INTRODUCTION
Use of Force Against Foreign Journalists: The recent revelations concerning four Australian journalists reportedly injured by U.S. law enforcement during civil protests in Los Angeles have reignited an urgent legal and diplomatic debate. These incidents—ranging from the shooting of rubber bullets to alleged physical assaults—occurred during demonstrations following police violence against marginalized communities. What began as domestic dissent over systemic injustices has since escalated into a multifaceted legal issue, touching upon press freedom, international law, and the constitutional boundaries of police authority in crowd control situations.
At its core, this development raises enduring questions about the balance between public safety and civil liberties, particularly the First Amendment rights of the press. It also exposes fraught gaps in the protection of foreign nationals operating on U.S. soil under the auspices of internationally recognized journalistic immunity.
“The treatment of journalists—domestic or foreign—by law enforcement during protests is a barometer of democratic health. When the press becomes collateral damage in civil unrest, the rule of law itself comes under scrutiny,” said Prof. Jennifer Daskal, a noted expert on constitutional and international law at American University.
As diplomatic notes are exchanged between the U.S. State Department and Canberra, and public outrage mounts on both sides of the Pacific, this article explores the historical and legal context of press freedom, evaluates the current legal proceedings and responses, and considers how this episode might shape future policy in both domestic law enforcement practices and international relations.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The United States Constitution enshrines freedom of the press under the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. However, this right, while fundamental, is not absolute. The government may impose time, place, and manner restrictions, particularly during large-scale public gatherings. Still, any such restriction must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication (Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)).
More directly relevant is the 1977 case of Zemel v. Rusk (381 U.S. 1), which held that the government could not limit press freedom solely on the grounds of national security or administrative convenience. In more recent history, the 2014 case of Garcia v. Bloomberg saw the Second Circuit rule that journalists covering Occupy Wall Street protests were unlawfully detained, reinforcing that members of the press have a qualified right to document public events—even when authorities declare an unlawful assembly.
From a statutory perspective, 42 U.S.C. §1983 (the Civil Rights Act of 1871) provides a civil remedy for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated by government actors. Numerous journalists have successfully used this provision in lawsuits alleging excessive force or wrongful arrest during protests.
Internationally, protections for foreign journalists stem from conventions such as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which guarantees freedom of expression and access to information across borders. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) further obligates host countries to notify consular officials if foreign nationals, including journalists, are injured or detained.
“Legal norms and international treaties create an expectation that journalists, especially those operating with foreign credentials, should be free from state-inflicted harm while documenting matters of public concern,” argues Dr. John Ip, Associate Professor at the University of Auckland Law School.
Despite these protections, U.S. law enforcement agencies have a long and contentious history of clashing with the press. During the civil rights marches of the 1960s, journalists were routinely targeted. More recently, more than 400 instances of press interference were documented during the 2020 George Floyd protests, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.
This historical pattern, juxtaposed against evolving norms of civil society and transnational human rights obligations, sets the stage for a robust legal examination of the recent injuries suffered by Australian media personnel.
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
As of June 2025, none of the injured Australian journalists have filed formal lawsuits in U.S. courts, although both ABC Australia and 9News have called for accountability through diplomatic and media channels. The Australian Embassy has confirmed that it has submitted formal inquiries to the U.S. State Department requesting an internal investigation and, potentially, sanctions against the officers involved.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a separate civil complaint against the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and several unnamed officers on behalf of domestic journalists injured during the same protests. The complaint invokes both the First and Fourth Amendments, alleging excessive force and unlawful interference with constitutionally protected newsgathering activities.
Legal experts suggest that any forthcoming lawsuits by foreign journalists would likely be channeled through federal courts under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and might involve claims of intentional torts such as battery or negligence under California common law. However, sovereign immunity and qualified immunity doctrines could pose significant legal hurdles.
“Qualified immunity remains a major barrier in civil rights litigation, effectively shielding officers unless plaintiffs can point to clearly established precedent,” notes Prof. Joanna Schwartz of UCLA Law School.
Public commentary is mixed. Press organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) have demanded immediate disciplinary measures, while local law enforcement unions insist that officers acted in compliance with standard crowd-control protocols.
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Civil liberties groups and progressive lawmakers argue that the incidents represent a systemic failure to uphold constitutional safeguards for the press, particularly during moments of civil unrest. They contend that these patterns of abuse are neither accidental nor rare but rather symptomatic of a militarized policing culture that perceives the press as adversarial.
