This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration.
In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see challenged. We'll see how many hold in due time but I wouldn't put good odds on it.
As a person who lived in the States for a bit, and listened to a lot of news, I remember always this almost fawning over the Founding Fathers, checks and balances and great American constitution. It is remarkable, how easy it all goes, and most people don't do anything (i.e. out of 100 top law firms, only a handful joined the lawsuit against the government, etc.)
It's all pretty cooked. It's honestly stunning to see how these cult-like followers have allowed themselves to be completely oblivious to what's going on.
From an outsiders perspective, it's wild. But at the same time, there were many warnings.
This is a brilliant article because it is summarising how bad it is. They don't want you to know how bad! Lots of paper cuts and hopefully no one sees the amputation.
We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.
If I were to share this article with some loved ones, they would say the press deserves it for all the fake news and unfair treatment of the current administration.
As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “
MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up.
I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.
It started with the Free Palestine protesters. Tesla protesters are next. Citizens will be shipped to El Salvador, non-citizens to where they came from.
Recent win: US Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to New York Times vs. Sullivan. So less than four justices even thought it was worth looking at this issue again.
I thought this country was founded on the principles of enlightenment. And the same principles made it a world leader. Now that enlightenment values are actively being dismantled what next can we expect?
If using Signal to discuss a bombing was done to evade FOIA, how many other cases do American citizens remain unaware of (and probably can never learn about)?
I'm still scratching my head at how some people are surprised by this overreaction. It seems a lot of people think the current fawning over authoritarianism came out of a vacuum. All of the sudden a majority of America came out of stasis and flocked to the polls to elect a dictator.
It's a little surprising to see the reactions. It's some sort social phenomenon. It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time. Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways). However, almost all of these actions have precedent in prior administrations. It would be nice if we can strengthen protections against abuses, but my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.
While I think many of us here abhor political content on HN, Brian has taken a data driven approach to this post and provided an excellent roundup of facts and events. Conservatives and liberals both would be well advised to read his excellent roundup. He is doing this at great personal cost to his readership, if the comments on his blog are anything to go by.
What is nuts to me is there is no liberal project to counter this. Conservatives have this really impressive drive to organize and work together, and liberals just in-fight and throw up their hands and complain. Autocracy is all but guaranteed.
See this other HN thread for concrete examples of how the climate is currently fucked. I genuinely can’t tell if the commenters are trying to be satirical, but the point seems moot.
I think a lot of people convinced themselves he was going to be as restrained as in Trump 1 and we'd get a fairly standard pro-crypto, pro-business, tax cutting Republican. Instead we've elected a mad king.
Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files and really try to understand what was in them and why it was horrifying. Seems many people wanted to pretend they were nothing because it didn't suit their partisan narrative. We're seeing the same kinds of justification now just with different partisans.
If we don't call out abuses by our own tribe (whichever that is), maybe we're part of the attack.
Of all the terrible attacks on the 1A, I find this one the most disturbing as it amounts to nothing less than mafia-style extortion:
> The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.
> Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.
I understand why these things have to be posted, but I would be lying if I said that I wasn't utterly exhausted by the constant shit that the Trump administration is spitting at us. I mean, I get it, bad shit needs to be reported on, the Trump admin does a lot of bad shit, it makes sense, but it's just extremely tiring.
I know that's kind of the point, to bombard us with all this shit all at once so that we are exhausted and withdraw, but I kind of just wish that about half of America had just elected a fucking grownup instead of a stupid manchild and his Diablo-cheating South African toadie (or maybe the other way around).
I vote in every election that I am legally allowed to vote in, and I'm not sure what else I can do. I guess just stay informed and prepare for four more years of being exhausted.
This is a case of things must get better before they get worse… Basic right in america have been declining for years now. And now its happening all at once.
The question is how bad does it have to get before the average Americans start to unite and fight back against this billionaire friendly legislation.
This country started by revolting over taxes on tea.
I don't think things are going to get any better before they're really, really much worse. Nobody's going to do anything until someone does way too much.
This is the revolution gig economy. Don't forget to click that bell so you can be notified of new videos as they come out.
I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law.
I also find it fascinating that no federal judge has held any Trump administration officers in contempt or imposed sanctions/bans on officers who are continuously hurting constitutional rights.
I assume that Americans have been sleeping at the wheel, unaware of the threat of slide into fascism. But is the voter-base and judiciary just unaware/unwilling to throttle persistent attacks?
The only reliable action by voters has been demonstrations outside Tesla stores. But look at Turkey, Serbia etc. - people have taken over their capitals and are striking en masse.
Are Americans unwilling to protect what makes America special?
"President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage."
Ok, you're straight up lying about what's happening.
As best I can tell, the simplest way to fight back via legal channels sans unlimited legal budget is to run for office. Like I’m seriously trying to figure out if that’s a sane option for me despite my total disregard and distrust of authority. Also my distinctly aggressive distaste for bullies, traditions or bullshit.
