Free speech is under attack. Again. At least it is according to the U.S. right.
From “wokeness” and “cancel culture” to “content moderation,” there seems to always be a new “attack” on free speech. In this view, censorship occurs daily and right-wing actors are the only one who seems to stand up for “free speech” and against “censorship.”
People like Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or Elon Musk will often talk about “free speech” while at the same time taking actions against speech that they don’t like. Trump created his own platform that allegedly prohibits discussing certain topics like January 6; DeSantis’ so-called “Stop WOKE Act” was even called “positively dystopian” by a judge due to its attempt to censor speech; Musk champions “free speech” on Twitter by removing content that he personally does not like. The U.S. right’s discourse around “free speech” is not about the First Amendment at all. It must be recognized as a hypocritical talking point to gain power over public discourse — over what is okay to be said and what is not, who is allowed to talk and who is not.
This is hardly new. Countless academic papers, reports, journalistic articles, as well as online rants have been written about the right’s pick-and-choose interpretation of “free speech.” Justice Elena Kagan even highlighted that the First Amendment was being “weaponized.”
The key point is not that the right’s interpretation is wrong. Of course it is. But it’s not only wrong and hypocritical; more importantly, it’s strategic.
We must understand the U.S. right’s usage of “free speech” not as an invitation to a legal discussion or a conversation around content moderation. “Free speech” is a frame. And it’s as much about the word as about what it implies.
Frames, according to Robert M. Entman, consist of a problem definition, the identification of a cause, a moral judgment, and then a solution. By making “cancel culture” about “free speech” rather than the speech act that prompted the outrage, the problem definition shifts: The issue at heart is no longer the speech act but that people are outraged by it, and that people are getting “censored.” This, too, affects the cause: Instead of racism, sexism, or white supremacy, we are now thinking about questions like: Should social media allow people to rile each other up? And with that, the culprit changes: It is no longer the person who might get “cancelled” but rather the affected groups who are to blame. The frame is so effective because the usage is so cynical: Who could — morally — ever be against free speech?
The key part for journalists, then, is that there needs to be an understanding of what this constant conversation on the right around “free speech” really is, and how they leverage it for their own aims. It not only reflects the steady radicalization of the U.S. right and the disturbing shift of the Overton Window (e.g., Tucker Carlson’s promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and the lack of pushback from conservatives). It also highlights a concerted effort to position the “free speech” frame prominently into the public discourse. According to the media database MediaCloud, the label “free speech” has been used over 190,000 times since 2016 by right-wing media outlets; in comparison, media outlets from the center and the left have used the label around 109,000 and 140,000 times. This graph shows that right-wing media outlets have started giving it much more prominence since 2020; since January 2020, the right-wing media (~114,000) has talked about “free speech” more than left (~65,000) and center (~55,000) combined.
Source: MediaCloud
This represents a deliberate attempt to shift the conversation. Conservatives are strategically trying to reframe conversations calling out problematic speech into conversations about “censorship.” Journalists need to be aware of this strategic reframing and act accordingly when covering this discourse. This can take the form of decisions on whether to report on a story, how to quote people using the “free speech” frame, how to contextualize the statements, or to who to give a voice to shine a light on who is being excluded by the usage of the frame. Journalists must understand that “freedom of speech” has been a topic on the right for years and that claims of censorship have been voiced consistently on- and offline. Journalists need to reject this “free speech” framing and contextualize what’s actually being talked about, why it is not a First Amendment violation, and what type of speech the right is defending.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t care or discuss issues such as “cancel culture” or social media platforms’ policies — we should. We should also push back on governmental overreach on freedom of expression and be cautious of potential chilling effects. But we should press for an honest debate, and journalists in particular shouldn’t fall victim to the right’s often dishonest use of the “free speech” frame. Because then the debate is lost before it begins.
Jonas Kaiser is an assistant professor for journalism at Suffolk University and faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society.
Free speech is under attack. Again. At least it is according to the U.S. right.
From “wokeness” and “cancel culture” to “content moderation,” there seems to always be a new “attack” on free speech. In this view, censorship occurs daily and right-wing actors are the only one who seems to stand up for “free speech” and against “censorship.”
