Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, is in a world of legal trouble. His commitment to free speech and truthfulness is coming under fire with increasing regularity. Now accusations have come rushing in over the transom alleging that he confuses truth with lies. As political theorist Hannah Arendt once warned, this phenomenon can become an existential threat to society. The U.S. suffers from its unique situation in the world as a free-speech outlier among developed democracies. At the same time, Trump’s actions raise alarm that American democracy is more fragile than it appears.
Trump’s goal isn’t to make hate speech a crime—it’s to criminalize speech he doesn’t like. Critics have rightfully called out this pick-and-choose application of freedom of expression. This is particularly alarming considering that the country is balancing on the brink of a national state of emergency. Critics argue that Trump has completely upended the American concept of free speech. This change has contributed to an environment where outrage and no-partisan-activization too often trump free speech.
In order to see democracy succeed, experts agree on the importance of having strong, resilient democratic institutions. Social media companies need to be held accountable for the damage their content can inflict. To ensure that we can hold them responsible, we must have clearer definitions of what constitutes dangerous conduct. Trump’s repeated falsehoods, such as those linking paracetamol to autism, threaten to stigmatize families and undermine public trust in medicine.
Thousands have attempted to characterize Trump’s rhetoric as despicable, pointing out the damage it does not only to the truth but to civilization itself. Satire is increasingly being labeled enemy propaganda here in the U.S. too. Against this growing trend, the president’s effort to redefine “truth” is a direct affront to self-government.
In recent years, speech has been defined as terrorism in some instances. Under Trump’s America, hate rallies have increased. This rise is due, in part, to the 1969 Supreme Court decision establishing that speech can only be unprotected if it is intended to produce “imminent lawless action” and is likely to do so. We see this echoed in critics’ Trump critics’ arguments that he has further weaponized speech with the help of highly partisan media and online influencers and through harassment networks.
Trump’s transgressions include more than rhetoric. He, too, is charged with weaponizing state power. Harassment isn’t the only strategy he’s employed. Reports indicate that he has tried to intimidate social media platforms by … Continue reading →
“Authority is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority,” – US Supreme Court