{"id":37714,"date":"2025-02-12T15:03:23","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T15:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/?p=37714"},"modified":"2025-11-22T20:52:28","modified_gmt":"2025-11-22T20:52:28","slug":"censorship-president-trump-keeps-using-this-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publicknowledge.org\/censorship-president-trump-keeps-using-this-word\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cCensorship\u201d: President Trump keeps using this word, but I do not think it means what he thinks it means."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Excuse the hackneyed lift from \u201cThe Princess Bride<\/a>,\u201d clearly the greatest love story ever told. But it\u2019s apt: President Trump and his Republican allies keep decrying \u201ccensorship\u201d by others \u2013 in particular, their political opponents and anyone who says anything unfavorable about them \u2013 while actually doing it themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with Congress. This week, the House Judiciary Committee is conducting its fourth hearing<\/a> addressing what it calls \u201cThe Censorship-Industrial Complex.\u201d The first three hearings and a related report<\/a> on this topic were conducted under titles about \u201cthe weaponization of the federal government.\u201d (In fact, as of this writing, all three of the witnesses announced for this week\u2019s hearing have testified to the Committee before.) In the Committee\u2019s view, this \u201cindustrial complex\u201d refers to the Biden administration, technology platforms, academic institutions, researchers, advocacy groups, advertisers and their agencies<\/a>, and the media collaborating to suppress speech, especially online. This is about more than social media companies \u201ccensoring conservative voices\u201d (a claim refuted by reams of academic and social science research). Now, anyone who calls out hate speech or false information, writes unfavorably about the President or the administration, or tries to avoid association with toxic content is part of the \u201ccomplex.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This week\u2019s Congressional hearing is only part of an orchestrated campaign across the branches of the Republican-led federal government to suppress unfavorable information, manipulate citizens, and allow the continued use of false information as a political strategy to gain power.<\/strong> Far from being the defenders of free speech, these actors are the ones leading the attack on it. And while Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee issued their own report<\/a>, \u201cThe Delusion of Collusion: The Republican Effort to Weaponize Antitrust and Undermine Free Speech,\u201d late last year, it will take a concerted effort across stakeholders to counter the anti-democratic threat President Trump and his allies represent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Censorship the First Amendment Prohibits Refers to Government<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democracy 101: Censorship refers to the use of government<\/em> force to suppress speech. That is, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government<\/em> from restricting freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. As George Washington Law School professor Dr. Mary Anne Franks noted at yet another Republican-led hearing<\/a> on this topic (from the House Small Business Committee):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe First Amendment does not protect speech from criticism or competition. It does not guarantee any speaker a platform or a profit. The same First Amendment that protects one person\u2019s right to speak also protects the right of another person to reject, to discredit, or ignore that speech. The fact that critical speech may lead to negative consequences for those who are criticized, such as a decline in popularity or in revenue merely indicates that the speech is effective, not that it is censorship.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Competition is not censorship. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counterspeech is not censorship.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research is not censorship. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Providing information to businesses about other businesses is not censorship.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Efforts to convince consumers, advertisers, and the public that certain content is false, fraudulent, harmful, extremist, harassing or exploitative, is not censorship.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

We had hoped<\/a> that the recent Supreme Court decision in Murthy v. Missouri<\/em><\/a> would bring an end to the baseless claims of \u201ccensorship\u201d collaboration between the Biden administration and social media companies, at least. In the case, the conservative-majority Court found no connection between government communication and platforms\u2019 content moderation of the plaintiffs\u2019 posts. In other words, the alleged \u201ccensorship\u201d never happened. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite Claiming To Oppose Censorship, the Trump Administration Keeps Doing It<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite that Supreme Court decision, on the very day of his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order<\/a>, \u201cRestoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.\u201d In it, he reiterated the \u201cright of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech\u201d and prohibited federal employees from abridging free speech. Since then, while President Trump and his allies keep talking<\/em> about how awful censorship is, they also keep doing it<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far, much of the new administration\u2019s most public censorious activity is originating in the Federal Communications Commission. For example, in January, incoming FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced<\/a> that he was launching an investigation into whether PBS and NPR member stations have violated FCC rules through their underwriting practices, saying this could inform congressional funding decisions. Days later, right on cue, Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee\u2019s \u201cDelivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE)\u201d Subcommittee, Marjorie Taylor Greene, notified the leaders of PBS and NPR that she, too, was launching an investigation, \u201cassessing the value of continued federal funding of these entities.\u201d Republican efforts to defund public media are, as they say, \u201cold news,\u201d but this time the targets\u2019 editorial choices have been brought into the fight. In her letter to NPR, Rep. Greene cited NPR\u2019s decision<\/a> not to report on the (I can\u2019t believe I have to type these words again)<\/em> Hunter Biden laptop story. In the letter to PBS, Rep. Greene cited PBS reporting on DOGE<\/a> co-founder Elon Musk giving \u201cwhat appeared\u201d to be a Nazi salute<\/a>. She accused both NPR and PBS of reporting for \u201ca narrow slice of like-minded individuals and ideological interest groups.\u201d Congress threatening to withdraw funding due to media organizations\u2019 editorial choices meets the definition of censorship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