Here's what I see. Spend some time with older people now days (disclosure, I am 54, male, and heartsick). Look at what older people watch. Talk to those that are anywhere near MAGA ideas, you'll find that it has nothing to do with an America that is great again. It has everything to do with "make me great/relevant again."
Now go to Wikipedia, pull out a your favorite scripting language/spreadsheet (you're a programmer, because you read HN, right?). Look at the total popular vote, scroll down to the "by age" group. Figure out how many votes each side got in each group (it will only be a relative approximation, because they don't give sub-percentage values). Now do a running total. You'll see very clearly who was winning by age until the older people in the country showed up (in great numbers) to vote. The people who will be here the least long, and have the least to suffer for the consequences have sold out the country in a colossal fashion.
I wonder if history has every created such a strong case for justified generational angst.
I don't really care, tbh. There are better rights to fight for: food, shelter, education, healthcare. If said freedom of speech had been to be used to fight for materially meaningful rights, I'd be a big fan. Most Americans never bothered to use the right in any way that improved this country. You don't use it, you lose it.
As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.
What Brian and a lot of the commenters here need to realize is that online outrage does not help progressive causes in the slightest.
While the examples in his article are valid & concerning, especially as talks of a third Trump term have started, I truly can't see anyone changing their mind because the response to it has been completely ineffective and tone-deaf:
Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.
This is because most of the people writing these "why you should be outraged" posts are in a bubble of educated, traditional-news-consuming, upper-middle class skilled workers -- all groups that are very quickly falling out of power and favor with the majority of the population.
I hope the democratic party finds a way to become a real contender again. While not everyone on the right is a boogeyman, there are plenty of Project 2025 supporters, much worse than anyone we know about, who will steamroll this country if left unchecked. If the right doesn't have a viable opposition party with strong messaging, we're in for a bumpy ride.
> In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.
`Trump "claims" they selectively edited`. This is intellectually dishonest of the OP to say this. It is clear from the published original transcript, it is clear that they did in fact swap out Harris' nonsensical reply to some critical questions with something else she spoke 20-30 mins prior to make it sound like she gave a coherent answer. This is obvious for anyone looking at the original raw footage published by PBS.
Why is the OP saying "Trump claims" when it has in fact been proven to be true? He makes it sound like PBS folks did real journalistic work and Trump is trying to use his power in government to intimidate well-meaning journalists. That is not true.
Watching the debacle from across the pond, wondering what everyone voting for Trump feared in the alternative. Kamala, extreme leftist? Guess youve never heard of USSR. And even not they were extreme.
It's been under attack a lot longer than the current administration.
"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences",
"free speech does not apply to hate-speech",
"we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation",
It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.
Free speech has been in retreat for years. The previous administration just targeted a different flavor of 'offending speech' and cracked down hard on it.
As a European, I can confirm it’s at least as bad here, if not worse. We’re just gagged by a different set of taboo ideas.
I bought into Trump’s campaign promise to 'restore free speech' — partly because he’d been censored so aggressively himself. I figured he’d get its value. But I didn’t see the Israel exception coming: apparently, Israel and its actions are untouchable, no matter the cost.
"Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election"
Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation?
Not really clear what this article is about. If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.
If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
Trump had allegedly fired people responsible for FOIA but at the same time we are finally seeing documents that the DOJ and FBI have been slow walking for almost 8 years or longer.
Some examples, file metadata for Seth Rich's laptop, and obviously files related to the JFK assassination.
Nothing in this article actually makes a case for infringing upon the first amendment.
"...But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges."
Should journalists who make a career destroying lives with false narratives not have consequences?
Should students who hate America be allowed to study here?
Should employees who don't work be fired?
Should we hinder innovation and progress with frivolous lawsuits?
If it is within the legal framework to impeach a judge, why can't the president call for it, but other elected officials can call for his impeachment?
You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for.
This is partisan garbage, I’ve been in infosec circles long enough to see democrats always get a pass for doing the same thing republicans do. Selective outrage is fake outrage.
Flagging Krebs is certainly a choice. This was the correct choice, IMHO. I don't like it but I understand this topic will very quickly attract full political discussions and Godwin's law. Go somewhere else for that.
I would like to think: what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. There's an argument to be made that the US system of checks and balances will be stronger after all of this. We just haven't seen it in action, yet...
If the signal story mattered they would lead with the content of the messages. Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained. Since the story is reversed, and the public is not talking about what is said, I'm guessing nothing happened.
I can’t remember anyone respecting mainstream US news for the last 30+ years. Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question.
How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack
(krebsonsecurity.com)1150 points by todsacerdoti 31 March 2025 | 905 comments
Comments
In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see challenged. We'll see how many hold in due time but I wouldn't put good odds on it.
From an outsiders perspective, it's wild. But at the same time, there were many warnings.
We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.
As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “ MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up.
I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-away-ca...
Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ?
