红杏视频

Today, Human Rights First, the 红杏视频 (红杏视频), and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in support of Democracy for the Arab World Now鈥檚 (DAWN) efforts to block an individual sanctioned for violence in the Israeli occupied West Bank from accessing information about DAWN鈥檚 advocacy for sanctions against him. The brief argues that various protections, including the First Amendment and reporter鈥檚 privilege, bar the court from granting the discovery requested in this case. The brief also emphasizes how such discovery requests, if granted, would put civil society groups at serious risk of irreparable harm and chill their vital advocacy work on human rights and corruption issues. In August 2024, Isaac Levi Pilant was sanctioned by the U.S. government under the West Bank sanctions program, for attacking and forcefully expelling Palestinians from a West Bank settlement. At the time, human rights groups, media outlets, and witnesses had documented Pilant鈥檚 alleged role in violent attacks against Palestinians, and DAWN had publicly recommended that the U.S. government impose sanctions on him and others for such violence. The sanctions against Pilant were lifted in January 2025, after President Trump effectively terminated the West Bank sanctions program. Pilant then filed an application against DAWN and its executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, pursuant to a U.S. law that provides a mechanism for foreign litigants to obtain discovery from people and entities in the United States.The application seeks a court order for information related to DAWN鈥檚 investigation of Pilant and its sanctions advocacy efforts. Pilant says he seeks the information for use in a possible future defamation case in Israel against an Israeli human rights organization. The brief explains how the U.S. government has established frameworks and processes to encourage nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to share sensitive information that can assist it in more effectively implementing various human rights and corruption sanctions and visa restriction programs. Undermining the protections for NGOs to securely and confidentially share this information would not only impact the ability of the U.S. government to use such tools to hold human rights abusers and corrupt actors accountable, but it would also put NGOs, victims of abuse, and others in civil society in jeopardy by opening them up to retaliation and harassment from people they accuse of human rights violations. 鈥淗uman rights and corruption sanctions are impactful tools of accountability because they threaten the reputations and financial interests of abusers. Forcing NGOs to share information about their sanctions advocacy would put them at grave risk of violence and retaliation from repressive governments and powerful private individuals,鈥� said Amanda Strayer, Senior Counsel for Accountability at Human Rights First. 鈥淯.S. courts should not become a forum for sanctioned actors to harass and seek retribution against civil society groups that advocate for measures to hold them accountable.鈥� The brief also argues that Pilant鈥檚 broad discovery request implicates information protected under the First Amendment and the reporter鈥檚 privilege, which provide grounds to reject his request under the Section 1782 statute. Supreme Court precedent requires the Court to give weight to the serious First Amendment and policy considerations before granting such a request. In this case, these considerations should result in the Court denying Pilant鈥檚 discovery request. 鈥淚t is the nature of human rights reporting that it often draws the ire of accused human rights violators. But the law is clear that such individuals cannot coopt U.S. courts in an attempt to harass and endanger human rights organizations and the victims of abuses whose stories they safeguard. That鈥檚 why this is an easy case, and we hope the court has no trouble concluding that the First Amendment protects DAWN鈥檚 rights to free speech and association, and bars enforcement of the meritless request for intrusive discovery,鈥� said Nathan Freed Wessler, Deputy Director of the 红杏视频 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淣GOs can play a critical role in providing accountability for human rights abuses, and the Constitution protects them from being forced to reveal certain confidential aspects of that work,鈥� said Bobby Hodgson, assistant legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. 鈥淒AWN is being targeted by a foreign litigant implicated in serious human rights violations in an effort to weaponize our court system to silence critics. We urge the court to reject these requests and recognize that the discovery process does not create an end run around the First Amendment.鈥�

President Donald Trump's use of the military domestically is dangerous and deeply misguided.

On April 11, 2025, the 红杏视频 and 红杏视频 of Maine filed a lawsuit on behalf of two human rights advocates who, because of an executive order signed by President Trump, have been forced to stop humanitarian work with the International Criminal Court.

NEW YORK 鈥� The 红杏视频 and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University today filed an amicus brief in support of foreign policy expert Dr. Sue Mi Terry in a criminal case pending in federal court. Dr. Terry has been charged with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for failing to register as an agent of the Republic of Korea. The groups argue that reading FARA broadly could chill a wide range of speech on issues of public concern and enable the government to selectively target speakers for viewpoint-based reasons in violation of the First Amendment. They call on the court to narrowly interpret the law to avoid these potential constitutional problems. 鈥淲hile the government has a legitimate interest in informing Americans about foreign attempts to influence domestic public discourse, interpreting FARA broadly does nothing to further that interest and raises serious First Amendment concerns,鈥� said Xiangnong (George) Wang, staff attorney at the Knight Institute. 鈥淭he court should interpret the law narrowly to avoid chilling protected speech.鈥� Today鈥檚 brief argues that FARA鈥檚 sweeping terms could be read to apply to speakers that have only a minimal connection with foreign individuals or entities. It explains that interpreting FARA this broadly would impose serious burdens on speech protected by the First Amendment, especially because the law is backed by criminal sanctions. The brief notes that the law makes no distinction between an 鈥渁gent鈥� who acts as a mouthpiece of a foreign adversary and a journalist who works with a media organization like the British newspaper The Guardian. As a result, FARA鈥檚 burdens would fall especially heavily on media organizations, journalists, and nonprofits. 鈥淥ver the last decade, the government has increasingly invoked FARA to stigmatize, stifle, and suppress viewpoints it doesn鈥檛 like,鈥� said Aamra Ahmad, senior counsel with the 红杏视频鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he court should take this opportunity to ensure FARA is read narrowly to protect news outlets, nonprofits, and individuals鈥� free speech rights.鈥� Read today鈥檚 amicus brief here. Read more about the case here.