Donald Trump’s activities are highlighting the nature of an unaccountable class of corporate decision-makers, characterized by widespread fear and significant restrictions on freedom. In recent events, there has been a notable crisis concerning free speech. Earlier this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card holder, planning to deport him due to the content of his speech. Trump’s administration has also barred Associated Press reporters from press briefings after the agency refused to replace “Gulf of Mexico” with “Gulf of America” in its style guide. Furthermore, the administration is proceeding with threats to withdraw funding from universities permitting disfavored speech. Despite likely courtroom losses for Trump, numerous corporate, university, and nonprofit leaders are preemptively complying to avoid conflict.
In the 1960s, the Free Speech Movement served as a rallying point for students and activists who acknowledged the essential role of free dissent, argument, and speech in a democracy. Today, a revived Free Speech Movement is necessary, but not merely as a replication of the past. This new movement must address threats from both Trump’s administration and private monopolist entities, recognizing their significant danger to open society. Trump’s oligarchic allies in big tech, who manage the dissemination of news and information, pose a substantial independent threat.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), long regarded as the benchmark for defending free speech, historically protected expressions such as the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, arguing that the principle of free speech surpasses the content of any given expression. However, critics suggest that in the past decade, the ACLU has chosen cases based on a particular substantive vision rather than protecting speech across the board. A controversial incident involved an ACLU lawyer advocating for Amazon to ban a book, an action that critics saw as a misunderstanding of the threat consolidated corporate power poses to free speech.
The ACLU’s vision posits that private power does not endanger free expression. Yet, with examples like Instagram allegedly suppressing Palestinian content, the absence of ACLU’s action, such as during DOJ’s effort to halt a publishing merger for the sake of preserving multiple outlets for authors, has drawn criticism. Instead, the ACLU has often supported big tech’s freedom to act as unaccountable monopolists, claiming that the state has no right to regulate these entities, even when such regulation would aim for content neutrality.
This ongoing trend isn’t new. The ACLU played a pivotal role in the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, which interpreted money as speech, contributing substantially to the constitutional framework limiting federal campaign finance legislation. It has also supported the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, advocating for corporate rights to spend unlimited election funds.
These positions reveal a central flaw in the 1960s free speech movement—a neoliberal core focusing solely on governmental censorship, neglecting private sector power. This limited understanding is outdated. Trump’s approach necessitates a more comprehensive view of free speech, recognizing threats from both state and private censorship.
The reach of Trump’s influence extends to private entities like tech giants, with incidents such as threats against Mark Zuckerberg and cooperation with Elon Musk illustrating the blurred lines between government and corporate speech suppression.
The historical context of Reconstruction offers additional lessons. Post-Civil War, credit monopolies stifled Black farmers’ political activity, highlighting how controlling access to essentials can suppress political freedom more effectively than direct government bans.
The failing to recognize the threat monopolistic corporations like Amazon, Google, or Meta pose to free expression indicates a departure from the true spirit of free speech advocacy historically championed by figures like Louis Brandeis, who coupled First Amendment advocacy with anti-monopoly stances.
As Trump’s second term progresses, it is evident that a renewed Free Speech Movement is essential: one that challenges both government suppression and monopolistic control over discourse platforms, framing these as civil rights concerns fundamental to a free society. Trump’s actions illustrate the dangers of unaccountable corporate decision-makers, resulting in widespread fear and the erosion of freedom.
