“The algorithm won’t push posts that aren’t dramatic enough,” Keller said. “If I want something to go viral, I need to communicate differently.”
Popularity and popular elections
Effects of algorithms can be seen all around the world. In Romania, the 2024 presidential election was annulled due to alleged disinformation on social media platforms. During the 2022 national election campaign in the Philippines, social media played a significant role in the rapid spread of disinformation narratives.
In Germany, social media significantly influenced the 10% increase in votes in the recent election for the far right party Alternative for Germany(AfD) compared to 2021. A notable factor was Elon Musk’s promotion of the AfD on Twitter.
In Switzerland, direct democracy allows citizens to vote directly on laws and policies. This system is a core part of its governance, with frequent referendums and initiatives shaping political decisions.
On average, there are 3-4 national votes per year, which could make the direct democracy even more susceptible to social media than other types of democracies, as people get to vote on smaller issues than presidential elections, which only happen once every four years. This makes the political processes more inclusive.
As online campaigns grow more popular, social media can play a larger role in votes. However, Switzerland still relies heavily on traditional media sources for political news consumption. A recent report by research and consulting firm Publicom AG found that 58% of voters form their opinions through radio, TV or print media. Most of these are neutral and based on the information given by the national news agency SRG. That means there is less polarization.
A generational change
By contrast, only 16% actively turn to social media to establish a viewpoint. However, these numbers may be misleading. The popularity of social media has been on the rise; for instance, in 2017, just 12% of the population sourced their news from these platforms. It is also important to note that the study groups all voters into one category.
When focusing specifically on the younger demographic, aged 15–29, the shift is more pronounced. In this age group, social media usage for news has increased by 11 percentage points since 2020, now reaching 40%.
Despite the significant engagement of young people with news through social media, Switzerland’s democratic system remains largely unaffected. Keller said that the average voter in the country is approximately 55.
While the influence of social media in Switzerland right now may only be marginal, this could change in the future, once these younger generations, which heavily rely on social media for news, enter the political landscape.
Many of the students we go to school with acknowledged that social media shapes their beliefs. “It depends on how reliable the source is,” said one 16-year old who we spoke to. “But if a lot of people say the same thing and if I also hear it on multiple platforms, then I’ll probably start believing it too.”
Positive aspects of social media
A repeated theme seemed to be, appropriately, repetition. Our schoolmates seem to equate repetition with credibility. “I think it could [influence my beliefs], if I see the same information multiple times across multiple platforms,” said one student, aged 15.
Another said that he would question the information he sees but ultimately he would end up believing it. “If I see 10 posts about the CDU [German political party], for example, and they are all positive, I think about what their arguments are, and if they make sense, then yeah, I think I’d believe it,” he said.
So even though it might not be necessary to implement additional regulations regarding the usage of social media in political campaigns right now, it might become necessary in the future as social media continues to grow in importance.
Social media in the political process isn’t all about misinformation. It can also provide a platform for people to discuss political issues, regardless of their party. Keller sees social media as an opportunity.
“I’m more of an optimist than a pessimist,” Keller said.
For example, Keller said, if he wanted to start a referendum campaign, he could post about that and find other people to help organize it. That also allows people the opportunity to communicate directly with politicians.
“Nowadays a lot of them are on social media platforms,” he said. “You can tell them your opinion directly … and sometimes they even reply.”
For more about the power of repetition in news coverage check out this News Decoder Top Tip.
Three questions to consider:
1. How can a single social media post affect an election? 2. What do the authors mean by politicians becoming “personalities”? 3. In what ways are you influenced by what you read or see on social media?
Recently, on a WBUR public radio program with Willis Ryder Arnold and Deborah Becker, author and leading First Amendment attorney James Goodale had some things to say about Donald Trump’s attempts to intimidate the press.
He has been called “the father of the reporter’s privilege” in the Hastings Law Journal because of his interpretation of the Branzburg case.
And now on to Goodale’s comments on WBUR regarding Trump:
So, if you’re not going to fight for your creativity, you’re not going to have a company left. And that applies not only to newspapers, but obviously movies, too. And let me say also, finally, that if you don’t fight, what Trump is going to do, he’s going to go from media company to media company with quasi true cases and pick up money. He’s just on a . . . bribery trail. And I say that from some experience here in New York City, which is exactly what he did before he ran for president. He’d sue everybody who was in the media business and drive them nuts, and the cases would finally go away.
But guess what? It cost the media company some bucks to defend it.
[. . .]
I believe that once the press starts making settlements where it has no real basis, in my humble opinion, for making them, it undercuts that whole role, and more importantly, I think it encourages someone like Trump to keep on doing it.
Similarly, in an exchange with Trevor Timm for The Freedom of the Press Foundation on Feb. 12, Goodale had this to say:
If CBS decides to settle [the “60 Minutes” lawsuit], it will be an absolute disaster for the press. It would be one more domino falling down, handing Trump an undeserved victory against the press. . . . [ABC’s] cowardly settling its case in which George Stephanopoulos said “rape” instead of “sexual abuse,” but since then, Facebook has settled Trump’s even more outlandish suit, and for what? CBS should be standing up and fighting Trump. If I’m them, I’m not letting Trump make me look foolish. Because if it happens, there will be no end. Trump will bring lawsuits against every part of the media, and it will put pressure on everyone else to settle.
Let me make clear that the lawsuit is a bunch of nonsense. Trump’s legal theory doesn’t exist anywhere in the law, and so not only is the settlement bad in terms of putting the onus on everyone else to settle, but the entire premise of the lawsuit is ridiculous. News outlets are allowed to edit interviews! Hard to believe it even has to be said.
[ . . . ]
The suit is from Mars. To my knowledge, I’ve never seen a suit brought like this one where editing is being criticized as constituting consumer fraud. It has no basis in law as far as I’m concerned, and what’s going to happen — if, in fact, the case is settled — is there will be more consumer fraud cases every time the media edits an interview, not only with Trump, but other politicians. And the First Amendment will suffer.
[ . . . ]
[And] the response by the press as we speak has been pathetic. There’s no spokesperson for the press who is out there leading the charge and coordinating a united front with all the news outlets on the same page.
Related
Revenge Storm: ‘Chill all the Lawyers’
“Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.” — Pamela Bondi (Confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General, Jan. 15)
“There are a lot of people in the FBI and also in the DOJ who despise Donald Trump, despise us, don’t want to be there. We will find them. Because you have to believe in transparency, you have to believe in honesty, you have to do the right thing. We’re gonna root them out and they will no longer be employed.” — Pamela Bondi (March 3)
WATCH VIDEO: Trump Signs Anti-Weaponization Executive Order: ‘The Deranged Jack Smith Signing!’
