Good news. From The New York Times:
Jane Fonda Revives Her Father’s McCarthy-Era Free Speech Group
The actress joined Spike Lee, Billie Eilish, Pedro Pascal and others in reviving the Committee for the First Amendment, a group that her father, Henry Fonda, was a member of in the 1940s.
Reporting from Los Angeles
Jane Fonda and hundreds of members of the entertainment industry have revived the Committee for the First Amendment, a free-expression group that was originally formed by Hollywood stars including her father, Henry Fonda, during the McCarthy era.
The original group was formed in 1947 to oppose the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee, whose investigations into the film industry led to the blacklist of actors, writers and directors who were suspected of Communist sympathies. The original Committee for the First Amendment included Mr. Fonda, Lucille Ball, Judy Garland, Humphrey Bogart, Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra and others who rallied to defend free expression.
In announcing the revival of the group, Ms. Fonda and the other new members recalled the “dark time when the federal government repressed and persecuted American citizens for their political beliefs” and warned that “those forces have returned.”
“The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry,” they said in a statement, which was signed by Ms. Fonda, Spike Lee, Billie Eilish, Pedro Pascal and more than 800 others.
In a video posted on her social media account Wednesday night, Ms. Fonda, 87, said that she was heartened by the many people who had reached out seeking to be added to the committee. Still, she said, “We’re not looking to build an organization. We’re looking to grow a movement.”
She called for “creative, nonviolent noncooperation” and held up, as one example, the move by some to cancel their Disney+ subscriptions after the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended by ABC.
“We’re artists, we’re creatives,” she said. “Freedom of expression is essential to what we do.”
Though the committee’s statement condemned the federal government, it did not explicitly mention President Trump or any member of his administration. The White House appeared to get the message nonetheless, issuing a statement that attacked Ms. Fonda and what they said were her “bad opinions.”
“As someone who actually knows what it’s like to be censored, President Trump is a strong supporter of free speech and Democrat allegations to the contrary are so false, they’re laughable,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement.
The New York Times wrote about the original Committee for the First Amendment when it was formed 78 years ago, in October 1947. At that time, the House committee was “conducting an inquiry into the degree of Communist infiltration in the film industry,” according to a Times report. Several actors had been summoned to Washington to testify.
Another group of actors formed the Committee for the First Amendment to oppose the inquiry. Twenty-five actors on the committee, including Mr. Bogart and John Huston, flew to Washington to protest the inquiry. A radio program that the group produced was broadcast nationwide.
Organizers of the renewed effort have posted the radio program online.
“Hollywood fights back!” a man intones to begin it.
Ms. Garland is the first of many stars to speak. “It’s one thing if someone says we’re not good actors. That hurts. But we can take that,” she said. “It’s something again to say we’re not good Americans. We resent that!”
Matt Stevens is a Times reporter who writes about arts and culture from Los Angeles.
The Latest on the Trump Administration
Address to Military Leaders: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has identified real problems, veteran officers say, but by looking back 35 years for policy cues, he risks hurting military readiness. Hegseth also suggested women were getting into combat not because they met high standards, but because they were given a pass.
Drug Cartels: President Trump has decided that the United States is engaged in a formal “armed conflict” with drug cartels and a notice called the people the U.S. military recently killed on suspicion of drug smuggling in the Caribbean Sea “unlawful combatants.”
Lisa Cook: The Supreme Court deferred a decision on the president’s efforts to oust the Federal Reserve governor and instead set oral arguments in the case for January. Despite the temporary legal victory, the Fed’s independence is still at risk.
Government Shutdown: The Trump administration took steps to maximize the pain of the shutdown, halting billions of dollars in funds for Democratic-led states while readying a plan to lay off potentially droves of civil servants imminently.
National Endowment for the Humanities: In an effort to bring the agency in line with Trump’s priorities, the White House fired members of an outside advisory group that meets to discuss grants and ways to promote the humanities.
Online Drugstore: Trump and top health officials announced a website to help consumers buy drugs directly from manufacturers. Here's how it could affect drug costs.
How We Report on the Trump Administration
Hundreds of readers asked about our coverage of the president. Times editors and reporters responded to some of the most common questions.
Too many comments not posted in this public forum. Ban Ed Slavin from all county buildings because of the dissonance and of course it's a liability because of all the fake news.
ReplyDeleteUnAmerican comment.
DeleteThe First Amendment, in its majesty, protects your rights and mine. I am under no obligation to post your posts. Who are you? How many posts have you submitted? How many times, under what names? You sound like "you need a checkup from the neck up," in the immortal phrase of the late, great Senior Special Agent Robert E. Tyndall, my late friend and former client, heroic EPA Office of Inspector General Senior Special Agent, who won a landmark USDOL environmental whistleblower precedent protecting the right of law enforcement people to request recusals and resist case-fixing,
ReplyDeleteYour Anonymice comments seem obsessed with silencing free speech. https://cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com/2025/06/respecting-and-honoring-our-right-to.html
ReplyDeleteYour posting this comment on a post about First Amendment rights suggests you are unhinged, untethered to fact, and unadorned by self-respect or respect for others' rights.
ReplyDeletehttps://cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com/2025/04/on-january-8-2020-i-posted-on-this-blog.html
ReplyDeleteOur Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 586 U.S. 215 (2015) that content-based laws targeting free speech rights require "strict scrutiny." North Carolina's Supreme Court explained in Moore v. City of Creedmoor, 345 N.C. 356 (1997):
ReplyDelete“[Citizens] have a right to assert a public complaint concerning the negligence of public officials and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment guarantees the right to criticize police officers. See Norwell v. City of Cincinnati, 414 U.S. 14, 94 S.Ct. 187, 38 L.Ed.2d 170 (1973) (protecting the right to non-provocative voicing of objections to police action); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) (protecting the right to criticize police chief in context of libel lawsuit). It should also be noted that once the government has opened a forum-such as a public meeting-to allow direct citizen involvement, it may not discriminate between speakers based upon the content of their speech. Madison Joint Sch. Dist. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167, 176, 97 S.Ct. 421, 426, 50 L.Ed.2d 376, 385 (1976).
10. In the "Pentagon Papers" case, a new Nixon-appointed trial judge, U.S. District Court Judge Murray Gurfein (later an appellate judge) famously wrote, ""The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know." United States v. New York Times Co., 328 F. Supp. 324, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). Stop violating our "prized" American constitutional rights. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941). Café Erotica v. St. Johns County, 360 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2004) struck down our County's overbroad zoning regulation of a business owner's large billboard criticizing the County's code enforcement officer, Mr. James Acosta, as a "fat ass Barney Fife," one who allegedly cost our County thousands of dollars in "lost lawsuits" due to selective enforcement.
Yeah false narratives involving other people isn't simply free speech. If it's not true it's called defamation. How about if you don't "owe people" public comment here and expect it for yourself elsewhere then you're crazy.
DeleteIncoherent. "Why do the heathen rage?" (Pslam 2).
ReplyDelete"Your sins have found you out." (Numbers 32:23). Go get your own blog, "Pete."
ReplyDelete