People like Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or Elon Musk will often talk about “free speech” while at the same time taking actions against speech that they don’t like. Trump created his own platform that allegedly prohibits discussing certain topics like January 6; DeSantis’ so-called “Stop WOKE Act” was even called “positively dystopian” by a judge due to its attempt to censor speech; Musk champions “free speech” on Twitter by removing content that he personally does not like. The U.S. right’s discourse around “free speech” is not about the First Amendment at all. It must be recognized as a hypocritical talking point to gain power over public discourse — over what is okay to be said and what is not, who is allowed to talk and who is not.
This is hardly new. Countless academic papers, reports, journalistic articles, as well as online rants have been written about the right’s pick-and-choose interpretation of “free speech.” Justice Elena Kagan even highlighted that the First Amendment was being “weaponized.”
The key point is not that the right’s interpretation is wrong. Of course it is. But it’s not only wrong and hypocritical; more importantly, it’s strategic.
We must understand the U.S. right’s usage of “free speech” not as an invitation to a legal discussion or a conversation around content moderation. “Free speech” is a frame. And it’s as much about the word as about what it implies.
Frames, according to Robert M. Entman, consist of a problem definition, the identification of a cause, a moral judgment, and then a solution. By making “cancel culture” about “free speech” rather than the speech act that prompted the outrage, the problem definition shifts: The issue at heart is no longer the speech act but that people are outraged by it, and that people are getting “censored.” This, too, affects the cause: Instead of racism, sexism, or white supremacy, we are now thinking about questions like: Should social media allow people to rile each other up? And with that, the culprit changes: It is no longer the person who might get “cancelled” but rather the affected groups who are to blame. The frame is so effective because the usage is so cynical: Who could — morally — ever be against free speech?
The key part for journalists, then, is that there needs to be an understanding of what this constant conversation on the right around “free speech” really is, and how they leverage it for their own aims. It not only reflects the steady radicalization of the U.S. right and the disturbing shift of the Overton Window (e.g., Tucker Carlson’s promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and the lack of pushback from conservatives). It also highlights a concerted effort to position the “free speech” frame prominently into the public discourse. According to the media database MediaCloud, the label “free speech” has been used over 190,000 times since 2016 by right-wing media outlets; in comparison, media outlets from the center and the left have used the label around 109,000 and 140,000 times. This graph shows that right-wing media outlets have started giving it much more prominence since 2020; since January 2020, the right-wing media (~114,000) has talked about “free speech” more than left (~65,000) and center (~55,000) combined.
Source: MediaCloud
This represents a deliberate attempt to shift the conversation. Conservatives are strategically trying to reframe conversations calling out problematic speech into conversations about “censorship.” Journalists need to be aware of this strategic reframing and act accordingly when covering this discourse. This can take the form of decisions on whether to report on a story, how to quote people using the “free speech” frame, how to contextualize the statements, or to who to give a voice to shine a light on who is being excluded by the usage of the frame. Journalists must understand that “freedom of speech” has been a topic on the right for years and that claims of censorship have been voiced consistently on- and offline. Journalists need to reject this “free speech” framing and contextualize what’s actually being talked about, why it is not a First Amendment violation, and what type of speech the right is defending.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t care or discuss issues such as “cancel culture” or social media platforms’ policies — we should. We should also push back on governmental overreach on freedom of expression and be cautious of potential chilling effects. But we should press for an honest debate, and journalists in particular shouldn’t fall victim to the right’s often dishonest use of the “free speech” frame. Because then the debate is lost before it begins.
Jonas Kaiser is an assistant professor for journalism at Suffolk University and faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society.
