On October 10th, the Supreme Court declined to revisit the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which provides vital First Amendment protections to journalists and the public. The case, Don Blankenship v. NBC Universal et al., requesting the precedent be revisited, concerns a former coal baron who was convicted of a federal conspiracy offense and who sued a number of news outlets for their erroneous reporting that he was a convicted felon, even though his offense was classified as a misdemeanor. Lower courts ruled against him, finding that the outlets did not make the statements with actual malice, but the attorneys for the plaintiff urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision and overturn NYT v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case, however Justice Thomas wrote in a concurrence “[i]n an appropriate case, however, we should reconsider New York Times and our other decisions displacing state defamation law”.

The post Supreme Court Declines to Revisit NYT v. Sullivan, though Justice Thomas Wants to Revisit it in Future appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

On October 5th, the Alliance joined an application, submitted to the DC Circuit Court, requesting audiovisual access to the United States v. Donald J. Trump trial related to the January 6th events, currently scheduled for March 2024. The Alliance also joined a media coalition letter, led by Ballard Spahr, to the Judicial Conference of the Administrative Office of the United State Courts urging a change to Rule 53 to allow audiovisual access to the trial and other criminal proceedings. The application and letter outline how this criminal trial against a former President is historic and unprecedented, and the public and the media have a right to access the trial. Audiovisual coverage is necessary to provide accurate, timely, and meaningful access to the media and the public, and the per se ban on audiovisual access is unconstitutional. To only allow the few members of the press and public who can get a seat in the courtroom to observe the trial does not satisfy the First Amendment. The Alliance will continue to support efforts to allow greater access for journalists and the public to observe trials, especially those with historic significance.

The post The Alliance Joins Media Coalition Urging Court to Allow Cameras at Trump’s Election Interference Trial appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

On September 7, the Alliance joined a brief in Citizens for Fauquier County v. Town of Warrenton, filed in the Virginia Court of Appeals. The case is a public records case, in which the town of Warrenton denied a records request for the disclosure of records about recent changes to Virginia zoning laws amid an application by Amazon to use land in the town for a data center. The Town claimed executive privilege under the “working papers and correspondence” exemption in Virginia’s FOIA statute. Citizens for Fauquier County (“CFC”), a non-profit environmental organization, sued to compel the Town to release the requested records, which the lower court denied, and CFC appealed. The brief, filed by RCFP, argues that the exemption should be narrowly interpreted to be consistent with the goal of Virginia’s FOIA statute and that courts should not apply the exemption without conducting fact-finding, to ensure journalists and others have adequate and much-needed access to public records. Read more.

The post Alliance Joins Brief Arguing for Disclosure of Public Records in Virginia Zoning Case appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

On September 19, the Alliance joined a brief in United Healthcare v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, filed in the Nevada Supreme Court. The case involves access to trial exhibits and transcripts following a high-profile trial and jury verdict against United Healthcare Insurance Company for underpaying out-of-network medical providers. Post-trial, United Healthcare sought to seal or redact many of the trial exhibits and transcript from the trial – records that had been introduced in open court and entered into the public record. The trial court denied the sealing request and United Healthcare appealed. The brief, filed by RCFP, argues that the Nevada Supreme Court should affirm the lower court’s decision, as there is a presumptive right of access to court records, and this cannot be overcome when those records have already been made public at trial. The case is important in preserving the right to access court records by journalists and the public. Read more.

The post Alliance Joins Brief Arguing Court Records Should Not be Retroactively Sealed Post-Trial appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

Additional Resources:

• During the event, the Center for Journalism and Liberty at Open Markets announced the publication of its comprehensive report, “Democracy, Journalism, and Monopoly: How to Fund Independent News Media in the 21st Century.” A tremendous effort from Open Markets and CJL journalists and scholars, this new report – the most comprehensive available today – details how, through a broad & integrated program of reform that restores traditional American principles of competition policy, we can restructure media & communications markets to sustain them in the 21st Century.
• The Center for Journalism and Liberty also launched this week a Technology & Media Fair Compensation Frameworks tracker, which includes information about legislation around the world, plus several sets of policy primers and analyses.

The post ‘Protecting News to Preserve Democracy’ by Center for Journalism & Liberty at Open Markets Institute appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

(click to expand)

According to an analysis, The News Media Bargaining Code in Australia has resulted deals being reached between Meta and Google and publishers large and small that have allowed publishers to hire journalists, leading to what Australian journalists are saying is the best time to be a journalist. For example, The Guardian increased its newsroom employment from 70 to roughly 150 journalists, in large part due to revenue received under the Code, and the Australian Broadcasting Company announced in December 2021 that it was creating more than 50 journalist positions in regional locations as a result of the Code.

Without compensation from the Big Tech platforms for use of their content, and the tech platforms’ continued dominance over the majority of digital advertising revenue, U.S. publishers are left with scraps to invest in continuing to provide quality journalism. The Journalism Competition Preservation Act (JCPA), like the Australia Code, would create journalism jobs in the U.S., requiring the Big Tech platforms to compensate news publishers for use of their content, funneling needed revenue to publishers that can be used to hire reporters.

