The Dictatorship

The new free speech crisis hiding in plain sight

Published

1 year ago

January 29, 2025

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 Trump Elon 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.

The Dictatorship

Michelle Obama’s womanhood isn’t a question. Josh Hokit’s idea of manhood is.

Published

3 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jun. 15, 2026, 9:08 PM EDT

President Donald Trump celebrating his 80th birthday with UFC fights on the White House lawn was classless enough. Then Josh Hokit was given a microphone. After the UFC fighter won his cage match at Trump’s flamboyant celebration Sunday night, Hokit, who spoke mostly in disturbingly trite rhymes after his win, managed to further degrade the event. At the conclusion of his post-fight interview with announcer, podcaster and manosphere extraordinaire Joe Rogan, the athlete declared,“Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?”

Many in the crowd of thousands of UFC fans ate it up, and expecting anything less would require an exceptional level of delusion. Misogynoir and transphobia have been lobbed against Obama at least since 2008, when America elected her husband, Barack Obama, president.

Misogynoir and transphobia have been lobbed against Obama at least since 2008, when America elected her husband, Barack Obama, president.

Misogynoir was coined by academic Moya Bailey in 2008 to describe the intertwining of racism and misogyny that targets Black women. As pervasive as it is, it took 15 yearsfor Merriam-Webster to add the word to its dictionary. Even in writing this piece, each time I’ve typed the term, spell-check suggests I have made a typo.

While it’s tempting to categorize Hokit’s remark as random, it was fully on brand for the athlete. ESPN reported, “In his post-fight interview at UFC 324 in January, Hokit called WNBA star Brittney Griner ‘a man.’”

He’s the poster child for misogynoir.

But his statement was also characteristic of the machismo that drove the event itself. Trump’s entire political persona is crafted in the mold of a strongmanan archetype that couldn’t exist without toxic masculinity. And when he was elected to the presidency a second time, Trump brought back to the forefront an erroneous vision of manhood. Hokit, and a lamentable number of other public figures, have since been empowered to espouse misogyny and preach the shallow gospel of toxic masculinity.

But showmanship repressed emotionality and a desperate adherence to benighted notions of manhood alone don’t suffice. Toxic masculinity also requires an allegiance to the desirability politics that are often informed by white supremacy. And Hokit gave it a shoutout Sunday night.

If toxic masculinity is a declaration of what we are expected to perceive as a quintessential depiction of manhood, then completing that picture requires a similar declaration about what we are expected to perceive as a quintessential depiction of womanhood. As has historically been the case, the beauty of Black women, as a whole, doesn’t align with mainstream ideals of attractiveness. So a Trump supporter’s recycling of a racist trope about the first Black first lady being a man was a natural offshoot of Sunday’s glorification of problematic masculinity.

Obama addressed misogynoir-laden and transphobic insults, among others, that she has faced over the years in her 2018 book “Becoming.” She writes, “I’ve smiled for photos with people who call my husband horrible names on national television, but still want a framed keepsake for their mantel. I’ve heard about the swampy parts of the internet that question everything about me, right down to whether I’m a woman or a man. A sitting U.S. congressman has made fun of my butt. I’ve been hurt. I’ve been furious. But mostly, I’ve tried to laugh this stuff off.”

I’ve been furious. But mostly, I’ve tried to laugh this stuff off.

michelle obama in her book “becoming”

Hokit thumping his chest after a violent brawl per the request of a strongman-in-chief, then deriding a high-profile Black female figure as masculine and thus, unappealing, was a true full-circle moment for the manosphere. Notice that Hokit didn’t do a full stop after he insulted Obama. He asked, “Am I right, America?”

At least that part made actual sense — Hokit’s instinct to seek validation is yet another manifestation of toxic masculinity. His question offered a boisterous representation of the need for male approval that exists in the manosphere and the willingness of problematic men to give one another an outsized influence on their behavior. It wasn’t enough for Hokit to disparage a prominent Black woman. He wanted someone to say, “Well done.”

