Ever since Donald Trump arrived on the national political scene in 2015, he has displayed a perplexing and troubling attitude toward freedom of speech. At one moment he tries to sell himself as a vigorous advocate for freedom of expression. At another, when someone says something that he does not like or threatens his political interests, Trump will not only denounce the speaker but will call for drastic measures to curtail the offending speech. We were reminded of that again last week by his fury at CBS News for its interview with his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. That fury was first expressed in ways that respect the boundaries and traditions of free expression in the country. But that didn’t last long before Trump called for the punishment of the major broadcaster.
Perhaps this should not be surprising from someone as notoriously thin-skinned as Donald Trump. He is like the boxer who can throw a punch but can’t take one. Trump cannot abide any slight or deviation from Trumpian orthodoxy.
Of course, what the former president does not understand is that the protection of free expression is most needed when speech is unpopular, offensive, or heretical. Or maybe he does understand, but prefers a speech environment compatible with his authoritarian style of leadership and his excessive need for flattery and approval.
Either way, Americans cannot count on Donald Trump to protect or respect freedom of expression when it most needs protection and respect. Let’s consider Trump’s effort to convince us that he will.
In 2016, during his first campaign for the presidency, Trump said he would put protecting free speech near the top of his agenda. In October of that year at a rally in Ohio, he asked his audience “Do you want free speech?” and responded to their enthusiastic applause, “You’ll have it.”
The 2016 Republican platform that Trump helped fashion contained a separate section on freedom of speech. In that section, the GOP said it opposed any “restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas.”
In his acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump promised to "protect free speech for all Americans."
Three years later when he was president, Trump tried to burnish his free speech credentials while also using free speech claims to intimidate those whose understanding of free speech did not align with his own. He did so when he signed an Executive Order on campus free speech. It directed agencies to withhold federal funds from colleges that did not promote “free inquiry.”
And, over the last year, when judges issued gag orders against him in his various legal trials, Trump cried foul and alleged that they violated his freedom of speech.
In September, the former president again waved the First Amendment flag. He said that if he is returned to the White House, he would “bring back free speech in America ‘because it’s being taken away.’” But for all his talk, it is clear that Trump is no card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.
As Reason’s Damon Root points out, “This is the same Trump who favors government censorship of the internet in order to suppress speech that he finds objectionable. It's the same Trump who favors gutting libel laws in order to make it easier for him to silence journalists who write unkind things about him. It's the same Trump who wants the government to forcibly shutter houses of worship in which people might say, read, or think unpopular things.”
Trump's attack on CBS fits into the profile that Root outlines.
Among other things, Trump complained that CBS had colluded with the Harris campaign to make her look “presidential.” “I’ve never seen this before,” he said, “but the producers of '60 Minutes' sliced and diced (‘cut and pasted’) Lyin’ Kamala’s answers to questions, which were virtually incoherent, over and over again, some by as many as four times in a single sentence or thought, all in an effort, possibly illegal as part of the ‘News Division,’ which must be licensed, to make her look ‘more Presidential,’ or a least, better.”
He went back to his familiar playbook and denounced “60 Minutes” for presenting what he dubbed a “Fake News Scam.” Trump claimed that “Her REAL ANSWER (to a question about Israel) WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better.”
Trump was right that what was presented on “60 Minutes” was not the complete answer to the question she was asked by the interviewer, Bill Whittaker, about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was listening to the Biden Administration.
CBS edited her response, with one part of it used as a teaser on its Sunday morning show “Face the Nation” and the other part saved for broadcast the next night on “60 Minutes.” And Trump is not alone in his criticism of the way CBS handled the Harris interview.
The New York Daily News reports that “Former CBS News staffers are demanding an independent investigation into ‘60 Minutes’ over” what the paper hyped as “the brewing Kamala Harris interview scandal.”
Editing of interviews or speeches is common in broadcast journalism, and Trump critics have their own complaints about the practice. They worry that the full insanity and incoherence of what Trump says every day on the stump is lost in the snippets of his speeches that make it to news broadcasts. This kind of criticism is the very stuff of free expression. But Trump’s reaction to the Harris interview went much further and crossed a First Amendment red line.
Trump accused “60 Minutes” of doing something that “is totally illegal,” and then demanded “TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.” He elaborated his charge and broadened his demand for punishment.
“60 Minutes,” Trump said, “is a major part of the News Organization of CBS, which has just created the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History. CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS – and maybe even WORSE!”
The Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, called Trump’s threat “serious” and said it “should not be ignored.” She stated unequivocally, “The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”
What Trump said about CBS was not the first time he has gone after a news media outlet. Several weeks ago, after ABC hosted the presidential debate which he lost, he targeted it. “ABC took a big hit last night" Trump observed before arguing that the network ought to lose “their license for the way they did that."
And, on October 10, he issued an ominous warning to the New York Times, “Wait until you see what I’m going to do with them, you’re going to have so much fun.”
Some idea of fun.
As MSNBC’s Steve Benen correctly observed, ”There is… a qualitative difference between whining about fact-checking and publicly raising the idea of using governmental power to strip a major American outlet of its broadcasting license.” The latter is part of Trump’s “plan to crack down on the free press” should he be elected in November.
That crackdown would not just damage the press, it would undermine the very fiber and fabric of this country. As former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1960, “Since the earliest days philosophers have dreamed of a country where the mind and spirit of man would be free; where there would be no limits to inquiry; where men would be free to explore the unknown and to challenge the most deeply rooted beliefs and principles.”
Until now, America has been that place. It is up to us to decide if we want to keep it that way.
