The new free language crisis hiding in the eyes

The essence of free language is not only that you will find the text of the first amendment in a copy of the Constitution. This requires the principle in practice: for freedom of religion, language, press and association is freely exercised without fear of destructive revenge and Abuse of the state. Today is a vicious campaign against these freedoms It is conducted with a new right Under the president Donald Trump, Elon Musk and their allies.

There was a lot of discussion of the “information environment” and how it ultimately affects the behavior of voters in the implementation of our democratic self -government. The crisis is calmly brewed, which is fueled by the abuse of the law on defamation in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLApps) and frank abuse of the state. The fact that once a slow boiling was fulfilled, as political entities and powerful figures will equip an institutional rejection of the risk of suppressing speech they do not like.

The fear of trial has become deeply rooted in professional journalism, distorting the ability to report the truth. This emphasizes the exciting reality for both journalists, commentators, and political opponents. Free language in the United States is attacked through diffuse, deliberate effort to undermine our basic constitutional freedoms.

Like Mike Masnik, Techdirt editor and online free language expert, Aptly indicated“The law on defamation was so much abused to cool the language, and so few people know it.” The use of SLApps – lawsuits designed for intimidation and financially comprehensive critics, even when they are legally defenseless – have become a major weapon in this war. And when private lawsuits are not enough, state power is increasingly mobilized to achieve the same goals, turning free expression into a high rating game for those who dared to tell the truth to the authorities.

Defamation law allegedly intended to protect reputation against harmful lies, twists in House to shut up criticism And accountability – where even the threat of a slander lawsuit can serve to cool the free language. And in some cases, Slapps abuse other laws of the law to target a speech to evade a high lawyer’s lawyer to defam on the precedents of the Supreme Court.

Elon Mask’s claim For example, against media, the question embodies this trend. Media Matters reported advertising for major brands that work near the neo -Nazi content on the Musk’s X platform, earlier Twitter. Instead of turning to the substance of the report, Musk revenge on the lawsuit, in this case, based not on slander as such, but even more alien theory of “consumer fraud”. Allegedly giving deceptive examples, although they were undoubtedly real, and such are easy to approach, the theory is the northern district of Texas to engage in a screaming “shopping judge”. This paid off when the judge of the genus O’Connor has long been known for his commitment to conservative political efforts that allows the case continue The court, despite its unbearable prerequisite.

The message was unmistakable: critics that cause extremist content on their platform can come at steep personal costs. Not due to the fact that the media -questions faced with mass judicial fees in the fight against the richest person in the world were newly resort to mass release.

Donald Trump’s claims cite further examples of this deeply alarming strategy. He sued The survey Enn Selzer and the registry of DES MOINES to publish a poll showing Kamala Harris in Ayova – the claim is so unfounded that his only plausible purpose was to punish and contain the unfavorable coating. Same, Trump sued CBS over interviews with Harris, pointlessly claiming that unfair interview editing was a “misleading practice” in accordance with the legislation on falsification of business in Texas, demonstrating how rich and powerful is increasingly using lawsuits to control stories. CBS reported Given the settlement partially because of their regulatory interests during the new administration.

These private SLApps are now supplemented with direct data, enhancing the effect of cooling on speech. Florida Governor Ron landing “stuck respectively” the goals of private employers For expressing unnecessary views, while his retribution against Disney for criticizing his policy reflects the use of government power to punish a speech. General lawyers in Texas and Missouri have launched criminal investigations in the media. Federal judge took up for these investigations As obviously retaliations for violation of the first amendment, but once again, the process of even adherence to this issue is a real punishment.

Even the Federal Commission on Communications (FCC), under the new Trump Chairman, Brendan Carr rejected previously rejected complaints Against the media, which are considered as liberal, which lead the agency to politicized editorial disputes. Carr did It’s no secret His desire use FCC to punish the media and corporations that, in his opinion, contributed to the “erosion of public trust.”

In some cases, the courts eventually enters and reject these attacks on the first correction, but the deliberate cooling effect remains the same as the threat that hangs above each large institution.

Let’s look at how US media hesitated to report the obvious Nazi salute Elon Mask at a rally after indigitation for Trump. German and Israeli outlets Did not evade from the description of the incident as it appeared but many of them American colleagues Treat more closely. No matter how unfounded, the MUSK claim can cost millions of dollars in defense. The culture of risk disgust, complicated by legal threats and official intimidation, has narrowed the limits of permissible discourse here, in the country that is expected to have the strongest protection of free language in the world.

What makes these actions particularly pervert is how they often click the free language protection language. Musk’s rhetoric to combat Wook Mind attacks and the attacks of the landing on the so -called wrapped corporations claim to defend free self -expression, making the opposite. This armament of free language rhetoric is both cynical and dangerous, undermining the same principle that it aims to protect, seeking to rob its opponents of the language necessary for it to accurately describe it.

This free language war is not primarily about the silence of individual critics directly. There is no secret police that pulls people for average Trump tweets, mask and their sole control over the federal government. It is about using a disgust of institutional risk to create a cold effect. Journalists, questionnaires and guard organizations can still criticize powerful figures like Musk or Trump, but they do it under a constant threat to financial ruins. The goal is to make accountability so expensive that less people are ready to try.

That is urgently needed is reliable Anti -Slap lawsBoth at the federal level and in countries where protection is still weak or does not exist. Anti-Slapp laws allow the defendant to quickly reject the claims, which are filed with the primary intention to suppress the speech, while the legal fees are automatically awarded (often with some factor) to the defendants. It is fundamentally important that they translate the burden of the plaintiff’s costs, hold back light -hearted claims and protect critics from devastating costs.

The wide legal context also emphasizes rates. Some figures including Clarans justice Thomas, expressed interest In viewing New York Times Co. Against SullivanThe case of the Supreme Court, which created a strong defense of public figures. Disruption Sullivan Would open the gateways to even more claims for slander, further cold speech. Anti-Slapp laws are critical to these trends, guaranteeing that free self-expression remains protected even as legal challenges are multiplied.

But only legal reforms are not enough. We must also recognize and urge these attacks for what they are: agreed censorship. Regardless of SLApp, state revenge or regulatory threats, these actions are intended to undermine the first amendment, making the cost of unbearably high. They are not isolated incidents, but part of a wider free language, which is carried out in the name of consolidation of undeniable political power.

The free-tongue crisis hiding in the eyes is not about whether people can ever criticize powerful figures about whether institutions can withstand pressure on self-censorship in the conditions of legal and political intimidation. Without reliable protection, such as anti -spill laws and renewed cultural attachment to protect open discourse, the cooling effect will only increase, leaving what is left poorer for American democracy.

Free language has always been a challenged principle, but its survival depends on our ability to see the hypocrisy of those who claim to be defense, working on its suppression. The fight against censorship is not just a legal battle. It is a struggle for preserving the foundation of a free and open society.