In my previous post, I raised the question of whether the New Jersey news outlet Redbankgreen should consider making an item about an arrest that has been expunged invisible to search engines, an increasingly common practice with minor police matters. This is totally aside from the outrageous criminal case being brought against the site for its refusal to delete the item.
That prompted the editor, Brian Donohue, to contact me. He told me that Redbankgreen sometimes agrees to render certain stories unsearchable upon request — but that it won’t do so until after two years have passed.
“That is something we take enormously seriously here,” he said, “so people’s worst day of their lives don’t haunt them forever or a mistake that they made won’t haunt them forever.” He added: “The key to this case is it’s our decision. It’s not up to the government.”
Although Donohue wouldn’t talk about the particulars of the case, he did say this: “Thankfully we’re being represented by the best First Amendment firm in the state. It’s not too much time or money. It’s a lot of energy. But we think it’s important that the government cannot tell news organizations under the threat of the criminal code what to publish or what to unpublish.”
Redbankgreen, by the way, has been around for nearly 20 years. Donohue joined about a year and a half ago after a career at The Star Ledger of Newark and in local television news. Publisher Kenny Katzgrau is also the founder of Broad Street, which provides advertising services to the media business, and who was a “reluctant witness” for the defense, as Editor & Publisher put it, in the Google antitrust trial. That earned him an appearance on Mike Blinder’s podcast, “E&P Reports.”
Now here’s an interesting dilemma. A digital news organization publishes a police blotter item about an arrest. The arrest is later expunged, and the arrestee contacts the news outlet demanding that any mention of it be deleted. They refuse, though they do add a note saying that the matter had been dropped. But that’s not good enough for the arrestee, and now prosecutors are pursuing criminal charges against the two journalists for sticking by their policy against unpublishing news items.
Whew. This came to my attention recently in the form of a press release from the Freedom of the Press Foundation. The news outlet, Redbankgreen, covers Red Bank, New Jersey, and the journalists being targeted are publisher Kenny Katzgrau and editor Brian Donohue. The journalists have a clear and unambiguous First Amendment right to publish truthful information without interference from the government, but that’s not what makes this interesting.
The arrest itself was a big nothing. In August 2024, Kyle Pietila was charged with simple assault, and in March 2025, after the charge was dropped, Redbankgreen updated the item to note that a judge had expunged it “under an order determining the arrest ‘shall be deemed to have not occurred.’” I am naming Pietila only because he is pursuing criminal charges against Redbankgreen and has thus made himself a public figure.
According to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which is part of the Freedom of the Press Foundation:
An attorney for the journalists filed a motion to dismiss and expunge the charges on July 11, arguing that the “publication of truthful information on matters of public significance cannot be punished unless it involves a state interest of the highest order.”
“Moreover, information concerning the arrest was published prior to the expungement, and there is no requirement in law that it be removed from the publisher’s website simply because an expungement had taken place,” Bruce Rosen wrote. “The issuance of probable cause in this matter is plain legal error, this prosecution is unconstitutional and in fact unfathomable, and the matter should be promptly dismissed.”
Unconstitutional and unfathomable are good descriptions of this. Yet there are two ethical issues that need to be considered as well.
First, in recent years thoughtful news organizations have ended the practice of regurgitating the local police blotter for the entertainment of their readers. Such alleged news, to quote the late Jack Cole, serves no public purpose, and in some cases it can reinforce racial stereotypes. A few years ago I wrote about how the Keene Sentinel in New Hampshire eliminated routine police news in order to concentrate on more serious crime and broader stories about criminal justice.
Second, I think Redbankgreen acted ethically by appending the police blotter item to note that the arrest had been expunged. What’s not clear from the coverage is whether Katzgrau and Donohue offered to engage in a milder form of unpublishing: keeping it on their website but making it invisible to search engines. A number of news organizations have done this, including The Boston Globe with Fresh Start program.
The prosecution of these two journalists is an outrage, and any officials involved should be reprimanded and punished. Nevertheless, I hope Redbankgreen’s ordeal might lead to a rethink of how they cover news from the local police.
Update: After this item was published, I heard from Brian Donohue, and we talked about Redbankgreen’s unpublishing policy.
Shari Redstone speaking at a Committee to Protect Journalists event. Photo (cc) 2022 by CPJ photos.