The administration is acting in ways that will necessarily chill a growing number of lawyers from participating in any litigation against the federal government, regardless of who the client is. That, in turn, will make it harder for many clients adverse to the Trump administration to find lawyers to represent them — such that at least some cases either won’t be brought at all or won’t be brought by the lawyers best situated to bring them.
[ . . . ]
[W]hat the Trump administration is doing is far more than just bad behavior; it’s a direct threat to the rule of law—almost as much as defying court orders would be.
Related
Executive Watch
President Donald Trump and his ally Elon Musk portray themselves as near-absolutists when it comes to free speech, engaged in an epic fight to let Americans speak openly again after years of enduring liberal efforts to shut down conservative voices.
But since taking office, the president has mounted what critics call his own sweeping attack on freedom of expression. Some of it aims to stamp out diversity, equity and inclusion and what he terms “radical gender ideology.” Some of it is aimed at media organizations whose language he dislikes. In other cases, the attacks target opponents who have spoken sharply about the administration.
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.
New report on state threats to free speech advocacy and donor privacy
Hurt feelings from the campaign trail fuel retaliatory disclosure demands across the U.S.
Legislative and regulatory proposals in as many as 34 states pose a potential threat to the privacy and free speech rights of donors to the nonprofit community, a new report finds. People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF), a national privacy rights advocacy group, warns that state officials are increasingly targeting the ability of nonprofit supporters to maintain their privacy as political polarization rises.
“After a bruising campaign season, many politicians are out for revenge against the groups and donors that dared to criticize them. These efforts reach far beyond traditional political committees to target nonprofits that discuss elected officials’ voting records or advocate on policy issues. Forcing nonprofits to publish their supporters’ names and home addresses is an intimidation tactic that chills free speech and violates personal privacy,” said PUFPF Vice President Matt Nese, a co-author of the report.
The report, “2025 State Threats to Donor Privacy and Nonprofit Advocacy,” analyzes current and past legislation, regulatory proposals, and statements by public officials to catalog potential threats to donor privacy in state legislative sessions occurring across the country.
Forthcoming book on how foreign authoritarian influence undermines freedom and integrity within American higher education
Sarah McLaughlin
A revealing exposé on how foreign authoritarian influence is undermining freedom and integrity within American higher education institutions.
In an era of globalized education, where ideals of freedom and inquiry should thrive, an alarming trend has emerged: foreign authoritarian regimes infiltrating American academia. In Authoritarians in the Academy, Sarah McLaughlin exposes how higher education institutions, long considered bastions of free thought, are compromising their values for financial gain and global partnerships.
This groundbreaking investigation reveals the subtle yet sweeping influence of authoritarian governments. Universities leaders are allowing censorship to flourish on campus, putting pressure on faculty, and silencing international student voices, all in the name of appeasing foreign powers. McLaughlin exposes the troubling reality where university leaders prioritize expansion and profit over the principles of free expression. The book describes incidents in classrooms where professors hesitate to discuss controversial topics and in boardrooms where administrators weigh the costs of offending oppressive regimes. McLaughlin offers a sobering look at how the compromises made in American academia reflect broader societal patterns seen in industries like tech, sports, and entertainment.
Meticulously researched and unapologetically candid, Authoritarians in the Academy is an essential read for anyone who believes in the transformative power of education and the necessity of safeguarding it from the creeping tide of authoritarianism.
Sarah McLaughlin is a senior scholar of global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Nadine Strossen on ‘The Weimar Fallacy’
FIRE Senior Fellow and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen discusses what is commonly known as The Weimar Fallacy: The idea that, if only the Weimar Republic in Germany had tamped down on Nazis and anti-Semitic speech, Hitler’s rise and the horrors of the Holocaust could have been averted.
As the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, Nadine knows just how ugly anti-Semitism can be — but censorship only makes it worse.
The truth is, there were many hate speech laws in Weimar Germany, and they were strongly enforced against the Nazis — including Hitler himself.
Not only did those hate speech laws help the Nazis gain power, they also helped the Nazis censor anyone who challenged it.
WATCH VIDEO: Would “hate speech” laws have stopped the Nazis?
NAACP-LDF’s Janai Nelson on racism and book banning
LDF Associate Director-Counsel Janai Nelson speaks on the legal challenges to banned books, LDF’s legacy of using the law in order to transform society, and why progress toward racial justice requires we tell the truth about our nation’s history.
WATCH VIDEO: Banned Books Week: Janai Nelson on Ideas & Action
New Book by Gene Policinski traces history of First Amendment
First amendment, threats and defenses have, for much of the past 100 years, largely focused on protecting individual speech, the right of any one of us to express ourselves without interference or punishment by the government. But there is an increasing danger to our core freedoms from systemic challenges, which often involve other issues or circumstances, but which carry a First Amendment impact, if not wallop. – Gene Policinski
Gene Policinski (left) and Kevin Goldberg at Freedom Forum on Feb. 26, 2025. (Credit: Ron Collins)
This fast-paced history of the First Amendment will engage students, educators, scholars and other fans of our nation’s most fundamental freedoms.
In “The First Amendment in the 21st Century,” Gene Policinski, Freedom Forum senior fellow for the First Amendment and past First Amendment Center president, traces the history of the First Amendment through its winding social and legal paths as it has intertwined with world events and cultural change.
He explores how this history shows today’s potential for a First Amendment renaissance even amid new technological challenges.
Deeply researched and clearly written, “The First Amendment in the 21st Century” reconciles the past and the present and opines on the future of our First Amendment freedoms — from the courtroom to the chat room.
New scholarly article: First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action
I discuss various complexities and counterarguments: (1) Race is not different from sex or sexual orientation for purposes of the doctrine. (2) The market context may not matter, especially after 303 Creative. (3) The conditional-federal-funding context does give the government more power than a simple regulatory context; the government will still be able to induce race-neutrality by the threat of withdrawing federal funds, but the unconstitutional conditions doctrine precludes draconian penalties such as withdrawing all funds from the entire institution based only on affirmative action in some units. (4) This theory doesn’t apply to public institutions.