FCC Chairman Carr also recently reinstated bias complaints on behalf of Donald Trump against three network TV broadcasters on grounds they were partial to Kamala Harris. These were against ABC (for fact-checking President Trump\u2019s statements during the debate with then-Vice President Harris), NBC<\/a> (for Harris\u2019s brief appearance on \u201cSaturday Night Live\u201d), and CBS<\/a> (for editing of Harris\u2019s \u201c60 Minutes\u201d interview). Prior FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel had dismissed<\/a> these complaints (and one lodged against a station owned by Fox) because \u201cthey seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.\u201d For the case against CBS, Chairman Carr explicitly tied a request to Paramount for a full transcript and recording of the interview with Harris to the agency\u2019s review of Paramount\u2019s much-wanted merger with Skydance Media. (Notably, Chairman Carr did not <\/em>choose to reinstate the defamation complaint lodged against Fox News, even though the reporting in question has already been judged<\/a> to actually be false.) Threatening to withhold government approval for a commercial transaction due to editorial decisions certainly qualifies as censorship. (And from the \u201cyou-can\u2019t-make-this-up\u201d department, four years ago Commissioner Carr, in a statement<\/a>, described letters from two Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to cable companies inquiring about their coverage decisions \u201ca chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys.\u201d He noted further at that time that, \u201cA newsroom\u2019s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official, not targeted by them.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As recently as the past few days, it\u2019s been reported that Chairman Carr has volleyed<\/a> \u201ca letter of inquiry, a formal investigation\u201d at San Francisco-based radio station KCBS over its coverage of the administration’s mass deportation raids in California. In this case, as well, Chairman Carr has made threatening statements<\/a> about how the station\u2019s reporting \u201ccould possibly be consistent with its public interest obligations.\u201d Perhaps not coincidentally, Carr had earlier promised<\/a> to \u201ctake a very hard\u201d look at the FCC\u2019s 2024 decision to approve the bankruptcy reorganization of Audacy, KCBS\u2019 corporate parent, which has ties to George Soros.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chairman Carr has also threatened social media platforms<\/a> with reform to Section 230, which shields interactive service companies from liability for the content posted by their users. In Carr\u2019s chapter in the \u201cProject 2025\u201d<\/a> Presidential Transition Project, he noted that the FCC should \u201cinterpret\u201d Section 230 in ways that narrow<\/em> its protections. His goal is to force social media platforms to moderate less content. But free expression is harmed<\/a>, not helped, by proposals that seek to limit the content moderation choices of major platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These threats from the FCC represent only one wave of attacks on news organizations, social media platforms, and others coming from the current administration. President Trump sued the Des Moines Register for reporting on a poll that showed he was running behind Kamala Harris in the presidential election. Vice President JD Vance has also threatened digital platforms for their content moderation practices, saying threateningly in an interview<\/a> that they \u201ccan stop engaging in censorship, and if they don\u2019t\u2026 Donald Trump\u2019s leadership is not going to look too kindly on them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there are the cancellations <\/a>of government agency subscriptions to news outlets that cover political events (under the false pretense that these outlets are receiving \u201cgovernment funds\u201d to influence coverage), naming<\/a> of reporters on X (formerly Twitter) and Truth Social, and kicking unfriendly news outlets out of press briefings at the White House<\/a> and the Pentagon<\/a> in favor of pro-Trump outlets in a brand-new \u201cmedia rotation policy.\u201d (I don\u2019t have the room or the energy to cover the book bans; the wiping of references to diversity, equity, and inclusion; and the keyword scraping<\/a> of government documents, but in our view, they are all part of the same campaign, designed to prevent citizens from accessing information contrary to the administration\u2019s aims.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where Trump officials or Congress have not acted directly, President Trump\u2019s allies have stepped in to further the censorship agenda. They are using defamation suits or SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation, or civil lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate people who speak out on issues of public concern – to silence critics. Elon Musk – now a \u201cspecial government employee\u201d – sued Media Matters for \u201cconsumer fraud\u201d when the research organization reported on advertisers whose ads were running adjacent to toxic content on X, the platform Musk now owns.\u00a0And last week, a huge Trump donor went after the Big Kahuna: Steve Wynn filed a petition<\/a> asking the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em><\/a>, which protects the media’s ability to aggressively cover public officials.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These orchestrated attacks<\/a> have at least three impacts: ending unfavorable reporting by individual organizations, intimidating others into silence, and eroding trust in media organizations among the general public. And worst of all \u2013 it\u2019s working. Under pressure and threat of retaliation, national media organizations are abandoning their own constitutionally protected rights by settling what are widely considered winnable lawsuits<\/a> filed by or on behalf of President Trump. ABC, Meta, and potentially CBS all settled dubious lawsuits to maintain good relations with the public officials who are bullying them, or to protect commercial opportunities. And even before the election results were known, the owners of The Washington Post<\/a> and The Los Angeles Times<\/a> killed endorsements of Kamala Harris over Donald Trump prepared by their editorial boards. Whether free expression rights are seized or surrendered, the impact is the same<\/em><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Countering Censorship with Collective Action<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With individual entities facing significant consequences for non-compliance, as one Harvard professor recently noted<\/a>, civil society faces a collective action problem. Here are some strategies Public Knowledge supports for policymakers and the public to counter this censorship campaign:<\/p>\n\n\n\n