Latest news with #1stAmendment
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Paramount adds three new board members amid Trump troubles and FCC review
With its sale to Skydance Media still beyond its reach, Paramount Global has nominated three new directors to bolster its small board, which has been racked with drama and churn since early last year. The debt-laden New York-based company currently has only five board members, including controlling shareholder Shari Redstone, who serves as chairwoman. The Redstone family holds nearly 77% of Paramount's voting shares, giving the heiress tremendous sway. In a proxy filing Monday, Paramount asked shareholders to elect seven directors at its July 2 annual meeting. The slate includes Redstone and three recruits: attorney Mary Boies (a member of the firm led by her husband David Boies); Silicon Valley venture capital executive Charles E. Ryan ; and former Massachusetts trial court judge Roanne Sragow Licht. In addition to Redstone, three longtime board members — Linda M. Griego, Susan Schuman and Barbara M. Byrne — will stand for reelection. Board member Judith A. McHale has decided to step down. Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain The company has grappled with a series of setbacks since it announced its sale to tech scion David Ellison's Skydance Media last July. The company took a $6-billion write-down on its cable television networks business, in yet another sign that Hollywood is reckoning with the ongoing deterioration of the traditional television business. Leading independent director Charles Phillips left the board in October. His exit came six months after three other directors — Rob Klieger, Nicole Seligman and Dawn Ostroff — abruptly departed as the panel was struggling over terms of Redstone's planned Paramount sale. In late October, President Trump filed a lawsuit in Texas over his dismay with edits of a "60 Minutes" interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the closing weeks of the election. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, opened an inquiry to determine whether the edits rose to the level of news distortion. Trump doubled the amount of damages he was seeking to $20 billion. Read more: Paramount, Shari Redstone face investor angst over possible Skydance deal Paramount has been defending against the lawsuit. In a court filing last week, Trump's lawyers asserted the president suffered "mental anguish" due to the "60 Minutes" broadcast. Redstone's desire to settle Trump's suit over the "60 Minutes" edits has carved deep divides within the company. 1st Amendment experts have called Trump's lawsuit frivolous; CBS News executives and other journalists believe it is a shakedown to exploit the vulnerable company that is desperate to have the FCC approve the sale to Skydance. The ruckus over the edits contributed to the departure of two top CBS News executives. Wendy McMahon, the president of CBS News and Stations, stepped down under pressure last month. In April, "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens departed. Redstone has expressed her dissatisfaction with CBS News' coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. Last month, three Democrat U.S. senators warned Redstone that the company could face allegations of bribery if they write a big check to mollify Trump in an effort to facilitate the FCC's review of the Skydance takeover. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Paramount offered Trump $15 million to make the lawsuit go away, but he declined. It's been nearly 11 months since Paramount agreed to be sold to Skydance in an $8-billion deal that would inject $1.5 billion in capital into Paramount's battered balance sheet. Read more: Shari Redstone was poised to make Paramount a Hollywood comeback story. What happened? Paramount has not revised its guidance on when it expects the deal to close — but the contractual deadline is early October. As part of its proxy statement, the company again detailed the compensation packages — totaling $148 million to the top three executives and ousted Chief Executive Bob Bakish, who received compensation valued at $87 million. Co-CEO George Cheeks was paid $22.2 million. His counterparts Brian Robbins and Chris McCarthy were paid $19.6 million and $19.5 million, respectively, according to the filing. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Sign in to access your portfolio
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Paramount adds three new board members amid Trump troubles and FCC review
With its sale to Skydance Media still beyond its reach, Paramount Global has nominated three new directors to bolster its small board, which has been racked with drama and churn since early last year. The debt-laden New York-based company currently has only five board members, including controlling shareholder Shari Redstone, who serves as chairwoman. The Redstone family holds nearly 77% of Paramount's voting shares, giving the heiress tremendous sway. In a proxy filing Monday, Paramount asked shareholders to elect seven directors at its July 2 annual meeting. The slate includes Redstone and three recruits: attorney Mary Boies (a member of the firm led by her husband David Boies); Silicon Valley venture capital executive Charles E. Ryan ; and former Massachusetts trial court judge Roanne Sragow Licht. In addition to Redstone, three longtime board members — Linda M. Griego, Susan Schuman and Barbara M. Byrne — will stand for reelection. Board member Judith A. McHale has decided to step down. The company has grappled with a series of setbacks since it announced its sale to tech scion David Ellison's Skydance Media last July. The company took a $6-billion write-down on its cable television networks business, in yet another sign that Hollywood is reckoning with the ongoing deterioration of the traditional television business. Leading independent director Charles Phillips left the board in October. His exit came six months after three other directors — Rob Klieger, Nicole Seligman and Dawn Ostroff — abruptly departed as the panel was struggling over terms of Redstone's planned Paramount sale. In late October, President Trump filed a lawsuit in Texas over his dismay with edits of a '60 Minutes' interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the closing weeks of the election. