First Amendment (US Constitution)

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares76 Views

    In Trump’s Washington, a Moscow-Like Chill Takes Hold

    by

    A new administration’s efforts to pressure the news media, punish political opponents and tame the nation’s tycoons evoke the early days of President Vladimir V. Putin’s reign in Russia.She asked too many questions that the president didn’t like. She reported too much about criticism of his administration. And so, before long, Yelena Tregubova was pushed out of the Kremlin press pool that covered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.In the scheme of things, it was a small moment, all but forgotten nearly 25 years later. But it was also a telling one. Mr. Putin did not care for challenges. The rest of the press pool got the message and eventually became what the Kremlin wanted it to be: a collection of compliant reporters who knew to toe the line or else they would pay a price.The decision by President Trump’s team to handpick which news organizations can participate in the White House press pool that questions him in the Oval Office or travels with him on Air Force One is a step in a direction that no modern American president of either party has ever taken. The White House said it was a privilege, not a right, to have such access, and that it wanted to open space for “new media” outlets, including those that just so happen to support Mr. Trump.But after the White House’s decision to bar the venerable Associated Press as punishment for its coverage, the message is clear: Any journalist can be expelled from the pool at any time for any reason. There are worse penalties, as Ms. Tregubova would later discover, but in Moscow, at least, her eviction was an early step down a very slippery slope.The United States is not Russia by any means, and any comparisons risk going too far. Russia barely had any history with democracy then, while American institutions have endured for nearly 250 years. But for those of us who reported there a quarter century ago, Mr. Trump’s Washington is bringing back memories of Mr. Putin’s Moscow in the early days.The news media is being pressured. Lawmakers have been tamed. Career officials deemed disloyal are being fired. Prosecutors named by a president who promised “retribution” are targeting perceived adversaries and dropping cases against allies or others who do his bidding. Billionaire tycoons who once considered themselves masters of the universe are prostrating themselves before him.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares82 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Ban on The A.P. Echoes Orwell’s ‘1984’

      by

      President Trump has been battling with The Associated Press over his decree that the body of water between Florida and Mexico be identified as the Gulf of America. This may look like no more than a classic Washington quarrel, long a characteristic of the press and the presidency, that has reached an extreme level over semantics. It’s much bigger than that, and the implications are far-reachingI say that as a former longtime White House reporter. I began my stint there covering Jimmy Carter for The A.P. As its senior White House correspondent during most of Ronald Reagan’s first term, I was in and out of the Oval Office almost daily and regularly traveled aboard Air Force One. Later, as a Los Angeles Times correspondent, I covered the White House during Mr. Reagan’s second term and the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.This far from conventional dispute erupted nearly two weeks ago when an A.P. reporter was barred from an Oval Office event because his news organization had continued to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its longstanding name. Three days later, a White House official said the administration would bar A.P. reporters from the Oval Office and from Air Force One, though they would retain credentials to the White House complex. Mr. Trump weighed in on Tuesday, saying, “We’re going to keep them out until such time as they agree that it’s the Gulf of America.”Dozens of major news organizations, including The New York Times and the conservative outlets Fox News and Newsmax, called on the White House on Monday to lift its ban on The A.P., to no avail. On Friday, The A.P. sued top White House officials, accusing them of violating the First and Fifth Amendments by denying its reporters access.The attack on the news agency brings into focus the administration’s refusal to respect the First Amendment, with presidential aides and the president himself trying to dictate the very language news reporters may use — just as George Orwell’s fictional dictators did. It is emblematic of the broader assault by the White House on the public’s right to know. In the administration’s opening weeks, Brendan Carr, Mr. Trump’s new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has ordered his agency to investigate ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and NPR. The Defense Department has thrown such mainstream media outlets as The New York Times, NBC News and NPR out of their work spaces in the Pentagon and moved in some conservative outlets.The pressure has begun to take on the outlines of chilling history. Dictators and other authoritarian leaders have long sought to control the critical role the mass media plays in shaping public discourse.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Tells Republicans to ‘Kill’ Bipartisan Press Freedom Bill