As for his question, the answer is “no.” Hokit was the farthest from “right” as one gets. But the derision of Obama surely scored him brownie points in the manosphere. What better way to secure a nod of respect from the community than to denigrate, arguably, the most high-profile Black woman in the United States while at an event teeming with hypermasculinity?

But neither Obama nor any other woman, Black or otherwise, should have to bear the burden of men insulting them in a desperate quest to secure approbation from other men.

Hokit appears to be developing a habit of ascribing masculinity to Black women. He would be better served by questioning why his idea of manhood includes belittling women for applause.

Zahara Hill is a coordinating producer for MS NOW. She previously worked as a front page editor for HuffPost and the deputy editor for Blavity News.

The Dictatorship

What I witnessed at Delaney Hall should concern every American

Published

3 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jun. 15, 2026, 8:20 PM EDT

President Donald Trump, with the support of Republicans in Congress, signed legislation last week funding federal immigration agencies through the end of his term. Americans should know how millions of their taxpayer dollars are being spent on the active destruction of their fellow human beings.

As part of my constitutional oversight responsibilities in Congress, I have visited Delaney Halla privately run detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, four times. From the first time I stepped into Delaney Hall, my worst fears were confirmed.

The smell of sewage permeated the building. The air felt stagnant, and I questioned whether there was adequate ventilation for detainees or staff.

What I witnessed with my own eyes was alarming enough. The smell of sewage permeated the building. The air felt stagnant, and I questioned whether there was adequate ventilation for detainees or staff. In the cafeteria, I saw a space that appeared far too small to accommodate the number of people being held. When I asked how hundreds of detainees were fed, I was told meals were served in waves beginning as early as 4 a.m.

Detainees described freezing temperatures, poor sanitation, spoiled food, isolation and being required to clean bathrooms and showers contaminated with urine and other biological waste without proper protective materials.

The most alarming thing I have witnessed, however, is the treatment — really, the lack of treatment — of people with serious and chronic medical conditions. I believe what I have witnessed at both Delaney Hall and the Elizabeth Detention Center amounts to nothing short of medical abuse.

While the Department of Homeland Security leadership may try to wave away accusations of inhumane treatment, they cannot wave away the effect of their medical negligence — nor should they be allowed to. Every time I have visited both the Delaney and Elizabeth detention centers, I encountered detainees whose health was deteriorating because of the actions overseen by DHS employees and contractors. Individuals with chronic health conditions were not monitored, critical medications are given sporadically or not at all and there is little to no continuity of care for the medically vulnerable.

Individuals with chronic health conditions were not monitored, critical medications are given sporadically or not at all, and there is little to no continuity of care for the medically vulnerable.

One woman detained with diabetes told me she was receiving only a fraction of the medication prescribed by her doctor. When I questioned medical staff, they confirmed her dosage had been reduced shortly after she entered detention without first contacting her pharmacy or physician. They also confirmed blood sugar readings consistent with poorly controlled diabetes.

I spoke with a man who suffered ongoing headaches and hearing loss after striking his head in a fall. He told me he feared seeking additional medical care because he had been warned he could be placed in isolation if sent to the hospital. When I raised the issue with facility leadership, they confirmed isolation was their policy.

Other detainees have described to me equally disturbing experiences, including a woman who said she suffered a miscarriage while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody after being denied proper medical care when symptoms first appeared. Another pregnant woman told me she feared for the health of her unborn child because she could not obtain the specialized care her condition requires.

These were not isolated complaints. And together, they paint a picture of a detention system failing to provide adequate medical care to the people in its custody.

The Department of Homeland Security insists healthcare is available inside Delaney Hall. What I witnessed firsthand tells a different story. Detainees may have access to care, but they are not receiving the care that their conditions, diagnoses, doctors or even our own good conscience would warrant.

When I questioned Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin about whether ICE tracks detainees with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease, whether those conditions are regularly monitored and whether independent health officials are allowed to inspect the facility, I did not receive answers. That lack of accountability should concern every American.

