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: [email protected].
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.
This year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. The previousentries covered policing of online speech, assassination attempts on U.S. soil, and more. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.
One step forward, two steps back for Australia
(Mojahid Mottakin / Shutterstock.com)
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland confirmed there was “no pathway to legislate” the government’s controversial plans to require platforms to moderate “misinformation.” In other words, the legislation is effectively dead. The bill, which I covered in a previous Dispatch, defined misinformation as “reasonably verifiable as false, misleading, or deceptive” and “likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.” There are many free speech concerns that arise when the government grants itself the power to require moderation of speech it deems untrue.
But while Australia’s troubling misinformation legislation failed, another worrying bill sailed forward. Late last month, Australia passed the Social Media Minimum Age bill, legislation banning social media for children under the age of 16 that does not even allow for parent permission, despite the myriad threats it poses to free speech and privacy.
Australia isn’t the only country considering measures limiting youth access to social media. Here in the United States, the Kids Online Safety Act — which suffers from numerous First Amendment pitfalls — risks passage in Congress. Advocates and legislators have even pushed for bills similar to Australia’s that would wholesale stop American teens from accessing social media sites.
UK adds blasphemy to its mounting free speech woes
WATCH VIDEO: Free nations don’t have blasphemy laws. The UK needs to tread carefully.
Once again, the UK is making headlines — the bad kind. The reason this time? Late last month, Member of Parliament Tahir Ali called on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to lead “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.”
There’s a term for that: a blasphemy law.
The UK’s relationship with free expression is currently in a free fall and the last thing it needs right now is more forms of expression to police. Blasphemy laws are often packaged and promoted in language about protecting the powerless but, as countlessrecentarrestsandprosecutionsmakeclear, are regularly wielded as a tool to preserve power, whether religious, political, or somewhere in between.
Ali’s advocacy of a blasphemy law is deeply wrong-headed, but he is far from the only one to think it might be a worthy venture. Last year, in response to a spate of Quran burning incidents, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution encouraging more countries to “address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred” — a nebulous concept prone to abuse — and months later, Denmark enacted such a law.
That wasn’t even the only blasphemy-related story to emerge this month out of the UK. In November, the Advertising Standards Authority banned comedian Fern Brady from using an advertisement for her stand-up tour that comically depicted Brady in place of the Virgin Mary in a riff on Alonso Cano’s 17th century painting, “St. Bernard and the Virgin.” In its decision, the ASA alleged that the image could cause “serious offence” to Christians, and directed her to avoid causing insult “on the grounds of religions” again.
An investigation from Legal Initiatives for Vietnam discovered a shockingly high 90% compliance rate from companies including Meta, Google, and TikTok in response to government requests for content moderation, often of material critical of the government. Meta even utilizes a secret list of Vietnamese officials its users aren’t allowed to criticize.
Pakistan appears to be the first country to block the relatively new social media platform Bluesky, but that’s no great surprise given Pakistan’s frequent internet censorship efforts.
A Citizen Lab report found that books “largely related to LGBTIQ, the occult, erotica, Christianity, and health and wellness” were the top items Amazon restricts shipments of to certain countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Troublingly, Amazon “uses varying error messages such as by conveying that an item is temporarily out of stock” rather than stating upfront that the books are not available due to local censorship rules.
If you’re in Kyrgyzstan, watch what you say on the internet. In late November, the country’s parliament approved a bill that will issue fines for online “insult and libel.”
Russian communications authority Roskomnadzor is reportedly beefing up its efforts to cut off foreign internet access — including VPNs — in regions including Chechnya as it’s “testing its own sovereign internet it can fully control.”
The Parliament of Malaysia passed a worrying Online Safety Bill handing over to authorities broad new power to combat “harmful” content on the internet, including the ability to search and seize material from service providers without a warrant. “Freedom of speech does exist,” Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said, “but we are also given power through Parliament to impose any necessary restrictions for the safety of the public.”
South Korea’s fleeting martial law decree threatened a free speech disaster
South Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023 (Gints Ivuskans / Shutterstock.com)
On Dec. 3, President Yoon Suk Yeol shocked the world by declaring martial law in South Korea under the guise of protecting “liberal democracy from the threat of overthrowing the regime . . . by anti-state forces active within the Republic of Korea.”
The decree banned, among other things, “fake news, public opinion manipulation, and false propaganda” as well as rallies and “all political activities.” All media would also be “subject to the control of the Martial Law Command.” Alleged violators of these and other provisions risked being “arrested, detained, and searched without a warrant.”
Hours later, Yoon reversed course in response to massive protests and a parliamentary veto.
Speech-related arrests and sentencing from Hong Kong to Brazil
“Righteous people live, villains must die.” Elsa Wu, the mother of a Hong Kong activist recently sentenced to four years in prison, was arrested “on suspicion of disorderly conduct” for holding a banner with this message outside of a courthouse in November.
Indian journalist Mohammed Zubair has been charged with “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” for criticizing, and posting video of, comments a well-known Hindu priest made about the Prophet Muhammad. “It’s a classic case of shooting the messenger,” one of Zubair’s colleagues said. “It’s a witch hunt.”