I also explore the potential flexibilities of this theory, based on recent litigation. The scope of the Boy Scouts exception might vary based on (1) what counts as substantial interference with expressive organizations, (2) what counts as a compelling governmental interest, and, most importantly, (3) what it takes for activity to be expressive.
More in the news
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
College students often have a complicated relationship with social media, with a large number of learners active on multiple social media platforms but also aware of the negative mental health consequences social media can have.
Teens receive hundreds of notifications on their phones every day, with over half of one study’s participants receiving more than 237 notifications per day. Nearly one in five teens say they’re on YouTube or TikTok almost constantly, according to a 2023 survey from Pew Research.
A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found one-third of respondents indicated social media was one of the biggest drivers of what many call the college mental health crisis.
A recent study authored by a group of researchers from Michigan State University and published in the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education evaluates how students with disabilities interact on social media and build social capital.
Researchers found disabled students—including those with autism, anxiety, attention-deficit and/or hyperactivity disorder—were more likely to seek out new relationships and engage in active social media posting, which can advance connectedness and relationships among learners.
The background: While social media can offer users social supports, such as promoting a sense of belonging during times of transition or crisis, it also poses risks for young people, including cyberbullying and online harassment, according to the study.
Previous studies show youth with disabilities experience higher rates of cyberbullying compared to their peers, but students with disabilities are also more likely to report they receive social support through social media, which could be tied to the social isolation they can experience in person.
Existing literature often focuses on the negative effects of social media for young adults with disabilities, but it is not known if there are differences between the experiences of those with and without disabilities and their social media habits.
“Understanding different learners’ experiences with social media could help college faculty, special education professionals, and counselors not only consider using social media to create more welcoming and supportive learning environments but also how they might play a role in building individual learner’s capacity for positive digital participation,” researchers wrote.
Methodology: Researchers conducted a survey of college undergraduates in the U.S. with and without disabilities in fall 2021, collecting data on social media use, social capital and psychological well-being. In total, 147 students responded to the survey.
From this sample, researchers selected five individuals with and five individuals without disabilities to participate in semistructured interviews. Participants were matched based on social media habits and demographic factors, such as gender.
Results: Through postsurvey interviews with 10 students, researchers learned that while both groups of students engage on social media for personal entertainment and to stay connected with people in their social circles, students with disabilities were more likely to say they used social media to initiate and grow relationships.
All five participants without disabilities used Snapchat to interact with friends or keep in touch with loved ones in an informal manner, and all participants used Instagram to stay up-to-date with their peers.
Among the five participants with disabilities, students reported using more social media platforms individually, and these learners were more likely to use TikTok (which in fall 2021 first hit one billion monthly active users compared to Instagram’s then-two billion users) compared to their peers. Students reported using TikTok for watching videos, sharing humor with their friends or participating in larger community building, including professional learning networks or cosplaying.
Students without disabilities were more likely to say social media made no difference on their relationships or that it positively impacted their relationships by allowing them to stay in touch over geographical distances or other barriers.
Similarly, all students with disabilities said social media assisted with their relationships, allowing them to connect with new people, expand their community and help manage their disabilities by connecting with others.
Some respondents with disabilities said they felt more confident to engage with strangers in a safe way online and that social media was an avenue to find like-minded people they wouldn’t ordinarily interact with, allowing them to build new relationships. This was a unique trend to students with disabilities; those without were more likely to say they use social media to engage with people they already had relationships with.
Students with disabilities may have greater challenges with in-person socialization, which researchers theorize makes social media particularly important for these learners, who also said they’re more likely to post on social media versus passively scroll.
Interacting with others in the disability community and breaking stigma around disability was another theme in conversations with disabled students. These interactions could be with peers who share their disability or from medical professionals or support groups who provide new information.
One limitation to the research was social desirability bias, or respondents’ tendency to answer questions in a way that would please researchers, meaning students underreport undesirable behaviors. The sample included only female and nonbinary students, which creates further limitations to the data.
Put in practice: Researchers offered some suggestions for how educators can utilize this data to create a more inclusive learning environment, including:
Integrating social media into the classroom. While some digital learning platforms have forums for community building, such as a discussion board, these platforms can be less accessible than traditional social media platforms.
Facilitating personalized learning environments. Higher education leaders can consider ways to use social media to create formal and informal learning experiences in and around courses. These learning environments can also include methods for peer communication and connection, helping make learning more collaborative.
Engaging on social media themselves. Self-disclosure by professors can help build relationships in the classroom and enhance learning, but instructors must weigh safety, privacy and other legal boundaries in their social media usage. This could be one way to model positive social media usage for students, including how to have productive interactions with others.
In the future, researchers see opportunities for analysis of design, implementation and evaluation of social media interventions for connection among students with disabilities, such as peer mentoring programs, online support groups or digital storytelling. There should also be consideration of the long-term effects of social media use on students’ mental health and well-being.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
AUSTIN, Texas, Feb. 7, 2025 — After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Davis Wright Tremaine, a district court today stopped enforcement of a Texas law that would have blocked access to broad categories of protected speech for minors and forced websites to collect adults’ IDs or biometric data before they can access social media sites.
Northern District of Texas Judge Robert Pitman granted FIRE’s motion for a preliminary injunction against provisions of the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act) requiring content monitoring and filtering, targeted advertising bans, and age-verification requirements, ruling that these measures were unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
“The court determined that Texas’s law was likely unconstitutional because its provisions restricted protected speech and were so vague that it made it hard to know what was prohibited,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “States can’t block adults from engaging with legal speech in the name of protecting children, nor can they keep minors from ideas that the government deems unsuitable.”
The SCOPE Act would have required social media platforms to register the age of every new user. Platforms would have been forced to track how much of their content is “harmful” to minors and, once a certain percentage is reached, force users to prove that they are 18 or older. In other words, the law would have burdened adults who wanted to view content that is fully legal for adults, serving as an effective ban for those who understandably don’t trust a third-party website with their driver’s license or fingerprints.
The law also required websites to prevent minors from being exposed to “harmful material” that “promotes, glorifies, or facilitates” behaviors like drug use, suicide, or bullying. That definition was far too vague to pass constitutional muster: whether speech “promotes” or “glorifies” an activity is inherently subjective, and platforms had testified that they would be forced to react by censoring all discussions of those topics.
Today’s ruling should serve as yet another warning to states tempted to jump on the unconstitutional bandwagon of social media age verification bills.
