Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The new free speech crisis hiding in plain sight

Published

on

The new free speech crisis hiding in plain sight

The essence of free speech isn’t just that you will find the text of the First Amendment in copies of the Constitution. It requires living up to the principle in practice: for freedom of religion, speech, press and association to be exercised freely without fear of ruinous retaliation and the abuse of state power. Today, a vicious campaign against these freedoms is being waged by the new right under President Donald TrumpElon Musk and their allies.

There has been much discussion of the “information environment” and how it ultimately affects the behavior of voters in the exercise of our democratic self-governance. A crisis has been quietly brewing, fueled by the misuse of defamation law in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and outright abuses of state power. What was once a slow boil has now erupted into full view, as political actors and powerful figures weaponize institutional risk aversion to suppress speech they don’t like.

The fear of litigation has become deeply ingrained in professional journalism, distorting the ability to report the truth. This underscores a chilling reality for journalists, commentators and political opponents alike. Free speech in the United States is under attack through a diffuse, deliberate effort to undermine our core constitutional freedoms.

The fear of litigation has become deeply ingrained in professional journalism, distorting the ability to report the truth.

As Mike Masnick, editor of Techdirt and online free speech expert, aptly noted“Defamation law has been so widely abused to chill speech and so few people know it.” The use of SLAPPs — lawsuits designed to intimidate and financially exhaust critics, even when they are legally meritless — has become a primary weapon in this war on speech. And when private lawsuits are not enough, state power is increasingly being mobilized to achieve the same ends, turning free expression into a high-stakes gamble for anyone daring to speak truth to power.

Defamation law, ostensibly meant to protect reputations against malicious falsehoods, is being twisted into a bludgeon to silence criticism and accountability — where even the threat of a defamation suit can serve to chill free speech. And in some cases, SLAPPs abuse other areas of law to target speech in order to evade the high First Amendment bar for defamation under Supreme Court precedents.

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters, for example, epitomizes this trend. Media Matters reported on ads for major brands running next to neo-Nazi content on Musk’s X platform, formerly Twitter. Instead of addressing the substance of the report, Musk retaliated with a lawsuit, in this case based not on defamation as such but an even more outlandish “consumer fraud” theory. By allegedly presenting misleading examples, even though they were undeniably real and similar ones are easy to come by, the theory is this somehow falls under defrauding people into not using or buying ads on X. And as Musk frequently does, the case was filed in the Northern District of Texas to engage in blatant “judge shopping.” It paid off, with Judge Reed O’Connor, long known for his solicitousness toward conservative political efforts, allowing the case to proceed to trial despite its flawed premise.

The message was unmistakable: Critics calling out extremist content on his platform could come at a steep personal cost. It is not unrelated that Media Matters, faced with massive legal fees in fighting the wealthiest man in the world, was recently forced to resort to mass layoffs.

Donald Trump’s lawsuits provide further examples of this deeply disturbing strategy. He sued pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll showing Kamala Harris ahead of him in Iowa — a lawsuit so baseless that its sole plausible purpose was to punish and deter unfavorable coverage. Similarly, Trump sued CBS over an interview with Harris, absurdly alleging unfair editing of the interview amounted to “deceptive practices” under Texas business fraud law, demonstrating how the rich and powerful are increasingly using litigation to control narratives. CBS is reportedly considering a settlement in part because of their regulatory interests at stake under the new administration.

These private SLAPPs are now being supplemented by direct state action, amplifying the chilling effect on speech. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “Stop WOKE Act” targets private employers for expressing disfavored views, while his retaliation against Disney for criticizing his policies exemplifies the use of government power to punish speech. Attorneys general in Texas and Missouri have launched criminal investigations into Media Matters. A federal judge enjoined these investigations as obviously retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment, but once again, the process of even having to litigate the matter is the real punishment.

Instead of addressing the substance of the report, Musk retaliated with a lawsuit.

Even the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under its new Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr, has revived previously dismissed complaints against media outlets seen as liberal-leaning, bringing the agency into politicized editorial disputes. Carr has made no secret of his desire to use the FCC to punish media outlets and corporations that he believes have contributed to the “erosion in public trust.”

