In the 1990s, I was interviewed by this reporter, Naftali BenDavid, then with the Washington Legal Times.
From The Washington Post:
Trump’s opponents see a sweeping crackdown on free speech
In an effort to stamp out “woke” racial and gender messages, critics say, the president is running afoul of the First Amendment
Together, critics — and in some cases, judges — have said Trump’s efforts have gone beyond shaping the message of the federal government to threaten the First Amendment rights of private groups and individuals.
You can claim that you are championing expression and are a free-speech supporter, but saying those things doesn’t change what are a number of steps that add up to government censorship,” said Michelle Deutchman, executive director of the National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement at the University of California. “The government is using content-based and even viewpoint-based discrimination to make decisions about what words and thoughts people can express.”
Trump’s orders banning DEI efforts threaten organizations receiving federal money if they advocate for diversity and inclusion. That violates the First Amendment, a judge said recently, because it targets “viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish.”
Another Trump directive, forbidding schools nationwide from teaching about “gender ideology” or “discriminatory equity ideology,” is drawing similar criticism from free-speech advocates, who say the president has no authority to punish local school districts for teaching ideas he rejects.
Trump’s orders banning DEI efforts threaten organizations receiving federal money if they advocate for diversity and inclusion. That violates the First Amendment, a judge said recently, because it targets “viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish.”
Another Trump directive, forbidding schools nationwide from teaching about “gender ideology” or “discriminatory equity ideology,” is drawing similar criticism from free-speech advocates, who say the president has no authority to punish local school districts for teaching ideas he rejects.
Trump’s assault on progressive speech has been largely, though not exclusively, in the service of beating back what he and his supporters depict as a “woke” leftism that proclaims America a racist country and gender a social construct.
In many ways, this is the latest — and perhaps most ferocious — chapter in a long-running cultural battle. Conservatives have complained for years that liberals bully and vilify them if they depart from progressive orthodoxy. Progressives say it is Republicans who are mounting a sweeping assault on free speech, seeking to punish those who dare to raise America’s troubled racial past or explore the complex subject of gender identity.
Trump has charged aggressively into this volatile terrain.
The sternest rebuke to his approach so far may have come from U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, who on Feb. 21 largely suspended Trump’s orders targeting DEI programs. The judge said a requirement that anyone receiving federal grants or contracts must certify that they do not promote DEI “on its face” violates freedom of speech.
Trump’s assault on progressive speech has been largely, though not exclusively, in the service of beating back what he and his supporters depict as a “woke” leftism that proclaims America a racist country and gender a social construct.
In many ways, this is the latest — and perhaps most ferocious — chapter in a long-running cultural battle. Conservatives have complained for years that liberals bully and vilify them if they depart from progressive orthodoxy. Progressives say it is Republicans who are mounting a sweeping assault on free speech, seeking to punish those who dare to raise America’s troubled racial past or explore the complex subject of gender identity.
Trump has charged aggressively into this volatile terrain.
The sternest rebuke to his approach so far may have come from U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, who on Feb. 21 largely suspended Trump’s orders targeting DEI programs. The judge said a requirement that anyone receiving federal grants or contracts must certify that they do not promote DEI “on its face” violates freedom of speech.
Another part of the orders, threatening action against companies that promote DEI, is also “facially unconstitutional,” the judge said. Noting that the administration had not issued similar warnings to those who oppose DEI, he added, “That is textbook viewpoint-based discrimination.”
The administration has appealed the ruling. “The administration feels that every order that they have signed is legal and within its Article II powers, and we feel the Supreme Court will have the final say in our favor if it goes that far,” the senior official said.
Critics cite other examples of what they call a reckless approach to free speech.
Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has warned Comcast Corp. that a statement on its website saying “diversity, equity and inclusion are a core value of our business” might violate federal regulations, for example.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Douglas A. Collins has banned the display of gay pride and similar flags in employees’ private offices and cubicles. Collins said the new guidelines would bring “consistency and simplicity to the display of flags,” but some employees complain that the administration is going out of its way to target their personal identity and expression.
