It’s one thing when a well-meaning college student takes to the op-ed pages of his student paper to satiate himself with a list of grievances against President Donald Trump.
It’s another when a cadre of press folk sue the president based on some of those same specious complaints.
Writing in Politico, Suzanne Nossel alleges the president’s “frequent threats and hostile acts directed toward journalists and the media are not only offensive and unbecoming of a democratic leader” — they’re also against the law.
Ms. Nossel is a member of a consortium which includes her own PEN America, “an organization of writers that defends free expression.” It is represented by the non-profit Protect Democracy, and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Clinic.
In the past, PEN America has taken unpopular (yet correct) stances such as condemning the attacks on political scientist and author Charles Murray; on the other hand, it’s stated there’s no crisis regarding free expression on college campuses (and in so doing got one story “really wrong”).
In her article, Nossel concedes that a lot of what the president says is protected under the First Amendment, but when he “proposes government retribution,” that’s where the line is crossed.
Hard to disagree thus far … but note Nossel’s careful choice of words:
“Worse still, in several cases it appears that the bureaucracy he controls has acted on his demands, making other threats he issues to use his governmental powers more credible” (emphasis added).
The press group is seeking a federal court order “directing the president not to use the force of his office to exact reprisals against the press.”
While the president’s actions are unprecedented, the law here is established. A 2015 judicial opinion by the Seventh Circuit’s (now-retired) Judge Richard Posner makes clear that “a public official who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions through actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction is violating the First Amendment.” Similarly, a 2003 Second Circuit opinion found that the First Amendment was violated when an official’s statements “can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request.’”
“Unprecedented”? I don’t recall Nossel and (non-conservative) press groups taking legal action against the Obama administration for actually utilizing government power — in this case, the closest thing to a KGB-style enforcement agency the country has — to stifle First Amendment-protected speech.
Need it be restated what the Wall Street Journal’s Bradley A. Smith wrote?
Imagine if liberal groups discovered that President Trump’s Internal Revenue Service was targeting them for heightened scrutiny or harassment. The media and Democrats would decry this assault on the First Amendment and declare the U.S. on the brink of autocracy.
Similarly, Nossel claims journalists have told her “they take into account in their writing that criticism of the administration might put them at risk,” yet “media outlets and correspondents are pressing forward fearlessly.”
Where was Nossel’s op-ed when the Sharyl Attkisson controversy erupted? How about when James Rosen was under surveillance by the Obama administration … not to mention when reporters at the Associated Press had their telephone records seized?
It takes a staggering degree of obliviousness to proclaim the media are “pressing forward fearlessly” in the Age of Trump when, outside of Fox News and talk radio, who isn’t blasting the president on a daily/ hourly /minute-by-minute basis?
The bottom line is that Nossel, et. al.’s gripes would have a much larger effect if the media hadn’t been engaged in entertaining each and every complaint and conspiracy theory against Donald Trump since day one.
It also would help if the brakes were applied to the farcical hyperbole (see: “unprecedented,” “fearlessly”). Until journalists are willing to step outside their social bubble, they’ll simply never understand why Trump’s complaints and attacks regarding the media are applauded by so many.
UPDATE: The original version of this article stated that the Protect Democracy and Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Clinic were part of the press consortium. They actually represent the consortium in their lawsuit.
MORE: Profs launch ‘media awareness initiatives’ due to Trump’s ‘attacks’
MORE: They. Still. Don’t. Get. It.
IMAGE: cougarsan/Shutterstock.com
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.