In some cases, the courts do eventually step in and repudiate these assaults on the First Amendment, but the deliberate chilling effect remains all the same, an ongoing threat hanging over every major institution.

Consider, too, how U.S. media hesitated to report on Elon Musk’s apparent Nazi salute at a post-inauguration rally for Trump. German and Israeli outlets did not shy away from describing the incident as it appeared, yet many of their American counterparts tread more carefully. No matter how baseless, a lawsuit from Musk can cost millions of dollars to defend. The culture of risk aversion, compounded by legal threats and official intimidation, has narrowed the bounds of permissible discourse here, in the nation that is supposed to have the strongest free speech protections in the world.

What makes these actions particularly perverse is how they are often cloaked in the language of defending free speech. Musk’s rhetoric about combating the “woke mind virus” and DeSantis’ attacks on so-called woke corporations both claim to champion free expression while doing the opposite. This weaponization of free speech rhetoric is both cynical and dangerous, undermining the very principle it purports to defend, while seeking to rob their opponents of the language needed to accurately describe it.

This war on free speech is not primarily about silencing individual critics directly. There is no secret police hauling people off for mean tweets about Trump, Musk and their unified control over the federal government. It’s about leveraging institutional risk aversion to create a chilling effect. Journalists, pollsters and watchdog organizations may still criticize powerful figures like Musk or Trump, but they do so under the constant threat of financial ruin. The goal is to make accountability so costly that fewer people are willing to try.

What’s urgently needed are robust anti-SLAPP lawsboth at the federal level and in states where protections are still weak or nonexistent. Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants to quickly dismiss lawsuits that are filed with the primary intent of suppressing speech, with legal fees automatically awarded (often with some multiplier) to the defendants. Crucially, they shift the burden of costs onto the plaintiff, deterring frivolous lawsuits and protecting critics from devastating expenses.

The free speech crisis hiding in plain sight is about whether institutions can withstand the pressure to self-censor in the face of legal and political intimidation.

The broader legal context also underscores the stakes. Some figures, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have expressed interest in revisiting New York Times Co. v. Sullivanthe landmark Supreme Court case that established strong protections for speech about public figures. Undermining Sullivan would open the floodgates to even more defamation claims, further chilling speech. Anti-SLAPP laws are a critical counterweight to these trends, ensuring that free expression remains protected even as legal challenges multiply.

But legal reforms alone are not enough. We must also recognize and call out these attacks for what they are: a coordinated censorship campaign. Whether through SLAPPs, state retaliation or regulatory threats, these actions aim to undermine the First Amendment by making the cost of speaking out intolerably high. They are not isolated incidents but part of a broader war on free speech, waged in the name of consolidating unchallenged political power.

The free speech crisis hiding in plain sight isn’t about whether individuals can ever criticize powerful figures — it’s about whether institutions can withstand the pressure to self-censor in the face of legal and political intimidation. Without robust protections like anti-SLAPP laws and a renewed cultural commitment to defending open discourse, the chilling effect will only grow stronger, leaving what’s left of American democracy poorer for it.

Free speech has always been a contested principle, but its survival depends on our ability to see through the hypocrisy of those who claim to defend it while working to suppress it. The fight against censorship is not just a legal battle. It’s a fight to preserve the foundation of a free and open society.

Andy Craig

Andy Craig is a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Trump again pays offshore wind operators to walk away from leases

Published

on

Trump again pays offshore wind operators to walk away from leases

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration announced two more payouts Monday for energy companies to walk away from U.S. offshore wind projects under development.

Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind have agreed to end their offshore wind leases in exchange for reimbursements totaling nearly $900 million. Both companies have decided not to pursue any new offshore wind projects in the United States, the Interior Department announced Monday.

Bluepoint Wind is an offshore wind project in the early stages of development off the coasts of New Jersey and New York, while Golden State Wind is a floating offshore wind project proposed off California’s central coast.

