political party conventions. In either case, journalists may be provided access similar to the general public. For example, a judge ruled that a state Democratic organization holding a convention in the city’s civic center could not discriminate among journalists by admitting some and not others. The judge said that a private body leasing a government facility had the same constitutional obligations as the government. This will vary by jurisdiction. If you expect to be covering a convention or political party gathering, the journalist should attempt to get access/credentials in advance to allow for an opportunity for resolution of any disagreements in advance.
Time, place, and manner restrictions on demonstrations
The government is permitted to impose time, place and manner restrictions on speech as long as those requirements:
are content neutral (e.g., justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech);
are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest; and
leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.
These restrictions could include noise restriction ordinances, as well as a zone system in anticipation of a demonstration, such as demonstration zones, no demonstration zones, journalist-only zones, and areas for pedestrian traffic. In addition, restrictions may prohibit protestors from bringing camping material or staying overnight in public spaces. Localities typically have rules requiring protestors to obtain a permit for a protest, or for specific kinds of protesting (for instance marching in the street or using a loudspeaker). As long as the standards for granting a permit and the scope of the permit satisfy the time, place and manner restrictions, such processes are constitutionally permitted. Where those permit-related restrictions are not followed by a member of the public or a journalist, public officials may lawfully deny access.
Dispersal orders and curfews
Even where protestors have a valid permit, or where no permit is required under local rules, police may order protestors and reporters to disperse from an area if the time, place and manner restrictions test is met. This may occur where protestors are on a sidewalk blocking access to a building, or on a street blocking traffic. Similarly, if a reporter is in an unsafe area, for instance, stopped on a highway to record an accident, or standing on a phone booth to record a protest, police could order the reporter to leave the highway or come down from the phone booth. Police are generally required to issue warnings ordering protestors and reporters to disperse before making arrests, and courts may consider whether protestors and reporters could in fact hear the warnings in determining whether the arrests were proper.
In recent years, in response to various political protests, a number of municipalities issued curfew orders. Many of these curfew orders have exemptions for journalists, either explicitly or by permitting essential workers. Journalists should get as much information as possible about any applicable curfew order before reporting in an area, and should wear large, visible media credentials so that they are clearly identifiable as members of the press.
Right to record
Most courts have determined that the First Amendment protects the right to make video recordings of police officers when they are in public, although this right can be subject to the time, place and manner restrictions described above and recording or covering the demonstrations or law enforcement activity should be conducted in a manner that is not obstructing or threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with law enforcement. This right has been recognized by over half of the nation’s Courts of Appeals, including those in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court and all other appellate courts have not affirmatively ruled for or against the right. Some states have recently passed legislation prohibiting recording or approaching within a short distance of a police officer regardless of whether such conduct actually interferes with the officer’s law enforcement activities. For example, Indiana passed a law in 2023 prohibiting individuals from approaching within 25 feet of an officer after being ordered not to approach. A journalist challenged the constitutionality of the law because of its potential to limit his right to record, but a federal district court held that the law is constitutional—as of spring 2024, the ruling is under appeal in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In Arizona, a 2022 law prohibiting recording within 8 feet of a police officer was held to be unconstitutional. Journalists should be cognizant of local legislation that may impact the manner in which they may record the police.
The right to record also exists at the U.S. border, and in 2020, the U.S. government entered into a binding settlement that prohibits customs and border patrol agents from infringing on the right to record law enforcement activity from publicly accessible outdoor areas as long as the recording does not interfere with the lawful law enforcement activity.
Many states have eavesdropping or wiretapping statutes that prohibit recording private conversations without the consent of one or both parties to the conversation, and some states have statutes that also apply to public conversations. In certain circumstances, courts have held that the application of these statutes infringes on the recorder’s First Amendment rights. Nonetheless, reporters should review applicable law and guidance in the states in which they are working.
Retaliation
Government officials cannot retaliate against reporters for their reporting or selectively grant access, for example, by denying a press credential. Reporters who have been unfairly denied press credentials should review the applicable law in the jurisdiction to learn how to challenge or appeal the decision.
Journalist privilege
Most courts have recognized that journalists have a qualified privilege under the First Amendment against compelled disclosure of materials gathered in the course of their work. Journalists can be required to hand over their work materials, but only in limited circumstances – for instance, if the government demonstrates a compelling need and shows that the information is not obtainable from another source. Many states also have so-called “shield laws” which generally provide journalists with protection against disclosing their materials. These protections are not absolute: for example, in a 2020 case, a court upheld a subpoena requiring a number of news organizations to turn over unpublished photos and videos of a protest because “the photos and video were critical for an investigation into the alleged arson of [police] vehicles and theft of police guns.”