“At what point… does alcohol use become ‘substance abuse?’” asked Judge Pitman in his ruling. “When does an extreme diet cross the line into an ‘eating disorder?’ What defines ‘grooming’ and ‘harassment?’ Under these indefinite meanings, it is easy to see how an attorney general could arbitrarily discriminate in his enforcement of the law.”
FIRE sued on August 16 on behalf of three plaintiffs who use the Internet to communicate with young Texans and keep them informed on issues that affect them. A fourth plaintiff, M.F., is a 16-year-old rising high school junior from El Paso who is concerned that Texas is blocking his access to important content.
Lead plaintiff Students Engaged in Advancing Texas represents a coalition of Texas students who seek to increase youth visibility and participation in policymaking.
Nope to SCOPE: FIRE sues to block Texas’ unconstitutional internet age verification law
Press Release
Texans browsing your favorite websites, beware. If the state has its way, starting next month, the eyes of Texas may be upon you.
“Young people have free speech rights, too,” said SEAT Executive Director Cameron Samuels. “They’re also the future voters and leaders of Texas and America. The SCOPE Act would make youth less informed, less active, and less engaged on some of the most important issues facing the nation.”
Earlier, Judge Pitman enjoined the content moderation requirements while ruling on a separate lawsuit from the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Netchoice. Judge Pitman ruled in August that Texas “cannot pick and choose which categories of protected speech it wishes to block teenagers from discussing online.”
“This is a tremendous victory against government censorship, especially for our clients—ordinary citizens—who stood up to the State of Texas,” said Adam Sieff, partner at Davis Wright Tremaine. “The Court enjoined every substantive provision of the SCOPE Act we challenged, granting even broader relief than its first preliminary injunction. We hope this decision will give other states pause before broadly restricting free expression online.”
Texas lawmakers perhaps could have predicted today’s ruling. Age verification laws have been enjoined by courts across the country in states like California, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, and even initially in Texas, in another law currently before the Supreme Court for review.
“Today’s ruling should serve as yet another warning to states tempted to jump on the unconstitutional bandwagon of social media age verification bills,” said Corn-Revere. “What these laws have in common is that they seek to impose simplistic one-size-fits-all solutions to address complicated problems.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
Administrators at the University of Wyoming have agreed to cut student media funding by only 8.5%, repudiating a censorial student government proposal to punish student media by cutting the funding by 75% because students “don’t like” student newspaper the Branding Iron’s editorial choices. The change came after FIRE wrote to the university, explaining that the proposed funding cut was based on the content of the student newspaper, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.
On Nov. 19, the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming passed a resolution recommending a drastic 75% cut to the fee that funds student media, including the student newspaper Branding Iron. The resolution, drafted by the Tuition Allocation and Student Fee Review Committee, cited staffing challenges, the quantity of advertising, and supposed “errors” in content as reasons for the cut. During the debate, several senators made their true motivations plain, tying their votes to personal distaste for the Branding Iron’s editorial choices, writing quality, and student opinions.
When they distribute student fee funding, student government members exercise state power. The First Amendment bars the government, and the students to whom it delegates its power, from taking away resources based on the content of a media outlet’s expression. For good reason.
Student media often have to write critical stories about their peers, administrators, and student government officials. So it goes when serving as a check on power, but that work would be nigh impossible without the First Amendment’s guarantee that citizens cannot be retaliated against for what they say. Cutting funding based on content impairs student journalists’ ability to confidently report on the world around them, and FIRE has beat backsimilarefforts across the country.
Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.
Though several student senators argued they had no “vendetta” against the student paper, their reliance upon opinions about the content of student media was enough to render their decision content-based. And any content-based restriction, however innocuous the stated motivation, must be regarded with a jaundiced eye lest those in power go unchecked.
Thanks to FIRE’s efforts, student journalists at UW are back to covering events in their community and beyond.
Having such dedicated staff on the local beat is especially important in places like Wyoming, where there are fewer outlets to cover local issues.
“When we look at the University of Wyoming, and we consider that it is the only four year university in our entire state, our student media’s impact is so much more important,” said Branding Iron editor-in-chief Ven Meester. “We are a college campus in one of the reddest states in the nation. From student organizations, to speakers, to community events, we have an exceptional amount of political diversity.”
Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.
FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).
What happens to freedom of the press when the president can bully media outlets he doesn’t like into paying big money to end his meritless lawsuits against them?
Buckle up. We’re about to find out.
Per reports, Paramount Global — the parent company of CBS News — is in talks to settle a $10 billion dollar lawsuit President Donald Trump filed against the network last November shortly after the election. The president’s lawsuit claims “60 Minutes,” the network’s flagship news program, violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris to make her more appealing to viewers.
The suit is flatly without merit. For starters, editing interviews is standard journalistic practice. Just ask FOX News, which has edited its own interviews and coverage of the president to tighten up rambling answers. Those cuts are protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the press broad freedom to make editorial decisions about the content they print or air. And laws like Texas’ are designed to prevent used car salesmen from passing off lemons to unsuspecting buyers, not to police journalism.
That’s why CBS’ initial public statements about Trump’s suit rightly struck a defiant and principled tone. The network promised it would “vigorously defend” itself, correctly arguing Trump’s attempt to “punish” CBS for its editorial choices is “barred by the First Amendment.”
So what happened? Why is CBS now reported to be capitulating? There are two reasons, neither of them good for our free and independent press: Money and power.
Trump’s lawsuit isn’t concerned with winning so much as imposing a financial and political cost on people that say things he doesn’t like.
First, the money. Paramount Global hopes to merge with Skydance Media, a deal worth some $8 billion to heiress Shari Redstone, Paramount’s owner — but only if it’s approved by the Federal Communications Commission.
That’s where the raw governmental power comes in. Brendan Carr, Trump’s pick to run the FCC, has made clear in public comments that the agency’s review of the merger will take into consideration Trump’s “news distortion complaint.” And in private, Carr reportedly warned Paramount that addressing Trump’s dissatisfaction was a precursor to approval. In other words: Nice little network you got there — be a shame if anything happened to it.
This kind of pressure from government regulators — “jawboning” — is all the more objectionable when it’s aimed toward the personal benefit of the president. Rather than stand up for the journalists at CBS, Redstone appears to be playing ball, even handing over an unedited transcript to the FCC after refusing to do so for months.
What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?
Issue Pages
Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.