Interior said it’s following the model of its recent deal with the French energy company TotalEnergies, which is getting a $1 billion payout to walk away from projects off the coasts of North Carolina and New York. TotalEnergies agreed in March to what’s essentially a refund of its leases, and will invest the money in fossil fuel projects instead.

The deals come after the administration’s efforts to block offshore wind have been thwarted by the courts. A federal judge vacated President Donald Trump’s executive order blocking wind energy projects in December, declaring it unlawful as she sided with state attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, D.C., who challenged the order.

Two weeks later, the administration ordered that construction stop on five major East Coast offshore wind projects, citing national security concerns. Developers and states suedand federal judges allowed all five to resume constructionessentially concluding that the government didn’t show that the national security risk was so imminent that construction must halt.

Environmental groups and Democrats have questioned the legality of the TotalEnergies deal and said it could be harmful to the U.S. economy and environment. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the administration for stopping Bluepoint Wind, calling it “a reckless decision that hurts working families and the economy” and will likely increase electricity prices in New York.

“Once again, Donald Trump is attacking New York offshore wind at the behest of his fossil fuel donors with no justification,” he said in a statement Monday.

Both Bluepoint and Golden State are co-owned by Ocean Winds, a joint venture of EDP Renewables and French energy giant Engie. Bluepoint’s lease cost $765 million, while Golden State Wind will be eligible to recover approximately $120 million in lease fees, Interior said.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said companies were sold a product that was only viable when propped up by massive taxpayer subsidies when they bid for these offshore wind leases in 2022, under former President Joe Biden.

“Now that hardworking Americans are no longer footing the bill for expensive, unreliable, intermittent energy projects, companies are once again investing in affordable, reliable, secure energy infrastructure,” Burgum said in a statement. “We welcome each of the projects’ willingness to actually support baseload power and lower utility bills for American families.”

Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind were slated to be major offshore wind projects, each capable of powering more than 1 million homes when complete and helping the states of New Jersey, New York and California meet their clean energy goals. If the projects were to ever move forward, a developer would have to buy new leases. But under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has rescinded all designated wind energy areas in federal waters.

Bluepoint Wind is a partnership between Ocean Winds and Global Infrastructure Partners. Global Infrastructure Partners, a part of investment giant BlackRock, has committed to invest up to $765 million into a U.S.-based liquefied natural gas facility. Interior said it would cancel the offshore wind lease and reimburse the company for the amount invested in the LNG project.

Golden State Wind is a joint venture by Ocean Winds and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Under its agreement, Golden State Wind can recover about $120 million in lease fees after the same amount is invested in oil and gas assets, infrastructure or projects along the Gulf Coast, Interior said.

The companies said they appreciated the constructive engagement with the administration.

Michael Brown, CEO of Ocean Winds North America, said the deal provided “clarity” for the company and its investors. “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners and shareholders,” he said.

In his second term, Trump has gone all in on fossil fuelswhich he says will lower costs for families, increase reliability and help the U.S. maintain global leadership in artificial intelligence.

___

McDermott reported from Providence, R.I.

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Man charged with attempted assassination of Trump in White House correspondents’ dinner shooting

Published

on

Man charged with attempted assassination of Trump in White House correspondents’ dinner shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The man who authorities say tried to storm the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner with guns and knives was charged Monday with the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump as federal authorities suggested an attack that disrupted one of Washington’s glitziest events had been planned for at least several weeks.

Cole Tomas Allen appeared in court to face federal charges after the chaotic encounter Saturday that resulted in shots being fired, Trump being hurried off the stage unharmed and guests ducking for cover underneath their tables. He was ordered to remain jailed pending additional court hearings, and faces up to life in prison if convicted of the assassination count alone.

An FBI affidavit filed in the case Monday revealed additional details about the planning behind the assault, with authorities alleging that Allen on April 6 reserved a room for himself at the Washington hotel where the event would be held weeks later under its typical tight security. He traveled by train cross-country from California last week, checking himself into the Washington Hilton one day before the dinner with a room reserved for the weekend.