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, opened an inquiry to determine whether the edits rose to the level of news distortion. Trump doubled the amount of damages he was seeking to $20 billion. Paramount has been defending against the lawsuit. In a court filing last week, Trump's lawyers asserted the president suffered 'mental anguish' due to the '60 Minutes' broadcast. Redstone's desire to settle Trump's suit over the '60 Minutes' edits has carved deep divides within the company. 1st Amendment experts have called Trump's lawsuit frivolous; CBS News executives and other journalists believe it is a shakedown to exploit the vulnerable company that is desperate to have the FCC approve the sale to Skydance. The ruckus over the edits contributed to the departure of two top CBS News executives. Wendy McMahon, the president of CBS News and Stations, stepped down under pressure last month. In April, '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens departed. Redstone has expressed her dissatisfaction with CBS News' coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. Last month, three Democrat U.S. senators warned Redstone that the company could face allegations of bribery if they write a big check to mollify Trump in an effort to facilitate the FCC's review of the Skydance takeover. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Paramount offered Trump $15 million to make the lawsuit go away, but he declined. It's been nearly 11 months since Paramount agreed to be sold to Skydance in an $8-billion deal that would inject $1.5 billion in capital into Paramount's battered balance sheet. Paramount has not revised its guidance on when it expects the deal to close — but the contractual deadline is early October. As part of its proxy statement, the company again detailed the compensation packages — totaling $148 million to the top three executives and ousted Chief Executive Bob Bakish, who received compensation valued at $87 million. Co-CEO George Cheeks was paid $22.2 million. His counterparts Brian Robbins and Chris McCarthy were paid $19.6 million and $19.5 million, respectively, according to the filing.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Contributor: Three ways the government can silence speech without banning it
When most people think of how governments stifle free speech, they think of censorship. That's when a government directly blocks or suppresses speech. In the past, the federal government has censored speech in various ways. It has tried to block news outlets from publishing certain stories. It has punished political dissenters. It has banned sales of 'obscene' books. Today, however, the federal government rarely tries to censor speech so crudely. It has less blatant but very effective ways to suppress dissent. The current actions of the Trump administration show how government can silence speakers without censoring them. My quarter century of research and writing about 1st Amendment rights has explored the varied tools that governments use to smother free expression. Among the present administration's chosen tools: making institutions stop or change their advocacy to get government benefits; inducing self-censorship through intimidation; and molding the government's own speech to promote official ideology. Read more: Contributor: Once, international students feared Beijing's wrath. Now Trump is the threat As to the first of those tools, the Supreme Court has made clear that the 1st Amendment bars the government from conditioning benefits on the sacrifice of free speech. Government employers may not refuse to hire employees of the opposing political party, nor may they stop employees from speaking publicly about political issues. The government may not stop funding nonprofits because they refuse to endorse official policies, or because they make arguments the government opposes. The 1st Amendment, however, works only if someone asks a court to enforce it, or at least threatens to do so. The Trump administration has issued orders that withdraw security clearances, cancel government contracts and bar access to government buildings for law firms that have opposed the administration's policies or have advocated for diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Some law firms have sued to block the orders. More firms, however, have made deals with the administration, agreeing to end DEI programs and to do free legal work for conservative causes. Read more: FCC commissioner sounds alarms about free speech 'chilling effect' under Trump The administration similarly has withheld funding from universities that embrace DEI or that, by the administration's account, have fomented or tolerated antisemitism. Harvard University has resisted that pressure. But Columbia University has capitulated to President Trump's demands, which have included cracking down on protests, giving university officials more control over controversial academic programs and hiring more conservative professors. The Supreme Court may ultimately declare the administration's gambits unconstitutional, but the White House has already succeeded in leveraging government benefits to make major institutions change their speech. The Trump administration's second form of indirect speech suppression is even more subtle — intimidating speakers into silence with actions that deter or 'chill' expression without squarely banning it. That means the government may not regulate speech through vague laws that leave lawful speakers uncertain whether the regulation reaches them. For example, the Supreme Court in 1971 struck down a Cincinnati ordinance that criminalized any public assembly the city deemed 'annoying.' Read more: Editorial: Free speech or discrimination? Colleges need help drawing the line Likewise, the government may not make people disclose their identities as a requirement for acquiring controversial literature or for supporting unpopular causes. In the classic case, the Supreme Court during the civil rights era blocked Alabama from making the NAACP disclose its membership list. The mechanisms of chilling speech make it hard to detect, but the current public climate strongly suggests that the Trump administration has dialed down the thermostat. College and university campuses, which rumbled in spring 2024 with protests against the war in Gaza, have gone largely quiet. Large corporations that challenged the first Trump presidency