Latest news with #censorship
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Don't carry on regardless! Ofcom are accused of censorship in free speech row over old TV comedies
Ofcom has been accused of censorship by TV bosses amid a row over the airing of old TV comedies. Smaller TV channels have said the regulator's powers can disproportionately affect them as the prospect of even a single fine for a breach of rules could put them out of business. Campaigners have slammed the 'lottery' of rules for old classics including Carry On films such as Carry On Regardless! Ofcom does not have a list of banned words or phrases, but those in the industry have criticised its guidelines for changing frequently with little rhyme or reason. Responding to criticism, Ofcom this month released a statement denying any censorship, and insisting broadcasters had editorial independence to decide what they air. Jonathan Moore, chief executive of RewindTV, told the Telegraph the response 'blatantly ignores' the reality of broadcasting, and is calling for old TV favourites to have special protections under the code. Mr Moore said: 'Many broadcasters live in permanent fear of falling foul of Ofcom guidelines – small companies could fold if they're hit with a fine and so, inevitably, they are forced to take a 'safety-first' approach when it comes to censorship. 'That means more and more content ends up cut, damaging the authenticity of classic shows needlessly.' He would like to see a 'presumption of innocence' implemented which would protect companies if something offensive was broadcast in an isolated incident, but would punish repeat offenders. RewindTV is among a number of channels including Talking Pictures TV and That's TV that have built up modest but loyal audiences through their slate of nostalgic hits. But it means much of their content contains offensive or outdated views and language. In an example of the type of minefield broadcasters face, a recent showing of the 1983 comedy Brass starring Timothy West saw the word 'queer' cut from the edit, but 'nancy boys' and 'pansies' were left in. Mr Moore has argued that viewers of his RewindTV are far more likely to know exactly the type of content they will be viewing that if it was broadcast in primetime slots on major channels. He told the paper: 'The chances of our viewers being upset by shows such as Doctor in the House or Carry On Laughing are small – they are far more likely to take umbrage at the sort of adult language that is now the norm on mainstream broadcasters. 'But it's not appropriate for us to dictate to those broadcasters' audiences any more than it is appropriate for others to dictate to our audience.' A spokesman for Ofcom said: 'Ofcom is not a censor. Freedom of expression is at the heart of our broadcasting rules – and these rules do not prevent the broadcast of content that may be offensive or controversial to some audiences. 'Each broadcaster has editorial freedom to decide the type of programmes or films it airs.'
Yahoo
11 hours 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.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Fox News stars want Scott Pelley arrested and ‘60 Minutes' canceled over anti-Trump free speech defense
After spending the past few years railing against the Biden administration for its supposed attacks on free speech and censorship of social media platforms, Fox News is now calling for a CBS News journalist to be locked up and his show canceled for warning college graduates that 'freedom of speech is under attack.' What appears to be most rankling to the conservative news network's stars are Scott Pelley's comments in a commencement speech at Wake Forest that were sharply directed at President Donald Trump. A week after Pelley delivered an impassioned address, clearly targeted at Trump, MAGA world fully melted down over it after clips were shared online by a pro-Trump account. The speech went viral over the Memorial Day weekend as conservatives lashed out in anger and Fox News picked up the mantle after the holiday. 'Does he hate half the country as much as he hates President Trump?' anchor Harris Faulkner huffed on Tuesday morning's broadcast of The Faulkner Focus. 'He never mentions anything about the 76 million people who voted for Trump as being valuable and loved in the country. He goes after the man they voted for.' The portion that specifically incensed conservatives and Trump supporters was Pelley — whose network is currently facing a $20 billion lawsuit from the president over an edited 60 Minutes interview of Kamala Harris in the stretch run of the presidential campaign — having referenced Trump's attacks on the media and the nation's sacred institutions. The longtime 60 Minutes correspondent did not mention the president by name. 'But in this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack,' he declared. 'Freedom of speech is under attack. And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes, and into our private thoughts. The fear to speak in America.' Noting that 'ignorance works for power,' Pelley also pointed out that they first 'make the truth-seekers live in fear' when they 'sue the journalists and their companies for nothing,' an apparent reference to the president's lawsuit. Paramount, the parent company of CBS, is considering a settlement of that complaint in an effort to coax the Trump administration to approve a mega-merger with Skydance Media. The possibility of settling a lawsuit that legal experts describe as frivolous has resulted in the abrupt resignations of 60 Minutes' executive producer and CBS News' chief, along with Democratic senators suggesting that the company could be breaking anti-bribery laws. Pelley also took aim at the administration's efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. 'With that done, power can rewrite history with grotesque, false narratives,' he stated. 'They can make criminals heroes and heroes criminals. Power can change the definition of the words we use to describe reality. Diversity is now described as illegal. Equity is to be shunned. Inclusion is a dirty word.' Faulkner wasn't done with her hyperbolic and breathless indignation over Pelley's speech. During the midday roundtable show Outnumbered, which she co-anchors, she seemingly accused CBS News of antisemitism while suggesting the White House could soon turn its attention to shutting down the network. 