Trump has to do three great things to protect the freedom of speech

President Donald Trump claimed that one of his main priorities was “the end of an unconstitutional censorship of the Federal Government”. On the face is this noble goal: First amendment, Which forbids the Government to limit our ability to speak, is the cornerstone of our democracy. But everyone supports the freedom of speech when it is appropriate for them – the real question is who is willing to protect the goal when they are not appropriate.

Ever since he took over, Trump has reached some steps to protect free speech. He opened the white house for Podcasters and Livestraamers so that the Americans could access political news from the wider variety of stops. He also delayed the upcoming prohibition of Tiktoca, protecting the critical platform for discussion and expression.

But anyone who followed Trump’s career knows that, like many politicians, his promise to eradicate Censors sometimes false: this is also the president who ordered the federal implementation of the law to suffocate the peaceful protests of 2020, and the one who issued an executive order who became an executive command that became the basis for the historical wave of educational censorship.

Associated Press says he is banned from an oval office for using the ‘Mexican Gulf’

But if the president wants to give good in his promises that he will end the censorship, we in Aclu have some ideas about where to start.

1. Internet speech protection

The leaders of both sides want to modify or abolish Section 230, part of the Communication Law on Protection Website from responsibility over what their users also publish during the good faith of the content of content of content. During his first administration, Trump himself took steps to limit some protection of Section 230, allegedly to protect the freedom of speech.

But the change or abolition of section 230 would not protect the freedom of speech: it would create conditions for censorship.

Platforms such as Facebook, X and Tictoka can be important drivers of public discourse. Due to Section 230 protection, these companies do not need to worry about lawsuits because of the posts they have not created – such as posts that some people would consider defamation or misinformation.

Section 230 Protection means that websites are less likely to remove these types of posts, allowing a wide range of views and more freedom for users. Without these protection, companies would more likely to remove things that considered the risky, making the Internet hostile to political debate.

In order to start protecting the freedom of speech online, Trump must refrain from reviving his previous executive order and encouraged Congress to follow his lead.

2. Protection of printing

President’s animation according to the media – And his willingness to lawsuit is well documented. Recently, in a lawsuit against CBS, he claimed that the editing of Kamal Harris interviews reflects the bias for her. The appeal also states that “there were years of journalistic animation CBS according to President Trump and previous Republican presidential candidates,” which indicates that at least some motivation for this lawsuit does not initiate facts, but CBS observed injustice over the years.

Uncomfortable lawsuits like this threatening our ability to approach the news. In order for the media to function, the government must leave them free to do their jobs. The Supreme Court has long concluded that publishers have a editorial discretion – the right to publish everything they want, to release the government’s interference.

The lawsuit due to critical coverage does not help the American people approach the truth – it just deter reports. Journalists are unlikely to continue the stories if they are afraid that they will be sued by the mistake or running of those in power. Some great media can afford a legal risk, but smaller outlets and independent journalists, from Podcaster to Freelancer, almost certainly cannot. The result is less robust reporting, smaller stops in the media and less public discussions.

If Trump was serious about the end of Cenzure, he would have stopped suing the outlets for stories he disliked. And he would press the Congress to pass on the Doubt Law, who would protect journalists from forcing them to discover their sources to the Government – protecting not only journalists, but also by whistles trying to shed light on Vlad’s abuse.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

3. Campus speech protection

Faculty campuses have long been central to discussions on free speech. Conservatives, often correctly, raised the alarms that their voices are on the side. But now it seems that Trump is ready to silence the campus speech under the guise of fighting anti -Semitism.

Efforts in resolving anti -Semitism and hatred are critical – each student must be able to access Education without disturbing identity -based. But Trump’s executive order, “additional measures to fight anti -Semitism,” accepts an excessive definition of anti -Semitism that threatens a protected political speech. According to this definition, the speech on the actions of the Israeli government can be explored and punished as anti -Semitic harassment.

But if the president wants to give good in his promises that he will end the censorship, we in Aclu have some ideas about where to start.

In a factual list that monitors the executive order, Trump stated that he would deport the “resident of the aliens who joined the pro-Jihadist protests.” But the first amendment does not allow the Government to use the immigration law to punish or censorship a political debate in America. With these orders, the White House punishes peaceful protesters for supporting the side that Trump disagrees with.

Click here to get the Fox News app

Trump has to correct the course and stop threatening the consequences of immigration based on protected speech. It can also instruct agencies to recognize the difference between the harassment of Jewish students – which is not protected and which must be stopped – and the constitutionally protected speech. He can also cooperate with the congress on stopping the adoption of the Awareness Act, an anti -Semitism, a two -sided effort that is similarly threatened by speech on behalf of security.

Protecting speech on the network, supporting the free press and allowing the Campus’ discussion, this administration can begin to give good in its promises that the speech will be free. And Aclu will be ready if not.