Seth Stern is the chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). Seth’s articles about press freedom have been published by outlets like The Guardian, The Intercept, Rolling Stone, and Columbia Journalism Review. Seth and FPF’s advocacy teamwork in collaboration with independent bloggers, incarcerated journalists, major national news outlets and civil liberties organizations to promote laws and policies that allow public-interest journalism to thrive. Before joining FPF, Seth practiced media and First Amendment law for 13 years. He has an article in The Intercept now entitled "30-Year Sentence for Transporting Zines Is a Five-Alarm Fire for Free Speech."
In the second half of the show, we discuss how this case can have a ripple effect on free speech and journalism and press protections in this country moving forward.
Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/civiccipher?utm_source=search
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, welcome back Ramsey's Jaw your host here with
Seth Stern discussing the sentencing of Daniel des Sanchez Estrata,
who was sentenced to thirty years in federal prison for
transporting a box of zines, which are political magazines or
newsletters that he didn't even write. And we're talking about
the implications of that. We've been having a conversation so
(00:23):
far about freedom of the press, activism, what that looks
like under this administration, in journalism in this troubling era.
And you've been brilliantly insightful, and I appreciate that. I
want to have a conversation for the benefit of folks
(00:46):
like me, folks who consider themselves activists if I may,
and I think you might be able to provide some insight.
Just as learned as you are, you can give us
the aperture that a lot of folks may need in
this season, in this political season. First thing, let's talk
about how this administration has vowed that the Prairie Land
(01:11):
case is not going to be the last of its kind.
So what is it that people who they they are,
they are activists themselves, they will make signs that will
get outside they'll make noise, they'll, you know, whatever, whatever
level of activism that they're comfortable with. What is it
that those folks can expect if they continue to protest
(01:33):
the injustices they find within this government.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yeah, I don't want to discourage anyone from continuing their activism.
It is much needed, more so than than than than
than perhaps ever, at least in recent times. But I
also don't want to give people false ope. The administration
is on this course of cracking down on dissent, of
attempting to prosecute those it's it's critics, and there's no
(02:04):
telling what it might attempt next. Obviously, you go to
a protest, you have no way of anticipating whether somebody
else might pull out a gun, whether somebody else might
commit a crime. Normally you would expect that as long
as you're not that person, you are not going to
be looped into a conspiracy case. That is no longer
necessarily a fair assumption to make. Look, obviously, those prosecutions
(02:33):
are more likely to be successful in some areas of
the country than others. I don't think that this indictment
would have gotten through, let alone a conviction and multi
decade sentences in most parts of the country, in front
of most juries. So it's tempting to view the case
as an anomaly, but it's a pretty scary anonymal anomaly nonetheless,
(02:54):
And again, you know people who have been involved in
litigation before. No even if you ultimately when the process
can drain you financially and emotionally. So it is a
legitimate threat that people are right to be concerned about.
People should know their rights. People should have a lawyer
(03:16):
on standby, should know the legal services organizations in their community,
and have a plan for who to call if they
get arrested or caught up in a situation where they
need legal services. People should have their phones locked down,
should use encrypted messaging apps, should not use facial recognition,
for example, to unlock their phones. It is a lot
(03:37):
easier for police to require you to unlock your phone
with your face than it is for them to require
you to input a password. There's a whole line of
case law about that that makes that distinction. So it's
important for people to know that locked down, you know,
(03:57):
use secure communications, turn up off your devices when you
leave your home or when you're not using them. Do
I'm not a digital security expert. But if you are
going to be out at protests, particularly if you anticipate
that things might go left, you should make yourself a
digital security expert, or at least consult with someone who
(04:19):
who is, and you know, take take the prepper precautions,
and of course also separate and apart from the risk
of being arrested, there's just the risk of being assaulted,
shot with less lethal munitions or even with lethal munitions,
and you know, less lethal munitions is a technical term
that police use.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
They are still quite lethal.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
People have their eyes with rubber bullets, and tear gas
can cause severe injuries. So you know, personal protective equipment
is of course key. So I hope people will continue
to be active and continue going to protests and continue
doing what they can to call attention to abuses.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
But I also hope they'll be safe in doing so.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And that applies just as much to journalists as it
does to activists, because we've seen repeatedly that police on
the ground certainly don't distinguish between journalists and activists, and
prosecutors sometimes don't either. If you look at the Don
Lemon and Georgia Ford case, that is a prime example
of prosecutors finding an obscure I would say, frivolous legal
(05:29):
basis to treat journalists as protesters and attempt to prosecute
them for very routine acts of journalism.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Yeah, that's that's something that I've I've been warned against
in my own circles, because I think my impulse is
to get out and be visible and make sure that
everyone is encouraged in you know, all that sort of stuff. Right,
(06:01):
we can change this, This is fixable. You know, we're
a part of the long tradition of change makers in
this country, and we do deserve a more perfect union
and that sort of thing. And then there are people
that will yank me down and be like, no, you
shouldn't stand up there. You know, we need you to
do your job and let us do this job. That
sort of thing. And so I love the advice that
(06:23):
you gave because keeping each other accountability and being responsible
when we're outside is I think that's critically important now
more than ever because as you mentioned, you know, in
the first part of the show, talking about how this
government is essentially rewriting the rules in terms of how
(06:47):
they deal with dissent normally, that's just a part of it.