have fallen into line behind the second, as evidenced by the tech leaders who donated to and attended the president's inauguration. Big donors to some liberal causes have folded up their wallets. Some of that dampening likely reflects fatigue and resignation. Much of it, though, appears to reveal successful intimidation. Read more: Contributor: Mahmoud Khalil's pro-Palestinian comments are protected speech, not grounds for deportation The administration has proclaimed that it is deporting noncitizen students, using their lawful speech as justification. While those expulsions themselves are classic censorship, their hidden reach may be much more effective at stifling expression, even among U.S. citizens. The Trump administration could not lawfully treat citizens as it is treating foreign nationals. But most citizens don't know that. The vivid spectacle of punished protesters seems likely to chill the speech of others. The administration's final tool of indirect speech suppression is propaganda. The 1st Amendment only bars the government from controlling private speech. When the government speaks, it can say what it wants. That means people who speak for the government lack any 1st Amendment right to replace the government's messages with their own. In theory, then, every new federal administration could sweepingly turn government institutions' speech into narrow propaganda. That hasn't happened before, perhaps because most governments realize they are just temporary custodians of an abiding republic. Read more: Contributor: Art for art's sake, or the president's? The Trump administration has broken this norm. The administration has ordered the purging of ideologically disfavored content from the Smithsonian museums, implemented book bans in military libraries and installed political supporters to run cultural institutions. None of those actions likely violates the 1st Amendment. All of them, however, have significant implications for free speech. In what may be the most quoted line in the 1st Amendment legal canon, Justice Robert Jackson declared in 1943 that government should never 'prescribe what shall be orthodox … in matters of opinion.' A 21st-century federal government can dramatically skew public discourse by honing government speech with the flint of official ideology. Trump has assigned Vice President JD Vance, who sits on the Smithsonian's board, the role of 'seeking to remove improper ideology.' If Vance decides what the Smithsonian can and cannot say about slavery and Jim Crow, for example, then the Smithsonian will teach people only what Vance wants them to learn about those subjects. That influential source of knowledge will push public discussion toward the government's ideology. Read more: Contributor: Daunted by our nation's big problems? The solutions start small and local When government beneficiaries agree to say what the president wants, when the government intimidates speakers into silence, and when the government sharpens its own speech into propaganda, no censorship happens. But in all those scenarios, the government is doing exactly what 1st Amendment law exists to prevent: using official power to make speech less free. Gregory P. Magarian is a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. He is the author of 'Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment.' This article was produced in partnership with the Conversation. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Three ways the government can silence speech without banning it
When most people think of how governments stifle free speech, they think of censorship. That's when a government directly blocks or suppresses speech. In the past, the federal government has censored speech in various ways. It has tried to block news outlets from publishing certain stories. It has punished political dissenters. It has banned sales of 'obscene' books. Today, however, the federal government rarely tries to censor speech so crudely. It has less blatant but very effective ways to suppress dissent. The current actions of the Trump administration show how government can silence speakers without censoring them. My quarter century of research and writing about 1st Amendment rights has explored the varied tools that governments use to smother free expression. Among the present administration's chosen tools: making institutions stop or change their advocacy to get government benefits; inducing self-censorship through intimidation; and molding the government's own speech to promote official ideology. As to the first of those tools, the Supreme Court has made clear that the 1st Amendment bars the government from conditioning benefits on the sacrifice of free speech. Government employers may not refuse to hire employees of the opposing political party, nor may they stop employees from speaking publicly about political issues. The government may not stop funding nonprofits because they refuse to endorse official policies, or because they make arguments the government opposes. The 1st Amendment, however, works only if someone asks a court to enforce it, or at least threatens to do so. The Trump administration has issued orders that withdraw security clearances, cancel government contracts and bar access to government buildings for law firms that have opposed the administration's policies or have advocated for diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Some law firms have sued to block the orders. More firms, however, have made deals with the administration, agreeing to end DEI programs and to do free legal work for conservative causes. The administration similarly has withheld funding from universities that embrace DEI or that, by the administration's account, have fomented or tolerated antisemitism. Harvard University has resisted that pressure. But Columbia University has capitulated to President Trump's demands, which have included cracking down on protests, giving university officials more control over controversial academic programs and hiring more conservative professors. The Supreme Court may ultimately declare the administration's gambits unconstitutional, but the White House has already succeeded in leveraging government benefits to make major institutions change their speech. The Trump administration's second form of indirect speech suppression is even more subtle — intimidating speakers into silence with actions