The consequences of these failures could be deadly. Severe hypoglycemia can become life-threatening within hours. Heart conditions can rapidly worsen without medication. Untreated infections can become medical emergencies, and the disruption of medication can have life-threatening consequences in the short and long run.

What makes this even more troubling is who is being detained.

Despite the administration’s rhetoric about targeting dangerous criminals, the people I met at Delaney Hall were overwhelmingly low-risk individuals being held for civil immigration violations, not criminal offenses. Some said they had legal status until this administration stripped it away. Others described being picked up off the street, or where they work, or at laundromats, schools and even outside courthouses or routine immigration appointments.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the conditions inside these facilities. Nor can we ignore the role of corporations such as the GEO Group, the company with an estimated $1 billion contract to operate Delaney Hall. Taxpayer dollars are being used to inflict profound human suffering, all too often condoned because those detained are viewed as “other.” To make matters worse, the $70 billion that Congress recently approved for ICE and Customs and Border Protection is in addition to $191 billion previously allocated to DHS with a party-line vote.

The least my Republican colleagues can do now is demand answers about what is happening inside facilities like Delaney Hall and hear firsthand from detainees about what they are experiencing. If they truly listen, they will be moved to action. I know I was.

Because the people I met at Delaney Hall are mothers, fathers, workers and neighbors. They are human beings. They deserve dignity, medical care and due process.

No matter where someone was born or what their immigration status may be, their humanity does not disappear when they enter a detention facility.

The measure of any nation is how it treats the people in its custody. By that standard, what is happening at Delaney Hall is a moral failure that extends far beyond its walls.

And when we allow due process, equal protection under the law and basic human rights to be denied to some, we weaken those protections for everyone. The Constitution is only as strong as our willingness to defend it. We must seek to protect it, starting by closing Delaney Hall.

Analilia Mejia, a Democrat, represents New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District in the U.S. House.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Mini-Report, 6.15.26

Published

3 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Russia’s latest deadly attack in Ukraine: “A large-scale Russian attack on Ukraine killed five rescuers in Kharkiv and wounded at least 20 people in the capital Kyiv on Monday as strikes set apartment buildings ablaze and sparked a fire at one of the country’s most significant religious landmarks. The rescuers were killed in Kharkiv by a second Russian strike as they fought a blaze caused by an earlier attack, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said. At least five other emergency workers were wounded.”

* From late last week: “A joint strike by the United States and Venezuela killed a leader of the Tren de Aragua transnational gang, President Trump and officials in both countries said on Friday, dealing a blow to a syndicate the Trump administration has blamed for an influx of violent crime and illicit drugs.”

* The right way to do it: “Hungarian lawmakers on Monday passed a constitutional amendment that would ban Viktor Orbán from returning to power. The amendment, approved by 135 votes in favor and 50 against, would limit prime ministers to just eight years in office if it becomes law. The amendment is written to apply retroactively, meaning that Viktor Orbán could not return as Hungary’s prime minister. Orbán served as prime minister for a total of 20 years.”

* A case we have been keeping an eye on: “A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to reinstall ‌exhibits and signs on topics like slavery and climate change that it had removed from parks and monuments nationwide because they ‘do not align with its preferred narrative.’”

* Trump’s Department of Justice does what Trump wants: “The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has signed off on Paramount Skydance’s $111 billion bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. The approval, first reported by Blue Light News, clears a major regulatory hurdle for a deal that has become one of the most closely watched media merger reviews of the Trump era.”

* Failing to make America healthy again: “A relentless measles outbreak in Utah has been spreading for nearly a year, putting the U.S. on a path to losing the measles-elimination status it earned more than two decades ago. Fueling the nearly 12-month outbreak: more parents opting not to vaccinate their children for school; infections hitting communities statewide; and lenient public-health policies on quarantining exposed students.”

* McConnell’s health issues persist: “Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, was hospitalized on Sunday, according to his spokesperson, who provided no details on the former Senate majority leader’s condition.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”