I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is
I think a good rule is this: They won't agree to disagree with anybody.
Why? Because they have to suppress free speech of others, to gain and stay in power.
What is nuts to me is there is no liberal project to counter this. Conservatives have this really impressive drive to organize and work together, and liberals just in-fight and throw up their hands and complain. Autocracy is all but guaranteed.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506657
If we don't call out abuses by our own tribe (whichever that is), maybe we're part of the attack.
> The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.
> Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.
I know that's kind of the point, to bombard us with all this shit all at once so that we are exhausted and withdraw, but I kind of just wish that about half of America had just elected a fucking grownup instead of a stupid manchild and his Diablo-cheating South African toadie (or maybe the other way around).
I vote in every election that I am legally allowed to vote in, and I'm not sure what else I can do. I guess just stay informed and prepare for four more years of being exhausted.
The question is how bad does it have to get before the average Americans start to unite and fight back against this billionaire friendly legislation.
This country started by revolting over taxes on tea.
This is the revolution gig economy. Don't forget to click that bell so you can be notified of new videos as they come out.
I also find it fascinating that no federal judge has held any Trump administration officers in contempt or imposed sanctions/bans on officers who are continuously hurting constitutional rights.
I assume that Americans have been sleeping at the wheel, unaware of the threat of slide into fascism. But is the voter-base and judiciary just unaware/unwilling to throttle persistent attacks?
The only reliable action by voters has been demonstrations outside Tesla stores. But look at Turkey, Serbia etc. - people have taken over their capitals and are striking en masse.
Are Americans unwilling to protect what makes America special?
Ok, you're straight up lying about what's happening.
The rest of the article has similar lies.
As long as Fox News reports what he says as fact no one does anything
Here's what I see. Spend some time with older people now days (disclosure, I am 54, male, and heartsick). Look at what older people watch. Talk to those that are anywhere near MAGA ideas, you'll find that it has nothing to do with an America that is great again. It has everything to do with "make me great/relevant again."
Now go to Wikipedia, pull out a your favorite scripting language/spreadsheet (you're a programmer, because you read HN, right?). Look at the total popular vote, scroll down to the "by age" group. Figure out how many votes each side got in each group (it will only be a relative approximation, because they don't give sub-percentage values). Now do a running total. You'll see very clearly who was winning by age until the older people in the country showed up (in great numbers) to vote. The people who will be here the least long, and have the least to suffer for the consequences have sold out the country in a colossal fashion.
I wonder if history has every created such a strong case for justified generational angst.
As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.
While the examples in his article are valid & concerning, especially as talks of a third Trump term have started, I truly can't see anyone changing their mind because the response to it has been completely ineffective and tone-deaf:
Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.
This is because most of the people writing these "why you should be outraged" posts are in a bubble of educated, traditional-news-consuming, upper-middle class skilled workers -- all groups that are very quickly falling out of power and favor with the majority of the population.
I hope the democratic party finds a way to become a real contender again. While not everyone on the right is a boogeyman, there are plenty of Project 2025 supporters, much worse than anyone we know about, who will steamroll this country if left unchecked. If the right doesn't have a viable opposition party with strong messaging, we're in for a bumpy ride.
`Trump "claims" they selectively edited`. This is intellectually dishonest of the OP to say this. It is clear from the published original transcript, it is clear that they did in fact swap out Harris' nonsensical reply to some critical questions with something else she spoke 20-30 mins prior to make it sound like she gave a coherent answer. This is obvious for anyone looking at the original raw footage published by PBS.
Why is the OP saying "Trump claims" when it has in fact been proven to be true? He makes it sound like PBS folks did real journalistic work and Trump is trying to use his power in government to intimidate well-meaning journalists. That is not true.
"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences",
"free speech does not apply to hate-speech",
"we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation",
It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.
As a European, I can confirm it’s at least as bad here, if not worse. We’re just gagged by a different set of taboo ideas.
I bought into Trump’s campaign promise to 'restore free speech' — partly because he’d been censored so aggressively himself. I figured he’d get its value. But I didn’t see the Israel exception coming: apparently, Israel and its actions are untouchable, no matter the cost.
Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation?
edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
Some examples, file metadata for Seth Rich's laptop, and obviously files related to the JFK assassination.
"...But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges."
Should journalists who make a career destroying lives with false narratives not have consequences?
Should students who hate America be allowed to study here?
Should employees who don't work be fired?
Should we hinder innovation and progress with frivolous lawsuits?
If it is within the legal framework to impeach a judge, why can't the president call for it, but other elected officials can call for his impeachment?
You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for.
The winning will continue.
-2008: Obama -2012: Obama -2016: Hillary -2020: Biden -2024: Trump
He is feeling out of place, his stock is down, his popularity has tanked.
He probably got what he wants from the current admin.
Hope it doesn’t get late.
You are not the "free speech" people you pretend to be.
Does that make any of this acceptable? No. And a good deal of this is even more concerning.