The dinner had barely begun when officials say the 31-year-old Torrance, California, man tried to race past a security barricade near the cavernous ballroom holding hundreds of journalists and their guests, prompting an exchange of gunfire with Secret Service agents tasked with safeguarding the event. Allen carried with him a 12-gauge pump action shotgun he bought last year and a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol he purchased in 2023, authorities said.

“Violence has no place in civic life,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a news conference. “It cannot and will not be used to disrupt democratic institutions or intimidate those who serve them, and it certainly cannot continue to be used against the president of the United States.”

He added: “We are investigating this matter fully, we will apply the law fairly and we will ensure that accountability is swift and certain.”

Allen was injured during the attack but was not shot. A Secret Service officer was shot but was wearing a bullet-resistant vest and survived, officials say.

Questions remain about how many shots Allen fired and how many officers discharged their weapons.

Blanche said investigators believe that a Secret Service agent fired five shots and that Allen discharged his shotgun at least once. But Blanche didn’t say whether authorities have confirmed it was Allen’s bullet that struck the agent in the vest, or whether any other officers used their weapons. Blanche said ballistics experts are still examining evidence to provide more clarity on those questions.

The Justice Department charged Allen with two additional firearms counts, including discharging a weapon during a crime of violence, but the affidavit does not allege that Allen was responsible for shooting the agent.

Suspect’s email sheds light on motive

The shooting resulted in the cancellation of the dinner, the first Trump had attended as president.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday said the night was supposed to be one of joy but instead was “hijacked by a crazed anti-Trump individual who traveled across the country to assassinate the president and as many administration officials as possible.”

Allen invoked his constitutional right to remain silent after his arrest, but authorities say an email he sent to family members and a former employer just before the attack helps shed light on a motive.

In the message, a copy of which was included in the affidavit, Allen referred to himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin” and alluded obliquely to grievances over a range of Trump administration actions. The rambling text moves between confession, grievance and farewell, with Allen apologizing to family members, co-workers and even strangers he feared could be caught in the violence while at the same time seeking to explain the attack.

A magistrate judge granted a prosecutor’s request to keep Allen locked up pending additional hearings. A detention hearing is set for Thursday.

Allen did not speak at length during the quick appearance, as is customary. One of his lawyers, Tezira Abe, noted that he has no criminal record.

“He also is presumed innocent at this time,” she said.

Records reveal that Allen is a highly educated tutor and amateur video game developer. A social media profile for a man with the same name and a photo that appears to match that of the suspect show he worked part-time for the last six years at a company that offers admissions counseling and test preparation services to aspiring college students.

Voter registration records from California lists Allen’s home address as his parent’s house on a tree-lined street in one of the most historic neighborhoods in Torrance, a city within the Los Angeles metro area. No one answered the door Sunday when an Associated Press reporter knocked. By the afternoon, several people who appeared to be law enforcement agents were canvassing the neighborhood, with one wearing an FBI sweatshirt.

A yard sign displayed at the family home supported a local candidate for judge who was endorsed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. Federal campaign finance records show Cole Allen contributed $25 to a Democratic Party political action committee in support of Kamala Harris for president in 2024 and listed his employer as C2 Education, which said in a statement Monday that it was shocked to learn of the shooting and was cooperating with law enforcement.

Allen is registered to vote without a party affiliation in California and voted in the last three general elections, according to the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.

He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2017 in mechanical engineering from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, according to his profile on the social networking site LinkedIn. The small university is academically prestigious with a very low acceptance rate. He also listed his involvement there in a campus group that battled with Nerf guns and a Christian student fellowship.

Allen’s profile photo on LinkedIn shows him wearing a cap and gown when graduating with a master’s degree in computer science from California State University, Dominguez Hills. The photo appears to have been taken May 2025.

___

Associated Press writers Gary Fields and Collin Binkley in Washington, Michael R. Blood in Los Angeles and Amy Taxin in Torrance, California contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Who is Cole Tomas Allen?

Published

on

Who is Cole Tomas Allen?

TORRANCE, Calif. (AP) — The California man arrested in the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner is a highly educated tutor and amateur video game developer opposed to the policies of President Donald Trump.

