First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.1

Why Did Trump Run For President?

All presidents live under a microscope. Every action or inaction will be examined and scrutinized. They will be either praised or vilified. Seldom will a president get universal praise.

I can not fathom why Trump wanted to be president. However, he has such a fragile ego that he hates criticism. Just look at the shit that spewed from his mouth that he shoveled onto Obama.

If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

Here are a few places to consider moving to that have state-run media:

  • Cuba
  • Russia
  • Venezuela2

Maddow Blog / Trump goes further than many Republicans in targeting the free press

Story by Steve Benen. November 25, 2024.

  • Trump’s Attacks on Media: Donald Trump has been vocally critical of the press, calling journalists “the enemy of the people” and media outlets “evil.”
  • Legislation Controversy: The “Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act” (PRESS Act) aims to protect journalists’ private information. Despite unanimous support in the House, Trump opposes it.
  • FCC Concerns: Brendan Carr, Trump’s pick for the FCC, plans to hold media companies accountable, raising concerns about using the FCC as a political weapon.
  • Potential Impact: The PRESS Act, despite its bipartisan support, may fail in the Senate due to Trump’s opposition.

In the runup to Election Day 2024, Donald Trump was nearly as eager to attack the free press as he was to attack Vice President Kamala Harris. The Republican, for example, referred to journalists as “the enemy of the people,” media outlets as “evil,” and news professionals as “scum.”

But the offensive wasn’t just rhetorical. As regular readers might recall, Trump also made clear that he hoped to use governmental power to crack down on journalism he dislikes. It’s why he invested so much time and energy talking about the FCC stripping news networks of their broadcast licenses for airing coverage he disapproves of. We saw some abuses along these lines during his first term in the White House, and these tactics are almost certainly going get worse in a second term.

Indeed, those tactics are unfolding during the transition process. The New York Times reported:

At issue is legislation called the “Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act” — or PRESS Act — which hasn’t generated much attention because it was supposed to be one of the year’s least controversial bills.

The basic idea behind the effort is straightforward: Early on in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tenure, he created a policy that prohibited federal prosecutors from going after reporters’ private information or forcing them to testify about their confidential sources.

The point of the PRESS Act is to codify Garland’s policy into federal law.

Few major pieces of legislation have passed the divided U.S. House with unanimous support, but this one sailed through the chamber without opposition. Why would far-right Republicans support such a measure? Because of the protections it would create for conservative media outlets.

It’s why Tucker Carlson, among others, has been equally eager to tout the bill as anyone on the left.

So why was it, exactly, that the president-elect pointed to the legislation and issued an online edict that read, “REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!” One possible explanation is that Trump did a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the bill and had concerns about how the policy would be implemented.

The far more likely explanation is that Trump saw a headline about protections for journalists, remember that he hates the free press, and responded reflexively without doing any research or even taking the time to understanding the bill at its most basic level.

Either way, the result will probably be the same: A worthwhile bill that passed the House unanimously will likely die in the Senate because the incoming president issued a misguided order.

In case that weren’t quite enough, on the heels of Trump’s directive, Brendan Carr — Trump’s choice to lead the Federal Communications Commission — published an online item that read, “Broadcast licenses are not sacred cows. These media companies are required by law to operate in the public interest. If they don’t, they are going to be held accountable, as the Communications Act requires.”

The Times reported last week that Carr would be positioned to “drastically reshape” the FCC, leading industry insiders to worry about him wielding the agency’s power “as a political weapon for the right.”

The president-elect would no doubt be delighted to see exactly that.

  1. Some have raised the question of whether the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause are coextensive, with respect to protections for the media. A number of Supreme Court decisions considering the regulation of media outlets analyzed the relevant constitutional protections without significantly differentiating between the two clauses. In one 1978 ruling, the Court expressly considered whether the institutional press is entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulations or restrictions than are non-press individuals, groups, or associations. Justice Potter Stewart argued in a concurring opinion: That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively. But, in a plurality opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: The Court has not yet squarely resolved whether the Press Clause confers upon the ‘institutional press’ any freedom from government restraint not enjoyed by all others. The plurality ultimately concluded that the First Amendment did not grant media the privilege of special access to prisons. Several Supreme Court holdings firmly point to the conclusion that the Free Press Clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or otherwise give the press access to information that the public generally does not have. Nor, in many respects, is the press entitled to treatment different in kind from the treatment to which any other member of the public may be subjected. The Court has ruled that [g]enerally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects. At the same time, the Court has recognized that laws targeting the press, or treating different subsets of media outlets differently, may sometimes violate the First Amendment. Further, it does seem clear that, to some extent, the press, because of its role in disseminating news and information, is entitled to heightened constitutional protections—that its role constitutionally entitles it to governmental sensitivity, to use Justice Potter Stewart’s word. ↩

  2. @realDonaldTrump: You have considered moving there. ↩