The above title comes from a book by Nat Hentoff, columnist for the Village Voice, who virulently attacked censorship as a denial of Americans’ First Amendment freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to publicly complain about their government. He was right. To fulfill that obligation, as an awardwinning community newspaper, The MV Times’ duty is to report on events taking place all over the Island.
The Trump administration is now engaged in restricting, even eliminating, these rights. Over the past nine months, the administration’s attacks have attempted to stifle free expression and a free press.
The president dislikes criticism of him. He especially detests news coverage that he thinks is “unfair,” which is why he prefers to watch Fox News rather than any other station. He has threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcast and cable networks that criticize him. He said, “They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”
He threatened to name as “domestic terrorists” anyone who protests the government’s immigration and other policies. He issued a White House document titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence” that allows the federal government to do whatever is necessary to quell what it says is a well-organized, well-funded far-left conspiracy to overthrow the federal government.
This is nonsense.
First, a domestic terrorism law does not exist. It is undefined and meaningless. The president’s stated goal is to go after protests that he claims come from the left, ignoring the right’s January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. His goal is to suppress Americans’ free-expression rights to protest the government’s immigration policies, especially the extremely rough way Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents mistreat undocumented migrants, either while stopping or arresting them, or detaining them in wretched conditions.
Militarizing American cities governed by Democratic mayors has led to the increased presence of masked, unidentifiable ICE agents and National Guard troops wearing gas masks. So far, the president has sent or tried to send troops into Los Angeles (along with Marines), Washington D.C., Memphis, Portland, and Chicago — maybe more to come, as he told military leaders that the cities could be used as “a training ground” for federal and state troops. A federal district court judge, nominated by President Trump himself, has halted his desire to send the National Guard to Portland.
A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, requires Congress, not the president, to allow the military to engage in domestic law enforcement. Last month, federal District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that President Trump broke the law when he deployed the Guard and Marines to Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the ruling applies only to California, and the judge stayed his ruling while the Trump administration appeals.
The presence of troops in American cities is clearly an attempt to stifle dissent and to stop protests. Coupled with the White House document on domestic terrorism, the way is now open to prosecute those who disagree with the government on charges they are working for some unspecified terrorist organization to bring down the government.
Meanwhile, President Trump has demanded that nine universities, soon to be all colleges and universities, agree to a “compact” with the federal government. Two New England institutions, Brown and MIT, are included. He said in a formal statement that these universities will gain access to federal funds and other unnamed benefits if they comply with his agenda — even if they do not agree with it.
Universities must ensure that they will close departments that “punish, belittle,” or “spark violence against conservative ideas.” They must adopt a policy that forbids “all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives,” to abstain from “actions or speech relating to societal and political events, except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.” As Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California law school put it, “It would be hard to come up with a more explicit attempt to restrict freedom of speech.”
Earlier in the year, the Trump administration withdrew federal research funding from Harvard, Columbia, and other universities in an attack on expressive conduct: their right to express their official policy of attempting to diversify their staff and faculty. The administration has prohibited attorneys working in some of the most prestigious law firms to work with federal agencies unless they give up their right to express their views on diversity and equity.
In 1929, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a powerful dissenting opinion concerning the meaning of free speech and expression. It is a powerful reminder that Americans may not always agree with one another, and that the answer to hate speech is more, not less, speech. He wrote, “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought –– not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate” (United States v. Schwimmer).
Censorship, as Hentoff noted, is never the answer. We cannot allow the American tradition of free and open expression, whether by individuals or the press, to suffer in these challenging times.
Jack Fruchtman, who lives in Aquinnah, taught constitutional law and politics for more than 40 years.
Are we to assume that SCOTUS has it all wrong on their support of many Trump initiatives? Are we to believe our lying eyes on the crime rates in Chicago and Memphis and Portland and other cities.? Do you really believe that ICE is there to suppress my protest against Ben and Jerry’s ice cream or Mother Jones publication? Are we to believe there is no unbridled anti semitism on many large college campuses including Columbia and Harvard? Are we to agonize over the term ”domestic terrorism” as non existent in order to make us feel better while innocent civilians are getting their throats slashed on buses or getting assassinated on college campuses, churches and high schools? Was Paramount under pressure to engage Bari Weiss as Editor of CBS? Was MSNBC pressured by Trump to break up into separate companies due to financial loses? Trump uses drama to befuddle the liberals and keep them off balance. That is his modus operandi and it is working. Even retired Political Scientists understand that all speech is free and you dont go to jail for it but there are consequences to free speech if your employer is harmed by it.