Shortly after Zubair’s arrest, and on a similar basis, Indian police raided the offices of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights on charges including “promoting enmity.” The raid was reportedly based on the group’s social media posts highlighting abuses against Muslims in India.
Thai human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa, already imprisoned on similar charges, was sentenced this month to another two years in prison “over a 2020 social media post in which he allegedly criticised the king’s authority.” In total, he will serve over 16 years in prison and is one of many Thai activists punished for insulting or criticizing the country’s monarchy. Additionally, three Thai activists were charged with “contempt of court” for protesting a 2022 ruling from the Constitutional Court about the prime minister’s term limit.
Dozens of protesters have been arrested after demonstrating against Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s announcement that Georgia will postpone its efforts to join the European Union until 2028.
A Brazilian court has issued its longest-ever sentence for racism — nearly nine years in prison — over a woman’s 2017 social media video about a Malawian child adopted by two white Brazilian celebrities. The woman, Day McCarthy, called the child a “monkey” in a video and complained that “fake people and suck-ups” criticize McCarthy, “who identifies as half Black,” for not having “blue eyes and straight hair and a beautiful nose” but compliment the child’s appearance. McCarthy now lives in France and it’s unclear if she will serve the sentence.
Iran releases two dissidents but expands cruel crackdown on forced veiling critics
Last week, a wide-ranging new law went into effect that will further punish women who transgress Iran’s deeply oppressive mandatory hijab laws. Punishments range from flogging to long prison terms to travel bans and even death for “nudity, indecency, unveiling and bad dressing” and related crimes.
But amidst this awful development, there were some bright spots. Iranian cartoonist Atena Farghadani was released after serving eight months in prison on charges of “propaganda against the state” and dissident rapper Toomaj Salehi was also released after being held for 753 days over his support of women’s rights protests in the country. At one point, Salehi had been sentenced to death before the ruling was overturned by Iran’s Supreme Court.
Tiananmen joke grounds ‘Family Guy’ episode from in-flight entertainment
WATCH VIDEO: In the first episode of the TV sitcom “Family Guy,” Peter Griffin briefly stands in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square. (YouTube.com)
Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific is the latest example of a corporation eager to comply with the Chinese government’s political sensibilities after a passenger complained about an in-flight Family Guy episode that jokingly referenced Tank Man and the Tiananmen Square.
“We emphasise that the content of the programme does not represent Cathay Pacific’s standpoint, and have immediately arranged to have the programme removed as soon as possible,” the airline wrote in a statement earlier this month. It remains unclear what, exactly, is the company’s “standpoint” on the Tiananmen Square killings.
Mostly, but not all, bad news in arts and media:
Bangladesh’s Press Information Department recalled the accreditation of 167 journalists in the country, a “broad and sweeping cancellation” that has “left the journalist community alarmed.”
Haiti’s telecommunications authority CONATEL suspended evening show Radio Mega after a wanted gang leader called into the show “claiming that he was offered a large bribe by a member of the ruling Presidential Transition Council to negotiate peace with the gangs.”
After a lengthy 14 years, broadcaster Luisito “Chito” Berjit Jr. was finally acquitted after a Filipino court found there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of libel over his reporting about alleged government corruption.
A report this month from the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute found that about two-thirds of respondents “perceived news outlets to have practiced self-censorship,” a record high result since the polling began in 1997.
French media regulatory authority Arcom reportedly fined a conservative TV station €100,000 for failure to uphold its “obligation of honesty and rigour in the presentation and processing of information” after it showed an image calling abortion the world’s leading cause of death during a Catholic program.
Kuwait has reportedly banned the release of “Wicked” within the country “amid reports that the film includes a gay character, which led to its prohibition.” The musical joins a long list of films, including “Barbie” and “Thor: Love and Thunder,” to face local bans over inclusions of LGBT themes or characters.
Belarusian authorities arrested seven reporters from an online independent news outlet for “supporting extremist activities.” The president of the Belarusian Association of Journalists said it “looks like the authorities have decided to arrest all journalists they suspect of being disloyal ahead of January’s presidential vote.”
If you expected to make it through this year without a censorship controversy from the divisive Australian Olympian break-dancer Raygun, think again. Her lawyers reportedly threatened legal action against the event space hosting comedian Steph Broadbridge’s show “Raygun: The Musical.” Broadbridge says Raygun’s lawyers “trademarked the poster used to advertise the musical” and “banned her from replicating the iconic kangaroo hop.”
Ideas for Your Online Presence Before, During, and After Your Talk or Presentation
The best time to share about your upcoming talk or presentation is before it happens. Some people find that their most engaged post on social media is announcing that you’ve submitted your abstract to speak (or your publication). People are excited by the possibility and what you care about. Telling your story of your upcoming speaking engagement is a great way to do that.
Sharing on social media can start early, but I don’t want you to think it’s the only way to help your online presence and the people coming to your talk. You’re going to explore many ideas today, but you don’t have to try all of them. I hope that there’s at least one idea that resonates with you and you’d feel comfortable trying it yourself.
