This EO just seems to be in line with Trump's testing of the bounds of power the executive branch can wield. It would be nice if the Court could hear a case about this in the next couple of years and hopefully reaffirm one of the most clear values every Court has held for the past sixty years.
If there is any precedent the Court will keep that has been challenged since the conservative ideology of the bench has been cemented, it is probably this.
This is a somewhat tangential point, but I think it is important in the context of our class conversations. My thoughts were sparked by this line in the post: "[A]dults in a free society have a duty to tolerate offensive words, rather than silence them through law enforcement."
I understand the point and appreciate that we are not silenced with law enforcement through our expression. However, one thing people often overlook is that the First Amendment is about government action, not private parties. On social media, I see a lot of hateful, offensive, and vile commentary. And when that person (rightfully) gets called out, they cry First Amendment. But the First Amendment is about freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. If you say something disagreeable, people have a right to disagree with you and choose not to associate with you rather than tolerating it. I don't think it is wrong for someone to go to an employer or school if someone says something completely outside moral boundaries. While the government should never be engaged in this kind of silence, I see nothing wrong with the free market of ideas policing it.
You’re absolutely right that the First Amendment limits only government action, not private criticism or social consequences. But one thing worth noting is that private power today often functions like public power. Large corporations (social media platforms, payment processors, major employers) can effectively silence or exclude someone from the modern public square faster than the government ever could.
That doesn’t make their decisions unconstitutional, but it does mean that private suppression of speech can feel just as coercive. When a handful of companies control the spaces where most speech happens, it’s understandable that people worry—not because they misunderstand the First Amendment, but because the stakes of private gatekeeping have become incredibly high.
I think this point is especially important to consider in light of conversations (and really a lack thereof) around Palestine. What Professor Uddin has noted here is absolutely on point when we think about the students on college campuses across the country that have been doxxed and had job offers rescinded or have been threatened with a revocation of their degrees for taking part in protests on Palestine. I think that’s why I find it so difficult to take a stance on free speech that isn’t overprotective of the right (right to free speech that is). Private suppression of free speech and the very public consequences of that suppression effectively functions as a limit to freedom of speech. In a world where students and professors alike are worried about their employment, their graduation status, or their visa status for speaking about Palestine, I just can’t get myself on board with any theoretical limits beyond direct incitement to violence.
This EO just seems to be in line with Trump's testing of the bounds of power the executive branch can wield. It would be nice if the Court could hear a case about this in the next couple of years and hopefully reaffirm one of the most clear values every Court has held for the past sixty years.
If there is any precedent the Court will keep that has been challenged since the conservative ideology of the bench has been cemented, it is probably this.
This is a somewhat tangential point, but I think it is important in the context of our class conversations. My thoughts were sparked by this line in the post: "[A]dults in a free society have a duty to tolerate offensive words, rather than silence them through law enforcement."
I understand the point and appreciate that we are not silenced with law enforcement through our expression. However, one thing people often overlook is that the First Amendment is about government action, not private parties. On social media, I see a lot of hateful, offensive, and vile commentary. And when that person (rightfully) gets called out, they cry First Amendment. But the First Amendment is about freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. If you say something disagreeable, people have a right to disagree with you and choose not to associate with you rather than tolerating it. I don't think it is wrong for someone to go to an employer or school if someone says something completely outside moral boundaries. While the government should never be engaged in this kind of silence, I see nothing wrong with the free market of ideas policing it.
You’re absolutely right that the First Amendment limits only government action, not private criticism or social consequences. But one thing worth noting is that private power today often functions like public power. Large corporations (social media platforms, payment processors, major employers) can effectively silence or exclude someone from the modern public square faster than the government ever could.
That doesn’t make their decisions unconstitutional, but it does mean that private suppression of speech can feel just as coercive. When a handful of companies control the spaces where most speech happens, it’s understandable that people worry—not because they misunderstand the First Amendment, but because the stakes of private gatekeeping have become incredibly high.
I think this point is especially important to consider in light of conversations (and really a lack thereof) around Palestine. What Professor Uddin has noted here is absolutely on point when we think about the students on college campuses across the country that have been doxxed and had job offers rescinded or have been threatened with a revocation of their degrees for taking part in protests on Palestine. I think that’s why I find it so difficult to take a stance on free speech that isn’t overprotective of the right (right to free speech that is). Private suppression of free speech and the very public consequences of that suppression effectively functions as a limit to freedom of speech. In a world where students and professors alike are worried about their employment, their graduation status, or their visa status for speaking about Palestine, I just can’t get myself on board with any theoretical limits beyond direct incitement to violence.