Federal judge hands fact-checking journalists, researchers a First Amendment win in Trump administration immigration case

Whether it’s the Des Moines Register’s publication of an unfavorable election poll, a routine edit of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, or the Associated Press’s decision in its authoritative stylebook to continue to use “Gulf of Mexico,” Donald Trump and the White House have used executive authority and legal reprisals in an effort to punish and suppress press coverage that runs contrary to the administration’s preferred narratives.

Democracy and politics | Signalgate | The CBS submission | Voiceless America

The First Amendment is facing challenging times: Crackdowns on campus protests prompted both-sides claims of intolerance. Attempts to head off dangerous health misinformation have been characterized as violations of free speech. Donald Trump is publicly punishing news outlets that deviate from his administration’s version of events while privately suing some outlets into submission.

The White House vs. the press  |  Voiceless America 

Fact-checking has become a familiar tool for political reporters to hold office-holders and candidates accountable. But critics ask if fact-checkers sometimes miss the forest for the trees, and if the practice often struggles with false equivalency the way conventional political coverage does.

Information integrity

Toxic politics and vast shifts in the technology landscape have created a plethora of thorny issues — both legal and ethical — for newsrooms, courts, and regulators.

The Meta-FTC trial | Section 230