THE PRESS, THE PUBLIC, AND THE PRESIDENT

Under the Trump administration, the suppression of free speech has become a concern among many citizens. Much of the president’s rhetoric and political strategy has come from fostering among his supporters a distrust for the mainstream news, swiftly dismissing those claims from journalists that may threaten his political capital. Trump is not unique in that respect, but he is remarkable in the volume, scope, and success of using this strategy.

ALL 3 PUBLICITIES REPRESENTED- HELP EACH OTHER; GRAPHIC BY ROYCE POHLMAN

Worries

Especially after the lawsuit filed against The New York Times and the brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show, people have been worried about government censorship. According to NPR, 79% of polled Americans (all parties) believe the government “has gone too far in restricting free speech.” The attempted concentration of the Executive Branch’s power has been a theme of Trump’s second term. There is reason enough for some to consider that, as means to that end, the president’s administration may be working to eliminate some pieces of high-profile criticism. Though not the only lawsuit his team filed against a news organization, Trump’s case against The New York Times gained plenty of attention. It was based on claims of intentional defamation. The complaint was rejected on grounds that it was not clear and concise, and the president’s legal team was given 28 days to file another, more appropriate complaint. 

 Writing politics articles that are not intended to be opinion pieces requires a sort of surgical verbal precision. When exploring thoughts or going deeper into concepts beyond events and statistics, politics writers must take care to ensure that not a word is able to be misconstrued. Uniquely, it is the duty of the reporter to not leave anything up to interpretation. To do so could run the risk of spreading misinformation, regardless of the reporter’s intentions. In fact, the reporter’s intentions don’t matter; it is absolutely necessary that every word be crystal clear. Good politics writers know this, and incorporate skillful diligence into their regular writing. But if a person follows this policy to the letter and is still condemned for bad-faith journalism, troubles abound. This is what some are worried  about.   Government  censorship is the redaction or banishment of material that may undermine confidence in or approval of the government doing the censoring. The motivation in this censorship is to retain the confidence in or approval of the government which the material may seek to undermine. Censorship has affected many governments throughout history, and still affects many today. In America, this practice is seen as firmly unconstitutional. The worry among many in 2025 is that news organizations and media outlets may be unduly targeted by the Trump administration. After the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, Trump was asked before a flight on Air Force One if he wanted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “go after” more late-night hosts like Kimmel. According to NPR, Trump replied that polls showed that networks were “97% against” him. He continued, “If they’re 97% against, they give me only bad publicity or press. I mean, if they're getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It'll be up to [the chairman of the FCC].” The lawsuit against The New York Times in conjunction with the (albeit brief) suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! has stirred up debates about presidential overreach, government censorship, and the first amendment.

Among Democrats (and increasingly among Republicans, too) there are fears that the United States is heading down a track toward that ever un-American practice of government censorship. What these worries and fears amount to is more than a fringe conspiracy theory. If the power and influence of the Executive Branch becomes a threat to Americans’ first amendment rights, then there is a serious problem. If—if—the Trump administration submits another complaint against The New York Times, and if a court finds the latter guilty of defamation, then it may have to cough up millions of dollars. This would also set a legal precedent that news media can be punished for works similar to those over which the administration sued. What effect would that have on our rights?

Public Schools

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District was a Supreme Court case resolved in 1969 which dictated that, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The case was over students in Des Moines wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The school district decided to ban students from wearing those armbands. Students argued that banning them violated their first amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed. Any opinion pieces you read in this and any edition of The Anchor are protected under the precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines, so long as they don’t tell you to actively disrupt the education of your fellow students at CCAHS. That is to say that, in a properly labeled opinion article, a student is allowed to criticize the school district, the government at all levels, and really anything else. (Note the Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier allows schools to control what can be published in their newspapers. However, this does not necessarily mean that Tinker and Hazelwood are at odds in the realm of student journalism. Rather, the two work in tandem to establish standards of content while protecting the rights of student opinion within that content.)

 Despite the prowess of The Anchor’s staff, an article within it is unlikely to earn national attention. So it is similarly unlikely that the Trump administration would sue CCA for defamation. That’s not the only way we could be affected, theoretically. While our hyperlocal stature protects us from direct government litigation, an overturn of Tinker v. Des Moines or a Supreme Court precedent that limits what a newspaper can say about the president could change things around here. A change to free speech rights in America could easily trickle down to even the smallest speakers. If, in a theoretical future, it was decided that public school students could not peacefully protest against the government, then CCA would probably not want us publishing more opinion pieces about the Trump administration, lest they get in trouble with the government. 

 While it’s impossible to predict the future, many Americans do believe that their freedom of speech is being threatened by the current administration. What ought to (and can be) done about this is unclear, but in many people’s eyes, it’s only getting worse.