The Dictatorship
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.
ISLAMABAD (AP) — The United States and Iran reached an initial agreement early Monday to open the Strait of Hormuz and further extend a shaky ceasefire in the Iran warpotentially allowing desperately needed oil and natural gas to reach the global market.
Details of the deal were not immediately released and Iran signaled implementation would not start until the signing, which key mediator Pakistan said would occur Friday in Switzerland. It could provide a way to end a war that killed thousands across the Middle East, including the top leaders of Iran’s theocracy, and sparked a historic energy crisis.
But the memorandum of understanding over the war already faced intense challenges. Israel’s continued hostilities with the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah in Lebanon, where Israel bombed Beirut’s southern suburbs Sunday, nearly derailed the negotiations.
Meanwhile, the deal gives just 60 days to resolve what to do about Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and its atomic program. That took years to resolve in Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from that accord in his first term, setting the stage for the tensions that culminated in the war.
“Congratulations to all!” Trump wrote on social media as he celebrated his 80th birthday Sunday with a UFC cage match fight at the White House.
He added, “I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade,” which was imposed in retaliation for Iran’s grip on the crucial waterway.
He soon hedged, however, saying the strait wouldn’t open until Friday’s signing.
Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, confirmed the agreement on state television but said Iran would not start implementing it until it was signed Friday. He said the deal followed talks with Qatar, another mediator.
Israel, which has insisted it be allowed a freehand to pursue Hezbollah as it occupies southern Lebanon and has extended its military operations into areas its forces haven’t been in a quarter century, did not immediately comment. Israel joined the U.S. in launching the war on Feb. 28.
Benchmark Brent crude oil fell more than $4 a barrel on the news as Asian stock markets rallied.
Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.
Pakistan, a key mediator, announces deal
Pakistan first announced the deal, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif saying “both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” It remains unclear whether Israel, which relies on the U.S. but has launched in wars against its enemies since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israelagreed to that term.
He added that mediators this week will facilitate meetings to “lay the foundation for the technical talks.”
Broader negotiations on outstanding issues like Iran’s nuclear program would continue over the next 60 days, two senior Pakistani officials said earlier Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. If the sides fail to reach a resolution within that time, the timeline could be extended.
Iranian state television cited the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council saying the war on all fronts “will end immediately and permanently beginning tonight” — but that the U.S. blockade “will be terminated immediately and in full.”
Qatari mediators later left Tehran following 17 hours of negotiations, said an official briefed on the developments who spoke on condition of anonymity due to sensitivity of the talks. Separate preparatory meetings with each side will take place in Doha this week, the official said.
It was not clear who from Iran would sign the deal on Friday. U.S. Vice President JD Vance told Fox News the White House was still figuring out who would attend: “I certainly plan to be there, but it’s possible the president himself could be there.”
But concern among Republicans in the U.S. already could be seen. They included U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who described Vance as “the architect of the deal.”
“I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming,” Graham wrote online.
U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Congress would exercise oversight on any accord with Iran.
“We have seen time and again: War cannot change the Iranian regime,” he said.
Interim deal faces intense scrutiny
The first strike of the war killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameneiand Khamenei’s son, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khameneiis now supreme leader. He has not been seen in the public since the war began, but his approval was needed for Iran to sign off on the deal.
There was apparent friction inside Iran in the hours before the announcement, as the government warned that division at home over the deal weakened its negotiating position.
The deal likely returns the region to a status that existed before the war, but with Iran having proven its ability to disrupt shipping in the strait. The waterway is crucial to significant shipments of oil, natural gas and related products like fertilizer, and its effective closure rocked the global economy.
Even with a deal, it will take months for oil and gas supplies to flow freely enough for the world’s needs to be met because shipping and insurance companies want to be confident the agreement will last, energy experts said.
Tehran also still has a ballistic missile arsenal and enough highly enriched uranium to build several nuclear weapons, should it choose to pursue them.
Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is peaceful and has not publicly committed to giving up the enriched uranium, which is believed to be buried under three nuclear sites that were badly damaged by U.S. strikes last year.
The U.S. has sought the removal of the enriched uranium from Iran as part of a deal. Russia has offered to take it. But Iran insists it wants to keep the uranium.
___
Frankel reported from Jerusalem, Sewell from Beirut and Weissert from Washington. Associated Press writers Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Israel, Cathy Bussewitz in New York and Cara Anna in Lowville, New York, contributed to this report.
PARIS (AP) — From the outset, China wasn’t included when major powers gathered in 1975 at a chateau outside Paris to fix the slumping global economy, the first of what have become annual summits by the G7 club of wealthy nations to forward their interests.