Our litigious president is fresh off settling his 2021 lawsuit against Meta, which alleged the company’s decision to ban Trump from Facebook after Jan. 6, 2021, violated his First Amendment rights. Like his suit against CBS, Trump’s class action suit was without merit; private social media companies have their own First Amendment right to run their platforms as they see fit. They are not government actors, as the district court dismissing the cases against social media companies easily concluded. Nevertheless, the company agreed this week to pay $25 million to end the appeal. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who attended the president’s inauguration, appears to have concluded that settling the suit was a small price to pay for political favor and access.
Late last year, Trump also settled with ABC News for $15 million dollars, ending a defamation suit. That suit centered on a George Stephanopoulos interview with Rep. Nancy Mace during which Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of writer E. Jean Carroll’s successful sexual abuse and defamation claims against the former president. Stephanopoulos stated that Trump was “found liable for rape” and “defaming the victim of that rape,” when a jury had concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll — not that he raped her, as the term is narrowly defined in New York’s criminal code.
Trump’s dictatorial appetite to use lawfare to silence or punish outlets that publish content he doesn’t like is most plainly on display in his ongoing suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register.
ABC’s case presented real challenges, but the network may have been able to mount a sturdy defense. The First Amendment provides news outlets significant breathing room when commenting on public figures like President Trump, as established in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 ruling New York Times v. Sullivan. While the jury specifically rejected finding Trump guilty of rape, the district court judge noted the “definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of ‘rape’ in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere.”
Per reports, however, the network ultimately chose to settle what might have proven to be a challenging case rather than risk Trump’s ire — or provide the current Supreme Court a potential opportunity to weaken Sullivan’s broad protections. After all, the plaintiff has been loud and clear about his desire to “open up” American libel law.
Trump’s dictatorial appetite to use lawfare to silence or punish outlets that publish content he doesn’t like is most plainly on display in his ongoing suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register.
FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101
News
A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.
Selzer, hailed for decades by political observers as the dean of Iowa polling, conducted an early November poll published by The Register giving Harris a three-point lead in the Hawkeye State. Despite correctly forecasting Trump’s Iowa victories in 2016 and 2020, Selzer’s polling missed the mark this cycle. But Trump wasn’t content to take the win, choosing instead to file a claim against her under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act.
FIRE represents Selzer against the president’s bogus claim. Americans have a First Amendment right to make political predictions, and newspapers have a First Amendment right to publish them. But Trump’s lawsuit isn’t concerned with winning so much as imposing a financial and political cost on people that say things he doesn’t like. That’s un-American.
Elections have consequences, it’s true. But silence cannot be one of them. We must protect our free press against meritless lawsuits and the coercive power of the federal government — lest we miss it when it’s gone.
Young people today spend a large amount of time online, with a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report noting teens ages 12 to 17 had four or more hours of daily screen time during July 2021 to December 2023.
This digital exposure can impact teens’ mental health, according to Pew Research, with four in 10 young people saying they’re anxious when they don’t have their smartphones and 39 percent saying they have cut back their time on social media. But online presences can also impact how individuals process information, as well as their ability to distinguish between news, advertisement, opinion and entertainment.
A December Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found seven out of 10 of college students would rate their current level of media literacy as somewhat or very high, but they consider their college peers’ literacy less highly, with only 32 percent rating students as a whole as somewhat or very highly media literate.
A majority of students (62 percent) also indicate they are at least moderately concerned about the spread of misinformation among their college peers, with 26 percent saying their concern was very high.
To address students’ digital literacy, colleges and universities can provide education and support in a variety of ways. The greatest share of Student Voice respondents (35 percent) say colleges and universities should create digital resources to learn about media literacy. But few institutions offer this kind of service or refer students to relevant resources for self-education.
Methodology
Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab polled 1,026 students at 181 two- and four-year institutions from Dec. 19 to 23. The margin of error is 3 percent. Explore the findings yourself here, here and here.
What is media literacy? Media literacy, as defined in the survey, is the ability or skills to critically analyze for accuracy, credibility or evidence of bias in the content created and consumed in sources including radio, television, the internet and social media.
A majority of survey respondents indicate they use at least one measure regularly to check the accuracy of information they’re receiving, including thinking critically about the message delivered, analyzing the source’s perspective or bias, verifying information with other sources, or pausing to check information before sharing with others.
A missing resource: While there are many groups that offer digital resources or online curriculum for teachers, particularly in the K-12 space, less common are self-guided digital resources tailored to young people in higher education.
“Create digital resources for students” was the No. 1 response across respondent groups and characteristics and was even more popular among community college respondents (38 percent) and adult learners (42 percent), which may highlight students’ preferences for learning outside the classroom, particularly for those who may be employed or caregivers.
Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism offers a free self-directed media literacy course that includes webinars with journalism and media experts, as well as exercises for reflection. Similarly, Baylor University’s library offers a microcourse, lasting 10 minutes, that can be embedded into Canvas and that awards students a badge upon completion.
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte provides a collection of resources on a Respectful Conversation website that includes information on free expression, media literacy, constructive dialogue and critical thinking. On this website, users can also identify online classes, many of which are free, that provide an overview or a deeper level look at additional topics such as misinformation and deepfakes.
The American Library Association has a project, Media Literacy Education in Libraries for Adult Audiences, that is designed to assist libraries in their work to improve media literacy skills among adults in the community. The project includes webinars, a resource guide for practitioners.
Does your college or university have a self-guided digital resource for students to engage in media literacy education? Tell us more.
OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma lawmakers filed hundreds of bills affecting education for the next legislative session.
Oklahoma Voice collected some of the top trends and topics that emerged in legislation related to students, teachers and schools. The state Legislature will begin considering bills once its 2025 session begins Feb. 3.
Bills would restrict minors’ use of cellphones and social media
A poster reads, “bell to bell, no cell” at the Jenks Public Schools Math and Science Center on Nov. 13. The school district prohibits student cellphone use during class periods. (Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoam Voice)
As expected, lawmakers filed multiple bills to limit student cellphone use in public schools, an issue that leaders in both chambers of the Legislature have said is a top priority this year.
The House and Senate each have a bill that would prohibit students from using cellphones during the entire school day. Some Oklahoma schools already made this a requirement while others allow cellphone access in between classes.
Senate Bill 139 from Education Committee vice chair Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore, would require all districts to ban students from accessing their cellphones from the morning bell until dismissal, and it would create a $2 million grant program to help schools enact phone-free policies.
Legislation from a House leader on education funding, Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, would prohibit student cellphone use while on school premises.
