https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/31/the-faux-free-speech-warriors-attacking-free-speech/ [ ] Techdirt. [ ] * Sign In * Register * Preferences Techdirt [ ] * TechDirt * GreenHouse * Free Speech * Error 402 * Ctrl-Alt-Speech * Deals * Jobs * Support Techdirt [podcast-ti] Daily Deal: The Python & Django Web Development Bundle LA Times Flips Anti-RFK Jr. Op-Ed Into Pro-Kennedy Propaganda Daily Deal: The Python & Django Web Development Bundle LA Times Flips Anti-RFK Jr. Op-Ed Into Pro-Kennedy Propaganda The Faux Free Speech Warriors Attacking Free Speech [defamation] Free Speech from the don't-let-them-get-away-with-it dept Fri, Jan 31st 2025 10:49am - Mike Masnick There's a particularly insidious and cynical form of censorship gaining prominence in America: the weaponization of "free speech" rhetoric, combined with abuses of the judicial system and executive power, to actually suppress speech. It's a strategy that turns the First Amendment's principles inside out, using the language of liberty to justify silencing critics and opponents. Consider Brendan Carr pretending to be a free speech warrior while demanding censorship and seeking to punish those who speak against Trump. Or Jim Jordan, who was supposedly tasked with investigating the "weaponization" of the government against speech, but used that position to weaponize his government committee to suppress speech. Perhaps the most brazen practitioners of this strategy are those with the resources to weaponize the legal system itself. Take Elon Musk, who wraps himself in the mantle of "free speech absolutism" while filing censorial lawsuits against his critics. Or Donald Trump, who portrays himself as a free speech champion while maintaining a relentless campaign of legal intimidation--suing media properties for critical coverage, attacking CBS over 60 Minutes for a Harris interview he didn't like, and even targeting pollster Ann Selzer for publishing unfavorable poll predictions. This censorship strategy has evolved to exploit every available pressure point in our system. Government officials like Carr and Jordan weaponize regulatory and investigative powers, while wealthy private actors like Musk and Trump deploy their vast resources to overwhelm critics with legal costs. The tactics are different, but the playbook is the same. The success of this strategy relies on a peculiar form of doublespeak: while actively working to silence critics through legal and political pressure, these figures present themselves as defenders of free expression. More troubling still is how effectively this framing has been accepted by mainstream media and, by extension, the public. Andy Craig, from the Institute for Humane Studies, has a great op-ed exploring how the MAGA world is famous for abusing vexatious lawsuits to silence speech. It's the classic story of the SLAPP suit: Defamation law, ostensibly meant to protect reputations against malicious falsehoods, is being twisted into a bludgeon to silence criticism and accountability -- where even the threat of a defamation suit can serve to chill free speech. And in some cases, SLAPPs abuse other areas of law to target speech in order to evade the high First Amendment bar for defamation under Supreme Court precedents. Elon Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters, for example, epitomizes this trend. Media Matters reported on ads for major brands running next to neo-Nazi content on Musk's X platform, formerly Twitter. Instead of addressing the substance of the report, Musk retaliated with a lawsuit, in this case based not on defamation as such but an even more outlandish "consumer fraud" theory. By allegedly presenting misleading examples, even though they were undeniably real and similar ones are easy to come by, the theory is this somehow falls under defrauding people into not using or buying ads on X. And as Musk frequently does, the case was filed in the Northern District of Texas to engage in blatant "judge shopping." It paid off, with Judge Reed O'Connor, long known for his solicitousness toward conservative political efforts, allowing the case to proceed to trial despite its flawed premise. The message was unmistakable: Critics calling out extremist content on his platform could come at a steep personal cost. It is not unrelated that Media Matters, faced with massive legal fees in fighting the wealthiest man in the world, was recently forced to resort to mass layoffs. Craig's analysis cuts to the heart of the matter: these aren't just isolated incidents of powerful figures attempting to silence critics. Rather, it's a calculated strategy that corrupts both legal processes and public discourse. By wrapping censorship in the language of free speech protection, these actors have found a way to make their suppression efforts appear legitimate--and much of the media has struggled to effectively challenge this framing. What makes these actions particularly perverse is how they are often cloaked in the language of defending free speech. Musk's rhetoric about combating the "woke mind virus" and DeSantis' attacks on so-called woke corporations both claim to champion free expression while doing the opposite. This weaponization of free speech rhetoric is both cynical and dangerous, undermining the very principle