Lawsuits illustrate vulnerability of free press
A First Amendment lawsuit against Donald Trump won’t spark fear in the president’s heart.
But it ought to give you a chill.
It is one of a series of current events that shows the vulnerability of the free press in our allegedly free society.
❚ There is also $147.5 million lawsuit by Arizona’s own Joe Arpaio against the New York Times and one of its opinion writers over a column the former Maricopa County sheriff didn’t like. Brought by a conservative group that aspires to “bring this ‘failing newspaper’ to its knees,” it may represent the belief that a Trumpinfluenced Supreme Court will roll back long-honored press freedoms.
❚ There is Trump’s smiley-face, paternalistic treatment of the Saudis after the presumed murder of a U.S.-resident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was last seen entering a Saudi consulate in Turkey. The coddling of Saudi Arabia despite suspicions about its role in Khashoggi’s disappearance is welcome news to all despots who know a journalist they’d like to see disappear.
In this context, the First Amendment lawsuit against Trump offers a few good reasons why all Americans – across the political spectrum – should shudder at thought of rolling back press freedom.
“President Trump has First Amendment rights and is free to criticize the press vehemently, but he is not free to use the power and authority of the United States government to punish and stifle it,” says the lawsuit that was filed Tuesday by the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy on behalf of the PEN American Center, Inc.
It cites examples of retaliation:
❚ Threatening online retailer Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post —a relentless Trump critic. Trump “personally directed U.S. Postmaster General Megan Brennan to double the rate the Postal Service charges Amazon and other firms to ship packages,” according to the suit.
❚ Another relentless Trump critic is CNN, owned by Time Warner, whose planned merger with AT&T was challenged by the Trump Justice Department — something candidate Trump “publicly threatened” to do, according to the suit. Time Warner won, but incurred costs that continue as the administration appeals.
❚ Trump has threatened to pull White House press credentials of reporters he doesn’t like.
❚ Trump threatened the broadcast licenses of NBC and other television stations “in retaliation for coverage he disliked,” the suit says.
Trump’s “use of the power and machinery of government to punish his media critics creates an atmosphere in which journalists must work under the threat of government retaliation,” the lawsuit says.
Supporters of the president may enjoy his chestbeating posture toward the press.
But an attempt by any president to intimidate and silence journalists represents a terrifying lack of appreciation of the role of a free press.
It also shows a disrespect for America’s long, long tradition of protecting a free press.
According to the lawsuit:
❚ Benjamin Franklin defended freedom of speech as the “principal pillar” of a free society and said a leader who had “the power to punish for words would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible.”
❚ In 1936, the U.S. Supreme Court said: “newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country ... have shed ... more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrumentality of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.”
❚ In 1964, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment represents “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
❚ In 1972, the Supreme Court said it is “well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”
❚ In 2012, the Supreme Court said the government cannot “orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.”
What will a Trump-influenced Supreme Court say? If the free-speech lawsuit against Trump makes it that far, this could be another chance for the highest court in the land to speak up for a free press.
But Arpaio’s suit may represent the hopes of those who want to curb speech a politician doesn’t like. It could become a vehicle to allow a more conservative high court to start rolling back America’s press freedoms.
Trump supporters who see that as a good thing are missing the point of the First Amendment.
It wasn’t written to protect journalists. It was written to protect free people.