Opinion: Free speech is under attack — and the nation’s leaders are adding fuel to the fire

Freedom of expression is an abstract notion that only works when a citizenry understands it and commits to its functioning. The implementation of a free expression environment gets more complicated, however, when the nation’s so-called leaders mischaracterize, diminish and even become hostile to the free expression principle.

That’s what is happening in the U.S. these days, as prominent politicians actively cast doubt about the essential nature of the First Amendment. They apparently don’t understand the importance of letting people speak and publish freely. Or perhaps they are just letting their despotic inclinations come to the surface.

The hostility of powerful politicos to free expression is coming from both sides of the political aisle. This misleading bombast is sadly taking place during an election season, when a commitment to America’s constitutional principles would seemingly most be on display. Just in the last month, political figures who should well know better have outrageously talked down the importance of free expression. Now there’s a real threat to democracy.

Donald Trump got this lunacy rolling after his inartful debate performance in early September. The former president criticized ABC’s handling of the debate as unfair and suggested the Federal Communications Commission take away the network’s license . Of course, the FCC doesn’t actually license networks, only individual broadcast stations. The main point, however, is that Trump wants a journalism outlet to be punished for content decisions.

Either way, that’s a notion totally contrary to a free press. As FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel replied , “The Commission does not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.” Trump might well have a point regarding ABC’s bias during the debate, but the First Amendment allows for no remedy to such journalistic decisions.

Trump was at it again after CBS’s “60 Minutes” presented its edited version of an interview with Vice President Harris, calling for the FCC to revoke the CBS license . Rosenworcel again pushed back.

First Amendment antagonism is clearly a bipartisan effort these days, as former senator, Secretary of State and presidential candidate John Kerry recently displayed. Kerry told the World Economic Forum that “the First Amendment stands as a major block” to curbing news outlets that might have “an agenda.” Kerry might be surprised to know that the constitutional framers created a free press precisely to keep wanna-be authoritarians from doing such curbing. News outlets are welcome to have agendas today, just as they did in the early days of the nation.

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton joined the chorus of voices ripping into the free expression principle. She, too, is a former senator, Secretary of State and presidential candidate. Clinton hit the daily double in the last month, first calling for Americans who spread “propaganda” during an election to be civilly or “even in some cases criminally charged.” She later told an interviewer that Congress should take steps to regulate social media , allowing the government to more actively manage content or else “we lose total control.” But having the government lose control of messaging is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to do.

Then there is Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, who could soon be in a position to disrupt free speech directly. Walz demonstrated his lack of understanding for the First Amendment in his recent televised debate with JD Vance. Walz incorrectly claimed that the First Amendment does not protect misinformation or “threatening or hate speech.” The CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Greg Lukianoff, scolded Walz with a lengthy explanation, calling Walz’s claims “patently false.”

The level of awareness and support among regular Americans for the First Amendment is deteriorating. A newly released study by the Freedom Forum indicates only 57 percent of Americans recognize freedom of the press as a right protected by the First Amendment. Scarier still, only 58 percent of citizens agree with the statement, “If it were up to me, I would vote to approve/ratify the First Amendment today.” Such startling confusion and ignorance of America’s fundamental principles is hardly surprising, given the warped views of some of the nation’s high-profile politicians.

A nation that can’t support free expression can’t generate free and independent thinking. That might well be what power-hungry political “leaders” seek. Free expression is the only way for common citizens to collectively challenge the power of the political, cultural or corporate elite.

A recent social media post by prominent pollster and sociopolitical analyst Scott Rasmussen astutely sized up the relationship of free speech and powerful politicians: “Free speech is a threat to those in power. That’s why political leaders hate it and why it is so essential.”

Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.