Andrew, great points. I imagine we’re supposed to believe that mighty liberals don’t cancel, censor, suppress and boycott ubiquitously. I can name liberal left islanders who won’t let me speak a word or respond to their virtue signaling hypocrisy and intolerance for differences. Even here I’m walking on eggshells, using words that I hope won’t get me cancelled— although I usually am anyway, lol.
To be honest, I thought this opinion piece was a joke, like The Onion or April Fool’s Day.
Andy–so 7 people who had LEGAL U.S authorization to be in this country and work while awaiting the slow process of getting their green cards had their visas cancelled yesterday. Their crime ? Rape ? nooo , Murder ??? nooo Human trafficking ? Drug smuggling ? nooo nooo terrorism? attempted assassination of a prominent politician ? nope –nope no.. Their crime, which resulted in an immediate order for deportation was to not shed tears for Charlie Kirk on social media that the government is now apparently monitoring for such heinous crimes. I guess that’s deporting the worst of the worst. And while we are talking about free speech for the media– What do you think of the department of war revoking the press passes of any org, that does not promise to report on only what the military says they can. So– on that free speech thing– I do not condone violence and think it’s a tragedy that Kirk was murdered, but I think he wasn’t a nice guy and did nothing that would reflect the teachings of Jesus, Am I putting myself at some sort of risk ? You can think Charlie is a “martyr” and no one will blink an eye about it. “Free for thee”, I guess.
Donnie, the State Department has broad latitude to revoke the visas of people who wish ill upon the US or its citizens. No one has a right to become a US citizen. It was not about ”not shedding tears for Kirk” as you misrepresent. It was about heinous speech derogatory to Kirk upon his recent assassination. I am certain that there are people you wish did not enter the USA as do I. As for Kirk not representing the teachings of Jesus, you know very little if anything about Jesus and should remain silent on this issue.
Free Speech vs. Political Rhetoric
Jack Fruchtman is right to highlight the importance of the First Amendment — free speech and a free press are cornerstones of our democracy. But it’s important to separate principle from rhetoric. The claim that the Trump administration is “restricting, even eliminating” these rights implies actual legal suppression — arrests of journalists, shutdowns of media outlets, or new laws muzzling speech. That hasn’t happened.
Harsh criticism of the press, however distasteful, is not the same as censorship. The First Amendment restrains government power, not political hostility. Every administration has clashed with the media: Lincoln shut down newspapers during the Civil War, Wilson jailed dissenters under the Espionage Act, and Nixon tried to block publication of the Pentagon Papers. Compared to those episodes, confrontational press conferences and angry tweets fall well short of “eliminating” constitutional rights.
Free expression includes the right to criticize the press — even unfairly. If we start equating heated political speech with legal censorship, we dilute the real meaning of the First Amendment and make it harder to recognize actual threats when they arise.
Funny how it was ok to call out the national guard to protect the democratic convention in Chicago
Funny how Joe Biden gave a dark dystopian speech about MAGA domestic terrorists are the greatest threat to America
Funny how they shut down free speech during Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop
Funny how the Democrats are now crying about the same things they did when they were in
Most hilarious is how the democrats don’t get that they are losing power because they have lost touch with the majority of Americans
Funny how you reference a situation that happened over 50 years ago. It was enacted after it was legally requested by the governor of Illinois
Who do you think “shut down free speech during Covid and the “Hunter Biden laptop” ? What does that mean anyway ?
You might think this is funny, but federal troops invading our cities looking for fictitious “domestic terrorists” is not a joke– it is an assault on our republic .From the constitution :(1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.st for years.
“Who[m] do you think “shut down free speech during Covid and the “Hunter Biden laptop” ? What does that mean anyway?”
Don, those are your words. Perhaps you are unaware of how the Biden administration coerced social media (Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, for example) to remove posts and ban creators who challenged the approved administration narratives, particularly regarding Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop, the anomalous 2020 election, and January 6, among others.
The Biden administration did this by threatening to remove the shield of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), which protected these influential internet platforms from being held legally responsible for user-generated content. Without such protection, the business model of these platforms would be ruined.
Even Mark Zuckerberg himself testified under oath before a Congressional committee about such coercion.