that deter or 'chill' expression without squarely banning it. That means the government may not regulate speech through vague laws that leave lawful speakers uncertain whether the regulation reaches them. For example, the Supreme Court in 1971 struck down a Cincinnati ordinance that criminalized any public assembly the city deemed 'annoying.' Likewise, the government may not make people disclose their identities as a requirement for acquiring controversial literature or for supporting unpopular causes. In the classic case, the Supreme Court during the civil rights era blocked Alabama from making the NAACP disclose its membership list. The mechanisms of chilling speech make it hard to detect, but the current public climate strongly suggests that the Trump administration has dialed down the thermostat. College and university campuses, which rumbled in spring 2024 with protests against the war in Gaza, have gone largely quiet. Large corporations that challenged the first Trump presidency have fallen into line behind the second, as evidenced by the tech leaders who donated to and attended the president's inauguration. Big donors to some liberal causes have folded up their wallets. Some of that dampening likely reflects fatigue and resignation. Much of it, though, appears to reveal successful intimidation. The administration has proclaimed that it is deporting noncitizen students, using their lawful speech as justification. While those expulsions themselves are classic censorship, their hidden reach may be much more effective at stifling expression, even among U.S. citizens. The Trump administration could not lawfully treat citizens as it is treating foreign nationals. But most citizens don't know that. The vivid spectacle of punished protesters seems likely to chill the speech of others. The administration's final tool of indirect speech suppression is propaganda. The 1st Amendment only bars the government from controlling private speech. When the government speaks, it can say what it wants. That means people who speak for the government lack any 1st Amendment right to replace the government's messages with their own. In theory, then, every new federal administration could sweepingly turn government institutions' speech into narrow propaganda. That hasn't happened before, perhaps because most governments realize they are just temporary custodians of an abiding republic. The Trump administration has broken this norm. The administration has ordered the purging of ideologically disfavored content from the Smithsonian museums, implemented book bans in military libraries and installed political supporters to run cultural institutions. None of those actions likely violates the 1st Amendment. All of them, however, have significant implications for free speech. In what may be the most quoted line in the 1st Amendment legal canon, Justice Robert Jackson declared in 1943 that government should never 'prescribe what shall be orthodox … in matters of opinion.' A 21st-century federal government can dramatically skew public discourse by honing government speech with the flint of official ideology. Trump has assigned Vice President JD Vance, who sits on the Smithsonian's board, the role of 'seeking to remove improper ideology.' If Vance decides what the Smithsonian can and cannot say about slavery and Jim Crow, for example, then the Smithsonian will teach people only what Vance wants them to learn about those subjects. That influential source of knowledge will push public discussion toward the government's ideology. When government beneficiaries agree to say what the president wants, when the government intimidates speakers into silence, and when the government sharpens its own speech into propaganda, no censorship happens. But in all those scenarios, the government is doing exactly what 1st Amendment law exists to prevent: using official power to make speech less free. Gregory P. Magarian is a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. He is the author of 'Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment.' This article was produced in partnership with the Conversation.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
PBS sues Trump White House over executive order to cut funding
PBS filed a federal lawsuit Friday asking a court to block the May 1 executive order by the Trump White House to cut off funding to public media, calling the move a violation of the 1st Amendment. The suit from the service that airs "Sesame Street," Ken Burns documentaries and the "PBS NewsHour" for free to millions of American homes, said that Congress has repeatedly protected PBS from political interference by filtering its funds through the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which is not a federal agency. "The [executive order] makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is cutting off the flow of funds to PBS because of the content of PBS programming and out of a desire to alter the content of speech." NPR, which also receives CPB funding, filed a suit on similar grounds on Tuesday. Read more: PBS and NPR on edge over FCC letter and Trump budget scrutiny The White House alleges that PBS has "zero tolerance for non-leftist viewpoints." Trump's order called for an end to government dollars for CPB, the taxpayer-backed entity that has provided funding to NPR and PBS for decades through Congress. Trump called the public media outlets 'left wing propaganda.' The White House press release announcing the order — titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media" — contained 19 bullet points citing news coverage and other content by NPR and PBS that prompted the action. The PBS suit says the data the White House cited to support that view are inaccurate and misrepresent the balanced range of viewpoints presented on PBS programs. The White House has also asserted that government funding of broadcast media is no longer necessary in an era when consumers have a vast array of platforms for information and entertainment. PBS was founded when most of the country only had access to the three commercial broadcast networks and a handful of other TV stations. PBS' suit also says that, regardless of any policy disagreements the administration may have over the role of public television, "our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS." Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