Outside the government, universities, companies and nonprofits around the country are rapidly removing statements that support DEI for fear of provoking the administration’s wrath. In the view of many free-speech experts, that is a classic “chilling effect” prompted by a government threat, even if the courts may eventually overturn some of Trump’s actions.
“The law moves more slowly than what is happening right now,” Deutchman said. “Even during the time when it is getting challenged in court and gets a preliminary injunction, some of the damage is already happening. It’s beyond a chilling effect — it’s more like a freeze.”
Martin, the chief federal prosecutor in Washington, fired off a letter to Garcia demanding that the congressman “clarify” his remarks. “This sounds to some like a threat to Mr. Musk,” Martin wrote. “We take threats against public officials very seriously.”
Garcia said that was a pretext to go after speech critical of the administration. “I will not be silenced,” he posted on X.
Trump and his aides see the landscape through a very different prism, insisting they are not imposing speech restrictions but dissolving them.
Within hours of taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship.” Some free-speech advocates welcomed the order, which broadly directed federal agencies not to trample on free expression.
Rick Hess, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agreed that some of the concerns about Trump’s actions are valid. But he said Biden also threatened private speech when he was in office, for example, with an executive order promoting DEI.
“There is a game of one-upmanship,” Hess said. “You did not hear the same voices raising the same concerns when President Biden did his whole-of-government equity order, which for many on the right raised similar concerns.”
In recent years, he added, some colleges have required job applicants to submit statements attesting to their commitment to DEI.
“Context is important,” Hess said of Trump’s actions. “It’s not like there were only wonderful, healthy First Amendment precedents, then this. This is part of a pattern.”
Yet Trump and his allies have gone after news organizations, using tactics that are unprecedented in recent memory.
After Trump proclaimed that the Gulf of Mexico should be called the “Gulf of America,” the Associated Press — noting that the body of water also borders Mexico and Cuba — decided to stick with the name that had been in use for more than 400 years.
The White House said the AP was “lying” by using that name and banned the news organization from spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One, which are critical for covering the president. The AP has sued, saying “the press and all the people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government.”
The White House responded that getting to ask the president questions is a privilege, not a right. A judge has declined to order the AP’s immediate reinstatement as the case unfolds.
Even before he took office, Trump sued the Des Moines Register and its pollster, J. Ann Selzer, complaining that a pre-election poll that wrongly showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading in Iowa was a form of fraud. (Trump won Iowa 56-43 percent.)
“The Harris Poll was no ‘miss’ but rather an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2024 Presidential Election,” the suit claimed, without providing evidence. Selzer’s lawyers called that assertion “a transparent attempt to punish news coverage and analysis of a political campaign.”
Of potentially greater concern to free-press advocates, White House officials recently announced that they, not the White House press corps, would decide which reporters get access to the president through the press pool, a rotation for covering smaller events.
Journalists from an array of outlets said the move would allow the White House to punish some organizations and reward others for their coverage. “In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps,” the White House Correspondents’ Association said in a statement.
The senior administration official said the move was aimed at including more news organizations in the coverage. “We’ve been very clear that the move to shake up the press briefing room is about allowing more access, not less, to the president in the more intimate parts of the White House,” the official said. “This is about expanding access, not limiting access.”
Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said people in power often want to control the conversation in ways the U.S. Constitution forbids.
“It’s always a struggle. Free speech is about power, and those who have power are often interested in retaining it,” Iodice said. “Controlling speech is one way to do that. So there is always this impulse to chip away at First Amendment protections.”
2 comments:
This is their reaction to people trying to shut them out in ways over their unwillingness to get with some program. Actions have consequences. At any rate, it's not like they can throw people in jail just over verbal disagreement. We still have some semblance of a court system although they haven't been very active over the last 20 years or we wouldn't be in this mess. The GOP letting anyone step into their party and run for president probably hasn't helped either. So much for merit based this and that.
It's the military's duty to support and defend the Constitution and take out Orange Hilter and JD Vance. If anyone has a problem with that afterwards, Air Force should bomb the terrorists into the Stone Age.
Post a Comment