More recently, police in Kansas executed a search warrant and raided the office of the newspaper, the Marion County Record and the personal home of its publisher. The warrant was subsequently found to be improper, but only after many records and devices were seized. If a journalist’s audio or video recordings or notes are requested by a government official, including a police officer, the journalist may refuse. But when confronted with a warrant for search and/or seizure, the journalist should ask to review the warrant and confirm it is signed by a judge and accurately identifies the address of the place to be searched, describes the items to be seized, and identifies the legal basis for the warrant. He or she should also seek legal counsel as soon as practicable.
In 2021, the U.S. Justice Department updated internal policies to prohibit the seizure of reporters’ communications data for purposes of identifying confidential sources. However, this policy is not applicable to state and local law enforcement officers. In any event, such officers are bound by the Constitutional protections regarding seizure discussed below.
Fourth Amendment protections of journalists
Search
The Fourth Amendment protects journalists from unreasonable search and seizure. As a general matter, this means that police cannot search one’s body or belongings without a warrant. But there are exceptions, including to prevent or avoid serious injury, to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, and with the consent of the person to be searched.
In addition, police may briefly detain and search a person—a “stop and frisk”—for investigative purposes based on a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed or about to commit a crime. There must be at least some objective justification for a stop and frisk, but the officer need not even believe that it is more likely than not that a crime is or is about to be underway. Therefore, this type of stop is generally limited to a pat down, bag search, or vehicle search to search for weapons. Law enforcement officers generally are not permitted to search the digital contents of a journalist’s cell phone or camera based on reasonable suspicion alone.
Seizure
In addition to protection against an unreasonable search, the Fourth Amendment also protects against an unreasonable seizure. A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possession of that property. A seizure can also be of a person, such as when an individual is stopped and then frisked (as discussed above).
Prior to an arrest, and during a temporary seizure of a person (i.e., during a stop and frisk), police may also temporarily seize property, such as journalistic equipment. Therefore, it is particularly important for a journalist to prominently display press credentials and to identify himself or herself as press when confronted by police, to assuage any concerns police may have regarding suspected criminal activity. This will also be favorable in any subsequent analysis of whether reasonable suspicion existed at the time of the search/seizure.
To preserve the added protections this law affords to such journalistic materials, a journalist—in addition to prominently displaying his or her press credentials—should let the officers know as soon as possible that certain materials that are or may be searched (whether notes, memory cards, etc.) are press materials related to media intended to be disseminated to the public. The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (the PPA) provides for heightened standards to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of certain materials reasonably believed to be related to media intended for dissemination to the public—including “work product materials” (e.g., notes or voice memos containing mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, etc. of the person who prepared such materials) and “documentary materials” (e.g., video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, and anything else physically documenting an event).
These materials generally cannot be searched or seized unless they are reasonably believed to relate to a crime committed by the person possessing the materials. They may, however, be held for custodial storage incident to an arrest of the journalist possessing the materials, so long as the material is not searched and is returned to the arrestee intact.
Arrest
An arrest is essentially a seizure of the person and so also implicates the Fourth Amendment. An officer must have probable cause to make an arrest. Probable cause requires more than a mere suspicion but less than absolute certainty that a crime has been or is being committed. The standard is intended to be practical and nontechnical and as a result, is “a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts—not readily, or even usefully reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” It is well-established that mere proximity to criminal activity does not establish probable cause to arrest, so a law-abiding journalist should not be arrested for covering a protest or demonstration even if that demonstration becomes unruly or violent.
When an officer makes a lawful arrest, the arrest impacts what qualifies as a reasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. It is considered reasonable for an officer to search an individual for weapons and evidence when making an arrest, even if the officer has no objective concern for safety or evidence preservation. This means that an officer with probable cause to arrest a journalist (for, e.g., disobeying a lawful order of dispersal, violating a curfew, trespassing, or participating in other unlawful conduct) may have legal justification to search through the belongings of the journalist. However, a search or seizure incident to arrest is limited to the area within the immediate control or vicinity of the arrestee—i.e., anything which would be easily reachable as a potential weapon (such as, arguably, a large piece of camera equipment) or easily destroyed evidence (such as camera film or memory cards).