That's just a part of the administration. But this is
why we can associate the term fascism with this current
administration and this president is because they're trying too. I
think they've been successful at rewriting the rules at least
in certain pockets of the country where you know, if
you show up. You mentioned stock Cops City, and of
(07:09):
course you know we're talking about you know, prairie land
where you can get grouped in to a bunch of
nonsense that didn't really have anything to do with you.
And so again I appreciate your words, and I know
that our listeners do as well. I do want to
(07:30):
kind of circle back to the to the journalists, though
not simply because you know, we work in that space.
But I do recognize that a lot of people who
are active, they get outside, they're on the ground. They also,
to whatever degree is appropriate for them, our journalists as well.
You know, people have their phones, they share, you know,
what they discover with their followers, and this is the
(07:53):
world in which we live. So you know, you devote
a section of your website to the issue of police searches,
and you kind of touched on it a bit, but
you also talk about searches of newsrooms and seizures of
journalists communications. You talked about apple watches, that sort of thing.
So numerous laws protect reporters from searches and seizures, but
(08:15):
police routinely violate them. How often does this happen in
the US today and how do you think what is
the effect that Donald Trump has had on this reality?
I would imagine you would guess that Donald Trump has
made this worse and has emboldened police. But you know,
in your own words to our listeners.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, yeah, Well, in addition to the Fourth Amendment that
protects everybody against unreasonable searches and seizures, there's a federal
law that also applies to the States, called the Privacy
Protection Act of nineteen eighty that generally prohibits searches of newsrooms,
searches of journalists, and importantly, not only searches of professional journalists.
(09:00):
The statute actually doesn't use the word journalist. It discusses
distribution of information to the public, of news worth the
information to the public. So when you talk about people
with iPhones who might not consider themselves quote unquote journalists,
but they are recording events of public interests in order
to share that with their followers. In my view, they
(09:21):
would fall squarely within the end of the Privacy Protection Act.
So these people's devices are not supposed to be searched
under federal law unless they're suspected of a crime that
has nothing to do with the information they're gathering. Pretty basic. Obviously,
nobody's claiming journalists are allowed to rob banks just because
they're journalists. What we're seeing now is that, in much
(09:46):
the same way that dissent itself is being criminalized, journalism
is being characterized as a crime that is worthy of
a search despite the the Privacy Protection Act. The Privacy
Protection Act actually tries to deal with that. It has
a car voute after it says, well, yeah, sure you
(10:09):
can search a journalist who's convicted of crime. It says,
as long as the journalism is itself, as long as
the gathering and distribution of news itself is not the crime.
So that's why we're seeing cases like the Lemon and
Fort case where they're saying, well, no, the journalism wasn't
the crime. You violated this obscure law over against obstructing
(10:32):
a religious service. You know, ironic, because ice has been
known to read churches itself, or while you're seeing in
the hand of Nateansen case an attempt to avoid the
Privacy Protection Act by claiming that Nateansen was in possession
(10:53):
of as I said, contraband because her source violated the
Espionage Act. So prosecutors are looking looking for these workarounds.
The other issue, though, beyond prosecutors looking for workarounds, is
that since in the past raids of journalists and searches
of newsrooms have been relatively rare, judges don't know about
(11:17):
the Privacy Protection Act. Judges aren't expected to know about
every law that exists. The United States Code is voluminous.
There are a lot of laws out there. Attorneys are
under an ethical obligation to disclose applicable law to the judge,
even if it's adverse to their case, and prosecutors in particular.