Given how long negotiations were dragged out, there was some reason to hope that Paramount Global wouldn’t give in and settle Donald Trump’s bogus lawsuit claiming that “60 Minutes” had deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris last October.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted. Paramount, CBS’s parent company, will settle the suit for $16 million. If you’re looking for one tiny reason to be hopeful, the settlement did not come with an apology. In agreeing to pay off Trump, Paramount’s major owner, Shari Redstone, will now presumably find smooth sailing through the regulatory waters in selling her company to Skydance Media. Skydance, in turn, is headed by David Ellison, the son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, a friend of Trump’s.
NPR media reporter David Folkenflik has all the details. What’s clear is that this may well be the end of CBS News as a serious news organization. Just the possibility of a settlement has brought about the resignations of top executives as well as criticism from “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley. As recently as Monday, media reporter Oliver Darcy revealed that all seven “60 Minutes” correspondents had sent a message to their corporate overlords demanding that it stand firm. Murrow weeps, etc.
What I want to note, briefly, is that there are still two complications that Paramount and Skyline must contend with before wedded bliss can ensue.
The first is a threat by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to launch an investigation into whether the payoff amounts to an illegal bribe. Given that every legal and journalistic expert who’s looked at the case believes the editing of the Harris interview was ordinary and unremarkable (among other things, “60 Minutes” edited out a clip of Harris complaining about her hay fever), that investigation might yield some headlines at least.
“Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the Administration in order to secure merger approval,” the three said in a May press release issued by Warren’s office. They added: “If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.”
The second is a threatened shareholder lawsuit by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. In a May statement, the organization’s director of advocacy, Seth Stern, cited the three senators’ possible investigation and said this:
Corporations that own news outlets should not be in the business of settling baseless lawsuits that clearly violate the First Amendment and put other media outlets at risk. A settlement of Trump’s meritless lawsuit may well be a thinly veiled effort to launder bribes through the court system.
In this morning’s newsletter from CNN media reporter Brian Stelter, the foundation is reported to be moving ahead with its plans: “The group’s lawyers are huddling today, I’m told. A spokesperson said ‘Paramount’s spineless decision to settle Trump’s patently unconstitutional lawsuit is an insult to the First Amendment and to the journalists and viewers of “60 Minutes.” It’s a dark day for Paramount and for press freedom.’”
The Paramount settlement follows Disney’s disastrous and unnecessary $15 million settlement of a suit brought by Trump over a minor wording error by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos in describing the verdict against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll civil case. Stephanopoulos said Trump had been found to have “raped” Carroll, whereas the technical legal term was “sexual abuse.”
Trump’s claim failed on two grounds: What Stephanopoulos said was substantially true, and there was no evidence that the anchor had deliberately or recklessly mischaracterized the outcome of the case. But no matter. Disney settled anyway.
So far, at least, Gannett is holding firm in Trump’s suit against The Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer over a survey that showed Trump trailing Harris in the Buckeye Hawkeye State (which he ended up winning easily) several days before the 2024 election.
Correction: Like the great Boston Brahmin writer Cleveland Amory, I regarded “the West” as anything west of Dedham. So, yes, Iowa is the Hawkeye State. I’m fixing that here and in Tuesday’s item as well.
For a brief moment Monday, it looked like Donald Trump had given up on his ridiculous lawsuit against The Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer.
You may recall that Trump claimed they had committed consumer fraud because of a poll taken just before Election Day showing Kamala Harris with a 3-point lead in the Hawkeye State. Notwithstanding Selzer’s sterling reputation, Harris ended up losing Iowa by 13 points, which is about what you’d expect. She was wrong, and the error may have hastened her retirement, but the notion that she put out a false poll to help Harris is transparently ludicrous.
Well, Monday’s good news didn’t last. It turns out that Trump withdrew his suit from the federal courts and refiled it in state court one day before an Iowa anti-SLAPP law was scheduled to take effect, William Morris reports for the Register. SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against political participation,” and it’s designed to give judges a reason to throw out garbage suits such as Trump’s. No such luck since Trump beat the deadline.
