The Faux Free Speech Warriors Attacking Free Speech

There’s a particularly insidious and cynical form of censorship gaining prominence in America: the weaponization of “free speech” rhetoric, combined with abuses of the judicial system and executive power, to actually suppress speech. It’s a strategy that turns the First Amendment’s principles inside out, using the language of liberty to justify silencing critics and opponents.

Consider Brendan Carr pretending to be a free speech warrior while demanding censorship and seeking to punish those who speak against Trump. Or Jim Jordan, who was supposedly tasked with investigating the “weaponization” of the government against speech, but used that position to weaponize his government committee to suppress speech.

Perhaps the most brazen practitioners of this strategy are those with the resources to weaponize the legal system itself. Take Elon Musk, who wraps himself in the mantle of “free speech absolutism” while filing censorial lawsuits against his critics. Or Donald Trump, who portrays himself as a free speech champion while maintaining a relentless campaign of legal intimidation—suing media properties for critical coverage, attacking CBS over 60 Minutes for a Harris interview he didn’t like, and even targeting pollster Ann Selzer for publishing unfavorable poll predictions.

This censorship strategy has evolved to exploit every available pressure point in our system. Government officials like Carr and Jordan weaponize regulatory and investigative powers, while wealthy private actors like Musk and Trump deploy their vast resources to overwhelm critics with legal costs. The tactics are different, but the playbook is the same.

The success of this strategy relies on a peculiar form of doublespeak: while actively working to silence critics through legal and political pressure, these figures present themselves as defenders of free expression. More troubling still is how effectively this framing has been accepted by mainstream media and, by extension, the public.

Andy Craig, from the Institute for Humane Studies, has a great op-ed exploring how the MAGA world is famous for abusing vexatious lawsuits to silence speech. It’s the classic story of the SLAPP suit:

Defamation law, ostensibly meant to protect reputations against malicious falsehoods, is being twisted into a bludgeon to silence criticism and accountability — where even the threat of a defamation suit can serve to chill free speech. And in some cases, SLAPPs abuse other areas of law to target speech in order to evade the high First Amendment bar for defamation under Supreme Court precedents. 

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters, for example, epitomizes this trend. Media Matters reported on ads for major brands running next to neo-Nazi content on Musk’s X platform, formerly Twitter. Instead of addressing the substance of the report, Musk retaliated with a lawsuit, in this case based not on defamation as such but an even more outlandish “consumer fraud” theory. By allegedly presenting misleading examples, even though they were undeniably real and similar ones are easy to come by, the theory is this somehow falls under defrauding people into not using or buying ads on X. And as Musk frequently does, the case was filed in the Northern District of Texas to engage in blatant “judge shopping.” It paid off, with Judge Reed O’Connor, long known for his solicitousness toward conservative political efforts, allowing the case to proceed to trial despite its flawed premise.

The message was unmistakable: Critics calling out extremist content on his platform could come at a steep personal cost. It is not unrelated that Media Matters, faced with massive legal fees in fighting the wealthiest man in the world, was recently forced to resort to mass layoffs.

Craig’s analysis cuts to the heart of the matter: these aren’t just isolated incidents of powerful figures attempting to silence critics. Rather, it’s a calculated strategy that corrupts both legal processes and public discourse. By wrapping censorship in the language of free speech protection, these actors have found a way to make their suppression efforts appear legitimate—and much of the media has struggled to effectively challenge this framing.

What makes these actions particularly perverse is how they are often cloaked in the language of defending free speech. Musk’s rhetoric about combating the “woke mind virus” and DeSantis’ attacks on so-called woke corporations both claim to champion free expression while doing the opposite. This weaponization of free speech rhetoric is both cynical and dangerous, undermining the very principle it purports to defend, while seeking to rob their opponents of the language needed to accurately describe it.

The real-world impact of this legal intimidation strategy became starkly apparent in the media’s timid coverage of Elon Musk’s gesture at Trump’s inauguration. While the movement clearly resembled a Nazi salute (and literal Nazis took it that way), American media outlets tied themselves in knots to avoid saying so directly:

Consider, too, how U.S. media hesitated to report on Elon Musk’s apparent Nazi salute at a post-inauguration rally for Trump. German and Israeli outlets did not shy away from describing the incident as it appeared, yet many of their American counterparts tread more carefully. No matter how baseless, a lawsuit from Musk can cost millions of dollars to defend. The culture of risk aversion, compounded by legal threats and official intimidation, has narrowed the bounds of permissible discourse here, in the nation that is supposed to have the strongest free speech protections in the world.

The contrast is telling: media outlets in countries with stricter speech laws but stronger protections against frivolous lawsuits felt free to describe what they saw. Meanwhile, American journalists—operating in a country with supposedly the strongest free speech protections in the world—engaged in elaborate verbal gymnastics to avoid potential legal liability.

Musk’s subsequent threat to sue Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for describing the gesture as a Nazi salute only underscores the pattern: using litigation threats to chill speech while claiming to champion free expression. The strategy works precisely because defending against even a baseless lawsuit can be ruinously expensive.

Addressing this coordinated assault on free speech requires a multi-pronged approach. At the legal level, we need two parallel reforms: comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections to counter wealthy actors’ abuse of the courts, and stronger legislative guardrails against government officials using their investigative and regulatory powers to harass critics. The first priority is clear:

What’s urgently needed are robust anti-SLAPP laws, both at the federal level and in states where protections are still weak or nonexistent. Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants to quickly dismiss lawsuits that are filed with the primary intent of suppressing speech, with legal fees automatically awarded (often with some multiplier) to the defendants. Crucially, they shift the burden of costs onto the plaintiff, deterring frivolous lawsuits and protecting critics from devastating expenses.

Equally crucial is defending existing First Amendment protections against efforts to weaken them. Some powerful figures, including those on the Supreme Court, are actively working to lower the barriers that currently help protect robust public discourse:

The broader legal context also underscores the stakes. Some figures, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have expressed interest in revisiting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court case that established strong protections for speech about public figures. Undermining Sullivan would open the floodgates to even more defamation claims, further chilling speech. Anti-SLAPP laws are a critical counterweight to these trends, ensuring that free expression remains protected even as legal challenges multiply.

Perhaps most fundamentally, we need to develop stronger cultural antibodies against this form of censorship. That starts with consistently calling out these tactics for what they are: coordinated attempts to silence criticism through intimidation, even — or especially — when wrapped in the rhetoric of free speech protection:

But legal reforms alone are not enough. We must also recognize and call out these attacks for what they are: a coordinated censorship campaign. Whether through SLAPPs, state retaliation or regulatory threats, these actions aim to undermine the First Amendment by making the cost of speaking out intolerably high. They are not isolated incidents but part of a broader war on free speech, waged in the name of consolidating unchallenged political power.

The free speech crisis hiding in plain sight isn’t about whether individuals can ever criticize powerful figures — it’s about whether institutions can withstand the pressure to self-censor in the face of legal and political intimidation. Without robust protections like anti-SLAPP laws and a renewed cultural commitment to defending open discourse, the chilling effect will only grow stronger, leaving what’s left of American democracy poorer for it.

There’s a lot more good stuff in the piece, so go check it out.