(11:40):
So that doesn't mean that prosecutors are required to give
the judge a whole memo about all the reasons why
the search that they want to conduct is illegal. They
can make their case for why they think they should
be allowed to do it, but they need to at
least tell the judge. Hey, there is a statute that
exists called the Ppa of nineteen eighty so that the
judge can do their own research and come to their
own conclusions about whether it applies. What we're seeing more
(12:01):
and more is that prosecutors are failing to do that.
Prosecutors who know about the p P p p PA.
Now it's it's possible some prosecutors also don't know about it.
That's that's its own problem. But for example, in the
hand of Nateansen case, the prosecutor there was Gordon Kromberg.
He's not some some some new Trump person. He's the
(12:21):
same guy who ran the Assange case through during the
Biden administration and during the first Trump administration, and is
very familiar with the law around leaks two journalists, and
around the Espionage Act and and and classified information. So
you're seeing career prosecutors. It's not just you know, these
(12:42):
these these new sort of unqualified people straight out of
law school that that that that Trump is hiring for
their political loyalty. Career prosecutors who I think are are
are taking the opportunity of having an administration behind them
that doesn't care about constitutional rights even less so than
(13:03):
past administrations. Have to sort of expand their past crackdowns
on on on on those same rights. It's hard to
say whether searches of journalists' devices have increased because of
Trump's policies and Trump's disdain for the Constitution or simply
(13:26):
because there has been so much activism and dissent. You know,
the vast majority, the vast majority of attacks on journalists,
whether they be arrests of journalists, assaults of journalists, searches
of journalists devices, occur in the context of protest coverage.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
So when there are more protests, there's more more incidence.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, So it's it's it's it's when when when establishing
the chain of causation, It's it's hard to say what
is caused by Trump's policies and Trump's influence and what
is caused by the mere fact that, you know, because
of those policies, there's there's a lot of protest activity
going on, but some combination of the two is certainly
putting journalists at at unique risk.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Sure, sure, yeah, And I think your point is one made,
you know, upsetting the balance of what we once held
to be the balance of this country is certainly changed
quite a bit. And the response to that has been
what we're trying to measure and capture in real time,
and so I think your point is well made if
(14:29):
you're just joining us. We're here with Seth Stern from
the feedom Freedom of the Press Foundation, and we are
discussing the sentencing a thirty year sentence for Daniel des
Sanchez Estrata, who is now in federal prison for transporting
a box of zines. I would like to ask, because
(14:53):
I'm not as familiar with, you know, court systems and
all that sort of You're you're a lawyer, so you know,
you know, is this the end of this case or
these cases? Or is there the potential for appeal? Or
is there is this the end of the road? You
know what potential uh outcomes exist besides just sitting in
(15:20):
prison for thirty years or fifty years, or eighty years
or one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Well, sure there's I certainly hope that Sanchez and all
of his co defendants will will appeal. They will have
a somewhat tough road ahead of them because jury jury, well,
the Supreme Court, but even in the appellate courts. Jury's
(15:45):
jury verdicts are are are are difficult to reverse finding
as a fact by.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
The jury are are are are.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Difficult to to to to reverse, and you know they'll
they'll they'll have a they will have a tough, a
tough road. The sentences certainly seem excessive, and frankly, some
of the judges conduct of the pre trial proceedings that
I mentioned earlier seems to give them a road to appeal.
But you know, it's such an egregious situation that regardless
(16:14):
of whatever normal levels of deference applied to judicial determinations
of law or jury determinations of of fact, any any
any room there is for reversal, I think the appellate
court should be keen to to to find and take
up because this is just so abnormal and so egregious. Unfortunately,
(16:37):
they're not in the most favorable federal appellate district, being
from from from Texas, so we will see how that goes.
