Note: I’m still recovering from Soapbox, FIRE’s first-of-its-kind conference celebrating America’s 250th anniversary and dedicated to the power of free expression. But it was great to see so many of you, and expect to hear more about it next week!
Stories of the week
These types of statements from the president have become commonplace. But we shouldn’t get used to them. It might be tempting to write them off as empty threats. But the administration has already made extraordinary attacks on press freedom, from banning disfavored outlets from the White House grounds to the FCC’s relentless pressure on networks that air unfavorable coverage. What the administration can’t seem to understand is that the answer to purportedly false or biased reporting is more speech, not government censorship.
N.H. dads who protested transgender athletes by wearing pink wristbands score court victory by Holly Ramer (AP, via firstamendment.mtsu.edu)
Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote sued the Bow school district after they were banned from school grounds for wearing the wristbands to a 2024 soccer game that included a transgender girl, born biologically male, on the opposing team. [...] Under a settlement agreement, the district’s risk pool will pay $225,000 to the Institute for Free Speech, which represented the men in court, and $50,000 to the men’s attorney. The plaintiffs will each get $17.91, an amount that symbolizes the year states ratified the First Amendment.
White House Weighs Executive Order Attaching Terrorist Label to Some Nonprofits by Brian Schwartz and Richard Rubin (WSJ)
Such an executive order would use an untested tax code section and escalate the administration’s scrutiny of tax-exempt groups, possibly targeting some of Trump’s antagonists and political opponents. Applying the terrorist label would impose much more immediate consequences on groups than the slower procedures typically used by the Internal Revenue Service to examine and penalize tax-exempt organizations for legal violations.
This week in Expression
Minors have First Amendment rights, too. Protecting minors is an important goal, but that interest — as the Supreme Court in Brown made clear — is not a blank check for the state to determine what lawful ideas and information they are allowed to receive.
The good, the bad, and the vague in the new college accreditation rule by Michael Hurley
Women with more friends are less tolerant by Chapin Lenthall-Cleary
When police treat free speech as suspicious activity by Cary Davis
California college police officer threatens to arrest student over anti-police flyers by Noah Young
After insulting Mao Zedong, some offer groveling apologies to protect the bottom line. Others suffer in prison by Sarah McLaughlin
This week on So to Speak
This week on host & FIRE EVP Nico Perrino spoke with Jessica Dickinson Goodman, co-founder of Citizen Historians for the Smithsonian, about the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape how American history is presented in the nation’s museums, the chilling effects of political pressure on museum staff, and who should control the telling of America’s history as well as the grassroots effort to document Smithsonian exhibits and defend the institution’s editorial independence.
This week on FIRE’s blog
FIRE in the press!
Harvard is trying to win back trust after years of scandal — and professors say it’s working by Rikki Schlott (NY Post)
FIRE Updates the University’s Grade in Most Recent Report by Finn Feldman (The Wesleyan Argus)
International free speech stories of the week
Thailand extends jail term of human rights lawyer to 34 years for offending monarchy (Independent.co.uk) by Stuti Mishra
Nampa told reporters after the verdict that it did not surprise him.
“If the country was more open, we would be able to talk about these issues freely,” he said.
The law, article 112 of the Thai criminal code, punishes anyone who defames, insults or threatens the king, queen, heir-apparent or regent with three to 15 years in prison.
[UK] More than 300 arrests at Palestine Action support protest outside US embassy (BBC.com) by Tom Symonds
Reddit and libertarian group challenge Australia’s under-16s social media ban in high court (The Guardian) by Josh Taylor
Book of the week… while supplies last
If you’re the kind of person who likes reading from dead trees (who doesn’t? Have you ever tried using Silly Putty on a Kindle?), consider this your fair warning that physical copies of The War On Words are almost sold out! This is the book where the legendary Nadine Strossen and I tackle the ten most common anti-speech arguments we hear with ready-to-deploy responses. If you read it, when your uncle tries to claim that hate speech isn’t free speech this Thanksgiving, you’ll be ready to spring into action with “ACTUALLY…” and send him back to complaining about the local sports team.
And if you don’t act soon, you’ll miss your chance, because I might buy a bunch to remind my new neighbors I got to co-author a book with Nadine Strossen. “Hi neighbors! No big deal, she’s only pretty much the avatar of free expression on Earth. But I’m sure your business company is really cool, too.”
Huh? Are you saying that museum staff must be believed?
I've been to any number of museums, including the Smithsonian. There is no mistaking the racism, which is a violation of federal law. Would you care to explain why you're blaming Trump for enforcing federal law, while giving the historians a free pass to violate it?
The media-threat item makes the point cleanly: if a story is wrong, answer it with evidence. Government pressure changes who gets to contest the facts at all. “More speech” only works if officials don’t get to choose which speakers can reach the public.