New York, October 13, 2016--The chairman of the board of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Sandra Mims Rowe, issued the following statement on behalf of the organization:

Guaranteeing the free flow of information to citizens through a robust, independent press is essential to American democracy. For more than 200 years this founding principle has protected journalists in the United States and inspired  those around the world, including brave journalists facing violence, censorship, and government repression.

Donald Trump, through his words and actions as a candidate for president of the United States, has consistently betrayed First Amendment values. On October 6, CPJ's board of directors passed a resolution declaring Trump an unprecedented threat to the rights of journalists and to CPJ's ability to advocate for press freedom around the world.

Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as "dishonest" and "scum" and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.

He has mocked a disabled New York Times journalist and called an ABC News reporter a "sleaze" in a press conference. He expelled Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a campaign press conference because he asked an "impertinent" question, and has publicly demeaned other journalists.

Trump has refused to condemn attacks on journalists by his supporters. His campaign has also systematically denied press credentials to outlets that have covered him critically, including The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, TheHuffington Post, The Daily Beast, Univision, and The Des Moines Register.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has routinely made vague proposals to limit basic elements of press and internet freedom. At a rally in February, Trump declared that if elected president he would "open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." In September, Trump tweeted, "My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."

While some have suggested that these statements are rhetorical, we take Trump at his word. His intent and his disregard for the constitutional free press principle are clear.

A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States, but the consequences for the rights of journalists around the world could be far more serious. Any failure of the United States to uphold its own standards emboldens dictators and despots to restrict the media in their own countries. This appears to be of no concern to Trump, who indicated that he has no inclination to challenge governments on press freedom and the treatment of journalists.

When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked him in December if his admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin was at all tempered by the country's history of critical journalists being murdered, his response was: "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country... Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too."

Through his words and actions, Trump has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the role of the press beyond offering publicity to him and advancing his interests.

For this reason CPJ is taking the unprecedented step of speaking out now. This is not about picking sides in an election. This is recognizing that a Trump presidency represents a threat to press freedom unknown in modern history.

We call on Trump to ensure that journalists are able to cover his campaign and his rallies without interference or impediment; to condemn threats against journalists made by his supporters; and to ensure that his statements and actions in the balance of this campaign are consistent with America's First Amendment tradition.

CPJ is a nonpartisan advocacy organization that does not take a position on this or any election. At the same time, we cannot be silent when we believe the conduct of the campaign does damage to America's standing on free press issues around the world, and to CPJ's ability to protect global press freedom.

We hold all candidates and political leaders to the same standard. In 2013, CPJ published a critical report on President Obama's press freedom record. No matter who is elected president, CPJ will hold the administration accountable for the highest standards at home and for strong advocacy for the rights of journalists around the world.

VICE journalist Ben Makuch has been in an ongoing legal battle with the RCMP since 2015. It began when the RCMP served him a court-granted production order asking him to hand over all correspondence that occurred between him and one of his sources, Farah Shirdon, an alleged ISIS fighter. Makuch refused.
 
“I don’t care if you are a terrorist, a politician, a whistleblower, a criminal, a hacker, whatever. A source is a source is a source, and you have to maintain that relationship,” said Makuch. “It is fundamental to what we do.”
 
I connected with Makuch in a telephone interview to get some background on his case and to talk about the importance of press freedom.
 
Q- Can you give some background on what led to your correspondence with Farah Shirdon and why the RCMP are interested in it?
 
A- I began to report quite heavily on the Islamic State in late 2013. I started noticing these social media badasses online who seemed pretty western and they were saying that they were over fighting for the Islamic State. I realized that some of them might be Canadian. It was an interesting moment, because I thought it would really change the way terrorism works, and that is exactly what ended up happening. I was on the ground floor of looking at social media recruitment and online operations of the Islamic State and other groups. A lot of these guys had Instagram or Twitter accounts and on their Twitter accounts they would have a note saying to contact them on Kik messenger. I started messaging them and I got fairly embedded in that community of individuals. I knew who was legit and who wasn’t.
 