And you know, as as as as you said, they've
got a hostile Supreme Court the other potential avenue for
them too. And I hope it doesn't come to this,
(16:57):
but a future administration could certainly hard in them, and
that should and should. These these sentences are outrageous. These
people pose no risk to society. If anything, they contribute
to a society. If you're someone who believes that dissent
and a variety of ideas and activism is a positive
(17:21):
not a negative. As as I am, I would say
that people like Sanchez as Strata, people who write zcenes,
people who go protest are our contributors, are key contributors
to our society. So hopefully a future administration will will
will will be willing to pardon them if it if
it comes to that. But I really do hope that
the Appella Court does the right thing.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Sure, sure, yeah. And I mean when you look at
what Donald Trump was able to do with you know,
his January sixth, there's people that we know, we're guilty
of the things that we saw them do with our
own eyes. You know, I hear what you're saying. We
shouldn't take a new administration to right this wrong. But
(18:06):
you know, if Donald Trump can do that, then it's
not beyond the realm with possibilities that they won't have
to sit in prison for these these decades. It's is
just feel this feels like, you know, people that that
I would protest with, indeed some of them may have
been and uh yeah, so that at least that's not
(18:26):
the end of their story. I do want to ask
this before we before we wrap our conversation. So, and
this is a little bit more personal. But you know,
folks that listen recognize where this question is coming from,
because these are people that listen to the radio. Do
you have any insight into how maybe broadcast journalists like me,
(18:52):
like Q we might be targets because we don't necessarily
transport zines, you know, that sort of thing. But we are,
you know, vocal and critical of this administration. We were
critical of Joe Biden's administration. We'd be critical of any
administration that allows the subjugation and marginalization of any group
of people, but you know, this administration seems to take
(19:15):
that personally. Anything that we should be aware of, you
know from your vantage point that we should know about.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Well, yeah, the Federal Communications Commission, which is the government
agency that regulates the public airways, so with the television networks. Yeah,
I'm sure you are there now. The current chair of
the FCC is a guy by the name of Brendan Carr,
who is a proud Trump loyalist. He has actually scrubbed
(19:46):
the FCC's website of any reference to the agency's and dependence.
He did that before the Supreme Court's recent ruling that
undermined agency independence. Set on a broader scale, He's been
known to wear a golden Trump Face lapel pin, and
what he has taken to doing is accusing broadcasters who
(20:08):
air content that Trump doesn't like of violating the public
interest standard. There is a rule that those who avail
themselves of the public airwaves are supposed to operate in
the public interest. Now that historically has been interpreted to
mean that they are not going to air obscenity, that
(20:29):
they're not going to air outright snake oil sales fraud.
It has never been interpreted as licensing the FCC to
police content for perceived political bias, or to declare content
a president doesn't like as against the public interest. Any
(20:50):
such interpretation is very clearly unconstitutional, and in fact is
precluded by the FCC's own governing law. But Rendon car
does doesn't care about any of that. He knows it well.
He's an experienced communications litigator. He knows the law as
well as anybody, and if you look at his past statements,
he has repeatedly said that the FCC's role is not
(21:12):
to police speech. He is throwing his own integrity under
the bus because he must have made a calculation at
some point that hitching himself to Trump's wagon was the
way to get rich and famous, and that is that's
that's what he's doing now. He's traded in his credentials
(21:33):
as a serious lawyer to become a maga personality. So
you know, the short of it is, you've got a
Trump loyalist in charge of the agency that regulates broadcasters
who sees it as his mission to go get to
pursue people that Trump doesn't like. The FCC hasn't started
(21:57):
really coming after community radio yet, but you never know,
and it's a legitimate concern.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
And we've been talking to a.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Lot of people who have even if they haven't had
stories killed, even if they haven't censored themselves, they've incouraged
significant expenses dealing with Brendan Carr and the FCC and
trying to figure out how to navigate this new terrain
he's putting them on. They've had perhaps shows dropped by stations,
(22:27):
moved to less favorable time slots. There's a lot of
ripple effect to Brendan Carr's conduct, even if he hasn't
directly gone after local community radio. They're still feeling the heat.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Sure, well, we all, it seems, have our work cut
out for us. I am glad that you're in the fight, sir,
and you know I will heed your words and your
wise counsel. My hope is that our listeners will do
the same and continue to do so. So before you jump,
can you please once again share all of the connective
(23:02):
tissue websites, social media, anything like that, just so people
can lock in with you and stay informed.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Yeah, We're at Freedom dot Press is our website. You
can find us on Instagram, Blue sky x, YouTube.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
Wherever you find your social content.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
In addition to our advocacy work, we operate the US
Press Freedom Tracker, which is a database of press freedom
violations that we continually update. We develop secure drop, which
is a whistleblower submission portal that is used by journalists
to obtain leaks documents as securely and untraceably as current
(23:45):
technology allows. We conduct digital security training for journalists, and
we protect against government secrecy. We fight the overclassification system
that is so pervasive in this country. So find out
us at Freedom dot Press, sign up for our newsletters,
follow us on social media, and we value any efforts
(24:08):
that anyone is able to make to contribute to the
fight for press freedom.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
I love it. Once again, ladies and gentlemen. Seth Stern,
the chief of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation,
thank you for locking in with us. If you want
to follow us on on social media, you can find
me at Rams's job q at I M q Ward,
or we can follow both of us at Civic Cipher.