When you submit an abstract for or are invited to speak
Add your website URL and social media handle to your bio. This will help people find you before, during, and after your presentation.
I’ve just submitted an abstract to speak at…
Announce that you’ve submitted – If you’ve been invited to speak, a good time to share on social media is when you’ve agreed or committed to that engagement. It’s great to add your social media handle and a link to your personal academic website if you have one, along with your bio. You might add that information to your CV.
Connect with people before you go
Once your talk is confirmed, you can add it to your website and you might take time to connect with your fellow panelists or event organizers before the event.
Conference Hashtag
If there is one, you can check out the conference hashtag and make plans with people who will also be at the event that you want to see, especially if you live in different cities or countries.
Business cards
If you have a business card, add your social media handle and website there is a good idea.
Share your talk on social media
When you’re sharing your talk on social media, people need more information than you expect. They need to know what your talk is about, when your talk is to know if they can attend, what the event is, and any link where they can learn more information. This is something you can share on any social media platform or across all your platforms.
Some professors hesitate to share their upcoming talk on Facebook where they may have a more personal audience, but these people are excited by what you care about when it comes to your research and how you choose to spend your energy. You might include , on all social media posts, any definition or story that helps people better understand why this talk or research matters to you.
Tag people or organizations that are related to your talk or event.
The conference hashtag can be added to your post about your talk but you can also add a hashtag that relates to the topic of what you are presenting on.
You can share the post about your talk before, during or after the event.
Create a graphic or infographic
If you create a graphic or share an image to go with your talk, a great resource is Writing image Descriptions on Accessible Social – which helps you create social media posts accessible for people with disabilities.
The next ideas are for things you can do while the event is happening.
Check out the conference hashtag, again
If you checked out the event hashtag, you might find that people weren’t using it. Once the event starts, you can start using the conference hashtag and check it out! See if there is a conversation you want to be part of, or an event you want to check out.
Be open about your online presence
The best thing you can do for your online presence while at an in person event, is to be open that you have a website or that you’re on social media.
Help people find and connect with you
You can make this easier for people by making a QR code that helps people go to your website, have this info on a business card, create a hand out with information or resource about your talk (that includes people need to your online presence) , or use an end slide in your presentation to help people connect with you after the event is over.
Resources to take home and share
When you create a resource like a handout or links /slides to share, that can go on your personal academic website. They can also be shared on social media using that conference hashtag to help people find this resource that you’ve already taken the time to gather.
Will this be recorded?
Ask if there is going to be a recording. Sometimes, there isn’t an official recording but you can ask if you can record yourself.
Stay connected once you’re gone
Connect with people you meet or you like and admire on social media, while at the conference. Helps others be more likely to learn about you.
It’s okay if you don’t do any of that too
I have never had time for any of that at conferences, personally. In person events can be overwhelming for me as an introvert. Because of that, I don’t have the brain capacity to remember things like take a photo, much less record some videos.
Anything I just talked about – some of those things can be prepped in advance others you don’t have to do live (you can do afterward)
Next are ideas you can do after your presentation or talk is over.
Whether there was a recording of your talk or not, you could always record your talk and slides using zoom, then post the video to your website or social media. There are options to share the full version of your talk, if you like to. You can just share the title slide, or full text version of the talk, or even the full slides.
Connect with people when you’re back at home
If you didn’t connect with people during the event, sometimes connecting AFTER the event is easier. You can look at the conference hashtag. Look through the business cards you collected. See the conference program and look at the bios to see who is on social media.
Create and/or share resources
If you didn’t have resources to share at your talk, if there are things you want people to know after the fact, you can create a graphic or handout that is shareable on social media or a page on your website.
Celebrate other people
While you can post about your own talk, you can also post about your panel and thank the conference and event organizers. If you want to participate in the conference community but not want to talk about your own talk, you can celebrate others instead. It’s a great opportunity for PIs to celebrate their lab members or grad students who are at the event. There are so many ways to celebrate people instead of yourself, if that feels comfortable or more exciting for you.
These don’t have to be professional shots. A messy desk shot or photo of you working on your slides or going over your notes on the plane. Something that feels quick or easy to you.
Take pictures during the event
Snap a photo of things you see, people you meet, friends you catch up with. Ask someone to take photos of you while you’re speaking or pose at the conference.
You could record a video of your talk
This can be before, during, or after the event.
You can record a video about your talk
Record a short video introducing your talk and the main takeaways. This video is especially for people who couldn’t be there live for your presentation.
Record some b-roll
If you like video, record b-roll video. Take a sip of coffee, getting ready to speak, short travel clips, video of fellow panelists or friends. These might be put into a longer video or Instagram reel.
But these might feel like too much – so even though they are fun ideas, don’t be stressed if you do none of them.
Ideas for Your Online Presence Before, During, and After Your Talk or Presentation
The best time to share about your upcoming talk or presentation is before it happens. Some people find that their most engaged post on social media is announcing that you’ve submitted your abstract to speak (or your publication). People are excited by the possibility and what you care about. Telling your story of your upcoming speaking engagement is a great way to do that.