In the spring of 2014, I was given a tip to contact a guy who said he was the Canadian who burned his passport in an ISIS video. I contacted him and started doing a few interviews, sending messages for information. These were the accounts that were identified with Farah Shirdon, an alleged ISIS fighter. I published stories about him, including the threats he made to Canada. This was right around the time of the Parliament Hill shooting. Canada was so embroiled in this war on terror. It started to make a lot of news.
 
Q – Was it soon after that when you got served the production order?
 
A – Yes, I was technically served in February of 2015, but I was in Russia at the time reporting on opposition to Putin. It wasn’t until March when I returned to Canada that I actually received it. It was crazy. I've covered oppressive regimes across the world. The last opposition I thought I'd face in my ability to do my job would be here at home in Canada.
 
I was under about an eight-month gag order because the investigation was considered ongoing in national security, so I wasn’t allowed to talk about it for eight months. It was a pretty awful experience. The gag order was during the election, so there were all these big issues being discussed like terrorism and immigration and spy powers and I was stuck here in the middle of it, experiencing it, but unable to talk about it.
 
By October 2015 I was allowed to talk publically. We had our first court appearance in February 2016. We tried to get the production order quashed, but we lost. Now we have been granted leave to appeal the decision, which is where we are at now. That court case is scheduled for February 6th, 2017.
 
Q – Why do you feel freedom of the press is such an important issue?
 
A - More than anything, when the government is trying to co-opt a journalist to be an arm of an investigation, for an intelligence agency or for a police force, I think that poses a grave threat to one of the fundamental principles of democracy: free press. Farah Shirdon wasn’t talking to me because I was police, he was talking to me because I was a journalist. That is a special relationship that you can’t break. When you do, you start impeding on the news gathering process, and civil society is weaker for it. Civil society needs journalists to follow stories, to investigate things in the public interest so that average citizens can make their decisions on what they want their government to do. To me, this story was really important because I was almost the same age as Shirdon. Why is he going over to fight for one of the most insane terrorist organizations in the world? And how did he do it? And why did he do it? These are questions I was trying to find the answers to, for not just myself but for people in Canada and around the world.
 
Q – Have you received support from the journalism community?
 
A – I’ve had a lot of great support. They realize this is a dangerous prospect. We don’t want this to be the status quo going forward. Especially if you look at examples in Quebec where judges are granting the police powers to not only serve journalists like myself production orders to give up information, but also the right to spy on journalists. This is the state of affairs we are in. We all have to take a really close look at what is going on right now, take a step back and think about what this really means to our society, because I’m not describing something that is happening in Vladimir Putin’s Russia or North Korea or any other repressive state. I’m describing something that is happening in Canada, which is supposed to be a beacon of democracy and freedom.

Update from October 15th: A North Dakota state prosecutor has sought to charge award-winning journalist Amy Goodman with participating in a "riot" for filming an attack on Native American-led anti-pipeline protesters. The new charge comes after the prosecutor dropped criminal trespassing charges. || More Info

​October 13, 2016 – Award-winning journalist Amy Goodman, charged with criminal trespassing for filming an attack on Native American-led pipeline protesters, will turn herself in to North Dakota authorities on October 17.

Amy Goodman will surrender to authorities at the Morton County–Mandan Combined Law Enforcement and Corrections Center at 8:15 a.m. local time (CDT).

"I will go back to North Dakota to fight this charge. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment," said Goodman. "I was doing my job as a journalist, covering a violent attack on Native American protesters."
The charge in State of North Dakota v. Amy Goodman stems from Democracy Now!’s coverage of the protests against the Dakota Access pipeline. On Saturday, September 3, Democracy Now! filmed security guards working for the pipeline company attacking protesters. The report showed guards unleashing dogs and using pepper spray and featured people with bite injuries and a dog with blood on its mouth and nose.

Democracy Now!’s report went viral online, was viewed more than 14 million times on Facebook and was rebroadcast on many outlets, including CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBCand the Huffington Post.
On September 8, a criminal complaint and warrant was issued for Goodman’s arrest.