That's C I B I C C I P H
E R. And until next time, y'all, peace,
All right, welcome back Ramsey's Jaw your host here with
Seth Stern discussing the sentencing of Daniel des Sanchez Estrata,
who was sentenced to thirty years in federal prison for
transporting a box of zines, which are political magazines or
newsletters that he didn't even write. And we're talking about
the implications of that. We've been having a conversation so
(00:23):
far about freedom of the press, activism, what that looks
like under this administration, in journalism in this troubling era.
And you've been brilliantly insightful, and I appreciate that. I
want to have a conversation for the benefit of folks
(00:46):
like me, folks who consider themselves activists if I may,
and I think you might be able to provide some insight.
Just as learned as you are, you can give us
the aperture that a lot of folks may need in
this season, in this political season. First thing, let's talk
about how this administration has vowed that the Prairie Land
(01:11):
case is not going to be the last of its kind.
So what is it that people who they they are,
they are activists themselves, they will make signs that will
get outside they'll make noise, they'll, you know, whatever, whatever
level of activism that they're comfortable with. What is it
that those folks can expect if they continue to protest
(01:33):
the injustices they find within this government.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yeah, I don't want to discourage anyone from continuing their activism.
It is much needed, more so than than than than
than perhaps ever, at least in recent times. But I
also don't want to give people false ope. The administration
is on this course of cracking down on dissent, of
attempting to prosecute those it's it's critics, and there's no
(02:04):
telling what it might attempt next. Obviously, you go to
a protest, you have no way of anticipating whether somebody
else might pull out a gun, whether somebody else might
commit a crime. Normally you would expect that as long
as you're not that person, you are not going to
be looped into a conspiracy case. That is no longer
necessarily a fair assumption to make. Look, obviously, those prosecutions
(02:33):
are more likely to be successful in some areas of
the country than others. I don't think that this indictment
would have gotten through, let alone a conviction and multi
decade sentences in most parts of the country, in front
of most juries. So it's tempting to view the case
as an anomaly, but it's a pretty scary anonymal anomaly nonetheless,
(02:54):
And again, you know people who have been involved in
litigation before. No even if you ultimately when the process
can drain you financially and emotionally. So it is a
legitimate threat that people are right to be concerned about.
People should know their rights. People should have a lawyer
(03:16):
on standby, should know the legal services organizations in their community,
and have a plan for who to call if they
get arrested or caught up in a situation where they
need legal services. People should have their phones locked down,
should use encrypted messaging apps, should not use facial recognition,
for example, to unlock their phones. It is a lot
(03:37):
easier for police to require you to unlock your phone
with your face than it is for them to require
you to input a password. There's a whole line of
case law about that that makes that distinction. So it's
important for people to know that locked down, you know,
(03:57):
use secure communications, turn up off your devices when you
leave your home or when you're not using them. Do
I'm not a digital security expert. But if you are
going to be out at protests, particularly if you anticipate
that things might go left, you should make yourself a
digital security expert, or at least consult with someone who
(04:19):
who is, and you know, take take the prepper precautions,
and of course also separate and apart from the risk
of being arrested, there's just the risk of being assaulted,
shot with less lethal munitions or even with lethal munitions,
and you know, less lethal munitions is a technical term
that police use.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
They are still quite lethal.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
People have their eyes with rubber bullets, and tear gas
can cause severe injuries. So you know, personal protective equipment
is of course key. So I hope people will continue
to be active and continue going to protests and continue
doing what they can to call attention to abuses.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
But I also hope they'll be safe in doing so.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And that applies just as much to journalists as it
does to activists, because we've seen repeatedly that police on
the ground certainly don't distinguish between journalists and activists, and
prosecutors sometimes don't either. If you look at the Don
Lemon and Georgia Ford case, that is a prime example
of prosecutors finding an obscure I would say, frivolous legal
(05:29):
basis to treat journalists as protesters and attempt to prosecute
them for very routine acts of journalism.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Yeah, that's that's something that I've I've been warned against
in my own circles, because I think my impulse is
to get out and be visible and make sure that
everyone is encouraged in you know, all that sort of stuff. Right,
(06:01):
we can change this, This is fixable. You know, we're
a part of the long tradition of change makers in
this country, and we do deserve a more perfect union
and that sort of thing. And then there are people
that will yank me down and be like, no, you
shouldn't stand up there. You know, we need you to
do your job and let us do this job. That
sort of thing. And so I love the advice that
(06:23):
you gave because keeping each other accountability and being responsible
when we're outside is I think that's critically important now
more than ever because as you mentioned, you know, in
the first part of the show, talking about how this
government is essentially rewriting the rules in terms of how
(06:47):
they deal with dissent normally, that's just a part of it.