'We know what is happening. They are losing their relevancy and soon will be losing their funding,' she said, perhaps confusing CBS with PBS, which Trump directed to be defunded by an executive order this month. Referencing a previous interview with former Fox News pundit Leo Terrell, who now leads the president's so-called antisemitism task force, Faulkner noted that Terrell told her 'we are not stopping with Harvard' and will be going after other institutions. 'The administration has an answer for this,' she concluded. 'And Scott Pelley – well, I don't know – maybe it won't be 60 Minutes anymore. Maybe he can just go on a speaking tour.' Former Trump press secretary turned Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany went even further during Tuesday's broadcast of top-rated panel show The Five. After the network's resident 'comedian' Greg Gutfeld jokingly brushed off Pelley's warnings by pointing out 'he wasn't arrested after that,' McEnany called for that very thing to happen. 'He should have been, because there was an overt lie,' she exclaimed. 'What do you know about journalism being under attack? What does he know about that? I mean, 60 Minutes should be reduced to zero minutes.' Grumbling that Pelley recently interviewed a Democratic attorney for a segment on Trump targeting law firms, one of several 60 Minutes reports that have drawn the president's ire, McEnany fumed that Pelley knows 'nothing about journalism' and that his commencement speech was a 'load of garbage.' Naturally, the right-wing network's primetime lineup – which includes the president's shadow chief of staff Sean Hannity – kept the outrage flowing through the evening. 'Scott's still a whiny liberal and still bitter,' Laura Ingraham growled during an eight-minute show-opening monologue about Pelley's speech. 'What he will never admit is his own role of tanking the credibility of the press he supposedly is so desperate to save. His influence has waned, the power of his old network is gone. And now he's not shy about showing the rank bias we knew he harbored all along.' Hannity, meanwhile, complained that the former CBS Evening News anchor's address was 'full of rage and anti-Trump rhetoric,' adding that Pelley is a 'biased liberal radical talk show host and here's the proof.' The evidence, according to the Fox News star, was Pelley saying that 'journalism is under attack.'
Telegraph
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Ofcom accused of censorship in Carry On free speech row
Ofcom has been accused of censorship by TV bosses in a deepening free speech row over classic comedy. Campaigners have accused the regulator of creating a 'culture of fear' through its rules on language and offence in golden oldie favourites such as Please Sir! and the Carry On series. They argue that the overly stringent rules and the fear of being subjected to a crippling fine amount to censorship. While Ofcom does not operate a blacklist of banned words and phrases, TV bosses have complained they are hostages to an arbitrary and ever-changing set of guidelines. Ofcom has insisted it is not a censor and earlier this month issued a statement insisting broadcasters had editorial freedom to decide what they air. But Jonathan Moore, chief executive of RewindTV, said Ofcom's response 'blatantly ignores' the reality of broadcasting and urged the regulator to 'come clean' about how much pressure it puts on small channels. He said: 'Many broadcasters live in permanent fear of falling foul of Ofcom guidelines – small companies could fold if they're hit with a fine and so, inevitably, they are forced to take a 'safety-first' approach when it comes to censorship. 'That means more and more content ends up cut, damaging the authenticity of classic shows needlessly.' Mr Moore called on the regulator to update its guidelines to recognise the importance of protecting classic British shows. One proposed change is a 'presumption of innocence' that would exempt broadcasters from punishment if they show material that is deemed offensive, but would ensure Ofcom has the power to take action against repeat offenders. Campaigners have previously suggested that classic comedy should be granted an exemption from modern broadcasting rules because of their cultural and historical significance in the same way that vintage cars are exempt from road tax and VAT. They have also said they are willing to show a 'trigger warning' before any programme starts to alert viewers to potentially outdated content. RewindTV is among a small number of channels – which also includes Talking Pictures TV and That's TV – that have built up modest but loyal audiences through their slate of nostalgic hits. However, the prevalence of old-fashioned language, themes and viewpoints in these films and TV programmes has triggered a clash with regulators. TV executives acknowledge that some viewpoints have no place in the modern age. But they argue that Ofcom's guidance on specific words is 'little more than a lottery'. For example, in a recent broadcast of 1983 comedy-drama Brass starring Timothy West, the word 'queer' was cut but its synonyms 'nancy boys' and 'pansies' were left in. Mr Moore argued that viewers should be granted greater authority to decide what they consider offensive. He said: 'The sort of people tuning in to RewindTV comedies are likely to know what they're going to get in terms of content, and the rules should reflect that. 'The chances of our viewers being upset by shows such as Doctor in the House or Carry On Laughing are small – they are far more likely to take umbrage at the sort of adult language that is now the norm on mainstream broadcasters. 'But it's not appropriate for us to dictate to those broadcasters' audiences any more than it is appropriate for others to dictate to our audience.' A spokesman for Ofcom said: 'Ofcom is not a censor. Freedom of expression is at the heart of our broadcasting rules – and these rules do not prevent the broadcast of content that may be offensive or controversial to some audiences. 'Each broadcaster has editorial freedom to decide the type of programmes or films it airs.'
