Press-Freedom Groups File Brief in Defense of Reporter Timothy Burke’s Right to Gather Newsworthy Content Online
Burke had gained access to and reported on an antisemitic rant by Ye that occurred during the taping of Tucker Carlson’s since-canceled Fox News program WASHINGTON — On Friday, a coalition of free-speech groups filed an amicus brief in United States v. Burke, a federal criminal prosecution that seeks to convict reporter Timothy Burke for publishing unaired footage from the former Fox News talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight. The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Florida First Amendment Foundation, Free Press, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Jane Bambauer, professor of law and director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida. Prosecutors are using the Wiretap Act, which prohibits “intercepting” “electronic communications,” in an attempt to convict Burke for finding and publicizing footage of, among other things, an antisemitic rant by Ye — formerly known as Kanye West — during a taping of Tucker Carlson’s since-cancelled Fox News show. Prosecutors claim that Burke’s actions involved the intentional interception of electronic communications and thereby violated the Act, statutory exceptions that include conditions where the “electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.” The Court asked whether the text of the Wiretap Act criminalizes accessing generally accessible livestreams, and whether the First Amendment would allow such a reading. The issue is whether exceptions written into the Act must be proved as elements of the offense by the government, or an affirmative defense by the defendant. Prosecutors claim that they’re entitled to bring Burke to trial regardless of whether the communications were accessible to the general public; instead, they say, Burke needs to prove as part of his defense that the communications were accessible. The amici argue that this would allow future government charges against journalists exercising their constitutional rights — or even charges against everyday people using the internet. |