Sharing on social media can start early, but I don’t want you to think it’s the only way to help your online presence and the people coming to your talk. You’re going to explore many ideas today, but you don’t have to try all of them. I hope that there’s at least one idea that resonates with you and you’d feel comfortable trying it yourself.
Before your speaking engagement
When you submit an abstract for or are invited to speak
Add your website URL and social media handle to your bio. This will help people find you before, during, and after your presentation.
I’ve just submitted an abstract to speak at…
Announce that you’ve submitted – If you’ve been invited to speak, a good time to share on social media is when you’ve agreed or committed to that engagement. It’s great to add your social media handle and a link to your personal academic website if you have one, along with your bio. You might add that information to your CV.
Connect with people before you go
Once your talk is confirmed, you can add it to your website and you might take time to connect with your fellow panelists or event organizers before the event.
Conference Hashtag
If there is one, you can check out the conference hashtag and make plans with people who will also be at the event that you want to see, especially if you live in different cities or countries.
Business cards
If you have a business card, add your social media handle and website there is a good idea.
Share your talk on social media
When you’re sharing your talk on social media, people need more information than you expect. They need to know what your talk is about, when your talk is to know if they can attend, what the event is, and any link where they can learn more information. This is something you can share on any social media platform or across all your platforms.
Some professors hesitate to share their upcoming talk on Facebook where they may have a more personal audience, but these people are excited by what you care about when it comes to your research and how you choose to spend your energy. You might include , on all social media posts, any definition or story that helps people better understand why this talk or research matters to you.
Tag people or organizations that are related to your talk or event.
The conference hashtag can be added to your post about your talk but you can also add a hashtag that relates to the topic of what you are presenting on.
You can share the post about your talk before, during or after the event.
Create a graphic or infographic
If you create a graphic or share an image to go with your talk, a great resource is Writing image Descriptions on Accessible Social – which helps you create social media posts accessible for people with disabilities.
These are ideas are for your online presence and networking while a conference or event is happening.
Check out the conference hashtag, again
If you checked out the event hashtag, you might find that people weren’t using it. Once the event starts, you can start using the conference hashtag and check it out! See if there is a conversation you want to be part of, or an event you want to check out.
Be open about your online presence
The best thing you can do for your online presence while at an in person event, is to be open that you have a website or that you’re on social media.
Help people find and connect with you
You can make this easier for people by making a QR code that helps people go to your website, have this info on a business card, create a hand out with information or resource about your talk (that includes people need to your online presence) , or use an end slide in your presentation to help people connect with you after the event is over.
Resources to take home and share
When you create a resource like a handout or links /slides to share, that can go on your personal academic website. They can also be shared on social media using that conference hashtag to help people find this resource that you’ve already taken the time to gather.
Will this be recorded?
Ask if there is going to be a recording. Sometimes, there isn’t an official recording but you can ask if you can record yourself.
Stay connected once you’re gone
Connect with people you meet or you like and admire on social media, while at the conference. Helps others be more likely to learn about you.
It’s okay if you don’t do any of that too
I have never had time for any of that at conferences, personally. In person events can be overwhelming for me as an introvert. Because of that, I don’t have the brain capacity to remember things like take a photo, much less record some videos.
Anything I just talked about – some of those things can be prepped in advance others you don’t have to do live (you can do afterward)
Next are ideas you can do after your presentation or talk is over.
After your talk is over
Record your talk
Whether there was a recording of your talk or not, you could always record your talk and slides using zoom, then post the video to your website or social media. There are options to share the full version of your talk, if you like to. You can just share the title slide, or full text version of the talk, or even the full slides.
Connect with people when you’re back at home
If you didn’t connect with people during the event, sometimes connecting AFTER the event is easier. You can look at the conference hashtag. Look through the business cards you collected. See the conference program and look at the bios to see who is on social media.
Create and/or share resources
If you didn’t have resources to share at your talk, if there are things you want people to know after the fact, you can create a graphic or handout that is shareable on social media or a page on your website.
Celebrate other people
While you can post about your own talk, you can also post about your panel and thank the conference and event organizers. If you want to participate in the conference community but not want to talk about your own talk, you can celebrate others instead. It’s a great opportunity for PIs to celebrate their lab members or grad students who are at the event. There are so many ways to celebrate people instead of yourself, if that feels comfortable or more exciting for you.
These don’t have to be professional shots. A messy desk shot or photo of you working on your slides or going over your notes on the plane. Something that feels quick or easy to you.
Take pictures during the event
Snap a photo of things you see, people you meet, friends you catch up with. Ask someone to take photos of you while you’re speaking or pose at the conference.
You could record a video of your talk
This can be before, during, or after the event.
You can record a video about your talk
Record a short video introducing your talk and the main takeaways. This video is especially for people who couldn’t be there live for your presentation.
Record some b-roll
If you like video, record b-roll video. Take a sip of coffee, getting ready to speak, short travel clips, video of fellow panelists or friends. These might be put into a longer video or Instagram reel.
But these might feel like too much – so even though they are fun ideas, don’t be stressed if you do none of them.
