President Donald Trump sues The Wall Street Journal: First Amendment analysis

  President Donald Trump is suing The Wall Street Journal owner Rupert Murdoch and publisher Dow Jones & Co., as well as two reporters, after the paper published an article stating that Trump sent a letter to financier Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that included a lewd drawing and birthday wishes containing sexual innuendo. Two years later, in 2005, police began investigating Epstein, who in 2008 pleaded guilty to prostitution-related charges involving underage girls. He was arrested again in 2019 on sex-trafficking charges involving allegations that dated back to the early 2000s. He died in prison later that same year.

What freedom of speech?

  In a totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorship, government officials do not need the support of the citizenry to exterminate freedom of speech. That’s because there are no elections to worry about. The regime simply starts having its military and paramilitary goons start arresting critics, disappearing them in terrorist confinement facilities, torturing them, and then killing them. Everyone else understands. No more criticism of the regime.

  In a democratic system, suppressing criticism is much more difficult owing to the problem of elections. If the goons of some democratically elected president begin rounding up critics, incarcerating them, torturing them, and killing them, the ruler runs the risk of being kicked out of office in the next election. There is also the risk of impeachment.

12 LGBTQ+ activists who used the power of the First Amendment

  Throughout U.S. history, LGBTQ+ activists have used their First Amendment rights to advocate for their cause. These freedoms — particularly speech, press, assembly, and petition — have helped LGBTQ+ leaders push for awareness and laws to protect their communities such as the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case protecting gay marriage; state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in workplaces and in health care; and others.

  These activists have made an impact by using their rights to speak out and take action.

Struggle for control of public libraries in full swing across the Deep South

  No one used to envision libraries as battlefields. But in 2025, that’s what they have become.

  Across the South over the last decade, control of what happens on bookshelves has turned into a pitched battle, with white supremacist and Christian nationalist groups on one side facing off against an unlikely coalition of progressives, educators, Black leaders, and drag queens on the other.

  Just two months into a second Trump presidency and its scorched-earth policy against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the culture wars are heating up the stacks.

What is the marketplace of ideas?

  The “marketplace of ideas” embodies a simple First Amendment concept: If everyone can speak freely, then the best ideas will rise to the top and be implemented, to the benefit of all of society.

  The marketplace concept — which today could be termed the “digital town square” — goes hand in hand with the discussion, debate, and decisions that are the hallmark of a self-governing democratic republic even as it requires all five First Amendment freedoms to fully function.

Americans love free speech, survey finds − until they realize everyone else has it, too

  Americans’ views on free speech change directions every so often. One of those times was during the protests at U.S. universities about the Israel-Hamas war. As scholars of free speech and public opinion, we set out to find out what happened and why.

  The Supreme Court itself, as recently as 1989, has declared that the “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment is that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Free speech or free rein? How Murthy v. Missouri became a soapbox for misinformation advocacy

  Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, originally filed as Missouri v. Biden. This case is emblematic of broader debates over the role of government in regulating online platforms and the protections afforded by the First Amendment in the context of speech online. In this case, the plaintiffs—the states of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as five social media users—alleged that governmental communication with social media platforms regarding concerns about COVID-19 misinformation and election interference amounted to coercion, violating the First Amendment.

The NetChoice cases: Will the Supreme Court turn First Amendment law on its head?

  On February 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases—NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice—that address whether Florida and Texas can enact laws prohibiting social media platforms from moderating content posted by their users.

  The Florida law predominantly limits social media platforms’ ability to “censor”—demonetize, remove, or otherwise restrict—political candidates and certain journalistic outlets. It would also prevent the platforms from moderating harmful mis- and disinformation from several sources, even prohibiting them from attaching labels that guide users to verified information. The Texas law is far broader, preventing most widely used websites, from Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, to Etsy and Yelp, from enforcing community standards by prohibiting the removal of nearly any content that’s based on viewpoint. This includes preventing the removal of heinous and objectionable material—Nazi propaganda, deepfakes, socially damaging conspiracy theories, etc.—from any platform unless it falls under specific narrow exceptions, particularly within the narrowly and technically legal definition of being “unlawful.”

The establishment clause: Everything to know

  Religious freedom in the United States is guaranteed by two provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  One, commonly known as the establishment clause, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent government from either advancing (that is, establishing) or hindering religion, preferring one religion over others, or favoring religion over nonreligion.

