50 signatures reached
To: Mayor Mamdani and the New York City Council
PROTECT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM AND PRESS FREEDOM IN NEW YORK CITY
PETITION TO PROTECT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM AND PRESS FREEDOM IN NEW YORK CITY
Reject Intro 1024-2026 and Defend the Right of Independent Journalists to Report
To the New York City Council:
We, the undersigned New Yorkers, journalists, independent media workers, creators, freelancers, and supporters of a free press, urge the New York City Council to reject Intro 1024-2026 and preserve strong protections for independent journalists seeking to maintain their City press credentials.
New York City should be a place where journalism flourishes in all its forms. The right to gather and report news should not depend on an individual's employer, political stance, institutional prestige, or willingness to make powerful people comfortable. Nor should the government have broader authority to determine who is "legitimate" enough to remain a credentialed member of the press.
What We Ask of the City Council:
- Reject Intro 1024-2026 and refuse to lower the evidentiary standard governing credential revocation.
- Preserve the "clear and convincing" standard to protect due process.
- Maintain viewpoint-neutral, transparent criteria that apply equally regardless of employer, platform, or political ideology.
- Protect independent, freelance, and new-media journalists alongside legacy media organizations.
- Enforce existing rules consistently rather than weakening legal protections.
- Uphold due process through meaningful notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an impartial process before any sort of public commentary is made, suspension is put in place, or permanent revocation is enforced.
- Consult independent journalists before introducing future credentialing reforms.
A free press must remain free even when it is inconvenient. We urge the New York City Council to reject Intro 1024-2026, defend due process, and protect the First Amendment.
Why is this important?
Our Press Freedom Should Not Depend on Who We Work For:
Intro 1024-2026 would amend NYC’s Administrative Code to lower the evidentiary standard required to suspend or revoke a press credential. The proposed legislation allows the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment (MOME) to strip credentials based on a “preponderance of the evidence,” replacing the current “clear and convincing” standard.
While the bill addresses governmental responsibilities like safety and evidence preservation, lowering the bar to revoke an already issued credential is a major step backward. For journalists covering demonstrations, breaking news, court proceedings, and public meetings, a City press credential determines whether they can do their jobs. When access depends on a credential, the process for taking it away matters deeply to First Amendment rights.
Modern Journalism Has No Single Path:
NYC’s existing rules recognize that there is no single pathway into journalism. MOME’s standard card covers employees and self-employed reporters alike across digital, print, broadcast, and social media platforms. Independent journalism safeguards against concentrated media power and corporate influence, often covering communities that larger organizations overlook. A journalist does not become less legitimate simply because they lack corporate backing.
A Credential Should Not Become a Political Reward:
The City must never create a system where press access depends on political approval. Standards must be viewpoint-neutral, transparent, and consistently applied.
Furthermore, legislation should not be written around single controversies. Intro 1024-2026 follows controversy surrounding press credentials issued to members of the Mangionistas covering the Luigi Mangione case and advocating for Medicare for All. Disagreements with a group's politics or tactics should not become the basis for weakening press protections for everyone. MOME’s existing rules already provide clear mechanisms to address specific safety and conduct violations.
Due Process and Future Administrations:
Credential revocation currently requires a hearing before the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) under the higher evidentiary bar. These protections must remain intact.
When creating laws, the Council must consider future leadership. A power granted today to target a controversial voice can be used by a future administration against anyone. If we would not trust every future administration with this authority, it should not be granted now.