Joanne McNeil Facebook and the media kiss and make up
Eric Thurm Journalists think of themselves as workers
Esther Kezia Thorpe Subscription pressures force product innovation
Josh Schwartz The AI spammers are coming
Wilson Liévano Diaspora journalism takes the next step
Ayala Panievsky It’s time for PR for journalism
Dannagal G. Young Stop rewarding elite performances of identity threat
Julia Angwin Democracies will get serious about saving journalism
Surya Mattu Data journalists learn from photojournalists
Larry Ryckman We’ll work together with our competitors
Julia Beizer News fatigue shows us a clear path forward
David Skok Renewed interest in human-powered reporting
Ryan Kellett Airline-like loyalty programs try to tie down news readers
Gina Chua The traditional story structure gets deconstructed
Jim VandeHei There is no “peak newsletter”
Rachel Glickhouse Humanizing newsrooms will be a badge of honor
Felicitas Carrique and Becca Aaronson News product goes from trend to standard
Amethyst J. Davis The slight of the great contraction
Jarrad Henderson Video editing will help people understand the media they consume
Ryan Gantz “I’m sorry, but I’m a large language model”
A.J. Bauer Covering the right wrong
Nicholas Diakopoulos Journalists productively harness generative AI tools
Anita Varma Journalism prioritizes the basic need for survival
Victor Pickard The year journalism and capitalism finally divorce
Amy Schmitz Weiss Journalism education faces a crossroads
Laura E. Davis The year we embrace the robots — and ourselves
Sarah Alvarez Dream bigger or lose out
Hillary Frey Death to the labor-intensive memo for prospective hires
Mauricio Cabrera It’s no longer about audiences, it’s about communities
Francesco Zaffarano There is no end of “social media”
Kaitlyn Wells We’ll prioritize media literacy for children
Michael Schudson Journalism gets more and more difficult
Gordon Crovitz The year advertisers stop funding misinformation
Christoph Mergerson The rot at the core of the news business
Ryan Nave Citizen journalism, but make it equitable
Jaden Amos TikTok personality journalists continue to rise
Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau More of the same
Matt Rasnic More newsroom workers turn to organized labor
AX Mina Journalism in a time of permacrisis
Tamar Charney Flux is the new stability
Mar Cabra The inevitable mental health revolution
Mariana Moura Santos A woman who speaks is a woman who changes the world
Ben Werdmuller The internet is up for grabs again
Bill Adair The year of the fact-check (no, really!)
Alan Henry A reckoning with why trust in news is so low
Janet Haven ChatGPT and the future of trust
Cari Nazeer and Emily Goligoski News organizations step up their support for caregivers
Parker Molloy We’ll reach new heights of moral panic
Kavya Sukumar Belling the cat: The rise of independent fact-checking at scale
Alexandra Borchardt The year of the climate journalism strategy
Sarah Marshall A web channel strategy won’t be enough
Johannes Klingebiel The innovation team, R.I.P.
Sam Gregory Synthetic media forces us to understand how media gets made
Susan Chira Equipping local journalism
Mael Vallejo More threats to press freedom across the Americas
Jody Brannon We’ll embrace policy remedies
Cory Bergman The AI content flood
Joni Deutsch Podcast collaboration — not competition — breeds excellence
Eric Ulken Generative AI brings wrongness at scale
Priyanjana Bengani Partisan local news networks will collaborate
David Cohn AI made this prediction
Jakob Moll Journalism startups will think beyond English
Sarabeth Berman Nonprofit local news shows that it can scale
Upasna Gautam Technology that performs at the speed of news
Kirstin McCudden We’ll codify protection of journalism and newsgathering
Zizi Papacharissi Platforms are over
Molly de Aguiar and Mandy Van Deven Narrative change trend brings new money to journalism
Joe Amditis AI throws a lifeline to local publishers
Danielle K. Brown and Kathleen Searles DEI efforts must consider mental health and online abuse
Nicholas Jackson There will be launches — and we’ll keep doing the work
Tim Carmody Newsletter writers need a new ethics
Alexandra Svokos Working harder to reach audiences where they are
Brian Moritz Rebuilding the news bundle
John Davidow A year of intergenerational learning
Paul Cheung More news organizations will realize they are in the business of impact, not eyeballs
Barbara Raab More journalism funders will take more risks
Kaitlin C. Miller Harassment in journalism won’t get better, but we’ll talk about it more openly
Khushbu Shah Global reporting will suffer
Lisa Heyamoto The independent news industry gets a roadmap to sustainability
Doris Truong Workers demand to be paid what the job is worth
Burt Herman The year AI truly arrives — and with it the reckoning
Tre'vell Anderson Continued culpability in anti-trans campaigns
Al Lucca Digital news design gets interesting again
Peter Sterne AI enters the newsroom
Stefanie Murray The year U.S. media stops screwing around and becomes pro-democracy
James Salanga Journalists work from a place of harm reduction
Gabe Schneider Well-funded journalism leaders stop making disparate pay
Peter Bale Rising costs force more digital innovation
Mario García More newsrooms go mobile-first
Eric Nuzum A focus on people instead of power
Richard Tofel The press might get better at vetting presidential candidates
Cindy Royal Yes, journalists should learn to code, but…
Emily Nonko Incarcerated reporters get more bylines
Kathy Lu We need emotionally agile newsroom leaders
Don Day The news about the news is bad. I’m optimistic.
