Trump Campaigned on Free Speech. That Isn't How He's Governed.
Politicians across the aisle love free speech—until they're in power.

The Constitution's First Amendment protects free speech for good reason.
If people can't say what they want, we don't have honest debate.
I was relieved when Donald Trump, campaigning for the presidency, said, "If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country!"
Good for him. Free speech is crucial to freedom.
Democrats, by contrast, had been eagerly censoring. During COVID-19, they threatened social media companies, ordering them to censor the internet.
"They are directly speaking to millions!" complained Kamala Harris, "without any level of oversight, and that has to stop!"
Fortunately, once Trump was reelected, he told his staff: "Stop all government censorship."
Hooray!
But now that Trump's president, and getting lots of criticism from the media, he's started calling speech that he doesn't like "illegal."
"They'll take a great story, and they'll make it bad. I think that's really illegal, personally."
He also threatened TV stations: "They give me only bad publicity…maybe their license should be taken away."
"There's free speech, and then there's hate speech," said his attorney general, Pam Bondi. "We will absolutely target you…if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
They will "target" people?
Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman, Brendan Carr, joined in. When Jimmy Kimmel said nasty and incorrect things about Charlie Kirk's murder, Carr threatened ABC's TV licenses, saying, like a mafia boss, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
Yet months earlier, he'd tweeted: "Dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights."
And years earlier, he tweeted that the FCC does "not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.'"
He was right—then.
But power tends to corrupt.
Once Carr was in power, he no longer supported the speech he'd recently promoted.
Fortunately, some Republicans pushed back.
Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.): "Brendan Carr has got no business weighing in on this."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas): "I like Brendan Carr, but what he said there is dangerous as hell."
It was.
Carr and Bondi later "clarified" their comments. Carr said his "easy way or hard way" comment was not a threat to pull licenses. Bondi said hate speech itself won't be prosecuted.
Good.
Bizarrely, Democrats suddenly became free speech advocates.
"Reject the government's attempt to weaponize this moment into an all-out assault on free speech," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.).
But wait. When her party was in power, Ocasio-Cortez wanted government to "rein in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation!"
And "rein in" is exactly what Democrats tried to do, often succeeding.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg complained that Biden administration officials "would call up our team and scream at them….All these different agencies and branches of government basically just started investigating, coming after our company. It was brutal!"
Whoever is in power likes to use that power to shut the other side up.
In America, no government has the right to censor.
Politicians eager to shut the other side up should have paid attention to Charlie Kirk when, just a few months before he was killed, he said: "You should be allowed to say outrageous things! You should be allowed to say contrarian things….That is the bedrock of a liberal democracy."
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Carr threatened ABC's TV licenses, saying, like a mafia boss, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
Said on a podcast, in a discussion regarding licensing agreements.
Not in letters, calls, memos, direct threats.
Now compare to covid. Compare to Mackey. Compare to pro life protestors. Compare to non violent J6ers. Garland and others even went after Trumps fucking lawyers for legal advice.
The lesser evil is still evil.
Except to the extent the networks are outside their legal mandate to inform the public and instead are one-sided propagandists for a party. If they want to do that then move to cable.
To the extent that there is any such "legal mandate", it is unconstitutional. What you are calling for is a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. That flies in the face of "Congress shall make no law ..."
If networks are one-sided propagandists for a party, then they will live (and ultimately die) with that decision. There are no shortage of competing information sources and consumers are more than capable of choosing who to trust.
There are no shortage of competing information sources and consumers are more than capable of choosing who to trust.
Like?
Then explain Fox News.
Fox news whose owner Rupert Murdoch admitted in court, on the record, under oath that they lied to the public.
Fox news whose owner used legal loopholes to skirt around the "no more than 25% ownership by foreign investors" until his allies could garner more deregulation of the rules for him.
Fox news has been an instrument of misinformation since the 90s and this Methuselah seems to have no intention of dying any time soon; ivory tower philosophy be damned, this is the real world.
That's why I don't vote.
I thought you registered to vote for orangefuhrer, against Kamala, because you "hate cops that much" - right?
Oh wait, that was back when you never expected Kamala to be the actual Dem candidate...
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg complained that Biden administration officials "would call up our team and scream at them….All these different agencies and branches of government basically just started investigating, coming after our company. It was brutal!"
Is that still happening or are we just upset about trumps words?
You are correct to point out the obvious difference between the left's ACTIONS and Trump's WORDS. One is much worse than the other, and ironically only one of those two things is protected by 1A.
That said, if someone steps up to a microphone and tells me they hate gooks, I'm going to go ahead and believe they're racist. So it would probably be a good idea not to tell everyone how much you hate free speech if that's not the impression you want us to have of you.
Still happening. The Trump admin pressured Zuck to ban an ICE sightings page. Of course it's different when Trump does it.
Sorry Stossel but journalists are not special and immune to libel laws, they are not doing their job of informing the public if they are propaganda mills. Too bad you see lies and propaganda and think the activist hacks behind it deserve congratulations.
Where do you see him suggesting that they deserve congratulations?
He didn't do anything of the sort. There's a lot of overreacting going on. But Stossel doesn't do himself any favors by engaging in hyperbole either.
*Trump Campaigned on Free Speech. That Isn't How He's Governed.*
Actually, it is exactly how he's governed. Which is a complete switch from his predecessor. Unfortunately, he's got the impulse control of a kindergartener, so he blurts out unbelievably stupid things that make his life much harder than it has to be.
>>Actually, it is exactly how he's governed.
word.
Saying you're going to target people over "hate speech" is not governing on free speech. If the threats are not carried out, they still have a chilling effect. A kindergartener can understand that threats by people with the power to hurt you will change behavior, even if they're empty. Put all that together and it shows that kindergarteners are smarter than red-hats. Which surprises no one.
your math is wrong.
The father's name on your birth certificate is wrong.
likely. I rock it though.
I'm glad that you accept that. Son.
Ideas!
Criticism is libel. Allowing ICE sightings apps on your platform is libel. Anything Trump doesn't like is libel.
John, John, John.
*shakes head*
You are forgetting the most important thing. Democrats did it first. Sure it was bad when they did it, but you never complained. We know this because you're complaining about Trump. By definition anyone who complains about Trump never complained about Democrats ever. That makes you a hypocrite. Now that we've established that you're a hypocrite, you have no grounds to criticize Trump. Not only that, but it means that whatever Trump does is ok because it can't be criticized. All because you're a hypocrite, you hypocrite.
dude you put the Congress shall make no law sign up and bitched about T like you're jeff
No one law has been passed limiting speech by Trump.
The left HAS been threatened with getting treated as they treat others-- but informally.
This is the problem with welcoming 'former' leftists --it is far to easy for their late brethren to pull them back into the insane thought patterns of the left.
"It's ok because Democrats did it first."
Trump campaigned on liberating conservatives and punishing democrats.
Stossel now an enemy of MAGA.
He will be indicted soon on bullshit charges.
Doubt it. Though the Trump defenders will do their very best to cancel him. Fortunately for John he's self employed.
Did you seriously believe that Trump believed in a principle? When has he done something he didn't want to do (or refrained from doing something he wanted to do) for the sake of a good principle? There are traditional Republicans/conservatives like that, but Trump is transactional.