网红爆料

From civil rights protests to Trump-era lawsuits, New York Times v. Sullivan continues to shape press freedom

After a harrowing ICE detention, she鈥檚 urging others to protect immigrant rights.

ST. PAUL, Minn. 鈥� The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA) does not have an exception for journalists who are alleged to have engaged in illegal activity, such as trespassing, when gathering news. The decision rejects an attempt by oil company Energy Transfer to compel the disclosure of sensitive reporter communications and newsgathering materials stemming from the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. 鈥淭he Minnesota Supreme Court made the right call: Those who seek to pry sensitive information away from newsgatherers cannot defeat the robust protections of the MFFIA simply by alleging that the newsgatherers trespassed or jaywalked in pursuit of a story,鈥� said Matthew Segal, co-director of the 网红爆料 State Supreme Court Initiative. 鈥淎 free press demands that we protect journalists from attempts to misuse the law to strongarm them into compliance.鈥� The 网红爆料, the 网红爆料 of Minnesota, and law firm Simatic & Biersdorf, PA, representing Unicorn Riot and one of its member journalists at the Minnesota Supreme Court, argued on their behalf that the MFFIA鈥檚 limited exemptions do not apply in this case. Instead, the law 鈥渋s to promote newsgathering and publication, and that purpose would be severely undermined if the statutory shield were to evaporate whenever, in the course of newsgathering, a reporter allegedly trespasses, speeds, jaywalks, or double-parks.鈥� The legal team presented oral argument to the Minnesota Supreme Court in December 2024. 鈥淔or a decade we have been working to cover social struggles like the Indigenous-led movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed this news gathering work is protected by the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act. We will keep asserting the freedom of the press to cover these crucial events and political movements,鈥� said Dan Feidt, Unicorn Riot reporter and co-founder. Unicorn Riot journalists reported on the ground from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, gathering and publishing first-hand accounts. In 2019, pipeline operator Energy Transfer brought a lawsuit in North Dakota against Greenpeace and other entities that were allegedly involved with the protests, eventually issuing subpoenas to Unicorn Riot seeking vast disclosures of unpublished materials. Unicorn Riot refused to surrender its material, and Energy Transfer moved to compel disclosure in Minnesota. In its motion papers, Energy Transfer alleged that Unicorn Riot had trespassed on its property while covering the protests. A lower court ruled that state law prohibits the compelled disclosure of newsgathering materials, and Energy Transfer sought review at the Minnesota Supreme Court. Earlier this year, Energy Transfer鈥檚 North Dakota lawsuit went to trial, and a jury returned a $667 million verdict against Greenpeace. Greenpeace has filed post-trial motions, which are currently pending, and has signaled its intent to appeal the verdict. 鈥淭he Court's decision is a welcome reminder that we value independent journalism in Minnesota,鈥� said Teresa Nelson, legal director of the 网红爆料-MN. 鈥淭his win is particularly important as large corporations increasingly attempt to intimidate reporters through litigation and in the face of unprecedented attacks on the freedom of the press by the Trump administration and other government officials.鈥� The court ruled today that the law does not contain an exception for journalists who are alleged to have engaged in illegal activity, but it did not categorically bar trial courts from ordering journalists to produce privilege logs in response to document requests 鈥� with notable caveats. The opinion is here: /cases/energy-transfer-lp-v-greenpeace-international-unicorn-riot?document=Minnesota-Supreme-Court-Opinion

SAN ANTONIO 鈥� The 网红爆料, the 网红爆料 of Texas, and several other legal advocacy groups filed an amicus brief today in CCIA v. Paxton, arguing that a Texas law that restricts social media content for minors violates the First Amendment. 鈥淚f allowed to go into effect, this law will stifle young people鈥檚 creativity and cut them off from public discourse,鈥� said Lauren Yu, legal fellow with the 网红爆料鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he government can鈥檛 protect minors by censoring the world around them, or by making it harder for them to discuss their problems with their peers. This law would unconstitutionally limit young people鈥檚 ability to express themselves online, develop critical thinking skills, and discover new perspectives, and it would make the entire internet less free for us all in the process.鈥� The brief argues that House Bill 18 (鈥渢he SCOPE Act鈥�) restricts young people鈥檚 ability to use social media and blocks them from viewing content they have a constitutional right to see. The law, which was enjoined by a court last year, would require minors to register their age with social media platforms and would require platforms to filter content based on an overly broad definition of 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� that includes any content that 鈥減romote, glorifies, or facilitates鈥� a long list of topics, including eating disorders, bullying, and self-harm. 鈥淭he government should not be able to decide what鈥檚 best for every child,鈥� said Chloe Kempf, staff attorney from the 网红爆料 of Texas. 鈥淭his law would isolate kids who need community support, hinder families who want their children to learn about the world around them, and open the door to sweeping bans 鈥� from Romeo and Juliet to content that is critical of the government. What鈥檚 framed as protecting our children is harming them 鈥� by censoring their access to the ideas and information they need to prepare for their futures.鈥� The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that minors have robust First Amendment rights, including online. Even when the goal is to protect children, the brief argues, the government cannot infringe upon core expressive activity. The brief was filed in support of Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. CCIA & NetChoice originally filed suit against H.B. 18 in 2024. The amicus brief was filed in the Western District of Texas and was signed by the Cato Institute, the Student Press Law Center, TechFreedom, Wikimedia, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. The brief can be viewed online here.