Often during protests, officers choose to issue citations as opposed to making arrests. The law is unsettled as to whether officers may conduct searches incident to the issuance of these citations. Some courts, including the federal courts in New York, have held that a law enforcement officer need not intend to make an arrest to conduct a search incident to arrest, so long as the officer has probable cause to make an arrest and conducts the search prior to giving a citation. Federal courts in the western states, including California, Oregon, and Washington, have taken a different approach. There, search incident to arrest is only permissible when an arrest is actually made. Thus, if an officer seeks to conduct a search of a journalist, the journalist may want to ask whether they are being arrested, as this may affect what rights the journalist has to refuse the search. On the other hand, this may escalate the encounter and cause the officer to place the journalist under arrest when perhaps this was not the officer’s intention.
Importantly, a search incident to arrest likely does not extend to a search of the contents of mobile phones or cameras. The Supreme Court has held that a search of digital data on a cell phone does not implicate the risk of harm to an officer or evidence preservation, and is therefore outside the scope of a lawful search incident to arrest. This holding would likely apply to digital cameras as well, as cameras contain data similar to that stored on cell phones. Seizure of these items likely is permissible, though.
People protest the 2023 killing of Jordan Neely by a fellow subway passenger in New York City. (Photo: Eduardo Munoz / Reuters)
Covering the 2024 National Political Conventions
In 2024, The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee will hold their conventions to nominate Presidential candidates in Chicago and Milwaukee, respectively. The protections above are based on the U.S. Constitution and so will apply. In addition, states and cities may have additional protections available, which are addressed below.
Chicago, Illinois
Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution provides that “all persons may speak, write, and publish freely.” And Illinois state and local law generally mirrors that of federal First Amendment jurisprudence when it comes to the right to gather news. Illinois law also mirrors federal law with respect to Fourth Amendment matters concerning search, seizure, and arrest. Below is a discussion of key aspects of Illinois law relevant to journalists covering demonstrations.
Arrest
Under the Fourth Amendment, police can only make arrests with probable cause. Two common justifications for arrests at protests in Illinois are (a) failing to comply with a dispersal order, and (b) disorderly conduct.
Federal courts in Illinois have held that probable cause may exist for arrest when a dispersal order is given and not followed. However, if permission to march is revoked without notice, arrests for marching without permission are not justified. Importantly, the message of the protest cannot be a justification for a dispersal order and the police are expected to protect protestors, even if their message provokes a hostile response from others. Further, under Illinois law, individuals on foot in public cannot be arrested simply for refusing to identify themselves. However, providing false information to police can lead to arrest. Journalists should comply with dispersal orders.
Illinois law prohibits disorderly conduct, which is defined as making an “unreasonable or offensive act, utterance, gesture or display which, under the circumstances, creates a clear and present danger of a breach of peace or imminent threat of violence.” Failing to obey law enforcement, and “using force or violence to disturb the public peace” are also considered disorderly conduct. Also, failure to disperse in the immediate vicinity of three or more people who are committing disorderly conduct is prohibited by this law.
Journalists should keep this in mind when covering demonstrations, as police officers may use this law as justification for detaining demonstrators and anyone in their vicinity. Journalists should avoid participating in any activities that may cause or provoke a disturbance and clearly distinguish themselves from individuals who may be doing so by wearing conspicuous press credentials.
Illinois Right to Record
The state of Illinois requires all parties to a conversation to give consent before one can record “all or any part of any” private oral conversation. Chicago ordinance also prohibits video recording in “areas where a person should reasonably expect to have privacy.” The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which includes Illinois, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record government officials performing their duties in public, except when the journalist is the subject of the arrest. As a result, journalists may record police officers covering demonstrations or protests as they will be occurring in public spaces and where the officers are on duty but such journalists must accede to an order to stop recording if the officers seek to lawfully arrest the journalist.
Illinois Shield Law
Under Illinois law, journalists enjoy qualified privilege with regard to maintaining confidential sources and news gathering material. A party that wishes to remove the protection can force a journalist to comply with a subpoena for material by showing that the interest in obtaining the material outweighs the journalist’s interest in not revealing their sources. The journalist loses the privilege if the information sought is: (1) highly relevant and material, (2) necessary to the claim or defense, (3) not obtainable from a non-journalistic source, and (4) the party has exhausted all alternative sources. Further, a court will only grant such a subpoena if “(1) the information sought does not concern matters, or details in any proceeding, required to be kept secret under the laws of [Illinois] or of the Federal government; and (2) all other available sources of information have been exhausted, and disclosure of the information sought is essential to the protection of the public interest involved.” Whether or not alternative sources have been exhausted is a fact-sensitive inquiry; however, parties seeking to remove the privilege must show that obtaining the information from other sources would be more than inconvenient, and that further efforts to obtain the information would likely be unsuccessful.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Freedom of the press under Wisconsin state law mirrors federal law. The Wisconsin Constitution provides that “no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.” And Wisconsin law likewise affords the protections of the First and Fourth Amendment concerning news gathering, search, seizure, and arrest in a manner that mirrors that of federal law.
