Latest news with #freeSpeech
Yahoo
3 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.
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Under Trump, State Department questions Europe's commitment to democracy
The Trump administration is stepping up its criticism of long-standing U.S. allies in Western Europe over free speech and other democratic ideals, even as President Donald Trump has pledged to stop lecturing foreign nations and dramatically softened Washington's approach to the world's autocracies. In recent days, Trump officials have made a series of head-spinning moves signaling the foreign policy shift that's underway, with the State Department leading the charge. The administration intends to establish a new office within the department that is focused on 'natural rights' and what officials characterized as 'free speech backsliding' in Europe. It sent a delegation to the continent to scrutinize freedom of expression there, and announced new visa restrictions for European officials whom Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused of targeting American citizens through efforts to police social media discourse.
Reuters
15 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
US appeals court rules for watchdog Media Matters in fight over Texas subpoena
May 30 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's demand for internal records from liberal watchdog group Media Matters, calling the state's probe a retaliatory campaign against the nonprofit. In its ruling, opens new tab, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower judge's order that blocked a Texas subpoena for financial records and other information from Media Matters. 'Tellingly, Paxton has not offered any argument to dispute that the investigation was retaliatory,' Circuit Judge Harry Edwards wrote. Edwards called the Paxton probe 'an arguably bad-faith investigation.' Texas launched its investigation of Media Matters in late 2023, immediately after Elon Musk's social media platform X sued the organization in federal court. In that ongoing lawsuit, X alleges that Media Matters defamed it in a report that said major advertisers' brands had appeared next to right-wing extremist content. Media Matters has defended its reporting. The Texas attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday's ruling. In a statement, Media Matters president and chief executive Angelo Carusone called the court's decision a victory for free speech. A lawyer for Media Matters, Aria Branch, said the D.C. Circuit's decision should warn state attorneys general that "any attempt to intimidate and harass through baseless investigations will be met with decisive rejection from the courts." Texas sought financial records in its request to Media Matters, in addition to communications with major corporate advertisers and X employees. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission recently indicated it is also investigating Media Matters, according to a document seen by Reuters. The FTC, in a civil investigative demand, asked Media Matters to hand over any communications it had with other groups that evaluate misinformation and hate speech in news and social media. Carusone blasted the FTC probe in a prior statement and said the Trump administration has abused 'the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics." A spokesperson for the FTC declined to comment on the Reuters report. The case is Media Matters for America et al v. Texas Attorney General Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 24-7059. For Media Matters: Aria Branch of Elias Law Group For Paxton: Lanora Pettit of the Texas attorney general's office Read more: FTC probes Media Matters over Musk's X boycott claims, document shows Media Matters accuses Musk's X of 'abusive' tactics in new lawsuit Musk's X likely to lose records appeal in Media Matters case, court says
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.'
Bloomberg
a day ago
- General
- Bloomberg
Harvard's Commencement Showcased a United University
A year can make a transformational difference in the life of an institution. That's what has happened at Harvard, where students and faculty gave President Alan Garber a standing ovation at commencement Thursday — just a year after protests disrupted graduation ceremonies when hundreds of students walked out. A year ago, student speakers denounced the university's administration and its trustees, who were sitting behind them. On Thursday, the speakers expressed pride in that same leadership for sticking to the university's principles and standing up for free inquiry and free expression. What happened in between? The answer is, at least partly, that Donald Trump happened. In the 16 months following Hamas' attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Harvard was embroiled in internal conflicts over Gaza, Israel, Palestine and the boundaries of campus free speech. Then on April 11, 2024, the Trump administration sent the school a list of outrageous demands, threatening to end billions in federal research funding if it failed to comply. In response, the university made the only decision possible to protect its academic freedom and integrity: It sued and became the de facto leading institution in resisting executive overreach.