Introducing Dr. Monica Cox, professor and change maker for equity in the workplace
Jennifer: I’m so excited to feature Dr. Monica Cox, a professor, author, and change maker. Monica, thanks so much for coming today to talk about your new book Never Defeated: Nine Lessons from the Workplace Front Lines. I wanted to be sure to get that right.
Monica: It’s okay. That’s fine. It’s very long. So you did a great job. Thank you. So great to be here and to meet you in person, kind of.
Jennifer: Yeah. I know we’ve been connected on social media for a while and I’ve been following your amazing work, but I’m so excited to introduce you to The Social Academic community. Would you mind telling people a little bit about yourself?
Monica: Sure, sure. So I am of course Dr. Monica Cox. I am an academic and a professor, an engineering education professor. I’m also a former administrator and I am an entrepreneur who is the CEO and founder of STEMinent, LLC, which offers a variety of offerings that have an umbrella of helping people to emerge whole and bold and strong in the workplace, or whichever environment they so choose. So that’s me in a nutshell.
Jennifer: Bold and strong. I love it. I love it.
Monica: Yeah, thank you.
Writing Never Defeated
Jennifer: Tell me, What prompted you to write Never Defeated? This is such a powerful book. What, what made you know that it had to be out in the world?
Monica: Okay, so there’s the business answer and then there’s kind of the other heart related answer.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Monica: So I would say from a business perspective, I have a Stop Playing Diversity brand, which is based on just my commitment to authentic diversity, equity, and inclusion. And the quick part of that story is that when I was hired in my most recent organization, I told them not to hire me if they were playing diversity. And of course, they didn’t know what that meant. But over time I realized that a lot of the things that I needed to be successful in that workplace as a black woman administrator just, they weren’t there. And I decided to trademark Stop Playing Diversity, and that meant that I wanted to have guides coaching the business arm, and I wanted to write a series of books. So Never Defeated is one of the books that I’m gonna write as part of the Stop Playing Diversity brand and the trademark for the business. Amazing. So, like I said, that’s the business part.
Monica: The personal part is that I went through hell at work. It was a mess. And there’s a quote in the book where I talk about a blueprint and I wished I had a blueprint before I started this experience. But I always said, sometimes you have to be the blueprint. And as I was learning and documenting what was going on, I would look at tweets and kind of just record the tweets. And I wrote essays based on the things that were resonating with people on social media. So that is the heart part of this, where it’s my story where it also is informed from the voices of people who’ve gone through situations very similar to mine. And as you know about social media, there was also the upheaval with Twitter/X. And I thought, if it goes away, what about all of that information, all of those conversations. And this book is kind of the way for me to almost take ownership, to take back some of the valuable conversations and resources that came out of a really good time for me on social media. That was the long story.
Jennifer: Ohh! And a beautiful one that really touched my heart. So I hear what you mean when you say the heart side of, of your reasons for writing this very important book. Never Defeated is so powerful because it reads as authentic, it reads like you’re talking to me. And I think that’s what made me pick it up and not put it down until I finished.
Monica: Thank you.
Jennifer: I mean, I was like walking around the house with it, trying to make sure that I got all of these words in because, you know, sometimes when we see things on Twitter, it does make a meaningful difference in our lives. But seeing all of it at once, like being able to read your words, it just, it was, it was quite meaningful for me. I really appreciated it. Yeah.
Monica: Thank you. And I’ll say something really quickly about it, even this morning, my husband was telling me that someone was reading it and the words were powerful. So I thank you for this. It is still kind of difficult for me to process all of it because I’m also healing as I share what I’ve talked about. So it’s not easy for me to just be like, let me read this every day now. No, that was my life and I lived it. And it was just a moment. And there’s just an element about that that I wanna put about the book too, where it felt like I was sharing a piece of myself and it’s just that it’s all compact, but that was really my life with the death of, you know, my parents and so many real things that have impacted me. So, so even now I feel a little emotional talking about it because it was that real to me as a person.
Jennifer: Oh, I hear you. I hear you. And I really appreciate that maybe despite the emotional weight of writing the book and sharing, like you, you still put it out there in the world and you still write your tweets, even though, I mean, I, I guess I wonder, is there some fear when you’re talking about, you know, things that happen that are maybe not talked about in the room, like, but like you are saying it on Twitter. And so I’m wondering what are your feelings about that? Was it different when you were writing the book?
Monica: So, when I talk about the tweets, this seems very spiritual and some people may not get this, but I will, I will be asleep. And when I wake up I hear like, it’s almost like the words come to me. And so I’m writing them because it’s like, this is what I’m supposed to say for the day. And sometimes it’s punchy, but it is almost like you, you and I talking right now. I just know that there’s a thought that has formed. And so that’s what that is. I don’t feel the fear. When I write things that are so truthful because it is just as clear as to me that that’s what I’m supposed to say.
Jennifer: It’s like already formed in your mind when you’re going to say, I get that. ’cause it’s a poet. That’s how I write poetry. It’s not how I write social media posts, but it is how I write poetry. And so I really, I hear you when you say like, the feelings that, like, that happens when you’re writing it in your head and then it’s out there and you’re like, but I’ve already, it’s already there. It, it exists.