Objectivity in journalism: A fair but flawed idea?

  A common critique of news today is that journalists have an “agenda.” People want journalism to present facts, not opinions or biases. It’s a noble wish.

  The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but it does not require news outlets to be “objective.”

  You’re not alone if you have ever read, watched, or listened to a news story and thought, “That’s not objective journalism.” Everyone has encountered journalism that isn’t truly objective. That’s because humans who report, edit, and produce news can’t truly be objective, no matter how hard they try.

Jingle Bell blocked: 10 holiday songs that have been censored

  A viral story once claimed that playing holiday music before Thanksgiving was a federal crime. But it was a joke. That couldn't happen thanks to the First Amendment.

  The First Amendment protects freedom of expression. That includes music. It also protects freedom of religion. That includes celebrating religious holidays with song.

Athletes, activism and the First Amendment: A conversation with Nate Boyer

  When Nate Boyer sat down with Colin Kaepernick in a hotel lobby in 2016, just days before the 15-year anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, and suggested that the San Francisco 49ers quarterback kneel, rather than sit, during the national anthem, he couldn't have imagined the backlash that would follow.

  Seven years later, the U.S. Army veteran and former NFL player says he "would not have done anything different," and that's due in large part to one thing: The First Amendment.

A constitutional revolution is underway at the Supreme Court, as the conservative supermajority rewrites basic understandings of the roots of US law

  In a 2006 episode of the television show “Boston Legal,” conservative lawyer Denny Crane asserted that he had a constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm: “And the Supreme Court is going to say so, just as soon as they overturn Roe v. Wade.”

  That was a joke, an unimaginable event, when the show aired 17 years ago. Then in 2022, the court announced both changes, shifting the butt of a joke to the law of the land in a brief span of years – and signaling the start of what is sometimes called a “constitutional revolution.”

  Scholars describe a constitutional revolution as “a historic constitutional course correction,” or a “deep change in constitutional meaning.”

Survey: Where America stands on the First Amendment in 2023

  How we view – and how much some of us support – the First Amendment is changing, and all of us ought to be concerned.

  The change is not in the actual 45 words: Those remain the same, protecting our freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.

Anti-LGBTQ laws in the US are getting struck down for limiting free speech of drag queens and doctors

  Nearly 500 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures in the U.S. in 2023. Many of those bills seek to reduce or eliminate gender-affirming care for transgender minors or to ban drag performances in places where minors could view them.

  Most of those bills have not become law. But many of those that have did not survive legal scrutiny when challenged in court.

Drag and the First Amendment are fabulous together

  A deluge of headlines about state laws to restrict drag performances like drag story hours at libraries make it seem like these are recent debates.

  They are not.

  Drag and the First Amendment are part of a larger and long-running question about how far free expression extends. Free speech includes the right of free expression, which includes how people express themselves through what they wear.

Why a federal judge found Tennessee’s anti-drag law unconstitutional

  The drag shows will go on. At least for now.

  On June 2, 2023, Judge Thomas Parker, a Trump-appointed federal district court judge in western Tennessee, ruled that Tennessee’s “Adult Entertainment Act” violated the First Amendment’s free speech protection.

Nine women who used the First Amendment to shape history

  “All men are created equal,” the Declaration of Independence claims, but since the earliest days of the United States, women and girls have been praying, speaking, publishing, gathering, and calling on the government to protect everyone’s fundamental freedoms.

  You may not know much about these First Amendment heroines, but they all embraced their rights to champion causes they cared about and, in doing so, shaped our nation’s history.

Why Tennessee’s law limiting drag performances likely violates the First Amendment

  On March 2, 2023, Tennessee became the first state to enact a law restricting drag performances.

  This law is part of a larger push by Republican lawmakers in numerous states to restrict or eliminate events like drag shows and drag story hours.

  These legislative efforts have been accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric – not grounded in fact – about the need to protect children from “grooming” and sexually explicit performances.

What the First Amendment really says – 4 basic principles of free speech in the US

  Elon Musk has claimed he believes in free speech no matter what. He calls it a bulwark against tyranny in America and promises to reconstruct Twitter, which he now owns, so that its policy on free expression “matches the law.” Yet his grasp of the First Amendment – the law that governs free speech in the U.S. – appears to be quite limited. And he’s not alone.