On his first day as the 47th president, Donald Trump took swift action to protect Americans’ First Amendment rights by issuing an executive order aimed at ending federal censorship. This bold move underscores the need to prevent government officials from pressuring private companies into silencing dissent. Below, an excerpt from Market Institute Senior Fellow Norm Singleton’s new article at The Libertarian Institute detailing this vital effort to restore free speech and investigate the previous administration’s unconstitutional overreach.
“Donald Trump wasted no time implementing his agenda by issuing a series of executive orders just hours after being sworn in as the 47th president. The orders covered subjects ranging from immigration, to energy production, to a freeze on both new federal regulations and hiring federal employees. One order that has not gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves is the one Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. This order states that it is federal policy to “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” It also requires the government to “ensure that no taxpayer resources” are used to “violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens.”
In order to carry out these pro-free speech policies, the order states that “no federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources” to violate the First Amendment rights of any American citizen. It also directs the Attorney General to work with “the heads of other executive agencies and departments” to investigate “the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent” with the First Amendment. The Attorney General must then prepare a report for President Trump and his Chief of Policy that contains recommendations for “remedial actions for any violations of the First Amendment taken by the prior Administration.”
The explicit prohibition on federal officials violating the First Amendment may seem redundant since federal employees already take an oath to uphold the Constitution; thus they swore to not to violate American citizens’ constitutionally protected rights. However, Biden administration officials, including the big guy, routinely violated the free speech rights of American citizens. As federal Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote in a July 4, 2023 preliminary injunction forbidding government officials from having any contact with social media companies, “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”
Leaked emails between officials and employees of social media companies back up Judge Doughty’s statement. The communications went beyond mere suggestions, constitutng threats of retribution if the social media companies did not comply with the administration’s “requests” that they censor their customers. For example, then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy suggested that the administration may have to take “appropriate legal and regulatory” measures to stop the spread of COVID “misinformation.” Facebook creator and CEO of Meta (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Whats App) Mark Zuckerberg, while appearing on the popular Joe Rogan Show described how Biden officials “would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse.” Zuckerberg also told Joe Rogan that Biden administration officials brought up the possibility that the White House would support imposing new regulations on social media platforms, including modifying Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
This is the section of federal law that protects those who run online platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X from being held liable for the posts their users make. Section 230 has been instrumental in the growth of social media. Repealing or weakening Section 230 would hurt the big companies but the main victims would be small and start up companies who would find it more difficult to attract investors if there were the possibility the company could be held liable for posts by the site’s users. Government employees threatening private companies and treating them like subordinates should be unacceptable in a free society—and should be criminalized if done to coerce the companies to violate their customers’ constitutionally protected rights.”
0 Comments