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.

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.

Educators calculate their risks in class as states escalate anti-DEI pressure

  At Miami Norland Senior High School in Miami Gardens, Florida, Renee O’Connor continues to teach students about Ida B. Wells, James Baldwin, and The 1619 Project in her African American history class.  

  She does this despite the ban on teaching the Pulitzer Prize-winning reexamination of African American enslavement and legacy in the state’s public schools, in a state regulation implementing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ 2022 “Stop WOKE Act.” The law aims to restrict educating children and others about the U.S. legacy of racism in schools and workplaces. 

  O’Connor isn’t defiant. She cites an obligation to her students.  

  “I teach a factual education based on documented proof,” O’Connor said.   

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.”

In the ‘big tent’ of free speech, can you be too open-minded?

  People often extol the virtue of open-mindedness, but can there be too much of a good thing?

  As a college dean, I regularly observe campus controversies about the Israel-Hamas war, race relations, and other hot-button issues. Many of these concern free speech – what students, faculty, and invited speakers should and shouldn’t be allowed to say.

  But free speech disputes aren’t merely about permission to speak. They are about who belongs at the table – and whether there are limits to the viewpoints we should listen to, argue with, or allow to change our minds. As a philosopher who works on “culture war” issues, I’m particularly interested in what free-speech disputes teach about the value of open-mindedness.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The wrongness of letting government tell us to ‘shut up – or else’

  There may be no worse assault on our freedom of speech than a law that would permit the government to tell us to “shut up” when it comes to discussion and debate on a major social issue of our time – and to punish us if we don’t.

  Freedom of speech under the First Amendment is rooted in the concept of a “marketplace of ideas,” where information and robust, uninhibited exchanges are protected to ensure all can speak and be heard.

Elon Musk says relaxing content rules on Twitter will boost free speech, but research shows otherwise

  Elon Musk’s accepted bid to purchase Twitter has triggered a lot of debate about what it means for the future of the social media platform, which plays an important role in determining the news and information many people – especially Americans – are exposed to.

  Musk has said he wants to make Twitter an arena for free speech. It’s not clear what that will mean, and his statements have fueled speculation among both supporters and detractors. As a corporation, Twitter can regulate speech on its platform as it chooses. There are bills being considered in the U.S. Congress and by the European Union that address social media regulation, but these are about transparency, accountability, illegal harmful content, and protecting users’ rights rather than regulating speech.

When are book bans unconstitutional? A First Amendment scholar explains

  The United States has become a nation divided over important issues in K-12 education, including which books students should be able to read in public school.

  Efforts to ban books from school curricula, remove books from libraries, and keep lists of books that some find inappropriate for students are increasing as Americans become more polarized in their views.

How Gen Z activists are living and protecting the First Amendment

  Zanagee Artis says he got into climate activism too late in life. The senior at Brown University co-founded Zero Hour, a youth-led climate movement, in 2017 when he was 17.

  Teigan Blaine, a high school junior in Minnesota, started organizing in eighth grade and is now part of MN Teen Activists, which unites young voices to speak up about injustice.

Unpacking cancel culture: Is it censorship, civil right or something else?

  There’s no shortage of passionate opinions about cancel culture.

  Depending on who you ask:

• Cancel culture is on the rise. Cancel culture isn’t real.
• Canceling has little to no effect on the canceled. Canceling ruins lives.
• Cancel culture is a threat to free speech. Cancel culture is just speech holding others accountable.

  There isn’t agreement on what “canceling” means.

The government’s war on free speech

  “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” — George Washington

  It’s a given that the government is corrupt, unaccountable, and has exceeded its authority.

  So what can we do about it?

  The first remedy involves speech (protest, assembly, speech, prayer, and publicity), and lots of it, in order to speak truth to power.

  The First Amendment, which is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, affirms the right of “we the people” to pray freely about our grievances regarding the government. We can gather together peacefully to protest those grievances. We can publicize those grievances. And we can express our displeasure (peacefully) in word and deed.

  Unfortunately, tyrants don’t like people who speak truth to power.