This isn’t the first time Trump has sought to have his Iowa case heard in state court. Apparently his lawyers believe the federal courts are unlikely to tolerate his foolishness. To its credit, the Register’s corporate owner, Gannett, has hung tough. A spokesperson for the paper, Lark-Marie Anton, said in a statement:
After losing his first attempt to send his case back to Iowa state court, and apparently recognizing that his appeal will be unsuccessful, President Trump is attempting to unilaterally dismiss his lawsuit from federal court and refile it in Iowa state court. Although such a procedural maneuver is improper, and may not be permitted by the court, it is clearly intended to avoid the inevitable outcome of the Des Moines Register’s motion to dismiss President Trump’s amended complaint currently pending in federal court.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is representing Selzer, said on social media that Trump’s attempt to move the case to state court was “a transparent attempt to avoid federal court review of the president’s transparently frivolous claims,” according to The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, there have been some developments in one of Trump’s other legal attempts to intimidate the press. According to media reporter Oliver Darcy, all seven correspondents at CBS News’ “60 Minutes” have sent a message to their corporate owner, Paramount, demanding that it stand firm in fighting Trump’s lawsuit over the way the program edited an interview with Harris last October. Darcy writes:
They pointedly expressed concern that Paramount is failing to put up a fierce and unrelenting fight in the face of Trump’s lawsuit over the program’s Kamala Harris interview, which has been widely denounced by the legal community as baseless, according to the people familiar with the matter. They said Trump’s allegations against the storied program are false and ripped his lawsuit as baseless. And they warned in no uncertain terms that if Paramount were to settle with Trump, it will stain the reputation of the company and undermine the First Amendment.
Trump is claiming consumer fraud in a Texas federal court under the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that “60 Minutes” edited its interview with Harris to make her appear more coherent, thus helping her campaign. “60 Minutes” has defended the editing as normal and routine. The interview has been nominated for an Emmy in the editing category, no doubt to send a message to the White House.
Unfortunately, Darcy reports that Paramount continues to lurch toward a settlement with Trump in order to pave the way for federal approval of a merger with Skydance Media.
Trump meets the press. 2019 photo by the Trump White House.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington has ruled that, at least for now, the White House can exclude The Associated Press from coverage of presidential events in most venues. The 2-1 ruling puts on hold a decision by a lower court in favor of the AP.
The decision is 55 pages long, and I’ve simply scanned it for a few highlights. But it appears that the court’s main argument is grounded in the number of media organizations that would like to gain access to President Trump’s events. It’s not so much that the White House is kicking out the AP as it is that they’re letting someone else in instead. Here’s how Judge Neomi Rao puts it in her majority decision:
The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted. Moreover, without a stay, the government will suffer irreparable harm because the injunction impinges on the President’s independence and control over his private workspaces.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Cornelia Pillard writes:
In granting a stay, my colleagues assert a novel and unsupported exception to the First Amendment’s prohibition of viewpoint-based restrictions of private speech — one that not even the government itself advanced….
Make no mistake as to why it matters that the panel majority accepts these theories. In the short term, the court allows the White House to rely on viewpoint to exclude the AP from the Press Pool pending a final decision on the merits, a process that typically takes months. And, looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.
As you may recall, the Trump regime banned the AP from many of its events after the wire service refused to go along with President Trump’s absurd insistence that the Gulf of Mexico be referred to as the “Gulf of America.” Map services from Apple, Microsoft and Google quickly toed the line, as did several news organizations; the AP, though, held firm.
But as Zach Montague and Minho Kim report for The New York Times, Trump changed the facts on the ground, possibly making it easier for the the president to prevail in a lawsuit brought by the AP. Most notably, the regime ended the practice of allowing the White House Correspondents’ Association to determine which news outlets would be included in the press pool.
The White House now has the discretion to decide for itself. And though announcing that the AP was being banned might not withstand constitutional scrutiny, saying that the pool will include NewsMax, Breitbart and Catturd, and “oh, sorry, there are no more slots” is an assertion that might hold up. It’s a complicated decision, since the majority ruled that the AP must be allowed into press briefings where there is some give-and-take with the president but may be excluded from merely observational events, such as those that take place in the Oval Office.
Needless to say, this is fairly disastrous for democracy since it allows Trump to decide who will cover him. Excluding the AP is particularly outrageous since so many news outlets are dependent on the wire service for coverage of national and international affairs; indeed, the service provides news to about 15,000 media organizations around the world. It is for that reason that the AP had always been included in the press pool.
The AP’s own story on the stay, by media reporter David Bauder, calls Friday’s stay “an incremental loss.” But as Judge Pillard notes, it could take months for the full Court of Appeals to render a decision, and then there’s the prospect of the case winding up before the Supreme Court. If nothing else, the Court of Appeals’ endorsement of viewpoint discrimination should not be allowed to stand. It would be yet another lurch down the road to authoritarianism if the high court ultimately decides that Trump has found a way to censor the AP without violating the First Amendment.
More: As I’ve mentioned before, we now have access at Northeastern to Claude, a leading AI chatbot from Anthropic. Though I have deeply mixed feelings about AI, I also think it’s worth experimenting with. I asked Claude to produce a 1,200-word summary of the decision, and you can read it here. I can tell you that reading Claude’s handiwork did lead me to go back and add a tweak to this post.
Liam Morrison wearing the second of his banned T-shirts in the spring of 2023. Handout photo via Nemasket Week.
Last October, I wrote that I would be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a middle school student’s appeal of a ruling that local officials had a right to ban him from wearing an anti-transgender T-shirt. But the way this court is heading, I have to say that maybe I am a little surprised.
The court declined to hear the case, reports Lawrence Hurley for NBC News. That should be the end of the line for Liam Morrison, who in the spring of 2023 — when he was a seventh-grader — was sent home from school by authorities in Middleborough, Massachusetts, for wearing a T-shirt that said “There Are Only Two Genders” and then again for wearing a shirt that said “There Are Only (Censored) Genders.”
Here is the post I wrote last October, when he and his high-profile supporters appealed to the court. It’s got all the background that you need. Meanwhile, let me explain how close a call this is.
About a month ago, the court ruled against an online Catholic school in Missouri that sought to become the country’s first religious charter school — that is, a public school. As Amy Howe reported for SCOTUSblog, the vote was 4-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself. If Barrett had taken part and voted with the majority, the Catholic school would have won.
Likewise, Morrison’s case has been cloaked in the garb of religious freedom, and he was being represented by a Christian-right law firm. It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case, a process known as granting a writ of certiorari, or “granting cert.”
Thus all it would have taken to get Morrison’s case before the court was the support of the same four justices who ruled in favor of the Catholic school in the Missouri case. As for whether Morrison could have won, Barrett herself has some pretty strong ties to the religious right, though she’s also emerged as something of an independent thinker.
What that suggests is that Morrison’s case was exceptionally weak, and the Supreme Court has no interest in overturning precedents leaving disciplinary decisions in the hands of public school authorities.
More: I initially failed to note that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have heard the case. Because of course they would.
WNET, the New York public broadcasting giant, doesn’t want you to see this cartoon — at least not on public television.
The New York Times reports (gift link) that 90 seconds have been butchered out of a documentary about the artist Art Spiegelman that is scheduled to be shown as part of the “American Masters” series on PBS. It is, as you can see, wildly unflattering to President Trump, and it comes at a moment when Trump is trying to eliminate all funding for public media.
WNET vice president Stephen Segaller told Times reporter Marc Tracy that the 9-year-old drawing of Trump, with feces and flies on his head and a swastika superimposed over the image, was a “breach of protocol,” adding, “I don’t think we’d have made a different decision if it had been a year earlier.” Yeah, probably not. Last year at this time, Trump was leading President Joe Biden in the polls, so the incentive not to antagonize him was just as strong then as it is now.
Spiegelman was quoted as saying, “It’s tragic and appalling that PBS and WNET are willing to become collaborators with the sinister forces trying to muzzle free speech.”
But at least you can see Spiegelman’s cartoon in the Times. And here.
The assault on freedom of expression being waged by the Trump White House is so wide-ranging that it’s hard to know where to begin. From threats against universities to bogus lawsuits targeting news organizations, it is clear that President Trump and his thuggish allies want to silence criticism and force civil society to cower in fear.
But there is one action in particular that stands out for its cruelty as well as its blatant disregard for the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press. And that’s the arrest and detention of Rümeysa Öztürk, who, at long last, was freed over the weekend. It also happens to have played out in New England, from her Soviet-style snatch-and-grab by black-clad ICE goons on the Tufts campus, where she’s a Ph.D. student, to her release at the hands of a federal judge in Vermont.
The anti-First Amendment intent of the government’s actions was underscored by U.S. District Judge William Sessions III in Burlington, Vermont, who said that he could find no reason for detaining Öztürk other than her co-authoring an op-ed piece in The Tufts Daily that was critical of Israel and sympathetic to the pro-Palestinian cause.