Ironically, in the state’s criminal complaint, North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Lindsey Wohl, referencing the Democracy Now! video report in a sworn affidavit, stated, "Amy Goodman can be seen on the video identifying herself and interviewing protesters about their involvement in the protest." This is precisely the point: Goodman was doing the constitutionally protected work of a reporter.
The pipeline project has faced months of resistance from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and members of over 200 other tribes from across the U.S., Canada and Latin America.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has said that the warrant is "a transparent attempt to intimidate reporters from covering protests of significant public interest." Steve Andrist, executive director of the North Dakota Newspaper Association, told The Bismarck Tribune, "It’s regrettable that authorities chose to charge a reporter who was just doing her job."

Goodman is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning public television/radio news program that airs on over 1,400 stations worldwide. Goodman has co-authored six New York Times bestsellers and won many of journalism’s highest awards in her more than three decades working as a reporter.

Democracy Now!’s coverage of the pipeline and the protests is available here.
Press Statement:
Time: 8:00 a.m. CDT, Monday October 17, 2016
Place: 211 2nd Ave NW, Mandan ND 58554
Followed by short walk to jail:
Time: 8:15 a.m. CDT Monday October 17, 2016
Place: 205 1st Ave NW, Mandan, ND 58554For more information, contact Denis Moynihan at +1-646-217-7231 (on-site cell) or media@democracynow.org.
Live camera position/uplink available.
To book contact Denis Moynihan.
​
Press availability will follow Amy Goodman’s arraignment, expected (but not guaranteed) to be several hours after 8:15 a.m. Goodman will be available for TV interviews via live TV camera position.
Live camera positions with satellite uplink connection available onsite to interview Amy Goodman or for use by your correspondent.

Broadcast/print quality video and still photos of Amy Goodman entering Morton County Jail will be available at democracynow.org or by emailing request to media@democracynow.org.

Link to The Guardian Website for full article

The UN human rights council (HRC) has adopted a ground-breaking, comprehensive resolution aimed at protecting journalists and demanding the release of all journalists who have been arbitraily detained.

It urges the reform of laws designed to obstruct editorial work, and calls on states not to interfere with the use of encryption and digital security tools that enable anonymity.

The resolution also addresses gender-based attacks against women journalists, the forced closure of media outlets, and the right of journalists to protect confidential sources.

The HRC, which consists of 47 states, agreed the resolution by consensus. It expects the UN’s high commissioner for human rights to report back on the effectiveness of the existing monitoring and complaint mechanisms related to journalist safety.

Typically, however, fewer than half such requests are answered. So, although its adoption was welcomed by journalists’ organisations, press freedom bodies and human rights campaigners, all also expressed caution.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) pointed out that mechanisms to enforce the UN’s calls were limited or non-existent.
Philippe Leruth, the IFJ president, said: “Words alone are not enough. This motion must be followed up with action to stop thousands of journalists being killed, attacked and prevented from doing their work while their attackers avoid being brought before justice”.

Courtney Radsch, of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), also spoke about the need for “more concrete action from member states, including revision of legal frameworks that threaten media independence.”

The OSCE’s representative on media freedom, Dunja Mijatović, said: “This resolution is a very positive step forward in our joint efforts to ensure the safety for members of the media and the fight against impunity for crimes committed against journalists.”
Thomas Hughes, executive director of Article 19, the group that fights for freedom of expression, called the resolution “an unequivocal commitment from states to ensure that these crimes [against journalists] do not go unpunished and to prevent their recurrence.”

​He thought states were “finally acknowledging the need to act on the increasingly diverse range of threats facing journalists and freedom of expression”.

He said: “Behind each statistic is an individual journalist with a name and a story that they were seeking to uncover... 

“For each journalist who is killed or attacked, countless other journalists are intimidated to self-censor and entire societies are deprived of important information. States must act to end this tragedy’.

The full text of the resolution is available here. A good summary can be found on here on the Article 19 site.