Arrest
Police officers in Wisconsin may arrest individuals at protests or demonstrations for disorderly conduct, which under Wisconsin law is defined as “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or similarly disorderly conduct.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court reads this statute quite broadly such that any conduct that has the tendency to cause or provoke a disturbance is sufficient to give police officers probable cause to make an arrest, even if no actual disturbance is created. That said, federal courts in Wisconsin have held that an individual cannot be guilty of disorderly conduct simply by being in the vicinity of others being disorderly.
Wisconsin law permits police officers to call for the dispersal of an unlawful assembly, including protests that unlawfully block public travel on the street or entrances to buildings. Failure to accede to a lawful dispersal order is grounds for arrest. Journalists should comply with dispersal orders and wear clear press credentials to separate themselves from any unlawful demonstrations.
Wisconsin Right to Record
Wisconsin is a “one-party consent” state, meaning that at least one person involved in a recorded communication must give consent to record a conversation by participants who exhibit a justifiable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception. Thus, consent is not required to record conversations in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Moreover, as discussed above, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which also includes Wisconsin, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record government officials performing their duties in public. Federal courts in Wisconsin have held that a journalist has the right to record a police officer making an arrest, but not if they are themselves being arrested. As such, in the event a police officer seeks to lawfully arrest a member of the press who is recording, that officer may order the journalist to stop recording.
Wisconsin Shield Law
Wisconsin law provides qualified journalistic privilege with regard to maintaining confidential sources and news gathering material. A party that wishes to override the protection may obtain a subpoena through court order only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the news, information, or identity of the source is highly relevant to a particular investigation, prosecution, action, or proceeding; (2) the news, information, or identity of the source is necessary to the maintenance of a party’s claim, defense, or to the proof of an issue material to the investigation, prosecution, action, or proceeding; (3) the news, information, or identity of the source is not obtainable from any alternative source for the investigation, prosecution, action, or proceeding; and (4) there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the news, information, or identity of the source.
This guide was prepared for the Committee to Protect Journalists by TrustLaw, the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s global pro bono legal program.
The Thomson Reuters Foundation is the corporate foundation of Thomson Reuters, the global news and information services company. The organization works to advance media freedom, raise awareness of human rights issues, and foster more inclusive economies. Through news, media development, free legal assistance, and convening initiatives, the Foundation combines its unique services to drive systemic change.
TrustLaw, an initiative of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, is the world’s largest pro bono legal network. Working with leading law firms and corporate legal teams, we facilitate free legal support, ground-breaking legal research and resources for non-profits and social enterprises in over 190 countries. This includes practical and legal tools for journalists, media managers and newsrooms to strengthen responses to online and offline harassment and to protect free and independent media. If you are a non-profit or social enterprise in need of legal support, you can find out more about the service here and join TrustLaw for free.
Acknowledgements & Disclaimer
The Committee to Protect Journalists and the Thomson Reuters Foundation would like to acknowledge and extend their gratitude to the legal team at A&O Shearman, who contributed their time and expertise on a pro bono basis to make this guide possible.
This report is offered for information purposes only. It is not legal advice. Readers are urged to seek advice from qualified legal counsel in relation to their specific circumstances. We intend the report’s contents to be correct and up to date at the time of publication, but we do not guarantee their accuracy or completeness, particularly as circumstances may change after publication. The Committee to Protect Journalists, A&O Shearman, and the Thomson Reuters Foundation, accept no liability or responsibility for actions taken or not taken or any losses arising from reliance on this report or any inaccuracies herein. Thomson Reuters Foundation is proud to support our TrustLaw member the Committee to Protect Journalists, with their work on this report, including with publication and the pro bono connection that made the legal research possible. However, in accordance with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles of independence and freedom from bias, we do not take a position on the contents of, or views expressed in, this report.