So if you, Don, were unaware of what the Biden administration did, well, that explains a lot about how you think and what you believe to be true.
And if you did know, and don’t care, that too explains a great deal.
Andy–Given your numerous comments about the “left” using hyperbolic rhetoric to exaggerate their points and scare people, I wonder what enticed you to blatantly do it yourself ? Really– The SCOTUS does get it wrong sometimes. I believe my wide open eyes and see that violent crime over the last 4 years had dropped by nearly 30% during the Biden administration. Portland is not burning down. Antisemitism has been largely unbridled for centuries. The majority of domestic terrorist have been right wing nut cases. Innocent civilians have been getting their throats slashed on subways since subways were invented. Assassinations are a regrettable part of our violent culture and lax gun regulations, and have been happening for centuries. ICE is not shutting down free speech, they are rounding up immigrants ( 71% of which have no criminal record.) Large media corporations are being pressured by an increasingly authoritarian wanna be dictator and the current deployment of Military troops in our cities is clearly unconstitutional.
You’re right about one thing– trump is using drama ( and outright lies) to keep Americans off balance– and it’s working. Just reflect on your own words in your comment praising the fearful hyperbolae you have railed against for years.
You’ve jammed a lot into that comment, but conflating serious critique with “hyperbole” is lazy. Yes, violent crime has dropped since its 2020 spike — but that’s relative to an unprecedented surge. A 30% drop doesn’t mean problems are solved, nor that concerns about policy, policing, or public safety are overblown.
And yes, the Supreme Court does get it wrong — sometimes disastrously. Dred Scott, Plessy, Korematsu, Dobbs: these weren’t harmless missteps, they reshaped the nation. Calling out the gravity of current rulings isn’t “drama”; it’s recognizing stakes.
Equating criticism of Trump’s authoritarian tactics with the left’s rhetorical excess is a false equivalence. There’s a difference between exaggeration and describing real efforts to pressure media, deploy troops questionably, and undermine democratic norms.
Your historical examples — antisemitism, subway violence, assassinations — actually underscore the point: our institutions have always been vulnerable. Chronic problems don’t negate present dangers; they contextualize them.
Acknowledging Trump’s deliberate use of fear and distortion isn’t “doing it too.” It’s calling it what it is. Pretending both sides are equally guilty just to score rhetorical points doesn’t make your argument stronger — it makes it evasive.
Jack Fruchtman is right to highlight the importance of the First Amendment — free speech and a free press are cornerstones of our democracy. But it’s important to separate principle from rhetoric.
The claim that the Trump administration is “restricting, even eliminating” these rights implies actual legal suppression — arrests of journalists, shutdowns of media outlets, or new laws muzzling speech. That hasn’t happened.
Harsh criticism of the press, however distasteful, is not the same as censorship.
The First Amendment restrains government power, not political hostility. Every administration has clashed with the media: Lincoln shut down newspapers during the Civil War, Wilson jailed dissenters under the Espionage Act, and Nixon tried to block publication of the Pentagon Papers. Compared to those episodes, confrontational press conferences and angry tweets fall well short of “eliminating” constitutional rights.
Free expression includes the right to criticize the press — even unfairly. If we start equating heated political speech with legal censorship, we dilute the real meaning of the First Amendment and make it harder to recognize actual threats when they arise.
If I weren’t so filled with gratitude, it would sadden me that today of all days I see a comment here, ostensibly objecting to hyperbole, but goes on to minimize and virtually dismiss the list of many irrefutable concerns facing Americans. I will remark on only one such unfortunate minimization, although there are several.
Underplaying reality is a form of hyperbole. It is exaggeration’s horseshoe, where both ends come close together. Under-exaggeration is exaggeration, too.
Dismissing the unprecedented in modern experience the documented explosion, since 10/7/23, of antisemitic terrorism, violence, murder, harassment, verbal assaults, and frightening threats against Jewish people in their homes, in their places of worship, businesses, in the streets, and anywhere Jewish people gather, here in this country and afar, cannot in good conscience be minimized and boiled down to “Oh, there’s always been antisemitism”. No, today’s incendiary Jew-hatred cannot be tossed aside with a disdainful, “what-else-is-new”.
Special thank you to all the good Dems I can still admire and respect for having the grace to appreciate President Trump these recent days for being a true mensch, while still disagreeing with some, or even most, of his policies.
Comments are closed.