Monica: Exactly. And sometimes I’ll even, I have my phone next to me and I’ll write something as a note. And so that’s something too, like I’ll wake up at 3:00 AM and that’s one thing, the part about the book is that I had a book consultant, a developmental kind of editor.
Jennifer: Wonderful.
Monica: Thank you. And at first I was not going to write stories. Hmm. The first draft was very much practical, and that was it. And she pushed me to include more of myself in the book. And I did not think that I was ready to do that because there are some stories people didn’t know about. And I knew that I would be very vulnerable sharing, for example, how I contacted the president of my university when there were things happening after the murder of George Floyd. And you know, kind of what happened, like I’m whistle blowing on myself. To say, this is what I did with other people during this time. And one thing that people have really complimented me on, and I was very careful about is making sure that I, I was very truthful with my stories without naming names.
Jennifer: Yes.
Monica: So if people do not know where I work, you would not know. And my developmental editor, even by the time she looked at it, she’s like, I don’t even know where you work. So I realized that that’s an immense skill to be able to tell so much. And I do that on social media as well. So, so much without fully telling you what’s up.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Monica: And that also is something I would say that I have to tread carefully with from a legal perspective. Yeah. Because I was so involved in a legal case for three years where I had to decide, am I going to remove myself completely from social media? Am I not going to write? Am I gonna shut down my voice? Or am I going to figure out how to still share my truths without incriminating myself without telling too much? It was, it is a slippery slope to do this work. And I’ll say it’s very strategic, very deliberate. And I hope that’s what you see even as I’m like teetering right there. But nah, I, I know how to say it.
Jennifer: I’m curious when you say that you really had, you approached a point in which you had to make a decision whether to remove yourself from social media or to stay, what helped you make that decision?
Monica: Well, it’s the motivation for me actually being on social media. Once I was an administrator, I said it in my book that it was kind of like an archive for me, but I got to a point in my organization where it became very dangerous for me to be there because of the lack of equity work that they were doing. But also I could tell that I was being set up to be this scapegoat. And I wasn’t going to be that person, I was going to fight. So I had an attorney who I worked with at the time, and two of the things that he mentioned about social media usage is that it’s archived. And I mean, it’s an archived record, of course, of what happens. And he said, you have to tell the truth. Like in, in a court of law, it would be like the timestamps and is what you’re saying true. So I used it very strategically and I always said, because it literally got to a point where I was being harassed because of some stuff. I said, if anything, God forbid ever happened to me, then my husband, maybe my legal team, the people around me could look at what I wrote on social media and have that as evidence of what I was going through. So I was hiding in plain sight.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Monica: And people didn’t understand. What, why does she do this every day? Because I want people to know what happened on say, you know, Monday, February 17th. You know, people would say, “Oh, it’s too much. Why would a department chair do that?” Because I was concerned.
Jennnifer: People tend to have fear when it comes to social media, but you actually found some protection in it in the sense that it was a documented record.
Monica: Absolutely.
Jennifer: I’m wondering, for listeners who may be experiencing something similar on their university campuses, what kind of documentation do you recommend that they practice?
Monica: Well, I would say social media could be good, but you don’t even have to use your real name. You know, so some type of pseudonym or something. And I mean, of course if it ever came to the point where people needed to know that was you, you could say it was you. But that’s one way that you can use it. Another way. I mean, it’s email. When I was a department chair, I used to think about this all the time. There are some like basics. When you have a meeting with someone, you wanna make sure that things are clear. So you can send an email afterward. One of the things that people need to be careful of is having conversations on the phone, because that’s not really documentation.
Jennifer: Right.
Monica: You need it to be written. You need the summary to be written. And one thing that I even learned through my organization is that I would send things and people would not respond. But when it was time for me to compile information, you know, I could have, you know, five examples for of like, when I did contact people, like, “Hey, I told you I was in distress on this date. I told you that I was having this issue with an employee.” And I think that’s going to be one of the big things that we do strategically moving forward to protect ourselves, particularly in an anti-DEI age. People are going to avoid, they’re going to want to walk that fine line, but if we are in distress, we need to put that out there in writing that this is unacceptable. I am being treated this way and this is how I move forward. And I think one other quick thing I’ll say, the reason this is, this is very vital is because I’ve also learned through my experience that the policies are not in place to protect certain issues like microaggressions. There is no law against someone microaggressing you. There is no law in place against workplace bullying. So when you are experiencing situations that make you feel that your life is in danger, or in the case of, I don’t know if you saw Dr. Bonnie, Dr. Antoinette Bonnie, her full name is Candia-Bailey, she ended her life. You know, we need to tell our stories in ways that sometimes are cries for help, but are sometimes those records after we have left an organization to say, this is what happened on this day. This is my voice. These are the people who knew, you know, et cetera. Sorry I went off. That was long, but.
