Free Speech in the Era of Trump
Trump’s presidency may threaten the freedoms that we have taken for granted
By Jonah Berger
The Progressive Teen Staff Writer
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP has never been a wholehearted believer in free speech. As a businessman, a presidential candidate, and now as president-Elect, Trump has consistently attacked the press, the most important purveyor of information in our democracy. Whether it’s been going after individual journalists or entire media organizations, Trump has been one of the most outspoken critics of the free press for years.
In addition, as explained in the New Yorker last week, Trump has been at the forefront of an attempt by multiple billionaires to use libel lawsuits as a means of enacting revenge on political opponents. Trump’s desire for revenge and disregard for the fundamental right of a free press was on full display in a brush-up with comedian Bill Maher back in 2011. On his late-night talk show, Maher jokingly pledged to donate $5 million to charity if Trump could prove he wasn’t the son of an orangutan. Evidently, Trump considered the offer to be genuine, so he provided his birth certificate and then, after Maher refused to pay up, sued the comedian. Trump eventually withdrew the lawsuit, most likely to avoid an embarrassing loss in court.
Then, just two years later, Trump threatened to sue The Onion (yes, the satirical online newspaper) over an article whose byline humorously stated that Trump himself was the author (which he obviously wasn’t). At rallies throughout his presidential run, Trump used mainstream journalists and their parent companies as punching bags. His criticism of the media quickly became one of his campaign themes, a frequent topic at rallies and even press conferences. He found a favorite target in CNN, stirring up “CNN sucks” chants on multiple occasions.
His criticism of the media quickly became one of his campaign themes, a frequent topic at rallies and even press conferences.
At a rally in August, Trump took aim at MSNBC reporter Katy Tur, pointing his finger at Tur and accusing her of “not reporting [his movement’s success].” Trump’s criticism incited a mob of rally-goers to verbally attack Tur, a repugnant scene that eventually saw Secret Service agents escort the young journalist out of the stadium for her own safety.
This attack and others like it shocked left and right-wing pundits alike but didn’t seem to faze Trump or his supporters. Trump most likely began to recognize that attacking the media was a winning strategy. He didn’t experience any perceptible drop in poll numbers after even his most vicious diatribes against the press and recognized how receptive his supporters were to the attacks.
New evidence may shed some light on why Trump’s base wasn’t bothered by his repeated criticism of the media: according to a recent survey by Pew Research, only 49% of Trump supporters believed it was “very important” that “news organizations are free to criticize political leaders.”
Obviously, some of that mistrust existed long before this election cycle began. But Trump was able to cultivate the mistrust by framing the media as the enemy and portraying them as a threat to his campaign’s very survival. This “us-against-them” mentality perfectly played into his campaign’s broader message of a rigged system.
But Trump was able to cultivate the mistrust by framing the media as the enemy and portraying them as a threat to his campaign’s very survival.
So perhaps Trump just played into his base’s distrust of the media and knew inside that his claims about the media were deceitful, or at the very least, vastly over-exaggerated. But taking into account his long record, in rhetoric and actions against the press, such an assessment would let him off the hook too easily.
Arguably Trump’s most dangerous attack on the press — because it contained a concrete policy proposal — came in February when he promised to “open up our libel laws…so we can sue” the media. He complained that the media is “totally protected” and ominously suggested that the press will “have problems” in a Trump presidency.
With criticism only bound to grow when Trump assumes the presidency next month, it will be interesting to see which direction he heads in. Will the weight of his new role, as the country’s democratic and symbolic leader, bring about a transformation in his view of the media or will he exploit his expansive powers to crack down on the free press, potentially sending the country into a downward spiral toward authoritarianism?
Since Election Day, Trump has somewhat softened his rhetoric on the media. At this point, we can only speculate, but it seems that Trump may be trying out a new approach. Instead of attempting to cow journalists into writing fawning articles by unrelentingly attacking their character as he did throughout the campaign, he may be trying to carry favors by offering them promises. For example, Trump could offer a journalist an interview in the future, in exchange for an implicit plea to spare him any harsh criticism.
But last Tuesday, Trump again raised the specter of a crackdown on free speech when, towards the end of a pre-dawn tweetstorm, he declared: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag — if they do, there must be consequences — perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”
Laws against flag-burning were once on the books in 48 of the 50 states, but the Supreme Court twice ruled, in 1989 and then again in 1990, that such laws, whether at the state or federal level, are unconstitutional. The desecration of the U.S. flag is protected as free speech under the 1st amendment, the Court has ruled.
Should Trump actually seek to pass a law banning flag-burning, he would have to convince a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate (the president’s executive powers do not extend to this issue) to support a controversial bill that was already litigated in court, a tough prospect considering that Senator Rand Paul, a quasi-libertarian, and a few other moderate Republicans would most likely vote against any such bill.
And even if Trump signed a flag desecration bill into law, it would immediately face a slew of legal challenges. Given the Supreme Court’s current makeup — four liberal justices, one more moderate justice, and two conservative justices — and the precedent the Court set in 1989, the law would most likely be struck down. However, if one of the liberal or moderate justices retires (three justices are 78 years of age or older, two of whom are part of the liberal bloc of the Court), Trump would have the opportunity to nominate justices that align more with his political philosophy. Should the Court shift to the right and Republicans pick up a handful of Senate seats in 2018, both very real possibilities, a nightmare scenario could take foot, one in which the very freedoms we have taken for granted begin to crumble.