it purports to defend, while seeking to rob their opponents of the language needed to accurately describe it. The real-world impact of this legal intimidation strategy became starkly apparent in the media's timid coverage of Elon Musk's gesture at Trump's inauguration. While the movement clearly resembled a Nazi salute (and literal Nazis took it that way), American media outlets tied themselves in knots to avoid saying so directly: Consider, too, how U.S. media hesitated to report on Elon Musk's apparent Nazi salute at a post-inauguration rally for Trump. German and Israeli outlets did not shy away from describing the incident as it appeared, yet many of their American counterparts tread more carefully. No matter how baseless, a lawsuit from Musk can cost millions of dollars to defend. The culture of risk aversion, compounded by legal threats and official intimidation, has narrowed the bounds of permissible discourse here, in the nation that is supposed to have the strongest free speech protections in the world. The contrast is telling: media outlets in countries with stricter speech laws but stronger protections against frivolous lawsuits felt free to describe what they saw. Meanwhile, American journalists--operating in a country with supposedly the strongest free speech protections in the world--engaged in elaborate verbal gymnastics to avoid potential legal liability. Musk's subsequent threat to sue Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for describing the gesture as a Nazi salute only underscores the pattern: using litigation threats to chill speech while claiming to champion free expression. The strategy works precisely because defending against even a baseless lawsuit can be ruinously expensive. Addressing this coordinated assault on free speech requires a multi-pronged approach. At the legal level, we need two parallel reforms: comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections to counter wealthy actors' abuse of the courts, and stronger legislative guardrails against government officials using their investigative and regulatory powers to harass critics. The first priority is clear: What's urgently needed are robust anti-SLAPP laws, both at the federal level and in states where protections are still weak or nonexistent. Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants to quickly dismiss lawsuits that are filed with the primary intent of suppressing speech, with legal fees automatically awarded (often with some multiplier) to the defendants. Crucially, they shift the burden of costs onto the plaintiff, deterring frivolous lawsuits and protecting critics from devastating expenses. Equally crucial is defending existing First Amendment protections against efforts to weaken them. Some powerful figures, including those on the Supreme Court, are actively working to lower the barriers that currently help protect robust public discourse: The broader legal context also underscores the stakes. Some figures, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have expressed interest in revisiting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court case that established strong protections for speech about public figures. Undermining Sullivan would open the floodgates to even more defamation claims, further chilling speech. Anti-SLAPP laws are a critical counterweight to these trends, ensuring that free expression remains protected even as legal challenges multiply. Perhaps most fundamentally, we need to develop stronger cultural antibodies against this form of censorship. That starts with consistently calling out these tactics for what they are: coordinated attempts to silence criticism through intimidation, even -- or especially -- when wrapped in the rhetoric of free speech protection: But legal reforms alone are not enough. We must also recognize and call out these attacks for what they are: a coordinated censorship campaign. Whether through SLAPPs, state retaliation or regulatory threats, these actions aim to undermine the First Amendment by making the cost of speaking out intolerably high. They are not isolated incidents but part of a broader war on free speech, waged in the name of consolidating unchallenged political power. The free speech crisis hiding in plain sight isn't about whether individuals can ever criticize powerful figures -- it's about whether institutions can withstand the pressure to self-censor in the face of legal and political intimidation. Without robust protections like anti-SLAPP laws and a renewed cultural commitment to defending open discourse, the chilling effect will only grow stronger, leaving what's left of American democracy poorer for it. There's a lot more good stuff in the piece, so go check it out. Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, brendan carr, defamation, donald trump, elon musk, free speech, jim jordan, slapp suits, weaponization 45 CommentsLeave a Comment If you liked this post, you may also be interested in... * LA Times Flips Anti-RFK Jr. Op-Ed Into Pro-Kennedy Propaganda * The Trump FCC Makes It Easier For Your Landlord And Your ISP To Collude To Rip You Off * Ctrl-Alt-Speech: This Episode Has Masculine Energy * No, Conscripting The App Stores Doesn't Solve The Problems With Age Verification * Meta Pays Trump $25M Protection Money After Mar-a-Lago 'Offer' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Rate this comment as insightful Rate this comment as funny You have rated this comment as insightful You have rated this comment as funny Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam You have flagged this comment The first word has already been claimed The last word has already been claimed Lightbulb icon Laughing icon Flag icon Lightbulb icon Laughing icon Comments on "The Faux Free Speech Warriors Attacking Free Speech" Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment * Filter comments in by Time * Filter comments as Threaded * Filter only comments rated Insightful * Filter only comments rated funny LOL * Filter only comments that are Unread 45 Comments Collapse all replies This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 10:53 am A reminder for those who need it: Freedom of speech means having the freedom not to say a thing, freedom of religion means having the freedom to refuse following any religion, and freedom of association means having the freedom to refuse an association. Any supposed "freedom" where you don't have the option to say "no" isn't freedom. Collapse replies (17) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [23d7813ac9]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 12:08 pm Re: What are your thoughts on Mahmoud v. Taylor and its particular brand of "religious freedom"? Collapse replies (16) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 12:18 pm Re: Re: Parents have every right to decide what books their children can read in accordance with the religious beliefs of those specific parents. What they don't and shouldn't have is the right to decide what everyone else's children can read. Collapse replies (15) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [a2c1013436]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 12:27 pm Re: Re: Re: We won't be able to get anywhere as a society if religious parents are able to nope their kids out of lessons and books that teach them basic things like "LGBTQ+ people are regular folks like you & me". Raising their kids to be sheltered bigots that we then have to deal with as they become intolerant adult participants in society is something that creates harm. Collapse replies (14) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [5] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 12:37 pm Re: Re: Re:^2 We won't be able to get anywhere as a society if religious parents are able to nope their kids out of lessons and books that teach them basic things like "LGBTQ+ people are regular folks like you & me". On one hand: Agreed. On the other hand: Taking that decision away from parents is bullshit; I can't and won't endorse it. The freedom to believe as one wishes must also come with the freedom to refuse accepting other beliefs. Parents who want to raise their child into holding negative beliefs about queer people can and should have that right. To argue otherwise would be to argue that, were the shoe on the other foot, parents shouldn't have the right to raise their child into holding positive beliefs about queer people. This isn't a question of me being anti-queer, either. I am queer, so I can understand the desire to teach all children that they should accept and respect queer people. But if a parent wants to teach their child something else, no one--not you, not me, not the state--should have any right to stop that. Collapse replies (11) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [6] [92999a5d59]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 1:16 pm Re: Re: Re:^3 Letting bigots indoctrinate their kids into believing their fellow person is a sin for immutable qualities of their existence exacts a cost. One could think of it in the "Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Losses" framework. The parents get to raise their kids to become hateful adults, and then they get unleashed on the world to become everyone else's problem. They then support and vote for other hateful adults and agitate for hateful policies and causes. Marginalized groups having to litigate and then relitigate their right to dignity and existence over and over to these successive generations of bigots is not sustainable. We are living, right now, in the product of that unsustainability. I am queer myself, and I have queer friends who have made it clear that they are tired of having to "be brave", tired of being told they're "so brave" and just want a society and government policies where we don't have to fight every step of the way, or re-fight the same shit over and over again. The current rights framework where bigoted parents are near-infallible, and seek to grab even greater rights for themselves so they can keep inflicting their spawn on us, isn't working and hasn't been working. Collapse replies (10) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [7] [442f94d836]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 1:37 pm Re: Re: Re:^4 bro you seriously need to shut up bro stephen has proven your doing the same thing as these free speech warriors in that they should be forced to accept your speech that is not how free speech works dude Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [8] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 1:43 pm Re: Re: Re:^5 I don't need you speaking for me, so please: FUCK OFF FOREVER, YOU SPAMBOT ASSHOLE. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [7] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 1:42 pm Re: Re: Re:^4 Letting bigots indoctrinate their kids into believing their fellow person is a sin for immutable qualities of their existence exacts a cost. So does the state forcing parents to raise their children according to a strict doctrine of state-sponsored beliefs. We have freedom of religion because the Founding Fathers saw what happened when the church and the state were one and the same. The state shouldn't be telling anyone what to believe or punishing anyone who doesn't believe as the state demands. We are living, right now, in the product of that unsustainability. And that is the risk we take when we allow people the freedom to choose what they believe. We can't have freedom without people having the freedom to make what you or I believe are the wrong choices. they are tired of having to "be brave", tired of being told they're "so brave" and just want a society and government policies where we don't have to fight every step of the way, or re-fight the same shit over and over again I'm sick of that kind of shit, too. But the solution can't be--shouldn't be--leveraging the power of the state to enforce the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion at the cost of everyone's freedom to believe anything even remotely out of alignment with those principles. That means giving up the freedoms of speech and religion (and possibly even association), and I refuse to make that sacrifice or demand that sacrifice of others. And since I get the feeling you're going to keep needling me about this for as long as you and I have the energy to keep this shit going, let me lay out a few arguments that won't change my mind on this matter: 1. "You're a bad queer for not wanting to keep queer people safe." 2. "You're a bad queer for not wanting to force bigots to stop being bigoted in public." 3. "Your stance is going to get people killed." 4. "Your stance is a cheap cop-out against stopping bigots at any cost." Going after me with any of those, or anything close to those, will not convince me of anything other than your desire to control and dominate people you dislike...which is exactly the kind of mindset that leads people to believe in fascism. Collapse replies (4) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [8] [326853347e]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 2:01 pm Re: Re: Re:^5 But the solution can't be--shouldn't be Then what should the solution, in your opinion, be? How do we get to the place you envision, where we're allowed to live our best lives while somehow simultaneously letting bigots indoctrinate their kids into believing that we should not be allowed to be our best lives, and that they need to tear down the things that allow us to live our best lives? And please don't default to "Idunno I'm just a schmuck with a keyboard". Surely you have thought about how we could get from here to there? Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [9] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 2:20 pm Re: Re: Re:^6 Then what should the solution, in your opinion, be? We don't have an easy solution to this problem. We'll never have one. Human nature is what it is; trying to force people into a specific belief system will make some of them rebel against that system unless the system holds them at gunpoint (metaphorical or literal). The idea that the state can or should force people into holding a specific belief strikes me as morally repugnant. Even if the belief is a secular ideal, trying to force it upon people with threats of punishment reeks of religious bullshit to me. I can't and won't endorse that kind of bullshit. Surely you have thought about how we could get from here to there? We're never going to live in the world you want. Needling me for a magic fix-all solution that I don't have won't get you there. Neither will not needling me, for that matter, but that's the point: Nobody has the solution you want because such a solution doesn't, won't, and can't ever exist. We can hope for a better world and work towards a better world by supporting the causes and people we feel will help usher in that better world. But supporting a form of fascism that favors those causes sounds like a horrible idea. You'll have a hard time trying to convince me otherwise. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [10] [01adc37663]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 2:32 pm Re: Re: Re:^7 We're never going to live in the world you want. Alrighty. How do we get to the world you seem to want, where we can live freely and the bigots can somehow magically live freely right alongside us without said bigots pushing (and succeedingat times) for the government to delegitimize our existence? Are there any specific policy ideas you have in mind on how to get there? Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [11] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 2:41 pm Re: Re: Re:^8 How do we get to the world you seem to want, where we can live freely and the bigots can somehow magically live freely right alongside us without said bigots pushing (and succeedingat times) for the government to delegitimize our existence? As I said: I don't have the solution. And for that matter, I'll never have one. As I said, human nature is what it is--which means no matter what solution I could possibly propose, someone will eventually rebel against it and inspire others to do the same. I won't endorse the idea of controlling people's beliefs through the power of the state, no matter what form that takes. I won't endorse using vigilante violence to scare people into believing something. Nobody should have a belief thrust upon them at gunpoint (literal or metaphorical) and told to believe it "or else". That includes beliefs that align with the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. That applies as much to bigots as it does to you and I. I know you think I'm a shitty, horrible, no-good, fucking unredeemable piece of garbage for not buying into the idea of controlling and dominating bigots at the cost of their freedom. I don't care. The idea that a "progressive" form of fascism could ever stop anti-queer bigotry--or that anyone should ever make the attempt--is, to me, a morally bankrupt and ethically disturbing idea. You haven't made an argument yet that justifies that idea in any way other than trying to guilt trip me into accepting it. Try a different approach or stop wasting my fucking time; I don't care which. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [7] [62cc11be84]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 2:39 pm Re: Re: Re:^4 The current rights framework where bigoted parents are near-infallible, and seek to grab even greater rights for themselves so they can keep inflicting their spawn on us, isn't working and hasn't been working. Hey, dude. Boomer here. Maybe we should sit down some time, so I can tell you about the bad old days. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [8] [5a69527c4d]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 2:41 pm Re: Re: Re:^5 Yeah, I get that parents were psychopaths with infinite power to abuse/mold their kid how they see fit back then. We shouldn't regress back to that state because "religious freedom". Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [9] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 2:44 pm Re: Re: Re:^6 We shouldn't regress back to that state because "religious freedom". And how do we avoid that without stripping away from parents the freedom to raise their children with whatever beliefs the parents want to express, from churches the freedom to espouse whatever beliefs the clergy want to express, and from private religious schools the freedom to teach whatever dogma the schools want to teach? Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it. Threaded [5] [817e639f6d]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 1:34 pm Re: Re: Re:^2 "LGBTQ+ people are regular folks like you & me". By their very nature "LGBTQ+" people are unlike "regular folks." They are deviants and/or deranged. They may be human beings, but they are maladapted & irredeemable. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [6] [ac7b1f99a3]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 1:35 pm Re: Re: Re:^3 Please do not feed this troll. Flag them and move on. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [ece65f291f]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 10:56 am I'm just hoping these plans to stop the undermining of free speech are gonna work. Trump's goons, both in the US and in other far right parties, are downright infuriating in how they sabotage and muddle real arguments for free speech so they can go be nazis in public, all while gleefully suppressing people critical of them. It's ridiculous, and even more ridiculous that these idiots are the ones in power now. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [96da3041fd]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 10:58 am When they say "free speech," they actually mean "I want to be a Nazi without anyone finding it distasteful." Collapse replies (7) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 11:04 am Re: They want the freedom to say what they want without having to take responsibility for their speech. Hell, their use of "DEI" is basically a smokescreen for whatever slur(s) they want to say but can't because (A) they'd get pilloried for their bigotry and (B) they know better than to give away the game like that. Collapse replies (4) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [8ca24c3e05]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 11:48 am Re: Re: Before it was "DEI," it was "woke." Before it was "woke" it was "welfare queens." Though with Musk getting away with Nazi salutes, we may not be far off from the getting back to saying the slurs they really want to say. Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 11:50 am Re: Re: Re: What's funny about Musk getting away with the Nazi salute is how someone without the same level of power/influence did the same exact salute and suffered legit consequences. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [5] [user-default]That One Guy (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 12:13 pm Re: Re: Re:^2 Even better it was a two-for-one, not only did the staff at the company he co-owned quit, but the church revoked his license. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [6] [20220227_PissedO]Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 12:38 pm Re: Re: Re:^3 Apparently, dudebro chuds getting into the priesthood is becoming a real problem. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [user-default]That One Guy (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 11:49 am Re: It's even more pathetic and repugnant than that, it's 'I want to be a nazi/racist/sexist/other form of vile person without anyone being allowed to say anything against me.' They love it when people find them 'distasteful' because they find a trollish glee in offending others, what they want banned is anyone else returning the favor and/or calling them out as the repulsive and pathetic individuals that they are. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [367651592d]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 11:52 am Re: Re: If they make it so I can't use my words against them, we're just gonna have to go past those. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [user-default]Bloof (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 11:30 am I've said it before and I'll say it again, the right do not care about censorship, their only problem is they want to be the ones doing it. Look at how the free speech warriors that pop up in the comments section of this site always dive in to defend book bans or attampts to make adult content illegal, screaming 'think of the children!' in one post while condemning anything that may help poor children receive a half decent education in the next. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [user-default]Strawb (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 11:33 am It's no longer Free Speech, it's Free* Speech. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [3d15ffc3ec]David says: January 31, 2025 at 11:43 am I am not sure the "committee against the weaponization of government against free speech" will stick around now that Donald Trump considers the Department of Justice his personal legal team and that he has started enacting his retribution fantasies in a manner that clearly defies his contention that he'll confine his dictatorial leanings to "being a dictator on day one". Now that he does no longer even need to pay for his SLAPP suits and gets to direct the prosecutors rather than his attorneys, all hell will break loose. Funnily this does not preclude finally getting federal SLAPP protections because it would tilt the tables even more in Trump's favor: he'd be the only one not affected by it since the government now pays his bills and he engages prosecutors rather than acting as plaintiff. So strong anti-SLAPP laws would tilt the table against his equals and in his favor. And for him it was always "tomorrow be damned". Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [user-default]Citizen (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 11:51 am Model T Freedom A popular myth about the Model T is that Henry Ford said people can have it in any color as long as it's black. We're seeing a similar phenomenon when it comes to oligarchs' views on free speech. We can say whatever we want as long as it doesn't make the boss look bad. The key difference is that the myth about the Model T likely stems from speculation about how it was able to be so cheap; oligarchs like Musk, however, have their self-centered views on free speech because they're egotistical and have the money necessary to make examples out of their critics. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [d33f27c0e4]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 11:54 am Add rich sycophants editing and censoring the news https://www.rawstory.com/rfk-jr-la-times/ Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [689cf67a05]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 12:03 pm NetChoice is Complicit Too [NetChoice is licking Trump's boots.](https://netchoice.org/ netchoice-applauds-president-trump-orders-to-unleash-golden-age-of-american-innovation-and-stop-federal-censorship /%5D I don't get why people trust this Republican organization. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [6f6d6538eb]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 12:04 pm Re: Gah, I messed up the linkage. Should've clicked preview. Here it is: NetChoice Applauds President Trump Orders to Unleash 'Golden Age' of American Innovation and Stop Federal Censorship Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [user-default]That One Guy (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 12:07 pm 'Stop giving powerful people the benefit of the doubt' take... I lost count By wrapping censorship in the language of free speech protection, these actors have found a way to make their suppression efforts appear legitimate--and much of the media has struggled to effectively challenge this framing. They haven't 'struggled' to challenge the dystopian framing of 'silencing free speech = supporting free speech', they've refused to. The press and major media outlets have had countless opportunities to push back against such lies and instead they've either sat silent and supported them through a mix of greed(fighting lawsuits is more expensive than being complicit), cowardice('If we call out the liars they might say mean things about us!'), or worse nodded along as though the lies were the truth for the same reasons. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [baf08ef316]Laura Mcgillis says: January 31, 2025 at 1:06 pm Rep Zoe Logren pushing a SOPA internet censorship bill Look at these 2 links https://publicknowledge.org/ public-knowledge-opposes-censorious-site-blocking/ https://torrentfreak.com/ new-bill-aims-to-block-foreign-pirate-sites-in-the-u-s-250129/ Rep Zoe Logren is pushing a Soft SOPA type internet censorship bill to force ISP to block websites. Hopefully techdirt gets the word out before it's too LATE Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [9fac0850a9]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 1:17 pm Re: Zoe has been on the Techdirt Podcast before and I hafta wonder what Mike & Co. think about her doing this. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [5617a9e1f8]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 1:31 pm Democrats are the most enthusiastic and effective advocates of censoring disfavored political speech. Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [user-default]Bloof (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 1:54 pm Re: What political affiliation was Joe McCarthy? What political party do the people who organised censoring popular culture throughout the 20th century to remove anything deemed communist, subversive or 'pornographic'? Who are burning books to this very day and taking over library and schoolboards to remove books for political reasons? What party do Larry 'Ban Tiktok or force them to sell to me' Ellison or Elon 'Bought a social media company to flood it with right wing content to drown out actual journalists and ban left wing accounts' Musk belong to? What party does Donald 'Endless SLAPP suits' Trump belong to? Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [8622006da7]Anonymous Coward says: January 31, 2025 at 1:56 pm Re: Hun you've missed another appointment at the stroke clinic. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [user-default]That One Guy (profile) says: January 31, 2025 at 2:58 pm Re: 'No, you!', a republican staple The ISS called, something about warning them the next time you plan on projecting that hard as it's making it hard for them to see outside the windows. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [5812af8d9b]Arianity says: January 31, 2025 at 1:40 pm and stronger legislative guardrails against government officials using their investigative and regulatory powers to harass critics. Only works if there's someone to enforce it, as we're seeing. On paper, the legislative guardrails are already pretty strong, but we have 3 branches of government that are completely uninterested, right now. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word --------------------------------------------------------------------- [] says: Add Your Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here Name [ ] Email [ ] [ ]Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter URL [ ] Subject [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment * [ ] Comment Options: (*)Use markdown. ( )Use plain text. Make this the ( )First Word or ( )Last Word.(*)No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this? What's this? Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop >> [Post Comment][Preview] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] Daily Deal: The Python & Django Web Development Bundle LA Times Flips Anti-RFK Jr. Op-Ed Into Pro-Kennedy Propaganda Daily Deal: The Python & Django Web Development Bundle LA Times Flips Anti-RFK Jr. Op-Ed Into Pro-Kennedy Propaganda Follow Techdirt Techdirt Daily Newsletter [ ] [Subscribe] Ctrl-Alt-Speech A weekly news podcast from Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech >> Essential Reading The Techdirt Greenhouse Read the latest posts: * Winding Down Our Latest Greenhouse Panel: The Lessons Learned From SOPA/PIPA * From The Revolt Against SOPA To The EU's Upload Filters * Did We Miss Our Best Chance At Regulating The Internet? Read All >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Trending Posts * The Faux Free Speech Warriors Attacking Free Speech * Ted Cruz Blocks FCC Plan To Bring Mobile Wi-Fi To School Kids For A Very Very Stupid Reason * LA Times Flips Anti-RFK Jr. Op-Ed Into Pro-Kennedy Propaganda Techdirt Deals Techdirt Insider Discord The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel... Loading... Become an Insider! Recent Stories Friday 10:49 The Faux Free Speech Warriors Attacking Free Speech (45) Tuesday 11:08 Trump's Dept. Of Education Rolls Back Anti-Book Ban Guidance, Says Bring On The Censorship! (78) More arrow x Email This Story This feature is only available to registered users. You can register here or sign in to use it. Tools & Services * Twitter * Facebook * RSS * Podcast * Research & Reports Company * About Us * Advertising Policies * Privacy Contact * Help & Feedback * Media Kit * Sponsor / Advertise More * Copia Institute * Insider Shop * Support Techdirt Techdirt Brought to you by Floor64 Proudly powered by WordPress. Hosted by Pressable. [Got it] This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy