Whether it be disagreements regarding decolonization movements or the fall of the Berlin Wall, public opinion eventually comes to light, even when facing censorship.
Now, as we enter an era of tumultuous politics and widespread disagreement, we face a practice that goes against the foundations of American government and individual liberties: penalizing those who speak ill of others.
On Oct. 15, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued new rules requiring reporters covering the Pentagon to agree not to publish information without government approval and restricting journalists’ movement in the Pentagon without escorts. Rather than undercut their own journalistic ethics, the vast majority of professional reporters packed up their offices at the Pentagon and turned in their access badges. They’ve vowed to continue covering the U.S. military from outside the building and maintain the confidence of trusted sources.
This continues an anti-free press playbook carried out by the administration over the past 10 months.
When the Trump administration took office, Karoline Leavitt was appointed to White House press secretary, implementing a media strategy that established that public statements openly opposing the government would carry repercussions. The Trump administration has doubled down on its restrictions for media outlets, suing The New York Times for $15 billion under claims that the media company has become “a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democrat Party,” NPR reports. Trump was forced to refile the lawsuit after a federal judge dismissed the complaint as unnecessarily lengthy and “florid.”
Late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel was also temporarily suspended after the Trump-appointed FCC Chairman threatened to review the broadcast license issued to the ABC News’ parent, Walt Disney Co., after he characterized President Trump’s reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death as childlike.
To censor the voices of American journalists is a blatant infringement on American rights. The First Amendment of our Constitution explicitly specifies freedom of the press, and while conservatives have generally veered towards Originalist or Textualist interpretations of the Constitution, they have strayed from those values to protect themselves from criticism.
If we allow the government to infringe upon our First Amendment liberties, then the discourse that enters our workplaces, schools, and homes will lack the varied perspectives and complexity of thought that emerges when discussion is fostered.
The public should consider the ramifications of having their voices stifled and leaving themselves vulnerable to the next attack on their liberty.