No surprise there. Imagining Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong brainstorming with U.S. President Gerald Ford and other leaders would have been unthinkable.
China was in turmoil, nowhere close to becoming the economic giant it is now. Mao had also helped defeat France and U.S. forces in Vietnam, by militarily supporting Ho Chi Minh’s communists that took power. So Mao would have been the odd man out had he been at the inaugural Rambouillet summit of six nations, growing into the G7 when Canada joined the following year.
But as U.S. President Donald Trump and his G7 counterparts gather again in France from Monday, China’s exclusion from the informal club’s summits also looks odd, given its now immense sway over the world’s economic well-being and affairs.
Put simply: Without China, does the G7 make sense?
Here’s a closer look:
By the numbers, China would be a shoo-in
If determined only by economic success, China would already be in the club.
Its economy, swollen by decades of growth since Mao’s death in 1976, now dwarfs those of G7 nations Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada — leaving only the United States to catch. By this measure, a G7 summit without China is arguably like a soccer World Cup without 5-time winner Brazil.
From being “only a tiny, benign, panda bear” in 1975, ”China has become a great global dragon,” says John Kirton, a University of Toronto specialist on the G7.
“So many understandably ask: Would the G7 and the global community be better off if China became a member of the G7 club? A plausible answer is ‘Yes.’”
But it’s only for democracies
A year ago, Trump mused about possibly expanding the club to include China, saying “ it’s not a bad idea ” when a journalist asked him.
But an unwritten G7 rule has always been that it’s only for democracies.
“We are each responsible for the government of an open, democratic society, dedicated to individual liberty and social advancement,” the founding leaders declared in Rambouillet in 1975.
China wouldn’t have cleared that bar then, during Mao’s rule that claimed many millions of lives through famine and revolutionary upheaval.
Nor, under President Xi Jinpingwould China do so now. By multiple measures, including the annual Freedom in the World study the World Press Freedom Index or the Canadian Fraser Institute’s ranking of economic freedom, China lags far behind G7 nations for civil liberties.
Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.
China a priority subject for the G7
China’s clout impacts all G7 countries, in myriad ways. It sells far more goods than it buys, announcing a record trade surplus of almost $1.2 trillion in 2025, which is a source of friction with other industrial powers. It controls supplies of crucial rare minerals. Its technological advances and growing military strength are giving rivals cold sweats. And it is the world’s biggest emitter of climate-warming pollution.
All this means that China will be an elephant in the room at the Monday-to-Wednesday summit in the Alpine spa town of Evian-les-Bains.
As host, French President Emmanuel Macron has carved out time for the leaders to talk about how to rebalance trade with China, amid fears that soaring Chinese exports of cars and other products could wreck G7 industries.
The chemistry between Trump and other G7 leaders has been bad of late — over the Iran war and other bones of contention — but China could be an issue that unites them, said Cédric Dupont, who specializes in international politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute.
“They agree on the same thing, you know: China is a problem,” he said.
Beijing looking on warily
China’s Communist Party-led government has in the past criticized the G7’s exclusiveness and painted it as a relic of the Cold War when the world was more divided along ideological lines.
But in a statement to The Associated Press ahead of the Evian gathering, the Chinese Foreign Ministry took a more nuanced view, saying “the G7 should serve as a catalyst for solidarity and cooperation rather than an amplifier of division and confrontation.”
Beijing-based analyst Wang Zichen says that “Beijing is wary of the G7 because it sees the group as structurally aligned with U.S.-led Western power, and increasingly as a venue where China is discussed as a challenge or threat.”
But Chinese leaders cannot ignore it.
“China recognizes that the G7 still represents a very significant concentration of economic, technological, military and financial power,” said Wang.
China seen as a threat to G7 cohesion
Analysts say that admitting China into the club could wreck its cohesion, not only because Beijing’s authoritarian system of government, interests and its positions on Russia, Iran and other major issues don’t align with those of G7 democracies but also because its presence could test their long-standing alliances.
“China inside would indeed be a Trojan horse,” said Kirton. With a Chinese leader at the table, “individual members might be tempted to break G7 ranks to secure special favors from him on the economic, critical minerals, digital technology and other issues they address.”
Chris Alden, an international relations expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said that adding China “would make it very difficult for it to function.”
Russia’s example is also a barrier to China
The G7’s last expansion — accepting Russia as a member in 1998 — didn’t end well.
The club froze out Russian President Vladimir Putin when he seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, foreshadowing the full-scale war now raging since 2022.
Trump said last year that excluding Russia “was a very big mistake.”
