An article by Market Institute President Charles Sauer in RealClearMarkets warns that government officials in both parties are increasingly tempted to use federal power to pressure, punish, or silence speech they disagree with — a trend that threatens the First Amendment regardless of who controls Washington.
Sauer points to President Trump’s Executive Order, Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship, as an important response to the censorship efforts seen during the Biden Administration, when federal officials pressured social media companies to remove or suppress content questioning the government’s COVID-19 policies.
As Sauer explains:
“The Executive Order is intended to protect against future encroachments on the right to free speech like those that occurred under the Biden Administration.”
The piece highlights examples of Biden Administration officials allegedly coercing social media platforms into removing content, including pressure campaigns tied to so-called “misinformation” and direct communications between White House officials and tech executives.
However, Sauer argues that some officials within the Trump Administration are now risking similar constitutional violations from the opposite direction.
Discussing recent actions by Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson, Sauer writes:
“The FTC should use its power to punish woke corporations for engaging in First Amendment-protected activity.”
The article examines the FTC’s case against advertising companies accused of coordinating with media watchdog groups over “brand safety” concerns. Sauer argues that businesses deciding where to place advertisements — and activists organizing boycotts — are both protected forms of speech and association under the First Amendment.
As the article notes:
“The main problem with the FTC case is that organizing boycotts of a business because of the business’s political activities is a First Amendment-protected activity.”
Sauer also warns that using federal agencies to target political bias in news curation or advertising decisions could create precedents that future administrations would inevitably weaponize against their opponents.
The article concludes with a broader warning about selective support for free speech:
“America will become a country in which free speech only exists for those who won the last election.”
Read the full article from RealClearMarkets.
0 Comments