But individual writers, especially without the protection of a big media company, may think twice before publishing pieces that could land them in the White House’s crosshairs. Many media outlets and correspondents are pressing forward fearlessly, making this a heyday for certain types of hard-hitting coverage. When we have consulted our members, writers and journalists working across the U.S., they have told us they take into account in their writing that criticism of the administration might put them at risk. Others in the media cannot help but take notice that an angry president may strike back. Trump threatened to withdraw the press credentials of reporters who criticized him in August CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was barred from a Rose Garden press conference for asking questions the White House judged impertinent. In other cases, too, the president seems to be retaliating against individuals for their coverage. Coming in the wake of the president’s eruptions directed at the Post, that order too appears to be punitive.
This spring the president followed through on his threats, ordering the Postal Service to review rates for the online shopping behemoth. Trump has also repeatedly attacked the Washington Post and threatened to target its owner Jeff Bezos’s biggest holding, Amazon. But the judge rejected the government’s challenge and approved the merger with no conditions imposed, citing the government’s failure to adduce “economic evidence of any kind” and reliance on “bare conjecture” as the basis for its case. The government denied that retaliation was at work and the court did not assess that claim. President Trump has engaged repeatedly in precisely the kind of behavior those courts have found unlawful.Īfter repeatedly attacking CNN’s news coverage as “fake,” “garbage” and “terrible” and personally pledging to block a proposed merger of its parent company, Time Warner, with AT&T, the Trump administration opposed the deal, a vertical merger that would not normally attract antitrust scrutiny. A 2015 judicial opinion by the Seventh Circuit’s (now-retired) Judge Richard Posner makes clear that “a public official who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions through actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction is violating the First Amendment.” Similarly, a 2003 Second Circuit opinion found that the First Amendment was violated when an official’s statements “can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request.’” While the president’s actions are unprecedented, the law here is established.
Trump freedom of spress free#
That is why this week PEN America, an organization of writers that defends free expression, together with the nonprofit organization Protect Democracy and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Clinic, is filing suit in federal court seeking an order directing the president not to use the force of his office to exact reprisals against the press. Presidents are free to mock, needle, evade and even demean the press, but not to use the power of government to stifle it. Using the force of the presidency to punish or suppress legally protected speech strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, contravening the Constitution.
Worse still, in several cases it appears that the bureaucracy he controls has acted on his demands, making other threats he issues to use his governmental powers more credible.
When President Trump proposes government retribution against news outlets and reporters, his statements cross the line. Although the president can launch verbal tirades against the press, he cannot use the powers of his office to suppress or punish speech he doesn’t like. The president has free-speech rights just like the rest of us, and deeming the news media “the enemy of the American people” and dismissing accurate reports as “fake news” are permissible under the First Amendment.īut the First Amendment does not protect all speech. To be sure, a good portion of President Trump’s verbal attacks on journalists and news organizations might be considered fair game in this bare-knuckled political moment. In the Trump era, nasty rhetoric, insults and even threats of violence have become an occupational hazard for political reporters and commentators. Trump’s frequent threats and hostile acts directed toward journalists and the media are not only offensive and unbecoming of a democratic leader they are also illegal.
0 kommentar(er)
