Reading the First Amendment backwards

Posted on July 2, 2026 by | Comments Off on Reading the First Amendment backwards

JD Vance (June 26, 2026): “If the First Amendment says that we have a free and open debate and then the American people judge based on that free and open debate,  [that is] the sense in which I think the election in 2020 was rigged.”  WATCH THE INTERVIEW 

Editor & Publisher magazine: “The First Amendment says nearly the opposite of what Vance claims… [It] is not a general guarantee of a balanced debate enforced against private companies. It is a restraint on government. Its entire purpose is to protect citizens and companies from state interference with speech and the press…  [private] companies decide what to host, rank, and amplify. That is not a constitutional violation. It is itself a First Amendment-protected activity.”  READ THE ARTICLE 

Comments Off on Reading the First Amendment backwards

Posted in Uncategorized

First Amendment Updates, 2025-26

Posted on March 17, 2026 by | Comments Off on First Amendment Updates, 2025-26

May 22 — Trump posts a  video celebrating the end of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert on May 21. Trump’s extraordinary behavior has never been exceeded in any American presidency.

May 28 — Trump refiles  libel suit against the Wall Street Journal claiming that Trump did not write the birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein that the newspaper published.  The first suit was dismissed in April 2026.

May 28 — American Broadcasting Co. accuses Trump administration of political interference in licensing review.


An April 23, 2026 Jimmy Kimmel joke about Melania Trump having “the glow of an expectant widow” has escalated into an FCC investigation of the ABC network. 

According to Dr. Eliza Bechtold:

Actions taken by the administration to target broadcast networks and individuals for political speech are precisely what the First Amendment protects against. It was designed, among other things, to protect individuals, entities and the press from government interference by creating an open marketplace in which ideas compete freely.

This is particularly true for dissenting political speech, which is the core of the first amendment. This explains why government interference with speech based on “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker” – known as “viewpoint discrimination” – is expressly prohibited.

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury April 28, 2026 for posting a picture of seashells on a beach that spell out “8647,” which supposedly means ‘get rid of’ (86) Trump (47).  The Dept. of Justice said in a news release: “This charge alleges that on May 15, 2025, by publicly posting an image over the internet via Instagram depicting “86 47”, which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”  [sic].

PBS defunding reversed — March 31 — A federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump  administration’s  federal funding cuts for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

Pentagon press policy unconstitutional — March 20, 2026 — A federal judge struck down the    Pentagon’s prior restraint press policy from September 2025,  saying that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

FCC’s  Brendan Carr

More Threats— March 14-15 2026  — President Trump and FCC chair Brendan Carr threaten to revoke broadcast licenses over what they claim to be  incorrect news items.  This followed a Trump social media post March 14  and March 15  claiming that damage reports from a minor incident were deliberately distorted. “Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts!” Trump wrote. “They are truly sick and demented people that have no idea the damage they cause the United States of America.”  (Note: First Amendment advocates have repeatedly warned that Trump’s “rage rhetoric” is dangerous.)  

Is it constitutional to threaten revocation of licenses?  In NRA v Vullo, a unanimous May 30, 2024 Supreme Court decision, Justice Sotomayor wrote for the court:

A government entity’s threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion against a third party  to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment… Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.  .

Pete Hegseth was not flattered. AFP / Pool photo.

Unflattering photos — March 10 — Defense secretary Pete Hegseth ordered photojournalists barred from Pentagon press conferences. Sources said Hegseth was upset over “unflattering” photos, although its difficult to understand which  might have flattered him in the first place.

Continue reading →

Comments Off on First Amendment Updates, 2025-26

Posted in broadcasting, censorship, Constitutional law, Libel, Politics & media law

Trump brags he’s “reshaping the media”

Posted on March 15, 2026 by | Comments Off on Trump brags he’s “reshaping the media”

This astonishing admission of government interference with the press was posted on Trump’s social media account. Trump is openly violating the First Amendment. See @realDonaldTrump March 14, 2026.

Comments Off on Trump brags he’s “reshaping the media”

Posted in broadcasting, censorship, Constitutional law, Libel, Politics & media law

More censorship for the Late Show

Posted on February 17, 2026 by | Comments Off on More censorship for the Late Show


In a new interpretation of longstanding rules  released Jan. 21, 2026,  the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission said that Section 315  “Equal Time Rule”  requirements for news talk programs are in effect unless there is an exemption, which Stephen Colbert does not have.

Under the rule, broadcast media must provide equal time for all politicians running for the same office. If an interview is aired with a democratic candidate for an office,  a similar interview with republican and independent candidates  must also be aired.

The rule was widely interpreted as applying only to advertising, since strict application of US Title 47 Section 315 to news interviews on talk shows would create editorial chaos.