That's just a part of the administration. But this is
why we can associate the term fascism with this current
administration and this president is because they're trying too. I
think they've been successful at rewriting the rules at least
in certain pockets of the country where you know, if
you show up. You mentioned stock Cops City, and of
(07:09):
course you know we're talking about you know, prairie land
where you can get grouped in to a bunch of
nonsense that didn't really have anything to do with you.
And so again I appreciate your words, and I know
that our listeners do as well. I do want to
(07:30):
kind of circle back to the to the journalists, though
not simply because you know, we work in that space.
But I do recognize that a lot of people who
are active, they get outside, they're on the ground. They also,
to whatever degree is appropriate for them, our journalists as well.
You know, people have their phones, they share, you know,
what they discover with their followers, and this is the
(07:53):
world in which we live. So you know, you devote
a section of your website to the issue of police searches,
and you kind of touched on it a bit, but
you also talk about searches of newsrooms and seizures of
journalists communications. You talked about apple watches, that sort of thing.
So numerous laws protect reporters from searches and seizures, but
(08:15):
police routinely violate them. How often does this happen in
the US today and how do you think what is
the effect that Donald Trump has had on this reality?
I would imagine you would guess that Donald Trump has
made this worse and has emboldened police. But you know,
in your own words to our listeners.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, yeah, Well, in addition to the Fourth Amendment that
protects everybody against unreasonable searches and seizures, there's a federal
law that also applies to the States, called the Privacy
Protection Act of nineteen eighty that generally prohibits searches of newsrooms,
searches of journalists, and importantly, not only searches of professional journalists.
(09:00):
The statute actually doesn't use the word journalist. It discusses
distribution of information to the public, of news worth the
information to the public. So when you talk about people
with iPhones who might not consider themselves quote unquote journalists,
but they are recording events of public interests in order
to share that with their followers. In my view, they
(09:21):
would fall squarely within the end of the Privacy Protection Act.
So these people's devices are not supposed to be searched
under federal law unless they're suspected of a crime that
has nothing to do with the information they're gathering. Pretty basic. Obviously,
nobody's claiming journalists are allowed to rob banks just because
they're journalists. What we're seeing now is that, in much
(09:46):
the same way that dissent itself is being criminalized, journalism
is being characterized as a crime that is worthy of
a search despite the the Privacy Protection Act. The Privacy
Protection Act actually tries to deal with that. It has
a car voute after it says, well, yeah, sure you
(10:09):
can search a journalist who's convicted of crime. It says,
as long as the journalism is itself, as long as
the gathering and distribution of news itself is not the crime.
So that's why we're seeing cases like the Lemon and
Fort case where they're saying, well, no, the journalism wasn't
the crime. You violated this obscure law over against obstructing
(10:32):
a religious service. You know, ironic, because ice has been
known to read churches itself, or while you're seeing in
the hand of Nateansen case an attempt to avoid the
Privacy Protection Act by claiming that Nateansen was in possession
(10:53):
of as I said, contraband because her source violated the
Espionage Act. So prosecutors are looking looking for these workarounds.
The other issue, though, beyond prosecutors looking for workarounds, is
that since in the past raids of journalists and searches
of newsrooms have been relatively rare, judges don't know about
(11:17):
the Privacy Protection Act. Judges aren't expected to know about
every law that exists. The United States Code is voluminous.
There are a lot of laws out there. Attorneys are
under an ethical obligation to disclose applicable law to the judge,
even if it's adverse to their case, and prosecutors in particular.
(11:40):
So that doesn't mean that prosecutors are required to give
the judge a whole memo about all the reasons why
the search that they want to conduct is illegal. They
can make their case for why they think they should
be allowed to do it, but they need to at
least tell the judge. Hey, there is a statute that
exists called the Ppa of nineteen eighty so that the
judge can do their own research and come to their
own conclusions about whether it applies. What we're seeing more
(12:01):
and more is that prosecutors are failing to do that.