Multiple bills target children’s social media use. Sen. Kristen Thompson, R-Edmond, aims to ban social media accounts for anyone under 16 with SB 838 and, with SB 839, to deem social media addictive and dangerous for youth mental health.
A bill from Seifried would outlaw social media companies from collecting data from and personalizing content for a minor’s account, which a child wouldn’t be allowed to have without parent consent
SB 371 from Sen. Micheal Bergstron, R-Adair, would require districts to prohibit the use of social media on school computers or on school-issued devices while on campus. SB 932 from Sen. Darcy Jech, R-Kingfisher, would allow minors or their parents to sue a social media company over an “adverse mental health outcome arising, in whole or in part, from the minor’s excessive use of the social media platform’s algorithmically curated service.”
Its original author, Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, refiled it as House Bill 1232. Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, and Sen. Dana Prieto, R-Tulsa, filed similar school chaplain bills with SB 486 and SB 590.
More restrictions suggested for sex education, gender expression
Another unsuccessful bill returning this year is legislation that would have families opt into sex education for their children instead of opting out, which is the state’s current policy.
Students wouldn’t be allowed to take any sex education course or hear a related presentation without written permission from their parents under SB 759 from Prieto, HB 1964 from Danny Williams, R-Seminole, and HB 1998 from Rep. Tim Turner, R-Kinta.
Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, would have any reference to sex education and mental health removed from health education in schools with SB 702.
Prieto’s bill also would exclude any instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity from sex education courses. It would require school employees to notify a child’s parents before referring to the student by a different name or pronouns.
Other bills similarly would limit students’ ability to be called by a different name or set of pronouns at school if it doesn’t correspond to their biological sex.
Deevers’ Free to Speak Act would bar teachers from calling students by pronouns other than what aligns with their biological sex or by any name other than their legal name without parent consent. Educators and fellow students could not be punished for calling a child by their legal name and biological pronouns.
Rep. Gabe Woolley, R-Broken Arrow, filed a similar bill.
No public school could compel an employee or volunteer to refer to a student by a name or pronoun other than what corresponds with their sex at birth under SB 847 from Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, nor could any printed or multimedia materials in a school refer to a student by another gender.
Corporal punishment in schools
Once again, Oklahoma lawmakers will consider whether to outlaw corporal punishment of students with disabilities. State law currently prohibits using physical pain as discipline on children with only the most significant cognitive disabilities.
In 2020, the state Department of Education used its administrative rules to ban corporal punishment on any student with a disability, but similar bills have failed to pass the state Legislature, drawing frustration from child advocates.
Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, was an author of last year’s bill to prohibit corporal punishment of students with any type of disability. He filed the bill again for consideration this session.
HB 2244 from Rep. John Waldron, D-Tulsa, would require schools to report to the Oklahoma State Department of Education the number of times they administer corporal punishment along with the age, race, gender and disability status of the students receiving it. The state Department of Education would then have to compile the information in a report to the Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth.
Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: info@oklahomavoice.com.
Social media is a top source of news for nearly three in four students, and half at least somewhat trust platforms such as Instagram and TikTok to deliver that news and other critical information accurately. As for legacy media sources, namely newspapers, just two in 10 students indicate they regularly rely on them for news. That’s even as most students indicate they trust newspapers to convey accurate information.
These are some of the findings from Inside Higher Ed’s new Student Voice flash survey with Generation Lab on media literacy, conducted last month. Some of the data seems grim in light of declining public trust in institutions and expertise, and the spread of misinformation—concerns that many of the survey’s 1,026 two-year and four-year respondents share: Some 62 percent express some or a lot of concern about the spread of misinformation among their college peers. (See also this month’s news that Meta is eliminating third-party fact-checkers.) And not quite half of respondents (46 percent) approve of the job colleges and universities as a whole are doing to promote students’ media literacy.
At the same time, the data suggests that colleges and universities are at least somewhat effective in this area. One example: Just one in 10 students rates their level of media literacy prior to attending college as very high, compared to the quarter of students who rate their current level of media literacy as very high. Nearly all respondents, 98 percent, also indicate they regularly practice at least some basic media literacy skills to check the accuracy of the information they’re consuming. To some degree, this challenges ongoing skepticism about students’ critical thinking abilities and how helpful colleges are in developing them.
When asked to highlight ways colleges and universities can help them build their awareness and skills, students ranked creating digital resources to learn about media literacy highest on a list of possible actions.
Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab defined media literacy in the survey as the ability or skills to critically analyze for accuracy, credibility or evidence of bias in the content created and consumed in sources including radio, television, the internet and social media. Read on for an overview of the findings in six charts, plus some additional analysis—and how colleges can help close some of these gaps.
Students’ top sources for news are social media and friends and family/word of mouth. Relatively few students indicate they regularly get their news from sources such as newspapers, broadcast/network TV news, radio or magazines. This is relatively consistent across institution type (two-year/four-year and public/private nonprofit), though students at private nonprofits (n=259) are much more likely than their public counterparts (n=767) to indicate they read newspapers, at 38 percent versus 15 percent, respectively. By student type, those 25 and older (n=167) are much less likely than their peers 18 to 24 (n=842) to say they rely on friends and family/word of mouth for news, at 33 percent versus 52 percent, respectively.
Most students aren’t turning to legacy media as a top source of news, though they generally express trust in sources such as newspapers and broadcast network/TV news to deliver news and other critical information accurately. But more than half also express some or a great deal of trust in social media to deliver accurate information. Same for friends and family/word of mouth.
When engaging with media of different kinds, about two in three students say they regularly check the accuracy of the information by analyzing the source’s perspective and/or possible biases, thinking critically about the message delivered (such as distinguishing fact from opinion), and verifying the information using other sources.
Approximately half of students also say they consider the algorithm that is pushing them certain content on websites and/or social media, pause to check the information before sharing with others or on social media, and identify who or what additional sources are being included in the content. While nearly all students indicate they practice some of these skills, some differences emerge by political affiliation, with self-identified Democrats more likely than self-identified Republicans to report analyzing the source’s perspective and/or possible biases, for example, at 68 percent versus 53 percent.
Many students indicate that their level of media literacy has increased in college. Students also express more confidence in their own level of media literacy than that of their peers, on average: While 72 percent of students rate their own level of media literacy as somewhat or very high, just 32 percent rate their peers’ level of media literacy this way, on average. And students across a range of demographics express at least some concern about the spread of misinformation among their college peers. This includes 63 percent of both Democrats and Republicans. By age, respondents 25 and older are likelier to express a very high level of concern (37 percent of this group versus 24 percent of the 18-to-24 set).