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump on Wednesday instructed congressional Republicans to block the passage of a bipartisan federal shield bill intended to strengthen the ability of reporters to protect confidential sources, dealing a potentially fatal political blow to the measure — even though the Republican-controlled House had already passed it unanimously.The call by Mr. Trump makes it less likely that the bill — the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, or PRESS Act — would reach the Senate floor and be passed before the current session of Congress ends next month. Even one senator can hold up the bill, chewing up many hours of Senate floor time that could be spent on confirming judges or passing other legislation deemed to be a higher priority.Mr. Trump issued the edict in a post on his Truth Social platform Wednesday afternoon. Citing a “PBS NewsHour” report about the federal shield legislation, he wrote: “REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!”Mr. Trump has exhibited extreme hostility to mainstream news reporters, whom he has often referred to as “enemies of the people.” In his first term as president, he demanded a crackdown on leaks that eventually entailed secretly seizing the private communications of reporters, including some from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN.After those subpoenas came to light early in the Biden administration, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland issued a rule that banned prosecutors from using compulsory legal processes like subpoenas and search warrants to go after reporters’ information — including by asking third parties, like phone and email companies, to turn over their data — or to force them to testify about their sources. But a future administration could rescind that regulation.The PRESS Act would codify such limits into law. Trevor Timm, the co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said he hoped Mr. Trump would reconsider, arguing that it would protect all journalists, including those who primarily reach conservative audiences.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How the Kids Online Safety Act Was Dragged Into a Political War

      by

      The Senate was set to pass the Kids Online Safety Act on Tuesday, but the legislation faces an uphill battle in the House because of censorship concerns.Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union sent 300 high school students to Capitol Hill to lobby against the Kids Online Safety Act, a bill meant to protect children online.The teenagers told the staffs of 85 lawmakers that the legislation could censor important conversations, particularly among marginalized groups like L.G.B.T.Q. communities.“We live on the internet, and we are afraid that important information we’ve accessed all our lives will no longer be available,” said Anjali Verma, a 17-year-old rising high school senior from Bucks County, Pa., who was part of the student lobbying campaign. “Regardless of your political perspective, this looks like a censorship bill.”The effort was one of many escalations in recent months by those who oppose the bill. In June, a progressive nonprofit, Fight for the Future, organized students to write hundreds of letters to urge lawmakers to scrap it. Conservative groups like Patriot Voices, founded by the former Republican senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, are also protesting with an online petition.What was supposed to be a simple piece of legislation to protect children online has been dragged into a heated political war. At the heart of the battle are concerns about how the bill could affect free speech on culturally divisive issues, which both sides of the spectrum worry could be weaponized under the guise of child safety. Liberals worry about censorship of transgender care, while conservatives are concerned about the same with anti-abortion efforts. The tech industry has also latched onto the same First Amendment arguments to oppose the bill.The controversy stems from the specific terms of the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA. The legislation would require social media platforms and other sites to limit features that can heighten cyberbullying, harassment and the glorification of self-harm. The bill would also require tech companies to turn on the highest privacy and safety settings for users under 17 and let them opt out of some features that have been shown to lead to compulsive use.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      City Illegally Fined Woman Over Profane Political Yard Sign, U.S. Judge Rules

      by

      A federal judge in Tennessee said that it was unconstitutional for the City of Lakeland, Tenn., to fine Julie Pereira for the sign she posted expressing disapproval of President Biden and Donald J. Trump.A federal judge in Tennessee ruled this week that it was unconstitutional for a city to fine a woman who had displayed a sign in her yard that used profane language to express disapproval of both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.The woman, Julie Pereira, 40, of Lakeland, Tenn., who posted the sign, which said “Fuck Em’ Both 2024,” in January, was fined hundreds of dollars by the city. It told her that the political sign violated its municipal code because it was obscene.In June, Ms. Pereira sued Lakeland in federal court, arguing that she had a First Amendment right to post the sign in her yard.Judge Mark S. Norris of U.S. District Court in Memphis, said in an order issued on Tuesday that Ms. Pereira’s yard sign was not obscene, and that it was unconstitutional for the city of Lakeland to take action against Ms. Pereira over the sign.Judge Norris ordered the city to reimburse her for nearly $700 in fines and pay Ms. Pereira damages of $1 for violating her First Amendment rights, according to the order. Ms. Pereira was also awarded legal fees of $31,000. The judge also barred the city from taking any additional action against her.Julie Pereira’s sign in her yard in Lakeland, Tenn. She won her lawsuit against the city of Lakeland after they fined her hundreds of dollars for putting up the sign.Julie PereiraWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Declines to Rule on Tech Platforms’ Free Speech Rights

      by

      The justices returned both cases, which concerned state laws that supporters said were aimed at “Silicon Valley censorship,” to lower courts. Critics had said the laws violated the sites’ First Amendment rights.The Supreme Court on Monday avoided a definitive resolution of challenges to laws in Florida and Texas that curb the power of social media companies to moderate content, leaving in limbo an effort by Republicans who have promoted such legislation to remedy what they say is a bias against conservatives.Instead, the justices unanimously agreed to return the cases to lower courts for analysis. In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that neither lower appeals court had properly analyzed the First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas laws.The laws were prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.Supporters of the laws said they were an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship. The laws, they added, fostered free speech, giving the public access to all points of view.Opponents said the laws trampled on the platforms’ own First Amendment rights and would turn them into cesspools of filth, hate and lies.The two laws differ in their details. Florida’s prevents the platforms from permanently barring candidates for political office in the state, while Texas’ prohibits the platforms from removing any content based on a user’s viewpoint.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Biden Administration’s Contacts With Social Media Companies