“The First Amendment doesn’t pause for public disorder; if anything, it becomes more vital in such moments,” stated Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
The ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice have both issued statements emphasizing the need for federal oversight of police responses to public protests. They advocate for legislation that would tie federal funding to adherence with press freedom protocols.
Legal scholars also point to racial and geopolitical undertones. “There’s a troubling trend in which journalists of color or those affiliated with foreign outlets are disproportionately targeted,” said Prof. Shirin Sinnar of Stanford Law School.
Progressive commentators further warn that such incidents erode America’s moral authority abroad, particularly when juxtaposed against its long-standing advocacy for global press freedoms.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conversely, many conservative voices have framed the events as unfortunate but contextually justified within the broader imperative of restoring public order. They emphasize the volatile nature of modern protests and argue that the presence of media, while important, can complicate law enforcement efforts to disperse unlawful assemblies.
“In chaotic environments, distinguishing between protester and press is not always feasible,” argued Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute. *”Expecting officers to make those split-second judgments with precision is unrealistic.”
Former Attorney General William Barr similarly emphasized the need for maintaining a balance: “Civil liberties are paramount, but so is the rule of law. We cannot allow public safety to be compromised by unchecked mob activity, even under the guise of journalism.”
Textualist legal scholars point to the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)), which set forth the “objective reasonableness” standard in assessing police conduct.
They further contend that many journalists voluntarily assume risk by entering volatile zones, and thus cannot claim absolute immunity from consequences arising during police action.
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
Several prior incidents offer instructive comparisons. The 2020 case of Gershkovich v. United States, in which a Russian-American journalist was injured by federal officers during a protest in Portland, established that foreign credentials do not elevate the standard of care expected by law enforcement. Still, the Ninth Circuit allowed portions of the suit to proceed under Bivens liability, creating potential precedent for foreign plaintiffs.
Another parallel arises from the 2003 FTAA protests in Miami, where journalists were subjected to excessive force, prompting a class action settlement and a DOJ investigation. “The Miami case remains a benchmark for how legal advocacy and public pressure can force policy reform in protest policing,” said Prof. Rachel Harmon, an expert in police accountability at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Internationally, the 2019 assault on BBC journalists in Hong Kong by local police offers a reverse perspective, where Western governments criticized foreign police excesses, thus setting a normative expectation for reciprocity.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
The long-term implications of these events could be significant. Domestically, legislative reforms may arise to condition federal police funding on compliance with First Amendment protections. The Protect the Press Act, recently reintroduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), seeks to create a federal database of press freedom violations and establish Department of Justice oversight.
In the legal realm, ongoing litigation could generate new jurisprudence around the extraterritorial application of constitutional rights to foreign journalists. Courts may be compelled to clarify the scope of press protections during states of emergency or declared riots.
Diplomatically, continued pressure from Canberra could strain U.S.-Australia relations. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has already paused some U.S. assignments pending assurances of safety.
“This is not merely a bilateral grievance; it speaks to global perceptions of American democratic integrity,” argues Michael Fullilove, Executive Director of the Lowy Institute.
Think tanks like the Brookings Institution have called for the establishment of an independent oversight body to investigate protest-related injuries. The Heritage Foundation, while defending law enforcement, has urged greater investment in officer training on media identification and de-escalation techniques.
CONCLUSION
The assaults on Australian journalists during the Los Angeles protests illuminate a pivotal moment in the intersection of civil liberties, police authority, and international relations. At stake is not only the sanctity of press freedom but also the credibility of American democratic governance.
While progressive and conservative voices diverge on cause and culpability, both acknowledge the urgent need for clearer legal boundaries and enhanced accountability mechanisms.
“When democracies waver in their protection of the press, they flirt with authoritarianism,” cautions Prof. Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU.
As the legal cases unfold and policy reforms gain traction, the central question remains: Can the United States reconcile its constitutional ideals with the exigencies of modern public safety, particularly in the glare of international scrutiny?
For Further Reading:
- With reporters shot and roughed up, advocates question whether those covering protests are targets
- PEN America Condemns Attacks on Journalists Covering Los Angeles Protests
- LA protests updates: Trump compares demonstrations to a foreign ‘invasion’
- Multiple journalists injured by police nonlethal rounds while covering LA protests
- Number of Australian journalists hit by US law enforcement during LA protests climbs