Jennifer: No, Thank you for sharing that much about all this. I, and I think that I have wanted to ask this kind of question before, sometimes I’ve had guests on my show that have experienced some bullying on social media and other things. I know I had Dr. Carlotta Berry, who came and talked about it. But you’ve been through the kind of legal battle and something that’s public. And you’ve written about it in ways that I feel like people will really hear what you’re saying and it, they’ll take it in and they’ll start practicing some of those things themselves. Like, I want to help inspire change with this conversation. And so I really appreciate you being open and authentic about that.
Social media presence and growth, How it’s changed for academics
Jennnifer: Now, when I think about your time on social media, like it’s been so impactful for your thinking and, and your thought leadership and what you share with people. But how has it changed over time? Like, you’ve been on social media for a while, right?
Monica: I have. I think Twitter was documented. I think I started in 2010. So how has it changed? I think people are actually talking, which is funny to me. You know, academics were not talking back in the day. I think there’s still some fields where people just kind of post their accolades, but now people are having more conversations. I also think when it comes to marginalized communities, people are bold, bolder about talking about the issues that are going on in their personal lives. So they’re showing more of themselves. They’re also talking about problems that they experience. I see a lot more political statements.
Jennifer: Yes.
Monica: You know, even religious statements, displeasure with things. And I wonder if it’s like the younger generation that’s coming in, but I feel they just have less fear when it comes to displaying themselves. And just talking about. I’m southern and you know, I come from this more subdued, maybe cultural environment. But I mean, there are people who drop in their pics in tight dresses. They’re kissing up on folks, you know, they’re just like grown and sexy. And I think we need to see people who are just beautiful in every form, who are thoughtful and funny. And so that’s what I see. I see people who are human more and not afraid to be human. And that’s good.
Jennifer: Hmm. What about for yourself? Do you feel like you’ve leaned more into that over time? Or have you always shown up and been authentic?
Monica: You know what? I think that all of this connects back to our disciplines because I said I’m an academic. And so as an academic in a STEM discipline, it’s got its own culture. Engineering has its own culture. I’m in engineering education. So that’s got its own culture. So it’s like nested cultures. And I would say my culture is very, very, very conservative in how they move. And this was like the running joke of me on social media where everybody would say like, “Oh my gosh, I can’t believe Monica said this. Like, is she off?” And one of my friends even said in my community, she said she didn’t wanna look at my social media because she’s like, she’s gonna get fired for saying stuff.
Jennifer: She was scared for you.
Monica: That’s what she said. And that also speaks to that culture. So how have I changed? I have gotten out of the fear of my community and I have connected so much broader, like my platform, I think across all of my social media. And I probably have repetitive followers as well. But it’s about 75,000 people.
Jennnifer: Wow.
Monica: And you know, I started with a handful.. And the noise of my community is so quiet, it’s so quiet now in terms of what they think, because I see the impact of my work. I see the feedback that I get, like people who are leaving careers because of a book, because of a tweet, people who are sharing their stories because of things that I’ve said. And I’ll even give this as like a testimonial. I knew that. I know there’s something to it. I started a newsletter on LinkedIn in December, and I only have maybe like 13 editions. ’cause it’s biweekly. And I am up to, I wanna say like 8,500 subscribers right now.
Jennifer: Wow. Back from December. Since December!?
Monica: And I had maybe 700 in the first day. So there is something that is happening that is bigger than what I am. So that’s it. It’s the boldness, it’s the, I don’t care what my academic community says about me, because I know that what’s happening is more impactful and bigger than what’s in their box.
The Accomplice Academy with Dr. Monica
Jennifer: Hm. Ooh. Tell me a little bit about the Accomplice Academy. I wanna make sure that people who are listening can join if they’re a good fit for it.
Monica: Absolutely. So it is a really intimate group right now of people who want to be equity accomplices. And what I mean by that is people who we have, we focus on three areas. One is, I talk about like the level of risk. You know, as an accomplice, you’re gonna understand that what you’re doing is high risk. And so I engage through a subscription service, a monthly subscription service, where we talk about what it’s like to take those risks and how people can do this and protect themselves in the process. The second area that’s kind of connected back to being an accomplice is like looking at the level of change. And so I really focus on systemic change. So if you are in an organization, how are we making sure that we are offering sustainable solutions for people to remain safe and for equity to be real? And the third part is really having people focus on others instead of themselves. Many times when you see people who are allies, you know, they’ll, some of them will wear it like a banner and be like, “I’m an ally, I’m an ally. Come to me!” But I often tell people, you’re not an ally if I don’t say that you’re an ally. And it’s this space where sometimes as an accomplice, we do the work and people don’t even know that we do the work. But that’s what it means to do it. And I, I brought up the example in the book about, you know, going to the president of the University, of my university and saying, this is what’s happening in our organization. Please look at these statements from our engineering students. Look at the statements from our engineering faculty and staff, and take that into consideration when you hire the next leader of this organization. So, like I said, even though I shared what I did at the time, it wasn’t that people knew it. And as I told you, my developmental editor was like, you need to share stories. And I was like, okay, I’m finally gonna tell people that I was an equity accomplice in my institution at a very dangerous level, at a pretty high level. And I knew that the consequences could have been a lot worse if the leader was not committed to racial equity. That was a lot. So those examples, that’s what The Accomplice Academy is. It’s like doing the work and having the support to talk about it in a safe space. And I would say a couple of my most active people, one is an LGBTQ plus advocate who is a burnout coach, and another is a professor in a state where they have anti-DEI laws now. And you know, we really talk about this, what does this look like in your roles as a coach or as faculty. So thank you for mentioning that.