      by

      The case, one of several this term on how the First Amendment applies to technology platforms, was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.The Supreme Court handed the Biden administration a major practical victory on Wednesday, rejecting a challenge to its contacts with social media platforms to combat what administration officials said was misinformation.The court ruled that the states and users who had challenged the contacts had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue.The decision, by a 6 to 3 vote, left fundamental legal questions for another day.“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the yearslong communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. “This court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government.”Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented.“For months,” Justice Alito wrote, “high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”The case arose from a barrage of communications from administration officials urging platforms to take down posts on topics like the coronavirus vaccine and claims of election fraud. The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both Republicans, sued, saying that many of those contacts violated the First Amendment.Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana agreed, saying the lawsuit described what could be “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Clears Way for N.R.A. to Pursue First Amendment Challenge

      by

      The opinion, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, found that the gun rights group had plausibly claimed a First Amendment violation.The Supreme Court sided with the National Rifle Association on Thursday, saying it could pursue a First Amendment claim against a New York state official who had encouraged companies to stop doing business with it after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous court, found that the N.R.A. had plausibly claimed a violation of the First Amendment, sending the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, for further proceedings.The N.R.A., in asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, cited what it described as the enormous regulatory power of the state official, Maria T. Vullo, a former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services. The N.R.A. accused Ms. Vullo of applying “pressure tactics — including back-channel threats, ominous guidance letters and selective enforcement of regulatory infractions” and warned of wide-ranging consequences of a ruling against it. A court decision siding with Ms. Vullo, the group warned, would open the door to government officials making similar pleas about hot-button issues like abortion and the environment.Ms. Vullo, in court filings, has pushed back again the N.R.A.’s allegations that she undermined the First Amendment.The case began in 2017, when the New York Department of Financial Services started investigating an insurance product known as Carry Guard, which provided coverage for various issues arising from the use of a firearm, such as personal injury and criminal defense.The program was brokered, serviced and underwritten by insurance companies and included the N.R.A.’s name, logo and endorsement.The department regulates more than 1,400 companies and more than 1,900 financial institutions. It concluded that Carry Guard violated state insurance law, in part by providing liability coverage for injury from the wrongful use of a firearm. The department entered into consent decrees with the insurance groups and imposed civil penalties.After a mass shooting in 2018, when a former student opened fire at a high school in Parkland, Fla., the department began to re-evaluate “the implications of regulated entities’ relationships with gun-promotion organizations,” according to legal filings for Ms. Vullo.The department issued two memos, one to insurance companies and another to financial institutions, titled “Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the N.R.A. and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations.”These documents encouraged regulated institutions “to review any relationships they have with the N.R.A. or similar gun promotion organizations.”The Vullo case is one of two concerning when government advocacy crosses a constitutional line into coercion.The other, Murthy v. Missouri, involves a push by Republican-led states to curb the Biden administration’s efforts to crack down on what it viewed as misinformation on social media. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is at War With the First Amendment

      by

      At a rally in Wildwood, N.J., on Saturday, Donald Trump said that if he is re-elected, he will “immediately deport” any campus protesters who “come here from another country and try to bring jihadism or anti-Americanism or antisemitism.”Of course, Trump dwells in linguistic imprecision. What does “try to bring” mean? Are we using his definitions of jihadism, anti-Americanism and antisemitism? How would those sentiments be monitored? Would the deportations be extrajudicial? Would the deportations be only of student visa holders, or would it include green card holders?This campaign pledge — this threat — is not only unworkable; it’s ludicrous. But it’s a powerful bit of propaganda. It ties together Trump’s message of nativism and xenophobia with one of his fixations: an iron-fist approach to protests that challenge his beliefs or interests.Trump understands, intuitively, the power of crowds, and views it as a pressing threat when aligned against him.Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said Trump was furious about the protests in the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. In his memoir, Esper wrote that in one meeting, Trump asked, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” According to Esper, Trump believed that the protests made the country — and him — look weak.Trump has a thirst for authoritarianism because he conflates suppression with strength. In a 1990 interview with Playboy, Trump said this about the Chinese government’s response to the Tiananmen Square protests: “They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More