Local news reporters are members of the community and they work hard to deliver important news and information that their fellow community members want and need, as well as hold government officials and others in positions of power accountable. When you support journalism, you support your neighbor and your community by supporting job creation.

If Congress doesn’t pass the JCPA now, communities across America will continue to lose quality local, fact-based news coverage. When you support the JCPA, you support journalism and the creation of journalism jobs.

Contact your member of Congress today to support the JCPA and help sustain your local journalists and news publishers: 202.224.3121

Learn more about the JCPA

Back to top

Legislation around the world to require Big Tech platforms to pay news publishers for use of their content is working.

(click to expand)

Legislation around the world requiring Big Tech platforms such as Google and Meta to pay news publishers fairly for use of their valuable content is working. In Australia, the News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is balancing the playing field between publishers and online platforms, allowing for a more sustainable foundation for the preservation of high-quality journalism.

Right now in the U.S., Google and Facebook capture the vast majority (70%) of all digital advertising dollars, leaving publishers with insufficient resources to reinvest in providing the journalism Americans need and rely on to stay informed and engaged. Ad revenue for Facebook and Google is four times larger than for all U.S. news publishers combined. In addition, research has found that two-thirds of searches on Google don’t end in a click to a third-party site because they use large segments of publishers’ content to keep users from leaving their platform.

Small publishers on their own have no negotiating power to challenge the basic terms offered by the dominant tech platforms. Bipartisan legislation currently under consideration in the U.S., the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCPA), like the NMBC, would allow local news companies to negotiate with Big Tech to receive fair compensation for the use of their content.

If Congress doesn’t pass the JCPA now, communities across America will continue to lose quality local, fact-based news coverage. When you support the JCPA, you support journalism and help to ensure news and quality journalism live to report another day.

Contact your member of Congress today to support the JCPA and help sustain your local journalists and news publishers: 202.224.3121

Learn more about the JCPA

Back to top

One-fifth of the population lives in a news desert or in a community at risk of becoming one.

(click to expand)

We sometimes take for granted that our local newspaper will always be there when we need it. But the stark reality is that one-quarter (2,500) of the country’s newspapers have shuttered since 2005, and another third are expected to close by 2025 if we don’t do something to reverse this startling trend. Lower-income communities are disproportionately impacted by the closure of local newspapers, which serve as a check on the local, state and federal governments.

When residents lose their local news source, they lose their community watchdog and their way to stay connected, informed and engaged about what’s happening in their community. Supporting quality journalism is the only way to stop the growth of news deserts.

The Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCPA) is a bipartisan bill that would allow local news companies to negotiate with Big Tech to ensure they are treated fairly and compensated justly, helping to sustain this critical function in our society. If Congress doesn’t pass the JCPA now, communities across America will continue to lose quality local, fact-based news coverage.

When you support the JCPA, you support journalism and help to ensure news publishers can continue to invest in providing the important news and investigative journalism you want and need to help stay informed and engaged.

Contact your member of Congress today to support the JCPA and help sustain your local journalists and news publishers: 202.224.3121

Learn more about the JCPA

Back to top

Without quality journalism, we’d be cut off from the outside world.

(click to expand)

Have you ever thought about how many times you look at your phone in a given day, and how much your need to be connected with your community and the world through staying informed about the latest news and information from local news publishers drives that behavior?

From the latest weather affecting your neighborhood, to community events offering enrichment and connection, to local government corruption that harms residents, local news reporting strengthens our community. But local papers across the country are under threat. Big Tech doesn’t produce original journalism – they take advantage of the news and information created by local publishers, reaping the financial benefits without paying for it.

The Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCPA) is a bipartisan bill that would allow local news companies to negotiate with Big Tech to ensure they are treated fairly and compensated justly. If Congress doesn’t pass the JCPA now, communities across America will continue to lose quality local, fact-based news coverage.

When you support the JCPA, you support journalism and help to ensure news publishers can continue to invest in providing the important news and investigative journalism you want and need to help stay informed and engaged.

Contact your member of Congress today to support the JCPA and help sustain your local journalists and news publishers: 202.224.3121

Learn more about the JCPA

Back to top

The post Support Journalism. Support the JCPA. appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

Saturday, October 7, 2023

International Newspaper Carrier Day is held each year in conjunction with National Newspaper Week (NNW), an annual week dedicated to celebrating the impact of newspapers to communities large and small.

National Newspaper Week 

National Newspaper Week (NNW) is October 1 – 7, 2023, with International Newspaper Carrier Day falling on that Saturday, October 7, 2020.

NNW is sponsored by Newspaper Association Managers, Inc., the consortium of North American trade associations representing the industry on a state and provincial, regional and national basis.

This year’s NNW theme is “In Print. Online. For You.” This 83rd annual National Newspaper Week is a recognition of the service of newspapers and their employees across North America.