How are institutions doing when it comes to helping students build their media literacy? As with their own level of media literacy relative to their peers’, respondents have a rosier view of their own institution than they do of higher education as a whole. This is relatively consistent across institution types, though students at private nonprofits are less likely than their public counterparts to approve of the job colleges and universities in general are doing.
As for how institutions can best help students improve their media literacy, the top pick from a list of options (up to two choices) is creating digital resources for students to learn about media literacy (35 percent). Another relatively popular option is embedding training on media literacy in a first-year seminar or program (31 percent). This option is more popular among four-year college students than it is among two-year students. But creating peer-to-peer education programs on media literacy is more popular among two-year students than it is among four-year students.
Building Habits and Competencies
Renee Hobbs, professor of communication studies and director of the Media Education Lab at the University of Rhode Island, says it’s “no surprise that college students rely on their family and friends and social networks for news, as do most Americans.” In one comparison, an Intelligent survey of four-year college students following the 2024 election, respondents cited TikTok and Instagram as their top two news sources. The same survey found that students for voted for President-elect Donald Trump were twice as likely to get their news from podcasts as those who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. In Inside Higher Ed’s survey, Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to cite news podcasts as a top news source (12 percent versus 4 percent, respectively), but Republicans are somewhat more likely than Democrats to rely on opinion podcasts (12 percent versus 5 percent).
Hobbs says it’s a “comfort” that even one in five Student Voice respondents relies heavily on newspapers. That the same, relatively small share expresses a very high level of trust in newspapers and broadcast news confirms national trends, she adds; a fall poll from Gallup, for example, found that confidence in mass media remained at a low. Noting the existence of active “news avoiders,” whose ranks are growing, according to data from the Reuters Institute, Hobbs says that her own media literacy students are required to read the newspaper. Turns out, many “appreciate the opportunity to take up the habit.”
Regarding the ever-expanding space where media literacy overlaps with digital literacy, Hobbs’s own ongoing research suggests that teaching about algorithmic personalization is very low, at least in K-12 education. At the same time, many college students are digitally savvy, and Hobbs says some of her own students have significant followings on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and Twitch.
As for how colleges and universities can help, Hobbs says general education requirements—such as those suggested in the survey—“might be the best place for media literacy to thrive in a higher education context.” Learning outcomes from Hobbs’s own digital media literacy course satisfy gen ed requirements regarding effective communication and developing and engaging in civic knowledge and responsibilities.
Hobbs adds that academic librarians are leaders in media and digital literacy initiatives on many campuses, and that “one of the best ways for college and university students to develop media literacy competencies” is by creating media themselves. Possibilities include creating websites, podcasts, videos for YouTube or other social media, or developing a community public service media campaign or outreach program. Other opportunities? Working at the college newspaper or radio station or managing social media for a college unit or organization.
“Creating media is a great way to develop media literacy skills, and college faculty may be pleasantly surprised to see what their students can create without any special prompting.”
What are you and/or your institution doing to promote students’ media literacy? Let us know by submitting one of the forms found here.
“[There is a] deeply troubling notion that anyone who dares to report unfavorable facts about a presidential candidate is engaged in ‘sabotage’ (as opposed to, say, contributing to the free exchange of information and ideas that makes our democracy possible).” – David McCraw (New York Times lawyer)
While some liberals are busy pissing in the free speech pot with their PC campus cancel culture campaigns, some conservatives do likewise with their compliant support of Trump’s anti-free speech crusade.
Mind you, this is not any equivalence dodge but rather further proof of Nat Hentoff’s damnatory maxim, “free speech for me — but not for thee.”
I continue to be amazed by the fact that so many so-called free speech supporters in the conservative and even libertarian camps are cowardly silent when Trump and his sycophantic serfs (e.g., his Attorney General candidate) make it abundantly clear that they intend to wage censorial war on their political opponents.
ABC’s $15 million+ settlement
Before I say more about anti-free speech Trumpsters, let me say a few words about ABC’s $15 million settlement (replete with an apology and another $1 million for attorneys’ fees) in the Trump defamation case involving George Stephanopoulos. ABC News agreed to pay that amount toward Donald Trump’s presidential library.
Warranted or not, ABC’s settlement has drawn criticism. For example:
Alejandro Brito, lawyer for Donald Trump.
Joyce Vance: “I’m old enough to remember — and to have worked on — cases where newspapers vigorously defended themselves against defamation cases instead of folding before the defendant was even deposed. . . . That, by the way, includes defamation cases brought by candidates for the presidency.”
Stephen Rohde: “I think the reasoning behind Judge Altonaga’s denial of ABC’s Motion to Dismiss was flawed and ABC should have sought appellate review before paying Trump’s non-existent ‘Presidential Library’ $15 million and his lawyers another $1 million. I think on the witness stand Stephanopoulos would have impressed the jury that he genuinely believed the defamation verdict meant that Trump had raped Carroll. Even before it got to the jury, ABC would have had a good motion for a nonsuit under NYT v Sullivan that Trump failed to prove Stephanopoulos subjectively possessed ‘knowledge of falsity’ or acted in ‘reckless disregard of the truth.’ And ABC’s lawyers would have a field day cross-examining Trump on his entire sordid past in order to show that his reputation as a sexual abuser, liar, and convicted felon was hardly damaged by this one broadcast.”
Five possible reasons for ABC’s settlement
Though ABC was represented by Nathan Siegel and Elizabeth McNamara (Davis Wright Tremaine), it is well to remember that while settlement agreements can be those urged by counsel, they are ultimately decided by the client even if their counsel urges otherwise. In other words, in the Trump case, counsel and client may have agreed on settling or disagreed, and the client’s wishes prevailed. However that might be, the following reasons might explain why ABC opted to settle:
Fear of what discovery might reveal: Here, the concern would have to do with the possibility of making public damning e-mails or other communications that showed an animus towards Trump and/or a certain recklessness in how ABC conducted itself.
Desire to shield Stephanopolous from deposition and/or cross-examination at trial: The concern here may have been that Stephanopolous might be dangerously vulnerable during discovery or at trial when pressed by Trump’s lawyer (Alejandro Brito).
Fear of a potential hostile Florida jury: Trying a case before a South Florida jury could be dangerous given the possibility of sympathy towards Trump and/or the possibility of Dominion-sized damages (unlikely though still possible).
