In the next four years, freedom of speech and the press in America are in for unprecedented challenges — as is the democracy. But it’s really nothing new. In fact, it’s part of the ugly heritage of authoritarianism that dates back to the beginning of the United States. Our European legacy.
The first newspaper published in America in 1690, “Public Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic,” was a four-page pamphlet with the last page blank for people to post their own messages, an early version of Facebook or Twitter.
But people didn’t get much chance to tweet. The paper was shut down after only one day because it didn’t have permission to print what the royal governor deemed as “sundry doubtful and uncertain reports.” Wait, isn’t that what our president-elect today calls “fake news”?
Soon after, in 1722, James Franklin, Ben’s younger brother, published a feisty journal in what’s now Connecticut. America’s first independent newspaper was boldly anti-establishment. After complaining about government’s ineptitude in protecting merchant ships and refusing to reveal authors of some of his articles, Franklin was sent to jail.
This surely would have made the president-elect happy. He kidded recently that the prospect of prison rape would loosen reporters’ lips about sources.
“When this person realizes that he is going to be the bride of another prisoner, he will say, ‘I’d very much like to tell you exactly who that was,'” Donald Trump told a rally in Texas. He was kidding.
Colonial authorities were not. In 1735 New York jailed John Peter Zenger, who had the audacity to criticize the Royal Governor for hiring relatives, something not unfamiliar to our president-elect. Zenger went to prison for defaming the government.
But in both those cases, juries of colonial citizens found the men not guilty, establishing a principle that citizens do not need permission to publish. Freedom to criticize would come later. So there is hope in that history. The people do understand.
And we might need to rely on the people and juries again because Trump has made clear he will not tolerate criticism and anything less than utmost loyalty. After all, that is what autocrats need. No dissent. No alternative points of view. You get your way when no one can speak up against you. And, of course, you know better than the people.
And that is why in 1791 the Founders adopted a Bill of Rights. They understood the party in power would — is it human nature? — want to control who speaks and punish dissenters.
The only thing standing between control of the marketplace of ideas that makes us self-governing and the autocratic authority at the top will be the 45 words of the First Amendment and its protection of speech and press. And that may not be enough.
This is the big threat free speech now faces
We have a serious new threat to free speech — the emergence of a Big Tech cabal that dominates our political discourse like no media has ever done. Some of it’s news, some gossip and insults, some disinformation. But often it is a danger to reliable discourse.
The gathering spot for much political debate is X, formerly Twitter, that once banned Trump, but is now owned by Trump’s new buddy, Elon Musk, a billionaire using the platform to influence politics. The First Amendment does not forbid moguls from controlling our news channels. We rely on competition.
And the Biden administration has been aggressive in anti-trust lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, Google and Meta — but will Trump proceed? Probably, unless the platforms say “uncle” and submit to his threats.
The Columbia Journalism Review, the premier journal of criticism, speaks to Trump’s “strategies for constraining the press,” including frivolous lawsuits, espionage charges, and arbitrary detainment.” But “the most widespread” effect: “journalists self-censoring or otherwise altering their coverage… a feature of societies with repressive governments.” Soon to be us.
In fairness, Trump sometimes has good ideas, but usually out of self-interest. For example, he hates Google’s search vehicle, which gets 6.3 million requests per minute. Trump thinks it doesn’t treat him fairly. But the more important issue is Google has a monopoly — 91% of the market. And that leaves us vulnerable to how it searches and to possible bias.
Trump is threatening to go after licenses of radio/TV stations, something Richard Nixon did when angered by the Washington Post. We do license 744,000 stations. And we don’t ask them to do very much. We don’t require news, balance, fairness. We just give them the license, for eight years, mostly to entertain — and make money. There are things we could demand. But we do nothing.
Trump’s beef with TV stations is, again, that they are unfair to him. They criticize him, make fun of him, cover the trials where he has been accused of so many crimes. He is really angry at “60 Minutes.” If he has his way, he will try to remove their licenses and put into place mouthpieces. That’s what Pravda used to do in the Soviet Union: give you the party line.
We need tough but fair reporting. Less “Dancing with the Stars” and more “60 Minutes.” That’s what the First Amendment demands. Why it was protected from the party in power. And presidents can’t take away licenses from voices they don’t like.
Opinion:Trump would threaten freedom of speech in a new term, former Washington Post editor warns
How will Trump attempt to attack the media?
Back to the question of monopolies. How will Trump pursue the question of Big Media? The modern behemoths. They control the world. Amazon dictates book sales. Google dictates information. Everybody and his grandmother looks at Facebook. Do these giants need regulation?
It’s a legitimate question to be tackled — by Congress. What kind of controls would protect us and our children from a variety of ailments — from teenage suicide to pornography to Russian disinformation? That along with climate change might be the most important issue of our generation.
But Trump‘s only concern with these issues is how they affect him. He’s just not the issue. But there are serious issues about regulation of this new and still emerging media landscape. Tackle them!
We could launch many new regulatory efforts without disturbing the protections of speech and press, and provide guardrails for young people in particular. Instead of seeking revenge against critics, the president-elect should push the Congress (he does have a majority) — to move ahead with these reforms.
But that would mean caring about America’s young people who are addicted to phones, social media and violent videos. And Big Tech makes a lot of money from that. The Twitter King might not like the meddling.
Trump won the election fair and square, but whatever mandate he has — his margin of victory was slim — it does not include trampling the Bill of Rights. He has no loyalty to the rights of reporters who he calls “human scum.” But, in the end, they will hold him accountable. Authoritarians do not want to be held accountable. And that we cannot tolerate. Ask the people. They acquitted Franklin and Zenger a long time ago.
Rob Miraldi’s First Amendment writing has won numerous awards. He taught journalism at the State University of New York for many years. Twitter: @miral98; email: rob.miraldi@gmail.com