Jim Friedlich Local journalism steps up to the challenge of civic coverage
Pia Frey Publishers start polling their users at scale
Emma Carew Grovum The year to resist forgetting about diversity
Michael W. Wagner The backlash against pro-democracy reporting is coming
Andrew Losowsky Journalism realizes the replacement for Twitter is not a new Twitter
Andrew Donohue We’ll find out whether journalism can, indeed, save democracy
Jennifer Brandel AI couldn’t care less. Journalists will care more.
Kerri Hoffman Podcasting goes local
Valérie Bélair-Gagnon Well-being will become a core tenet of journalism
Sue Cross Thinking and acting collectively to save the news
Errin Haines Journalists on the campaign trail mend trust with the public
Alex Perry New paths to transparency without Twitter
Dana Lacey Tech will screw publishers over
Anika Anand Independent news businesses lead the way on healthy work cultures
Nicholas Thompson The year AI actually changes the media business
Sumi Aggarwal Smart newsrooms will prioritize board development
Sue Robinson Engagement journalism will have to confront a tougher reality
Sue Schardt Toward a new poetics of journalism
Anthony Nadler Confronting media gerrymandering
Jennifer Choi and Jonathan Jackson Funders finally bet on next-generation news entrepreneurs
Daniel Trielli Trust in news will continue to fall. Just look at Brazil.
Elite Truong In platform collapse, an opportunity for community
Rodney Gibbs Recalibrating how we work apart
Walter Frick Journalists wake up to the power of prediction markets
Jenna Weiss-Berman The economic downturn benefits the podcasting industry. (No, really!)
Snigdha Sur Newsrooms get nimble in a recession
J. Siguru Wahutu American journalism reckons with its colonialist tendencies
Masuma Ahuja Journalism starts working for and with its communities
Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper Mission-driven metrics become our North Star
S. Mitra Kalita “Everything sucks. Good luck to you.”
Jessica Maddox Journalists keep getting manipulated by internet culture
Taylor Lorenz The “creator economy” will be astroturfed
Jessica Clark Open discourse retrenches
Jesse Holcomb Buffeted, whipped, bullied, pulled
Megan Lucero and Shirish Kulkarni The future of journalism is not you
Joshua P. Darr Local to live, wire to wither
Dominic-Madori Davis Everyone finally realizes the need for diverse voices in tech reporting
Alex Sujong Laughlin Credit where it’s due
Laxmi Parthasarathy Unlocking the silent demand for international journalism
Anna Nirmala News organizations get new structures
Jonas Kaiser Rejecting the “free speech” frame
Martina Efeyini Talk to Gen Z. They’re the experts of Gen Z.
Sarah Stonbely Growth in public funding for news and information at the state and local levels
Leezel Tanglao Community partnerships drive better reporting
Ariel Zirulnick Journalism doubles down on user needs
Sam Guzik AI will start fact-checking. We may not like the results.
Jacob L. Nelson Despite it all, people will still want to be journalists
Cassandra Etienne Local news fellowships will help fight newsroom inequities
Delano Massey The industry shakes its imposter syndrome
Ståle Grut Your newsroom experiences a Midjourney-gate, too
Eric Holthaus As social media fragments, marginalized voices gain more power
Karina Montoya More reporters on the antitrust beat
Bill Grueskin Local news will come to rely on AI
Simon Galperin Philanthropy stops investing in corporate media
Brian Stelter Finding new ways to reach news avoiders
Juleyka Lantigua Newsrooms recognize women of color as the canaries in the coal mine
Raney Aronson-Rath Journalists will band together to fight intimidation
Shanté Cosme The answer to “quiet quitting” is radical empathy
Basile Simon Towards supporting criminal accountability
Nikki Usher This is the year of the RSS reader. (Really!)
Christina Shih Shared values move from nice-to-haves to essentials
Moreno Cruz Osório Brazilian journalism turns wounds into action