That’s why the law exempts bona-fine news programs and talk shows from the rule. Historically, only a very few talk shows have applied for exemptions;  apparently, the last two were  Anderson Cooper in 2011 and a California talk show in 2006.  These two cases were  considered as examples of a de-facto blanket rule that left talk show editorial decisions to the broadcasters.

What’s new is that now in 2026,  the Trump FCC is changing the rule’s interpretation and applying pressure on CBS:

Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level decision to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs— whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities requirement under a bona fide news exemption. This is not the case. As noted above, these decisions are fact specific and the exemptions are limited to the program that was the subject of the request.

Attorneys with the CBS network told the Late Show with Stephen Colbert that they were running afoul of the law simply by having politicians on the show.  Colbert says that CBS  ordered  him not to air an interview with James Talarico, a democratic candidate for a US Senate seat in Texas.  So the interview was placed on YouTube, which does not fall under the same broadcast media regulations.

Anna M. Gomez, an FCC commissioner appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023, condemned the censorship of the Colbert show  “This is yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this Administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech,” Gomez said.

Republican-appointed FCC commissioners Brendan Carr and Olivia Trusty supported the new interpretation of the rules.

Comments Off on More censorship for the Late Show

Posted in broadcasting, censorship, Constitutional law

How the First Amendment protects you

Posted on February 10, 2026 by | Comments Off on How the First Amendment protects you

By Ray Brescia 
Associate Dean, Albany Law School, via The Conversation,

Imagine a protest outside the funeral of a popular political leader, with some of the protesters celebrating the death and holding signs that say things like “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed” and “Don’t Pray for the USA.”

No matter the political leanings of that leader, most Americans would probably abhor such a protest and those signs. Why would (we) tolerate such activities, no matter how distasteful? The First Amendment.

The situation described above is taken from an actual protest, though it did not involve the funeral of a political figure. Instead, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested outside the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, a U.S. service member killed in Iraq.

Through demonstrations like this, members of this group were conveying their belief that the U.S. is overly tolerant of those they perceive as sinners, especially people from the LGBTQ community, and that the death of U.S. soldiers should be recognized as divine retribution for such sinfulness.

Snyder’s family sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. A jury issued a US$5 million jury award in favor of the family of the deceased service member. But in a nearly unanimous decision issued in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment insulated the protesters from such a judgment.

This holding is particularly instructive today.

Continue reading →

Comments Off on How the First Amendment protects you

Posted in censorship, Constitutional law, Libel

Press freedom under siege – Pelosi

Posted on February 5, 2026 by | Comments Off on Press freedom under siege – Pelosi

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Feb 4, 2026, that press freedom is under siege in the US.  Rep. Pelosi’s remarks were given at the annual dinner of the Washington Press Club.

Comments Off on Press freedom under siege – Pelosi

Posted in Uncategorized

Do EU regs threaten American speech?

Posted on February 4, 2026 by | Comments Off on Do EU regs threaten American speech?

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)

To oppose EU hate speech laws and other digital media regulations, the House Judiciary Committee brought in three minor European figures who testified in support of  legislation that would expand US First Amendment freedoms into Europe.

The  Feb. 4, 2026 hearing, “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation: Part II,” highlighted Europe’s supposed “online censorship laws,” such as the European Union’s (EU) Digital Services Act (DSA) and the United Kingdom’s (UK) Online Safety Act (OSA).

According to the Republican-led committee, these European laws “threaten Americans’ right to speak freely online in the United States.”

Of course, the vast majority of European officials don’s support the Republican viewpoint and have argued that opposing their regulations undercuts their national sovereignty.

Democrats in the sharply divided committee also disagreed, saying we can’t compare minor inconveniences in EU law to the harsh treatment of citizens and press in Minnesota.

“We should focus on our First Amendment violations right here at home instead of pulling in people from other countries,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) “That’s what this committee should be investigating.”

Continue reading →

Comments Off on Do EU regs threaten American speech?

Posted in censorship, Constitutional law, International Law, Politics & media law

New ideas for 2026

Posted on January 6, 2026 by | Comments Off on New ideas for 2026

How can we rebuild a culture of free expression?

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, free speech and press freedom face unprecedented threats from campus censorship, social media content moderation, and government pressure campaigns. From college students afraid to voice opinions in class to journalists facing investigations, the First Amendment foundations of American democracy are under multiple threats in ways the Founders never imagined.

Stuart N. Brotman is Professor of Media Management and Law and Beaman Professor of Journalism and Electronic Media at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

“It was intended to be amended”  A History of the U.S. Constitution by Jill Lepore is a 2025 book about the origins and theories of constitutional law. She argues that the framers intended it to be a living document, not a static one (as “originalists” believe). Also, amending the constitution should be easier in order to reduce the risk of political violence and judicial overreach.   

Jill Lepore is an historian and journalist. She is the David Woods Kemper ’41 Professor of American History at Harvard University and a staff writer at The New Yorker.

Comments Off on New ideas for 2026

Posted in censorship, Constitutional law, Politics & media law

Trump tanks Canadian trade talks over ads

Posted on October 24, 2025 by | Comments Off on Trump tanks Canadian trade talks over ads

Oct. 24, 2025  — President Trump announced he has ended trade negotiations with Canada in direct response to a television ad that opposed U.S. tariffs. The  ad began airing on CBC and major US networks around Oct. 14 was produced by the province of Ontario. The ad uses video from the Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade given by president Ronald Reagan on April 25, 1987.  Trump claimed the ad was  “fake”  and somehow designed to influence American courts.

The Ronal Reagan Presidential Library posted a message on X / Twitter claiming that the ad “misrepresents” the Reagan position. However,  a video posted by the Reagan library shows plainly that there is no inconsistency. Reagan supported free trade policies in the 1980s and the Republican Party was long was known as “the party of free trade.”

The Reagan library also said that the government of  Ontario “did not seek or receive permission to use and edit the remarks.”  However, there is no requirement for anyone to seek permission to use  publications in the public domain. All official acts of the US government, including presidential speeches, are in the public domain after short (5 to 12 year) processing time limits have been reached.  The Reagan library acknowledges this in its statement on the Presidential Records Act.  And the Reagan library has itself released these records to the public on its YouTube channel).  Continue reading →

Comments Off on Trump tanks Canadian trade talks over ads

Posted in censorship, International Law

Posted on September 24, 2025 by | Comments Off on

Comments Off on

Posted in censorship, Politics & media law

Perspectives on Trump media pressure

Posted on February 4, 2025 by | Comments Off on Perspectives on Trump media pressure

Put Colbert to sleep — Dec 24 — In a social media post, Donald Trump said that comedian Stephen Colbert is a “pathetic train wreck” and that CBS should “put him to sleep”  He also said: “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows, are almost 100% Negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say, YES!”

Another comedian bothers Trump  — Nov 17 —  Trump and FCC chair Carr called for comedian Seth Meyers to be fired by the National Broadcasting Company. “NBC’s Seth Meyers is suffering from an incurable case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS),” Trump posted on Truth Social on Nov. 15.

Demeaning reporters — Nov 14 — Asked about the ongoing Epstein scandal, Trump turned on a female reporter and responded “Quiet, Piggy.”

Suing BBC — Nov 14 – President Trump said he was considering a libel suit against the British Broadcasting Corp. for up to $5 billion after it spliced together separate excerpts of a speech on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the Capitol. Trump claimed the edit created the impression he had called for violence. BBC apologized but said it would fight any legal action.

Not taking the Pentagon press pledge — Oct 14 — News organizations have refused the Trump administration’s offer to allow them continued credentials at the Pentagon in exchange for a written pledge to only report “authorized” official information approved by the Pentagon press office.  Organizations refusing this unprecedented new policy include the Associated Press, New York Times, CNN, Reuters, Fox and Newsmax.  In addition to refusing the policy,  NPR defense reporter Tom Bowman is turning in his press credentials.   OneAmerica News is the only outlet that has agreed to the new Pentagon rules. The Poynter Institute provides a breakdown on the policy and its critics. Update from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press:  The New York Times filed a lawsuit  in the first week of December 2025 claiming that the new Pentagon policy violates the First Amendment. The RCFP has a short summary and explainer of the legal theories advanced by the Gray Lady.

Kimmel show cancelled — Sept. 17 — Pressure from the Federal Communications Commission led ABC to cancel the Jimmy Kimmel show.  Kimmel faced criticism over remarks about the politics of the man who is accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk.  ABC / Disney relented after fans objected, and Kimmel returned Sept. 23 with a moving  defense of free speech.

Trump calls for FCC to revoke broadcast network licenses — Aug 25, 2025 – President Donald Trump reiterated a long-running push for the Federal Communications Commission to revoke station licenses of two major U.S. broadcasters and charge them for using the public airwaves, as he criticized their news programming.  Trump suggested late on Sunday on social media that Disney-owned ABC  and Comcast-owned  NBC are biased and mostly air “bad stories” about him, and as a result, should, “according to many, have their licenses revoked by the FCC. I would be totally in favor of that because they are so biased and untruthful.”

Colbert show cancelled — July 17 — CBS decided to cancel Late Night with Stephen Colbert a few days after Colbert criticized CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, for paying $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, who claimed the network interfered in the 2024 election by editing a 60 Minutes interview with his opponent, Kamala Harris. (PBS)

Continue reading →

Comments Off on Perspectives on Trump media pressure

Posted in censorship, Constitutional law, Politics & media law