In the WSJ about Trump & the AP, the Weimar Fallacy strikes back, VICTORY in Mississippi, re-upping the Cali DEI case, & more!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (3/2/25)
Stories of the week
The First Amendment Isn’t on Trump’s Side (WSJ) by me
President Trump doesn’t have to speak to journalists he dislikes in one-on-one interviews. Nor is the White House obligated to hold press events open to multiple reporters. Once it does, however, it can’t constitutionally deny access for arbitrary or viewpoint-based reasons. Such is the case here: The AP lost access because Mr. Trump disagrees with its editorial choices.
My father survived the Holocaust. Censorship didn’t stop the Nazis, it helped them (Fox) by Nadine Strossen
And check out Nadine discussing the article on The Hill’s ‘Rising’:
This week in FIRE’s blog
Last week, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression first called national attention to the plight of the Press Register after the city sued the small-town Coahoma County newspaper to force it to take down an editorial criticizing local officials. On Friday, FIRE agreed to defend the Press Register, its editor, and parent company in court to have the unconstitutional restraining order lifted.
As compliance deadline looms, colleges must resist censorship — and the feds must provide more clarity by Tyler Coward
This town fought residents over political yard signs — now it’s paying the price by Brennen VanderVeen
University of Hawai‘i dean sues law professor who criticized diversity event by
Stranger than fiction: The Young Warrior saga at the Institute for American Indian Arts by William Harris
This week in ERI
‘Canceling’ in the news
Deconstructing the art of cancel culture (The Critic) by Alan Sokal
But the deepest contribution of this book is concerned, not with “cancellation” in either of the two senses — which are injustices against individuals — but rather with “Cancel Culture” as practiced today on both “left” and “right” […] The principal merit of this book, to my mind, is its clear cataloguing of some of these spurious argumentative tactics, along with some modest suggestions for combatting them.
International free speech stories of the week
Signal May Exit Sweden If Government Imposes Encryption Backdoor (InfoSecurity Magazine) by Kevin Poireault
In a bold move that underscores the growing tension between tech companies and governments over encryption, end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) instant messaging app Signal is considering leaving Sweden over a proposed law that could compromise user privacy.
The Swedish government is scheduled to propose a bill in March 2025 that would grant the country’s police force and security service the ability to request message history in retrospect for individuals suspected of crimes.
Canadian pro-Palestinian activist released from jail says free speech under threat (Middle East Eye) by Syma Mohammed
EXCLUSIVE: Government warns LSE over ‘lawfulness of speech’ ahead of Hamas book event (Jewish News) by Lee Harpin
Indonesian Catholic Group Wields Blasphemy Law in Land Dispute (Human Rights Watch) by Andreas Harsono
Debate of the month
Stanford’s ‘Democracy and Disagreement’ series is in the news this week due to the shout-down of Larry Summers during his debate with Emmanual Saez on the merits of a potential wealth tax. (I wrote about it in the ‘Shot for the Road’ of my last post.) But prior to that, last month, FIRE Executive Vice President
debated NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron at Stanford on whether or not hate speech should be protected by the First Amendment.
I agree intellectually, but I no longer give a damn. AP is a disgrace. They are propagandists, and don't even attempt to hide it.
Yes, propagandists have free speech rights, but I don't care about theirs any more than they care about mine. There's no reason I should.
There's an old saying, "You made your bed, now lie in it." AP made that bed, for others. Now they're complaining because they're forced to lie in it. I don't just hate propagandists; I also hate phony hypocrites. That's two strikes, AP. Quit while you're ahead.
"President Trump doesn’t have to speak to journalists he dislikes in one-on-one interviews. Nor is the White House obligated to hold press events open to multiple reporters. Once it does, however, it can’t constitutionally deny access for arbitrary or viewpoint-based reasons."
Yes, he can. The President retains the same Free Speech rights and Right of Free Association as any other citizen: he can talk to whomever he chooses and NOT talk to whomever he chooses, for any reason he chooses. It's HIS Speech. By all means, if you think there's a Constitutional argument for compelled Speech, which is what it would take to judicially mandate that he must speak to people against his will, then Trump can refuse to talk to the AP just as anyone else can. FIRE is literally taking the Anti-Free Speech side of this case just because you don't like Trump. It's a disgrace.