Prosecutors who know about the p P p p PA.
Now it's it's possible some prosecutors also don't know about it.
That's that's its own problem. But for example, in the
hand of Nateansen case, the prosecutor there was Gordon Kromberg.
He's not some some some new Trump person. He's the
(12:21):
same guy who ran the Assange case through during the
Biden administration and during the first Trump administration, and is
very familiar with the law around leaks two journalists, and
around the Espionage Act and and and classified information. So
you're seeing career prosecutors. It's not just you know, these
(12:42):
these these new sort of unqualified people straight out of
law school that that that that Trump is hiring for
their political loyalty. Career prosecutors who I think are are
are taking the opportunity of having an administration behind them
that doesn't care about constitutional rights even less so than
(13:03):
past administrations. Have to sort of expand their past crackdowns
on on on on those same rights. It's hard to
say whether searches of journalists' devices have increased because of
Trump's policies and Trump's disdain for the Constitution or simply
(13:26):
because there has been so much activism and dissent. You know,
the vast majority, the vast majority of attacks on journalists,
whether they be arrests of journalists, assaults of journalists, searches
of journalists devices, occur in the context of protest coverage.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
So when there are more protests, there's more more incidence.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, So it's it's it's it's when when when establishing
the chain of causation, It's it's hard to say what
is caused by Trump's policies and Trump's influence and what
is caused by the mere fact that, you know, because
of those policies, there's there's a lot of protest activity
going on, but some combination of the two is certainly
putting journalists at at unique risk.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Sure, sure, yeah, And I think your point is one made,
you know, upsetting the balance of what we once held
to be the balance of this country is certainly changed
quite a bit. And the response to that has been
what we're trying to measure and capture in real time,
and so I think your point is well made if
(14:29):
you're just joining us. We're here with Seth Stern from
the feedom Freedom of the Press Foundation, and we are
discussing the sentencing a thirty year sentence for Daniel des
Sanchez Estrata, who is now in federal prison for transporting
a box of zines. I would like to ask, because
(14:53):
I'm not as familiar with, you know, court systems and
all that sort of You're you're a lawyer, so you know,
you know, is this the end of this case or
these cases? Or is there the potential for appeal? Or
is there is this the end of the road? You
know what potential uh outcomes exist besides just sitting in
(15:20):
prison for thirty years or fifty years, or eighty years
or one hundred years.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Well, sure there's I certainly hope that Sanchez and all
of his co defendants will will appeal. They will have
a somewhat tough road ahead of them because jury jury, well,
the Supreme Court, but even in the appellate courts. Jury's
(15:45):
jury verdicts are are are are difficult to reverse finding
as a fact by.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
The jury are are are are.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Difficult to to to to reverse, and you know they'll
they'll they'll have a they will have a tough, a
tough road. The sentences certainly seem excessive, and frankly, some
of the judges conduct of the pre trial proceedings that
I mentioned earlier seems to give them a road to appeal.
But you know, it's such an egregious situation that regardless
(16:14):
of whatever normal levels of deference applied to judicial determinations
of law or jury determinations of of fact, any any
any room there is for reversal, I think the appellate
court should be keen to to to find and take
up because this is just so abnormal and so egregious. Unfortunately,
(16:37):
they're not in the most favorable federal appellate district, being
from from from Texas, so we will see how that goes.