“That literally is the case. There is no evidence here … absent consideration of the op-ed,” Sessions said, according to an account by Liz Crampton and Kyle Cheney in Politico. “Her continued detention cannot stand.”
Which is why this whole sordid affair is worthy of a New England Muzzle Award. In fact, it may be the most worthy Muzzle since I started handing them out at The Boston Phoenix 27 years ago.
But who should be the winner? My choice is Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and the dark lord of Trump’s anti-immigration policies. Over the years, Miller has made his hatred for non-white immigrants clear, and though he generally directs his rhetoric at those who are undocumented, his overall contempt for people who don’t look like him permeates the Trump gang, starting at the very orange-hued top.
For example, here’s something that Miller wrote about Muslims for his high-school newspaper, according to a profile by William D. Cohan for Vanity Fair:
Blaming America for the problems of countries whose citizens would rather spend time sewing blankets to cover women’s faces than improving the quality of life is utterly ludicrous.
And in a speech to his high-school classmates, Miller once said: “I will say and I will do things that no one else in their right mind would do.”
Now, is it fair to cite things that Miller wrote and said in high school to build a case against him today? In his case, the answer is yes, because he devolved into exactly the sort of adult that he said he would nearly a quarter of a century ago. I mean, if you want something recent, he called for the suspension of habeas corpus — a basic protection against false imprisonment guaranteed not just by the Constitution but by Magna Carta — on Friday, as Steve Vladeck writes in his newsletter, One First.
ICE goons grab Rümeysa Öztürk near Tufts.
As for Öztürk, her ordeal is not over yet. A Turkish citizen, she was attending Tufts legally on a student visa. That visa was revoked by the State Department on the grounds that her activism could create a “hostile environment for Jewish students” and that she might support “a designated terrorist organization,” according to an account by Rodrique Ngowi and Claire Rush in The Associated Press. But the State Department’s own case cites nothing except the op-ed, which merely argues that the university administration should uphold resolutions passed by the faculty senate.
In other words, Öztürk could still be deported for nothing more than expressing her views, which the First Amendment protects for anyone in the United States, regardless of immigration status. That would be an outrage, and if the Trump administration can find a judge who’s willing to go along, a second Muzzle Award might be looming on the horizon.
But at least Öztürk is free to defend herself, no longer locked up in a Louisiana detention facility, where she reportedly experienced multiple asthma attacks without access to her medication.
Sadly for all of us, it’s Miller Time. We can only hope that his day of reckoning is coming soon.
It’s important at a historical moment like this to keep our heads about us. Social media was filled with dark warnings about authoritarianism on Friday after the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan and charged her with illegally helping an undocumented immigrant avoid being detained by federal agents. I even saw a quote attributed to Hitler.
We should leave it to the legal system to determine whether Judge Dugan broke the law or not. But, to their credit, a number of news organizations noted that the Dugan case is remarkably similar to that of Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley Joseph. Joseph was charged by federal authorities in 2019 with obstruction of justice after she helped an undocumented immigrant escape out the back of her courtroom when she learned that the feds were waiting to take him into custody.
Charges against Joseph were dropped in 2022 after she agreed to a state investigation into her conduct. As of late 2024, her case was still wending its way through the disciplinary system.
Northeastern University’s president, Joseph Aoun, has added his voice to a strong statement from college and university leaders opposing the Trump administration’s unprecedented assault on their institutions. Madison Evangelist has the details at The Huntington News, our independent student newspaper.
The statement, titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement,” has been signed by 416 education leaders as of 11 a.m. Those signing include Harvard president Alan Garber, whose defiance of Trump has made his university a national symbol of resistance. Other local signers are Melissa Gilliam, president of Boston University; Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT; Jay Bernhardt, president of Emerson College; Marissa Kelly, president of Suffolk University; and Marty Meehan, president of the University of Massachusetts.
The statement, sponsored by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, begins:
As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.
For those of us who are part of the Northeastern community, Aoun’s action is welcome news. My students and I have talked about how quiet the administration has been about Trump’s depredations, and I’ve been hoping we’d hear more at some point. Well, here it is.
And not that Harvard needs any more kudos, but it was really its refusal to go along with Trump’s authoritarian demands that stiffened the backbones of university leaders everywhere.
The anti-First Amendment intent of the government’s actions was underscored by U.S. District Judge William Sessions III in Burlington, Vermont, who said that he could find no reason for detaining Öztürk other than her co-authoring 