But Kirton said the experience convinced other leaders “that they should never take a chance on a less than fully democratic power becoming a full member of their fully democratic club again.”
___
Associated Press writers Ken Moritsugu and E. Eduardo Castillo in Beijing and Jamey Keaten in Geneva contributed.
Iran and the United States reached a deal Sunday aimed at ending the Middle East war, according to President Donald Trump and Tehran’s deputy foreign minister, marking a major breakthrough after months of conflict and on-again, off-again negotiations.
The statements from Trump and Tehran raised hopes for an end to fighting that has left more than 7,500 dead, most of them in Lebanon and Iran, and rocked the global oil market.
“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade,” Trump announced on Truth Social. “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”
Oil prices fell in the hours following the announcement, with U.S. crude oil tumbling nearly 5%. Stock futures rose and Asian-Pacific stock markets traded higher Monday morning as investors appeared hopeful for a long-term peace deal.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi confirmed on Iranian state media that a deal had been reached and would be signed Friday in Switzerland. He said Iran’s agreement came after 14 hours of talks with mediators from Qatar.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose country has also worked as a mediator, announced on social media that “both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” where Israel has been battling the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group.
“With the agreement now in place, mediators will facilitate a series of meetings this week,” Sharif said. “These pre-implementation discussions will lay the foundation for the technical talks and the official signing ceremony.”
The announcement comes after weeks of intensive negotiations mediated by regional partners after both sides had signaled in recent days that an agreement was close.
The memorandum is not a final peace treaty. Instead, it outlines commitments by both sides as negotiators work toward a broader agreement, establishing a framework for a 60-day negotiating period. That window is meant for U.S. and Iranian officials to resolve outstanding disputes and negotiate a more comprehensive agreement.
A senior administration official told reporters on a background call Friday that the framework includes commitments related to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and lifting the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports.
The proposed agreement, the senior administration official said, also calls for the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, with highly enriched nuclear material to be destroyed on-site by the U.S. and a guarantee of “long-term peace in the region.”
A senior Iranian officialhowever, told Reuters that the U.S. had agreed to allow Iran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium on Iranian soil under a final deal.
“I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said as news of the deal emerged Sunday.
The senior Trump administration official said the agreement would include Israel and Iran’s terror proxies — a notable element given that renewed attacks between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon on Sunday threatened to derail the deal entirely.
The war began Feb. 28 with joint U.S. and Israeli airstrikes that killed hundreds, including Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump and others in his administration repeatedly promised it would be over in weeks and that deals to pause the fighting were imminent, only to walk back those statements.
Early in the fighting, dozens of children died when an airstrike destroyed a school. Despite reports from within the U.S. intelligence community that American forces were likely responsible, and that faulty intelligence may have played a part, the Pentagon has yet to acknowledge that, saying only that it was under investigation.
As combat wore on, Iran repeatedly fired missiles and drones at U.S. allies in the region and attacked ships trying to transit the Straight of Hormuz. Israel bombarded Beirut and other areas and sent ground troops into southern Lebanon in pursuit of Hezbollah leadership.
As gas prices in the U.S. soared, Trump’s approval ratings plummeted, piling tension on his relationship with congressional Republicans, especially those up for re-election.
Expectations for a deal had risen in recent days as officials from the U.S. and Pakistan, which has been acting as a mediator, indicated that progress was being made behind the scenes.
Though the deal is set to be signed next Friday, Trump said over the weekend that he expected a deal would be signed Sunday, which he first declared on social media a day earlier. He also shared a post from Sharif — who has played a key mediating role — announcing that an agreement was expected to be finalized “in the next 24 hours.”
Iranian officials poured cold water on the expected deal up until the last minute. Citing state media, Reuters reported Saturday that Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei denied that the memorandum of understanding would be signed Sunday, which also happened to be Trump’s 80th birthday.
“We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” Baqaei said, according to Reuters.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.
- Deal is reached to end Iran war and Trump orders stop to US naval blockade
- Senate Republicans want a say on Trump’s Iran deal
- ‘A bit of FOMO’: Oil companies give Venezuela a second look amid Mideast chaos
- Longtime Epstein assistant says she set up phone calls between Epstein and Trump
- Ted Lieu slams bipartisan AI proposal
- Push for Labor nominee is latest threat to House GOP majority
- Senate to vet Trump’s pick for No. 2 post at White House budget office
- RFK Jr. urged Iowa Libertarian to drop out of battleground House race, challenger claims
- Thune is ‘hopeful’ Mitch McConnell will return this week
- Summer ICE
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words