Authorities say Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California, was taken into custody at the dinner Saturday night in Washington that was attended by Trump and top members of his administration. A social media profile for a man with the same name and a photo that appears to match that of the suspect show he worked part-time for the last six years at a company that offers admissions counseling and test preparation services to aspiring college students.

In a message sent to family members minutes before the attack, the 31-year-old the described himself as “Friendly Federal Assassin” and railed against recent actions taken by the U.S. government under Trump, though he did not name the Republican president directly, according to a copy obtained by The Associated Press.

The writings ran more than a thousand words and read as a rambling, deeply personal message, opening almost jarringly with a casual “hello everybody!” before shifting into apologies to family members, co-workers, fellow travelers and even strangers he feared could be caught in the violence. The note moved between confession, grievance and farewell, with Allen thanking people in his life even as he sought to explain the attack.

Elsewhere, the document veered between political anger, religious justifications and rebuttals to imagined critics, at times reading as if he were arguing with detractors in real time.

Authorities said Allen will face charges including using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer, as well as other potential counts. A search of state and federal court databases showed no indication Allen had ever previously been charged with a crime.

He signed the document using a moniker that matches social media accounts that have since been taken offline. A defunct account using the same name on the platform Bluesky reposted others who offered commentary critical of Trump as well as members of the media who attend the annual black-tie dinner.

The AP limits the use of attackers’ writings and social media posts to avoid amplifying their views or encouraging copycat actions. The AP chooses to summarize their words and focus mainly on the victims and investigations.

Allen was arrested Saturday night trying to rush past a security checkpoint with two firearms and knives. Law enforcement officials told the AP that Allen legally bought a .38-caliber semiautomatic pistol in October 2023 and a 12-gauge shotgun last year.

Canvassing the suspect’s neighborhood

Voter registration records from California lists Allen’s home address as his parent’s house on a tree-lined street in one of the most historic neighborhoods in Torrance, a city within the Los Angeles metro area. Public records show he is the oldest of four adult siblings, with two younger sisters and a brother.

Two cars were parked in the driveway Sunday morning. A blue scooter that a neighbor said Allen rode was on the front lawn. No one answered the door when an Associated Press reporter knocked. By the afternoon, several people who appeared to be law enforcement agents were canvassing the neighborhood, with one wearing an FBI sweatshirt.

A yard sign displayed at the family home supported a local candidate for judge who was endorsed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. Federal campaign finance records show Cole Allen contributed $25 to a Democratic Party political action committee in support of Kamala Harris for president in 2024 and listed his employer as C2 Education.

A 2024 post on the C2’s Facebook page listed Allen as the company’s teacher of the month. The company did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Saturday night and an office in Torrance was closed on Sunday.

Allen’s profile photo on LinkedIn shows him wearing a cap and gown when graduating with a master’s degree in computer science from California State University, Dominguez Hills. The photo appears to have been taken May 2025. Bin Tang, a computer science professor at the school, told the AP that Allen took a few of his classes.

“He was a very good student indeed, always sitting in the first row of my class, paying attention, and frequently emailing me with coursework questions. Soft-spoken, very polite, a good fellow. I am very shocked to see the news,” Tang wrote in an email.

He earned a bachelor’s degree in 2017 in mechanical engineering from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, according to his profile on the social networking site LinkedIn. The small university is academically prestigious with a very low acceptance rate. He also listed his involvement there in a campus group that battled with Nerf guns and a Christian student fellowship.

The suspect’s father, Thomas Allen, is listed as an elder at Grace United Reformed Church Torrance. The webpage for the congregation describes it as a “Bible-believing church” following the “infallible Word of God.” Security guards posted at the sanctuary during worship services on Sunday escorted parishioners to the door and kept reporters at bay.

Allen also posted that he had developed a video game for the Steam platform based on molecular chemistry. A post under Allen’s name said he was working to develop a new “top-down shooter” combat game set in outer space.

___

Biesecker and Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo, Michael Kunzelman, Brian Slodysko and Byron Tau in Washington contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending