Censorship

[Commentary] Rage against the media is political Wagyu for the president’s base. And Trump’s notion of suspending television networks’ licenses — along with his proposal that late-night comedians be subject to the “equal time” rule — is essentially unworkable, given how government regulation of the airwaves actually works. So was it a genuine threat — or just another comment from a president who seemingly thrives on narrative tension simply trying to top himself? “One has to suppose that he’s looking for ways to shock people,” said Russell Baker. “It may go through, or he might probably forget about it,” said the former columnist for The Times. “Is anybody shocked anymore? He’s used it up. It can only last so long.” “What else could he say that he hasn’t already said?” said Bob Schieffer, the broadcasting eminence who formerly anchored “CBS Evening News”. Seen-it-all veterans may take Trump’s recent statements with a few grains of salt. But two former White House officials turned pundits, David Axelrod and Robert Reich, warned of creeping autocracy. And advocacy groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists were moved to point out that such words, issued from the presidential pulpit, can embolden dictators who are more empowered than President Trump to shape or censor coverage.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai still hasn't publicly responded to President Trump's call for NBC and other networks to have their FCC licenses challenged, and Democratic lawmakers are stepping up the pressure.

Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) called for a Congressional hearing in which Chairman Pai and the other FCC commissioners "can publicly disavow President Donald Trump's repeated threats to revoke NBC's broadcaster license due to its reporting." They said, “Over the past few days, the President has repeatedly attacked news outlets and their FCC licenses. This threat alone may already be chilling free speech across the country. That is why we and others have called on the FCC chairman to immediately condemn this intimidation and promise to the American public that he will not follow through on the directions he has received from the president. Despite our calls, the chairman has refused to say if he agrees with the president. We therefore ask for a hearing as soon as possible with all five FCC commissioners so that they can publicly and under oath commit that they will not threaten broadcasters or their licenses because of the content of their reporting.”

Indiana state Rep Jim Lucas (R-Seymour) has drafted a bill that would require professional journalists to be licensed by state police. State Rep Lucas had the measure drawn up earlier in 2017 and said he may file it to drive home a point about his signature issue — gun rights. “If you’re okay licensing my second amendment right, what’s wrong with licensing your first amendment right?” he said. His proposal would require professional journalists to submit an application to the Indiana State Police. Journalists would be fingerprinted as part of the process and would have to pay a $75 fee for a lifetime license. Those with felony or domestic battery convictions would be prohibited from getting a license.

[Commentary] Many have commented on the First Amendment implications if President Donald Trump were to actually go after NBC’s license (or really, the licenses of local affiliates since NBC itself doesn’t need a license) or the NFL’s tax status. But President Trump need not act on his threats for his actions to be considered a First Amendment violation. There’s a compelling argument Trump is in violation of Constitution right now—after he crossed the line from criticism of protected speech to openly threatening government action.

There’s plenty of case law on this subject from the Supreme Court to appeals courts around the country. Most recently, in a case in the Seventh Circuit called BackPage LLC vs. Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, just-retired Judge Richard Posner articulated exactly why Trump may already be running afoul of the First Amendment merely through his threats.

[Trevor Timm is the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation]

President Donald Trump has threatened press freedoms before, but on Oct 11 he went a step further: suggesting that television networks lose their federal broadcast licenses for what he considers “fake news.” In comments to reporters in the Oval Office, President Trump said, “It is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it.”

The remarks alarmed 1st Amendment advocates for suggesting the use of government power to punish the media, recalling for many the threats of President Richard Nixon. “The founders of our nation set as a cornerstone of our democracy the 1st Amendment, forever enshrining and protecting freedom of the press," said Gordon Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters and a former Republican senator from Oregon. “It is contrary to this fundamental right for any government official to threaten the revocation of an FCC license simply because of a disagreement with the reporting of a journalist,” he said. Asked whether there should be limits on what journalists can write, President Trump softened his tone. “No. The press should speak more honestly,” he said. “I’ve seen tremendously dishonest press. It’s not even a question of distortion.”

President Trump’s threat to pull NBC’s license doesn’t make sense for a lot of reasons — starting with the fact that NBC doesn’t have a license to begin with. But it is still alarming to news outlets, because federal regulations aren’t clear about whether federal regulators can intervene to stop “fake” news.

You might assume the First Amendment protects all reporting. But current Federal Communications Commission language leaves open the possibility of government intervention, under certain narrow conditions. “The president has no authority to direct the FCC to revoke a broadcast license,” said former Federal Communications Commission lawyer Robert Corn-Revere. “The FCC is an independent regulatory agency.” But presidents can still exert influence — especially since they appoint all five FCC commissioners. And the FCC may exert influence, too. But no one can say for sure how heavy its hand might be. The FCC states on its website that it will investigate stations accused of deliberately distorting the news, but that the burden of proof is high. The commission says it will generally not intervene in cases in which viewers believe stations have “aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover” because “it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own.” The FCC’s policy on intentional “distortion” is a troubling one for television companies, according to Mark Schnieder, a former FCC lawyer and adjunct law professor at Georgetown University Law School.

President Donald Trump made two things clear when he told reporters gathered in the Oval Office that “it's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it.” One: He does not value a free press. Two: He does not even understand how a free press works.

It is simply untrue that “the press is able to write whatever they want to write.” News outlets that defame or invade the privacy of the people they cover can be sued into extinction. Just ask Gawker, which went bankrupt and shuttered last year after losing a case brought by Hulk Hogan.

President Donald Trump is yet again threatening to crack down on media outlets he doesn't like. But this time he's doing it in a much more brazen fashion. And it's almost exactly what Richard Nixon appeared to attempt in the 1970s. The difference here is that Nixon talked about the scheme only privately. Nixon allies challenged the licenses of TV stations whose owners ran afoul of Nixon. And those owners were The Washington Post Co.

Framing the freedom of the press to cover what it deems important as “disgusting” is remarkable coming from any American politician, much less the president while sitting in the Oval Office. But it serves as a reminder that, for all of the focus placed on President Donald Trump’s relationship with and emulation of Russian President Vladimir Putin, there’s another autocrat with whom he has had a friendly relationship and interests in common: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Erdogan, perhaps more directly than Putin, moved early to line up allies in the Trump administration. In August of 2016, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s consulting firm entered into a business arrangement with Inovo BV, a Dutch consulting firm owned by a Turkish businessman with ties to Erdogan. At the same time, Flynn was a key aide to Trump. On the day of the election itself, Nov. 8, an opinion piece written by Flynn ran at The Hill. It was titled, “Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support.” “The U.S. media is doing a bang-up job of reporting the Erdogan government’s crackdown on dissidents,” Flynn wrote, “but it’s not putting it into perspective.”

Would you say that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people; or that government should prevent people from engaging in hate speech against certain groups in public? That choice kicked off a lengthy survey on free speech and tolerance that will be released later in Oct by The Cato Institute, which collaborated with YouGov, the market research firm, to collect responses. The final data set was drawn from answers to scores of questions provided by 2,300 people.