Forty-five years ago the value of free speech rights resonated soon after our group of American journalists landed at Havana’s Jose Marti Airport and began discussion with Cuban officials over repressed dissent.
In Communist Cuba, we explained, people cannot publicly shout, “Down with Castro” for fear of incarceration. But in America, we can freely shout, “Down with President Carter” without fear of retribution.
Today, I’m not sure the comparison holds. President Trump hates his political opponents, and seeks to silence those who question the merits of his agenda. That includes an aggressive campaign against media outlets he considers liberal or unfriendly.
His attack is unhindered by First Amendment guarantees of free speech and press freedom – two principles benefiting Americans since the nation’s founding.
A notable example of presidential attacks on these bedrock beliefs date to the Sedition Act of 1798, designed to silence critics of President John Adams in the interest of national security over anticipation of war with France.
That act made it unlawful to publish public statements resulting in “contempt or disrepute” of the president or the government. It proved so unpopular that Adams lost his bid for reelection to Thomas Jefferson two years later.
Public support for First Amendment protections terminated the Sedition Act in 1801.
Contemporary attacks on free speech include Presidents Reagan, Nixon and Biden. Reagan for efforts to restrict access to the Freedom of Information Act; Nixon for blocking public disclosure of the Pentagon papers revealing embarrassing facts about the Vietnam War; Biden for strong-arming social media companies to censor postings the government considered harmful in combating the Covid-19 virus.
Thank the Founders for creating a Constitution with guardrails to presidential excesses, including the checkmate role assigned to Congress and the Supreme Court when they exercise it.
Locally, it protects your right to disagree with public officials, attend school board sessions, object to property tax increases, demand transparency and speak out on big and small community issues.
On the national front, Trump prefers muted criticism under the guise of patriotism. He prefers news outlets fawning over his every move, usually stated in elaborate self-praise.
No norm applies, evidenced by the president’s directive to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Dirrector Kash Patel to go after donor organizations benefiting progressive political causes on the suspicion they are contributing to terrorism.
Bondi and Patel relish the assignment to shut down dissenting voices from the left, including those questioning the government’s approbation of assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Bondi even suggested prosecuting a business that refused to print signs promoting a vigil for him.
“For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence,” Bondi stated. “That era is over.” No evidence needed.
Trump and his acolytes are stretching the president’s prerogatives to muzzle his perceived enemies. It is a fundamental duty of the press, rooted in the First Amendment, to hold them accountable. They do not have the authority to stifle free speech.
Yet Trump is doing it with his rhetoric and his pressure campaign against the national media. So far he has extracted $16 million from ABC and a like amount from CBS to settle what legal experts called problematic defamation lawsuits. Both networks had business deals pending before the Federal Communications Commission, an agency Trump has considerable influence over.
Those financial settlements were followed by the president’s $15 billion separate defamation lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times for publishing stories about a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s personal financial history, respectively. Both newspapers stood firmly behind the validity of their stories.
Four days after Trump filed his Sept. 15 suit against the Times, a federal judge in Miami tossed it, saying the complaint read like a lengthy public relations report bragging on Trump instead of a legal document alleging defamation. He gave the president’s lawyers 28 days to file a revised complaint, but with no more than half the pages of the original.
Trump has a long history of suing media outlets when their journalism displeases him. It is a common bullying tactic to counteract unfavorable publicity. Summarily dismissed by judges in the past few years were his lawsuit against CNN and two others targeting the Times.
The reason: The First Amendment’s free speech and press shield. If politically motivated attacks ever remove that shield, Americans of all beliefs will suffer the silencing consequences.
© 2025 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.