For more information about National Newspaper Week and to download NNW resources, visit www.nationalnewspaperweek.com/

Additional materials for use by newspapers promoting NNW will be posted below as they become available.

International Newspaper Carrier Day

International Newspaper Carrier Day is on Saturday, October 7, 2023.

The News/Media Alliance produces an ad for International Newspaper Carrier day for members to run in their newspapers as a thank-you to their hard-working newspaper carriers.

Click here to download the 2023 ads.

The post 2023 National Newspaper Week and International Newspaper Carrier Day appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

On July 7, the Alliance joined comments drafted by the National Press Photographers Association in response to the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) proposed rules relating to drone use in New York City. NYPD is proposing to amend its rules to create a procedure by which members of the public can submit applications to launch or land an unmanned aircraft, including a “drone”, within New York City. The comments outline the potential First Amendment implications of the proposed rules, including, for example, that the 30-day advance application submission requirement will prevent journalists from covering breaking news. The proposed rules do not provide a time limit within which the City must approve or deny applications, nor a timeframe within which the City must respond to an appeal when a permit application is denied. The application also requires a non-refundable $150.00 fee, which may be beyond the economic reach of many independent journalists. The comments argue that the application process is unconstitutional as it is too burdensome and costly; essentially foreclosing the use of drones for most journalistic purposes. While the Alliance supports the development of safe drone journalism practices, any rules or regulations must also provide strong First Amendment protections for news and magazine journalists. Read more.

The post Alliance Joins Comments on Proposed Rules for Drone Use in New York City appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

Facts of the case
Colorado man Billy Counterman had an intense obsession with female singer-songwriter Coles Whalen. From 2014 to 2016, he sent her various disturbing messages from his Facebook account. Each time Whalen blocked his account, he made new profiles to write to her again. Some of his messages suggested he knew her location, while others suggested he wanted her to die or be killed. These messages deeply affected Whalen, causing her to change her daily routine. Counterman was arrested and criminally charged with stalking. He argued that the charges against him would violate his right to free speech because they were not “true threats”. The Colorado trial court convicted him of stalking under a state law restricting speech if a reasonable person could perceive it as a threat. His conviction was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the Colorado Supreme Court denied review. In January of 2023, the Supreme Court granted Counterman a writ of certiorari.

Question for the Court
This case asks the Court to clarify the standard for determining whether a statement is a true threat, punishable by law, or free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Decision
In a 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Kagan, the Court ruled that for a threat prosecution, proof of subjective recklessness is required – that the defendant consciously disregarded that a reasonable person may interpret their words as an act of intimidation or a threat. Therefore, the majority found that Counterman’s prosecution violated the First Amendment. Justice Thomas and Barrett filed dissenting opinions.

Free press implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to adopt a recklessness test, which applies to both civil and criminal contexts, shelters journalists from good faith reporting by requiring proof of intent to threaten. The ruling also reinforces the importance of the actual malice standard in the 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, continuing to protect journalists when facing defamation claims.

For further reading, please visit:

• SCOTUSblog: Counterman v. Colorado
• RCFP: Counterman v. Colorado
• The New York Times: Supreme Court Puts First Amendment Limits on Laws Banning Online Threats
• Lawfare: The Supreme Court’s Counterman Decision, Explained

The post Counterman v. Colorado appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

Facts of the case
Over four years, Helaman Hansen ran a phony “adult adoption” program giving undocumented immigrants the false impression that he could help them become United States citizens. In a 2017 trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the jury convicted him of fraud and encouraging illegal immigration, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). Hansen argued to the Ninth Circuit that the statute was too broad and violated his First Amendment rights, and the Court of Appeals ruled in his favor. After the court denied a rehearing, the government petitioned to the Supreme Court.

Question for the Court
This case asks the court to determine whether a statute criminalizing “encouraging” or “inducing” an undocumented immigrant to unlawfully reside in the United States (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)) is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

Decision
In a 7-2 opinion, authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court sided with the Biden administration and upheld Hansen’s conviction, ruling that the statute does not unconstitutionally infringe upon free speech rights. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

Free press implications
The Court acknowledged that if read literally, the statute would raise concerns for free speech. Thus, they ruled that the statute extends “no further than the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law.” However, the ruling leaves journalists with some uncertainty as to what they can say when reporting on the issue of illegal immigration, and the mere prospect of arrest or prosecution could chill free speech. As Jackson and Sotomayor pointed out in their dissent, the court’s ruling “leaves many things about future potential prosecutions up in the air.” The government has already read the statute broadly in the past to defend the surveillance of journalists reporting on immigration, including a secret database of activists and reporters discovered in 2019.

For further reading, please visit

• SCOTUSblog: United States v. Hansen
• RCFP: United States v. Hansen
• Courthouse News Service: Press rights in crosshairs as justices tackle those who aid illegal immigration
• Courthouse News Service: Supreme Court endorses criminalization of speech linked to illegal immigration

The post United States v. Hansen appeared first on News/Media Alliance.