Jennifer: That is amazing. It sounds like a group where real change can happen, not just change within ourselves, but change in our communities. That sounds so cool. Thank you. Oh, I’m curious, since we were just talking about being a good accomplice and, and how being an ally is really about making sure that other people feel that we’re good allies, not just ourselves. What’s one way that we could be better accomplices or allies on social media?
Monica: Man, there are a lot of ways. I think one is like amplifying statements that I think are very courageous. You know, so if there is someone who is saying something that the world needs to hear, and if they could be, you know, criticized for it, or if they’re in a vulnerable position by saying that, I think that the very public way that we show support sends messages to organizations that we are aligned with that person. Another is actually putting real content out. You know, being brave, being courageous and saying, you know, this is what systemic change looks like. Or here are some examples. So, so tips. You know, I think social media is a wonderful place to educate. And if we have handbooks, if we have resources that have helped us, if we have contacts, you know, other books, this is the prime place for audiences to see how to do the work really well. So sharing is another piece, but I think being authentic, like once you’re there, and I feel like this gets to like the risk part, but once you are on there, it’s about being that consistent voice so people know that you are trustworthy, that they can rely on you, that you are that person who is for the cause. And so consistency. I feel like that’s an internal thing, you know, for you to, for someone to be courageous, there’s a difference between the theory and action of it. And that’s what I mean. Like my inner circle of accomplices is so small right now because anyone can post just a good statement. But it’s the translation of that statement into action, under pressure that shows me if you are really an accomplice, because it can come with negative impacts on your livelihood.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Monica: And that can include a job. Maybe you lose an opportunity because you’re too dogmatic or because you know, you’ve said something that is really pushing the envelope. But from a business perspective, I often tell people, anyone who reads what you present and they’re turned off wasn’t someone you probably needed to connect to in the first place, because you are gonna have a lot more issues down the road. And that’s what I say even about doing equity work. You know, if someone’s like, “Oh, can you tone it down? Can you do whatever,” guess what? I’m not the consultant for you. Go to the one who’s going to help you to clear things and make sure everything is measured in your organization because that’s what you’re looking for. You’re not really ready for the accomplice level. That’s the work that I’m proposing.
Jennifer: Ooh, that’s really helpful. And I think it also helps people know whether they should join the Accomplice Academy. Like, are you, are you really ready to, to do the work and to take action in your organization? Oh, that’s fascinating. Absolutely. Oh, I love that. Okay. Well, I wanna show the book again.
Monica: You know, just, I’m also an author. I write fiction. Yes. I have one that’s dropping this week.
Jennifer: I’m gonna get it. I’ll say I love romance books. I do.
Monica: Thank you. Thank you. Because you know what, that’s a taboo. So we can talk about that.
You know, we talk about authenticity, people like, what are you doing? Are you out there writing smut? What’s happening? And I’m like, my people love each other. Okay. They love, they love on each other. They love each other. So I will say that, and the thing that I will also mention is that I put social justice things in my book as well. So even in the one that’s coming up, and I’ll say this really quickly. My protagonist did not earn tenure, but she was involved in a domestic abuse situation. And we have an issue where she goes to Alabama and because of their laws, she can’t be an unwed mother and keep her job.
Jennnifer: Oh wow.
Monica: Yeah, with STEM students because of donors. And so that sounds very familiar. The arranged marriage part of my romance is when, spoiler alert, her principal boss doesn’t want to lose this amazing teacher. And so, they kind of like each other anyway.
Jennifer: Oh, That sounds great.
Monica: It’s this whole social justice thing that’s embedded in romance and how they have to move forward. So I’m just putting that teaser out there to say, it’s not just smut, although you get it, but it’s the lessons behind how women of color have to move professionally and personally to be successful and to be whole, bold and strong. Same thing.
Jennifer: I so appreciate that. As a survivor of domestic violence, myself, I found love. I found romance. Like I can’t wait to read this book. It’s, it’s, yeah, it’s on my reading list. I’m very excited. Okay.
Monica F. Cox, Ph.D., is an unstoppable force who has made it her mission to disrupt and trailblaze her way through the world. Her unapologetic approach to life has made her a change agent and leader who is unafraid to make people uncomfortable. Despite facing personal and professional adversity, Monica was raised by her educator parents to persist and pursue her dreams.
As a 2020 Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Distinguished Professor of Engineering, and former department chair at The Ohio State University, Dr. Cox is no stranger to conflict. Her unwavering dedication to advocating for people and women of color has transformed the fabric of her department and the larger organization.
Dr. Cox’s research focuses on the infusion of equity in STEM education and the empirical exploration of women of color in the workplace. With over 130 publications, a presidential award for research, and approximately $20 million in led and collaborated multidisciplinary projects, she is a true expert in her field.