Conservatives were angry this week that a CNN anchor wouldn’t allow a Trump campaign spokesperson to lie on air during an interview on Monday, and one of the leading voices calling out this “grievance” was Matt Gaetz. Gaetz doesn’t have a stake in the fight at all, so why is he sticking his neck out […]
America’s Lawyer E103: This year’s presidential election is going to be decided by voters that are now being called “DOUBLE HATERS” – which means they can’t stand the thought of voting for Biden OR Trump. We’ll explain what this means for the race. Scientific studies have shown for decades that chemical hair relaxers were causing […]
The federal government has classified marijuana as one of the most dangerous drugs in the country, alongside heroin and LSD. Also, President Biden has officially signed legislation that says TikTok either has to be sold or be shut down within the next 12 months. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party […]
Berlin, June 26, 2024 – The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) strongly condemns the Russian foreign ministry’s Tuesday decisionto block access to 81 European media outlets in Russia in response to the EU’s recent ban on four pro-Kremlin media outlets.
“Russian authorities’ blocking of 81 European media outlets betrays their deep-seated fear of truthful reporting,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Moscow must immediately stop restricting Russians’ access to information and cease its attempts to stifle the flow of news that deviates from the official line.”
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ statement included 81 media outlets from 25 of the 27 EU member countries, excluding Croatia and Luxembourg,U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported. Among those listed were television and radio companies, newspapers, magazines, and online media including Germany’s Der Spiegel and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, France’s Le Monde and Libération, Spain’s El País, Italy’s La Stampa and La Repubblica, the Agence France-Presse news agency, Politico and several other media outlets.
“The Russian Federation has repeatedly warned at various levels that politically motivated harassment of domestic journalists and unjustified bans on Russian media in the EU will not go unanswered,” the foreign ministry’s June 25 statement said, adding that the targeted media were spreading “false information” about Russia’s war in Ukraine.
On May 17, the European Union announced it would suspend the “broadcasting activities” of the state-run RIA Novosti news agency, the pro-government newspapers Izvestia and Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and the Prague-based news website Voice of Europe, saying that those outlets were “under the permanent direct or indirect control of the leadership of the Russian Federation, and have been essential and instrumental in bringing forward and supporting Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.” The decision went into effect on June 25.
After Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU banned Russian state-controlled media outlets Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik on similar grounds and Russian authorities have forced a number of foreign journalists to leave the country either by revoking their accreditation or refusing to renew their visas.
On June 26, Russia’s foreign ministry responded to Austria’s recent decision to revoke the accreditation of Arina Davidyan, the Vienna-based head of the Russian state news agency TASS, by ordering Carola Schneider, head of the Moscow bureau of Austrian public broadcaster ORF, to “hand over her accreditation” and leave Russia “in the near future.”
CPJ emailed the Russian Foreign Ministry for comment on the media bans, but did not receive any response.
New York, June 26, 2024—As the closed-door trial of U.S. journalist Evan Gershkovich opened in a Russian court on Wednesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists denounced it as a travesty of justice and renewed its call for the journalist’s immediate release.
“U.S. reporter Evan Gershkovich goes on trial today after nearly 15 months of unjust detention. Given the spurious and unsubstantiated charges brought against him, this trial is nothing more than a masquerade,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Russian authorities must put an end to this travesty of justice, release Gershkovich, drop all charges against him, and stop prosecuting members of the press for their work.”
Gershkovich’s trial started Wednesday, June 26, in the Sverdlovsk Regional Court in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg, reports said. It is not known how long the trial will last.
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) accused Gershkovich, a reporter with The Wall Street Journal, of collecting “secret information” for the CIA on a Russian tank factory in the Sverdlovsk region and arrested him on espionage charges on March 29, 2023.
Gershkovich faces up to 20 years in prison and is the first American journalist to face such accusations by Russia since the end of the Cold War. The journalist, his outlet, and the U.S. government have all denied the espionage allegations.
“No evidence has been unveiled. And we already know the conclusion: This bogus accusation of espionage will inevitably lead to a bogus conviction for an innocent man who would then face up to 20 years in prison for simply doing his job,” said Emma Tucker, editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal, in a Tuesday statement.
On June 13, the Russian prosecutor general’s office announced that Gershkovich’s indictment had been finalized.
“I think we were all hopeful that we were able to broker a deal with the Russians before this happened, but it doesn’t stop or slow us down,” Roger Carstens, the special presidential envoy for hostage affairs at the U.S. Department of State, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee the same day.
On April 11, 2023, the U.S. State Department designated Gershkovich as “wrongfully detained,” unlocking a broad government effort to free him.
Russia was the world’s fourth-worst jailer of journalists, with at least 22 behind bars, including Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva, a U.S.-Russian journalist, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census on December 1, 2023.
