President Trump is no fan of the free press. But he's not the only powerful person in the U.S. using the courts to silence unfavorable coverage, a New York Times editor and author tells NPR.
The Trump administration has targeted students — both those with visas and those with permanent legal status — who protested the war in Gaza. Free speech advocates warn that these are test cases.
Many Americans worry freedom of speech is fading, while others feel empowered to say what they want. NPR's Morning Edition explores this dynamic in a new series, The State of the First Amendment.
The order follows TikTok going dark for about 14 hours after the Supreme Court upheld a law prohibiting the service from operating in the U.S. unless it breaks away from its parent company in China.
The president-elect said he will issue an executive order Monday to delay the ban while he brokers a sale. The app has returned on web and mobile, but is not available in Apple and Google's stores.
The app had more than 170 million monthly users in the U.S. The black-out is the result of a law forcing the service offline unless it sheds its ties to ByteDance, its China-based parent company.
The decision resolves a long-running legal dispute between the Department of Justice and TikTok. But experts say President-elect Donald Trump will now have considerable sway over the platform's future in the U.S.
President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to pause the potential TikTok ban from going into effect until his administration can pursue a "political resolution" to the issue.
Like it or not, free speech includes protection for most lies and false statements, and there is no broad exception for dishonesty. As the election mud-slinging grows increasingly vile the closer Nov. 5 draws, First Amendment issues arise, of which there are few exceptions.
The Justice Department is expected to argue that its clamp down on TikTok is about national security, but Constitutional lawyers say there is no way around grappling with the free speech implications.
The judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others has rejected arguments by the former president that the indictment was seeking to criminalize political speech protected by the First Amendment.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Missouri, Louisiana and five individuals who were either banned from social media during the pandemic or whose posts, they say, were not prominently featured.
These cases raise a critical question for the First Amendment and the future of social media: whether states can force the platforms to carry content they find hateful or objectionable.
Next week, the US Supreme Court will hear a case that pits the Attorneys General of Texas and Florida against a trade group representing some of the biggest social media companies in the world. Today, how we got here, and now the case could upend our online experience.
At issue were cases that test the ability of public officials to block critics from their "personal" social medial pages, a practice that Donald Trump often engaged in when he was president.
