Press Freedom: One Journalist’s Fight for the First Amendment

We highlight Will Fries, a local journalist who is opposing a government’s attempt to deny access to public information.

NOTE: Due to chronic concerns about this platform’s algorithmic practices and the type of content it promotes, we plan to transition to a new space.

(credits): Will Fries on LinkedIn.

The second Trump administration has steadily attacked press freedom in many ways. One has been to deny access to outlets or journalists who have the temerity to criticize the administration. These actions serve to punish those who step out of line and intimidate others who might consider doing so.

But even at the local level there have been threats or actions to limit press access. Reporters Without Borders reports that more than a dozen states and communities have proposed – or even enacted laws – to restrict journalists’ access to public spaces.

In addition to statutory restrictions, communities sometimes single out individuals or outlets who they don’t like, as Trump tried to do with the Associated Press earlier this year. Media and Democracy Project’s Lily Wichert interviewed Will Fries – founder and editor of The Watershed Observer – who experienced similar treatment from the city of Salisbury, MD when he reported on misconduct by the Mayor. We are glad to report that, like the AP, Fries fought back and won in court.

In May of this year, Salisbury officials unveiled a plan to remove the city’s downtown rainbow crosswalk, viewed by community members as a symbol of LGBTQIA+ inclusion and expression. Officials, including Mayor Randy Taylor, announced a request to install new “neutral” artwork and invited artists to submit proposals, giving them only until June 30 to produce a design the city found acceptable.

City Hall described the change as an initiative to create a space “welcoming to all,” yet community members and a city council member disputed this, stating that the destruction of an LGBTQIA+ symbol shows a lack of tolerance. Fries reported extensively on the city’s handling of the issue, interviewing constituents, city officials, and delved into public records to get to the bottom of the story. While city officials claimed that the Salisbury Human Rights Advisory Committee was consulted and approved the change, Fries found the minutes showed they did not. To investigate the matter further, Fries submitted a number of requests to the city.

Rather than complying with his requests, as they should have, the city attempted to squelch his investigation. Fries reports that his effort to speak at a public meeting of the Human Rights Advisory Board was interrupted and he was not allowed to speak on the unsubstantiated claim that journalists are not allowed to speak at public meetings.

The city’s Communications Director took Fries to court, filed for a “peace order” (similar to a restraining order in Maryland but for non-domestic incidents). based on allegations of harassment that could restrict his access to public spaces and limit his ability to request public records. Although the case was filed by the Communications Director, she admitted under oath that the action was coordinated with other city officials.

Thankfully, a judge ultimately rejected the petition, finding no basis for the claims or reason to restrict Fries or his reporting. Even after the ruling, Fries reports that the Mayor claims he filed “hundreds” of public records requests while Fries says it is actually about 20. Testimony and documents submitted in court validate Fries’ claims that his requests are related to official city business, that city staff sought to curtail his constitutionally protected investigation and that the peace order had been coordinated among city officials. We urge the city to release the requested documents so that there can be a public review of the concerns that Fries has raised.

This situation reflects a broader issue: public leaders are comfortable testing to what extent they can attempt to silence scrutiny. Press freedom starts at the local level, where the consequences of intimidation are immediate. The City of Salisbury’s actions show how a government will move to block accountability.

We are pleased to report that, in addition to the Media and Democracy Project’s highlighting of this case, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and other press freedom groups are planning to speak out in support of Will Fries’ access to public records. It is important to call out and oppose government efforts to block accountability and to punish journalists or news outlets that ask uncomfortable questions or report adverse information.

Thanks for reading The Media and Democracy Project blog. Subscribe for free to receive new posts. We’re an all-volunteer 501(c)(4) civic organization, please consider donating to support our work via GiveButter.