Sulaymaniyah, June 24, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on Iraqi Kurdish authorities to immediately and unconditionally free Syrian journalist Sleman Ahmed, who has been detained for eight months, and drop all charges against him.
Ahmed — an Arabic editor for the local news website RojNews — is due to stand trial before Duhok Criminal Court in northern Iraqi Kurdistan on June 30, RojNews editor-in-chief Botan Garmiyani and Ahmed’s lawyers Nariman Ahmed and Reving Hruri told CPJ.
The news follows the filing in April of an Urgent Action to the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances by CPJ and the MENA Rights Group to clarify Ahmed’s fate and whereabouts.
Ahmed was arrested on October 25 while entering Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region from Syria, where he had been visiting his family. The Security Directorate (Asayish), which is responsible for border security in Duhok Governorate, accused Ahmed of carrying out “secret and illegal” work for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
The separatist PKK is designated a terrorist organization by countries and institutions, including the U.S., Turkey, and the European Union. Iraq’s National Security Council banned the group from operating in the country earlier this year. Ahmed’s outlet, RojNews, is pro-PKK and regularly reports on its activities.
Ara Khder, a spokesperson for the Kurdistan Regional Government’s Office of the Coordinator for International Advocacy, told CPJ in an email on May 26 that Ahmed had been arrested under the order of the Duhok Investigation Judge under Article 1 of Law No. 21 of 2003 and charged with espionage. Ahmed was being held in the Duhok Security Directorate’s prison.
“Accusing Sleman Ahmed of espionage and holding him for months before giving him access to his lawyers is yet another setback to press freedom in Iraqi Kurdistan,” said CPJ Program Coordinator, Carlos Martinez de la Serna, in New York. “Iraqi Kurdish authorities should release Ahmed immediately and drop all charges against him.”
‘We had no idea where he was’
The journalist’s lawyers told CPJ that Ahmed had no legal representation until May 22, when they were able to visit him in prison and receive official recognition as his legal team.
“For six months, we had no idea where he was, just so we could get his approval to be his attorneys,” said Hruri.
“For the first time since his arrest, he was also able to have a brief phone call with his family,” the journalist’s other lawyer, Nariman Ahmed, told CPJ.
The journalist could face life imprisonment if convicted under Article 1 of acts intended to undermine the stability, sovereignty, and security of the Kurdistan Region’s institutions.
Four other Kurdish journalists have been jailed for three to six years under the same article on charges of endangering the national security of the Kurdistan Region.
While Khder said in her May 26 email that Ahmed had access to his family, Ahmed’s lawyers and his brother, Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed, told CPJ that the family had not been allowed to visit him.
“They only allowed him a two-minute phone call to confirm he is alive, no more, no less,” the journalist’s brother told CPJ in June via messaging app. “They don’t allow us to visit him in prison.”
Garmiyani told CPJ that RojNews rejected the charges against Ahmed. “This is merely a plot to imprison him. We demand his immediate release,” he said.
CPJ called Duhok Asayish Director Zeravan Baroshky for comment but did not receive any reply.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been freed from Belmarsh Prison in London, where he has been incarcerated for the past five years, after accepting a plea deal with U.S. prosecutors. After a decade-plus of legal challenges, Assange will plead guilty to a single felony count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security material for publishing classified documents detailing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan on WikiLeaks. The Australian publisher is expected to be sentenced to time served and allowed to return home, where he reportedly will seek a pardon. Assange’s brother Gabriel Shipton describes learning of his release as “an amazing moment.” He speaks to Democracy Now! about Assange’s case and what led up to the latest developments, as well as what he expects will happen next.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
New York, June 24, 2024— The Committee to Protect Journalists welcomes reports that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be freed from prison in a plea deal with the United States Justice Department.
“Julian Assange faced a prosecution that had grave implications for journalists and press freedom worldwide,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg. “While we welcome the end of his detention, the U.S.’s pursuit of Assange has set a harmful legal precedent by opening the way for journalists to be tried under the Espionage Act if they receive classified material from whistleblowers. This should never have been the case.”
According to news reports, Assange is expected to plead guilty to an Espionage Act charge of conspiring to unlawfully obtain and disseminate classified national defense information.
Assange is expected to return to his native Australia once the plea deal is finalized in federal court in the Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth in the Western Pacific.
Assange was indicted on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in relation to WikiLeaks publication of classified material, including the Iraq War logs. If convicted under these charges, he would have faced up to 175 years in prison.
CPJ has long opposed U.S. attempts to prosecute Assange and campaigned for his release jointly with other organizations.