And you know, as as as as you said, they've
got a hostile Supreme Court the other potential avenue for
them too. And I hope it doesn't come to this,
(16:57):
but a future administration could certainly hard in them, and
that should and should. These these sentences are outrageous. These
people pose no risk to society. If anything, they contribute
to a society. If you're someone who believes that dissent
and a variety of ideas and activism is a positive
(17:21):
not a negative. As as I am, I would say
that people like Sanchez as Strata, people who write zcenes,
people who go protest are our contributors, are key contributors
to our society. So hopefully a future administration will will
will will be willing to pardon them if it if
it comes to that. But I really do hope that
the Appella Court does the right thing.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Sure, sure, yeah. And I mean when you look at
what Donald Trump was able to do with you know,
his January sixth, there's people that we know, we're guilty
of the things that we saw them do with our
own eyes. You know, I hear what you're saying. We
shouldn't take a new administration to right this wrong. But
(18:06):
you know, if Donald Trump can do that, then it's
not beyond the realm with possibilities that they won't have
to sit in prison for these these decades. It's is
just feel this feels like, you know, people that that
I would protest with, indeed some of them may have
been and uh yeah, so that at least that's not
(18:26):
the end of their story. I do want to ask
this before we before we wrap our conversation. So, and
this is a little bit more personal. But you know,
folks that listen recognize where this question is coming from,
because these are people that listen to the radio. Do
you have any insight into how maybe broadcast journalists like me,
(18:52):
like Q we might be targets because we don't necessarily
transport zines, you know, that sort of thing. But we are,
you know, vocal and critical of this administration. We were
critical of Joe Biden's administration. We'd be critical of any
administration that allows the subjugation and marginalization of any group
of people, but you know, this administration seems to take
(19:15):
that personally. Anything that we should be aware of, you
know from your vantage point that we should know about.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Well, yeah, the Federal Communications Commission, which is the government
agency that regulates the public airways, so with the television networks. Yeah,
I'm sure you are there now. The current chair of
the FCC is a guy by the name of Brendan Carr,
who is a proud Trump loyalist. He has actually scrubbed
(19:46):
the FCC's website of any reference to the agency's and dependence.
He did that before the Supreme Court's recent ruling that
undermined agency independence. Set on a broader scale, He's been
known to wear a golden Trump Face lapel pin, and
what he has taken to doing is accusing broadcasters who
(20:08):
air content that Trump doesn't like of violating the public
interest standard. There is a rule that those who avail
themselves of the public airwaves are supposed to operate in
the public interest. Now that historically has been interpreted to
mean that they are not going to air obscenity, that
(20:29):
they're not going to air outright snake oil sales fraud.
It has never been interpreted as licensing the FCC to
police content for perceived political bias, or to declare content
a president doesn't like as against the public interest. Any
(20:50):
such interpretation is very clearly unconstitutional, and in fact is
precluded by the FCC's own governing law. But Rendon car
does doesn't care about any of that. He knows it well.
He's an experienced communications litigator. He knows the law as
well as anybody, and if you look at his past statements,
he has repeatedly said that the FCC's role is not
(21:12):
to police speech. He is throwing his own integrity under
the bus because he must have made a calculation at
some point that hitching himself to Trump's wagon was the
way to get rich and famous, and that is that's
that's what he's doing now. He's traded in his credentials
(21:33):
as a serious lawyer to become a maga personality. So
you know, the short of it is, you've got a
Trump loyalist in charge of the agency that regulates broadcasters
who sees it as his mission to go get to
pursue people that Trump doesn't like. The FCC hasn't started
(21:57):
really coming after community radio yet, but you never know,
and it's a legitimate concern.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
And we've been talking to a.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Lot of people who have even if they haven't had
stories killed, even if they haven't censored themselves, they've incouraged
significant expenses dealing with Brendan Carr and the FCC and
trying to figure out how to navigate this new terrain
he's putting them on. They've had perhaps shows dropped by stations,
(22:27):
moved to less favorable time slots. There's a lot of
ripple effect to Brendan Carr's conduct, even if he hasn't
directly gone after local community radio. They're still feeling the heat.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Sure, well, we all, it seems, have our work cut
out for us. I am glad that you're in the fight, sir,
and you know I will heed your words and your
wise counsel. My hope is that our listeners will do
the same and continue to do so. So before you jump,
can you please once again share all of the connective
(23:02):
tissue websites, social media, anything like that, just so people
can lock in with you and stay informed.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Yeah, We're at Freedom dot Press is our website. You
can find us on Instagram, Blue sky x, YouTube.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
Wherever you find your social content.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
In addition to our advocacy work, we operate the US
Press Freedom Tracker, which is a database of press freedom
violations that we continually update. We develop secure drop, which
is a whistleblower submission portal that is used by journalists
to obtain leaks documents as securely and untraceably as current
(23:45):
technology allows. We conduct digital security training for journalists, and
we protect against government secrecy. We fight the overclassification system
that is so pervasive in this country. So find out
us at Freedom dot Press, sign up for our newsletters,
follow us on social media, and we value any efforts
(24:08):
that anyone is able to make to contribute to the
fight for press freedom.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
I love it. Once again, ladies and gentlemen. Seth Stern,
the chief of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation,
thank you for locking in with us. If you want
to follow us on on social media, you can find
me at Rams's job q at I M q Ward,
or we can follow both of us at Civic Cipher.
That's C I B I C C I P H
E R. And until next time, y'all, peace,
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com