Best time to settle: After U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid ordered Trump to be deposed, ABC might have figured that this was the best time to cut a deal with the plaintiff and cut its losses.
Desire to placate Trump moving forward: Here, fear of retribution going forward might have also played a role in ABC’s decision to settle.
Going forward: Media on the run
While not compliant in duplicitous ways, some in the media world are nonetheless guarded in how to proceed in Trump times.
For example, “The news media is heading into this next administration with its eyes open,” said Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press. “Some challenges to the free press may be overt, some may be more subtle,” Brown said. “We’ll need to be prepared for rapid response as well as long campaigns to protect our rights — and to remember that our most important audiences are the courts and the public.”
That said, consider the following:
Libel Lawsuits on the rise: “During the presidential campaign, Trump sued CBS News [for $10 million] for the way it edited an interview with opponent Kamala Harris. At his news conference, Trump said he was expecting to file a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register in Iowa for publishing results of a poll shortly before the election that suddenly had him behind Harris. He said that amounted to ‘fraud and election interference.’”
Licensing Threats: “Over the past several weeks, lawyers for Mr. Trump and two of his most high-profile nominees — Pete Hegseth, the potential defense secretary, and Kash Patel, whom Mr. Trump has picked to run the F.B.I. — warned journalists and others of defamation lawsuits for what they had said or written.”
“Look, the law is very clear,” Brendan Carr [Trump’s pick for the FCC] told CNBC on Dec. 6. “The Communications Act says you have to operate in the public interest. And if you don’t, yes, one of the consequences is potentially losing your license. And of course, that’s on the table. I mean, look, broadcast licenses are not sacred cows.” Carr has said his FCC will take a close look at a complaint regarding a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris before the election. Trump criticized the editing of the interview and said that “CBS should lose its license.”
[ . . . ]
The Carr FCC and Trump administration “can hassle the living daylights out of broadcasters or other media outlets in annoying ways,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, who is senior counselor for the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.
Seizing Journalists’ Records: “News organizations are worried that a Justice Department policy that has generally prohibited prosecutors from seizing the records of journalists in order to investigate leaks will be reversed, and are already urging journalists to protect their work. ‘If you have something you don’t want to share with a broader audience, don’t put it on the cloud,’ ProPublica’s [Jesse] Engelberg said.”
Ending Support for Public Radio and TV: “Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana recently introduced a bill that would end taxpayer funding for public radio and television, a longtime goal of many Republicans that may get momentum with the party back in power.”
Testing the Boundaries of Current Defamation Law: “‘There’s been a pattern and practice for the past couple of years of using defamation litigation as a tactic to harass or test the boundary of case law,’ said Ms. [Elizabeth] McNamara, who represented ABC News and Mr. Stephanopoulos but was speaking in general.”
The $1 million donations came gradually — and then all at once.
Meta. Amazon. OpenAI’s Sam Altman. Each of these Silicon Valley companies or their leaders promised to support President-elect Donald J. Trump’s inaugural committee with seven-figure checks over the past week, often accompanied by a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to bend the knee.
The procession of tech leaders who traveled to hobnob with Mr. Trump face-to-face included Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, and Sergey Brin, a Google founder, who together dined with Mr. Trump on Thursday. Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, shared a meal with Mr. Trump on Friday. And Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, planned to meet with Mr. Trump in the next few days.
[ . . . ]
With their donations, visits and comments, they joined a party that has already raged for a month, as a cohort of influential Silicon Valley billionaires, led by Elon Musk, began running parts of Mr. Trump’s transition after endorsing him in the campaign.
A group of TikTok users filed a separate application on Monday afternoon, also asking the court to block enforcement of the law.
Social media giant TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, on Monday asked the justices to block a federal law that would require TikTok to shut down in the United States unless ByteDance can sell off the U.S. company by Jan. 19. Unless the justices intervene, the companies argued in a 41-page filing, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.”
The request came three days after a federal appeals court in Washington turned down a request to put the law on hold to give TikTok time to seek review in the Supreme Court. A panel made up of judges appointed by Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Ronald Reagan explained that the companies were effectively seeking to delay “the date selected by Congress to put its chosen policies into effect” — particularly when Congress and the president had made the “deliberate choice” to “set a firm 270-day clock,” with the possibility of only one 90-day extension.
Congress enacted the law, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, earlier this year, and President Joe Biden signed it on April 24. The law identifies China and three other countries as “foreign adversaries” of the United States and bans the use of apps controlled by those countries.
TikTok, which has roughly 170 million users in the United States and more than a billion worldwide, ByteDance, and others filed challenges to the law in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Related
Oklahoma Settlement protects journalists’ right to cover education officials
Oklahoma City, OK — After officials blocked reporters from attending state government proceedings, Oklahoma’s oldest television station has now secured a major victory for press freedom, reaching a settlement that ensures its reporters will have full access to state education meetings and officials. The win also includes a court-ordered permanent injunction that bars officials from ever repeating the behavior that led to the lawsuit.
The agreement resolves the First Amendment lawsuit filed by the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Robert “Bob” Nelon of Hall Estill on behalf of three reporters and their employer, the owner of Oklahoma City television station KFOR-TV, against Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and Press Secretary Dan Isett. The settlement guarantees KFOR equal access to State Board of Education meetings, press conferences, and other media events.
“This settlement vindicates the fundamental principle that government officials cannot declare themselves the arbiters of ‘truth,’ or pick and choose which news outlets cover their activities based on how favorable the reporting is,” said Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller. “The First Amendment protects the right of journalists to gather and report news, even — or especially — when the coverage scrutinizes government officials and holds them accountable to the public.”
The agreement requires the Oklahoma State Department of Education to restore KFOR’s access to board meetings, press conferences, and media events. It also mandates KFOR’s inclusion in all press distribution lists and advance notifications of department activities. Additionally, the department agreed to re-establish a media line for journalists to attend board meetings.
‘So to Speak’ podcast: Whittington on academic freedom
“Who controls what is taught in American universities — professors or politicians?”
Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this timely question and more in his new book, “You Can’t Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.” He joins the podcast to discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a “weaponization” of intellectual diversity.
Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittington’s teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law.
Stephen Solomon on ‘Revolutionary Dissent’
What persuaded our nation’s founders to reject the British laws that made it a crime to criticize government officials and, instead, guarantee freedom of speech and press? NYU Professor and First Amendment Watch editor Stephen Solomon told the story of the protests and controversy that led to the First Amendment in a recent talk at The Ferguson Library in Stamford, CT.
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K.L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
