[ad_1]
The legal way to challenge a president who attacks journalists has become a little easier now that a group of press freedom activists has settled a lawsuit filed against the US government.
Last month, PEN America reached an agreement with the new administration over a lawsuit it filed against former President Donald Trump. The agreement upholds a lower court ruling in 2020, which affirms the right to sue the president if a party deems that he has used his post authority to retaliate against journalists for critical reporting.
Although the case did not go to trial, the plaintiff believes the settlement is positive and will have a long-term impact. “Undoubtedly, we would like to have received a court decision on the merits of the case we raised. “But we are pleased that the court accepted that revoking the credentials or certification of journalists in response to critical reporting constitutes a violation of the First Amendment on Freedom of the Press,” said Kristy Parker, a lawyer with the Defending Democracy Association and chair of team of lawyers for the party that filed the lawsuit.
David A. Schulz, a professor at Yale University School of Media, said that “the agreement itself does not do much”, but it is valuable because it supports the court’s decision in 2020. This decision will remain part of the legal code, Said Mr. Schulz, who was part of the team of lawyers who filed the lawsuit.
Legal Battle
The deal crowned a two-year legal battle. In 2018, PEN America, represented by Defending Democracy, Yale University Media and Information Clinic, and law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, filed a lawsuit in New York District Court.
The lawsuit alleges that then-President Donald Trump retaliated against journalists for critical articles, violating the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression and the press. “Although the president is free to criticize the press, he cannot use the authority of the US government to punish or silence him,” the indictment said.
The organization’s arguments included the results of a poll of its members, with more than half saying they believed “public criticism of the Trump administration could be put at risk.” Among the members of the organization is CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, whose White House temporarily canceled his credentials in November 2018 following a heated exchange at a news conference.
Mr Schulz said the poll and other evidence showed that President Trump posed a “threat in forms that affected news coverage”. His actions, taken in total, constituted censorship, he told VOA.
In addition to the suspension of credentials, the lawsuit alleges that former President Trump or officials in his administration had:
-Cancelled or threatened to cancel security certification for former government officials who publicly made critical comments about the president;
Issue an executive order to increase postal tariffs to punish Jeff Bezos, Amazon chief executive and owner of the Washington Post;
– Instructed the Department of Justice to take action against media giant Time Warner as a result of the “antagonistic” attitude of the CNN network, one of its possessions.
-Threatened to cancel broadcasting licenses for media groups as revenge for “coverage that the president did not like”.
The Justice Department, which represented President Trump in the case, tried to dismiss the allegations, arguing that PEN America could not file a lawsuit because it was not an influential party and had failed to prove that the former President Trump had obstructed press freedom. “Her allegations of deprivation of freedom of expression are too general and do not deserve action: the prosecution has not identified a specific individual whose freedom of expression has been reduced,” the Department of Justice wrote in an April 2019 motion.
This institution also argued that the court did not have the authority to control the official actions of a president. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the article. The lawsuit was not dismissed, but narrowed in focus.
In March 2020, the Southern District Court of New York ruled that the plaintiff did not have the right to sue for some of its claims, but allowed Pen America, on behalf of its members, to seek damages in connection with the annulment. or threats to revoke credentials and security certificates.
President Trump’s term ended before the trial was over and the issue was resolved in agreement with President Biden’s administration. The agreement states that closing the case does not mean that the accused party pleads guilty, but the court decides to uphold the 2020 lower court ruling in favor of the Pen America organization.
International Impact
Lawyers for the case consider the case a tool against abuse of power in the US and other countries. In the future, explains Nora Benavidez, director of Freedom of Expression Programs at PEN America, it will be easier to file a lawsuit after the court ruled that PEN America’s argument that a president’s retaliation against journalists was a violation was valid. of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
“I am proud to have opened new tracks with this issue,” said Ms Benavidez. “I think the victory will be valid in the future as we now have a precedent case that helps to strengthen press freedom for years to come.” This issue may resonate outside the US. “The world turns a blind eye to the United States when it comes to press freedom,” said Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur on the protection of freedom of expression and expression.
“What happened under the Trump administration sent the wrong message to other countries,” he said. This issue will send a positive message, “she said. Ms. Parker with the Defend Democracy association hopes that others will learn lessons on how to oppose authoritarian acts. “Like Pen America did it through the judiciary.” But not everyone sees the lawsuit as the right solution to the media clashes with the White House.
“The relationship between the president and the press has a legal basis in the Constitution. “Both sides need to try to stay within that framework,” said Lisa Nicole Matthews, president of the National Press Club. Ms Matthews adds that the law should not be used to resolve disputes such as journalists’ credentials or the president’s acts against the corps of journalists. “Journalists and the president must be able to discuss these differences with each other. “True, there were many problems with the previous administration, but filing lawsuits is not a solution for the press,” she said./VOA
top channel
[ad_2]
Source link