As we have mentioned in the previous People’s Papers, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguards several core freedoms essential to the functioning of a free and democratic society. It reads:

​

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

​

Among the various rights outlined in this amendment, the freedom of the press stands as a cornerstone of American democracy. The press—in its traditional form and in modern media—serves as a vital instrument for holding power to account, facilitating transparency, and enabling citizens to make informed decisions. In today's society, the media, encompassing everything from newspapers and television to independent journalism, social media, and digital platforms, carries the immense responsibility of informing the public and scrutinizing government actions.

​

The Founding Fathers understood this well. They believed that a free press was not merely a right to be protected, but a necessity for the preservation of liberty. Thomas Jefferson once declared in 1787, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." His sentiment was echoed by George Washington, who warned, "If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." These founding voices recognized that without the ability to speak freely and to disseminate information, the public would be stripped of its capacity to question authority. A functioning democracy requires a vigilant, informed citizenry, and a free press is the tool through which that vigilance is maintained. The First Amendment was designed to ensure that government cannot censor the press or control the information disseminated to the people.

​

Yet, despite these constitutional protections, the current climate suggests a steady erosion of press freedom and an alarming alliance between powerful interests and information outlets. While the First Amendment prohibits government interference in press activities, the relationship between political power and media influence has grown increasingly convoluted. What once existed as a healthy tension between press and power has, in some instances, evolved into a partnership that serves to manipulate public perception and suppress dissent. In the modern digital age, media conglomerates often operate under corporate or political interests, influencing the narrative and sometimes silencing minority viewpoints. Whether skewed to the left or the right, mainstream media increasingly prioritizes sensationalism, partisanship, and profit over objective reporting. The Fourth Estate, once the watchdog of government, is in danger of becoming its mouthpiece.

​

The rise of so-called "fake news," the use of algorithms to control what people see online, and the suppression of alternative viewpoints across social media platforms, all demonstrate a subtle but growing restriction on free press. Governments and private entities alike play a role in shaping public discourse. When tech giants censor information based on political affiliation or ideological alignment, they engage in a form of private censorship that, while not technically a First Amendment violation, undermines the spirit of the law. What makes this especially dangerous is the growing use of media as a political weapon. In recent years, we've seen politicians utilize media platforms to disseminate misleading narratives, smear opponents, and distract the public from substantive issues. Entire news cycles are constructed to evoke emotion and reinforce existing biases rather than present nuanced or factual reporting. This undermines the media’s role as a neutral informer and transforms it into an ideological battlefield.

​

Moreover, governmental pressure on journalists has increased. Journalists have been surveilled or threatened in circumstances that raise significant constitutional concerns. Whistleblowers, who have long served as important sources for investigative reporting, now face prosecution under espionage laws more aggressively than ever before. The message is clear: challenge the state, and suffer the consequences. The press also faces challenges when covering controversial or sensitive topics. For instance, in discussions surrounding foreign policy, immigration, or political corruption, narratives are frequently shaped by political agendas. Coverage of issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict often illustrates this, where individuals and journalists critical of certain policies are branded as extremists or silenced altogether. Legal U.S. residents advocating for a free Palestine have faced detainment and deportation, with the media often complicit in painting these dissenters as threats rather than concerned activists.

​

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as reiterated in our previous discussions, is not merely a set of ideals but a promise—a foundational guarantee that every individual within the United States is protected in their right to speak, publish, assemble, and worship. One of the greatest achievements of the American system is this robust protection of free expression. And yet, we find ourselves today in an age where the same rights our Founding Fathers held so sacred are being gradually chipped away—not through explicit legislation, but through mechanisms of control far more subtle and far more dangerous: algorithms, corporate collusion, government pressure, and digital suppression. The current administration, like others before it, has found itself tangled in the very dangerous game of attempting to influence, police, and disrupt the free press, particularly on social media. The internet, once hailed as the new frontier for public discourse, has instead become a battleground. A place where information is curated not by merit or truth, but by corporate interests, government influence, and political agendas.

​

Today, accounts are flagged or removed for merely speaking against controversial topics—topics that, historically, have been the lifeblood of American dissent. Among the most glaring examples are posts that express solidarity with the Palestinian cause or those that mention individuals like Luigi Mangione. These expressions, while provocative to some, do not fall outside the legal bounds of free speech. They do not incite violence. They do not threaten. They challenge, they provoke thought, and they offer a counter-narrative. And that, in itself, is why they are being suppressed.

​

Let us be unequivocal: every person within the United States—citizen or lawful resident—has the right to speak and post on things that matter to them. The First Amendment does not only protect speech that is popular, sanitized, or government-approved. It protects controversial speech, dissenting speech, and speech that makes us uncomfortable. Because that is the very essence of a free society. Unfortunately, under the present administration, we have seen a disturbing trend where social media platforms appear to be acting as extensions of government will. While privately owned, these platforms now function as digital town squares. And when the government—either through direct communication or pressure—suggests the removal or silencing of voices, it is no longer merely a corporate decision. It becomes a constitutional issue.

​

In recent hearings and investigations, it has been uncovered that members of the administration have held behind-the-scenes communications with executives from major tech companies, including Twitter (now X), Facebook, and Instagram. These communications were not public, nor were they made with the transparency one would expect in a democracy. Instead, they were intended to "flag" certain posts and users—most of whom had posted critiques of government policies, foreign aid, and especially those who expressed support for Palestine. The inconsistency here is staggering. While hate speech—particularly racist, misogynistic, and homophobic content—can still be found across social media platforms, posts advocating peace, justice, and solidarity for oppressed groups are routinely removed. This contradiction reveals an uncomfortable truth: it's not about protecting users from harmful content. It's about curating the narrative.

​

Consider the case of Luigi Mangione. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the broader conversation surrounding him, it is undeniable that any mention of him—particularly in a sympathetic light—is quickly flagged or taken down. Similarly, countless posts showing support for Palestinians, or calling attention to the plight in Gaza, have been scrubbed from public view. Hashtags have been shadow-banned. Users have found themselves locked out of their accounts, not because they incited violence or hate, but because they dared to express political views not in line with the administration's stance. This suppression does not happen in a vacuum. It creates a chilling effect—an environment where individuals begin to self-censor. They fear retribution, they fear losing access to their platforms, and ultimately, they fear speaking out. This is the death of free speech by a thousand cuts. Not through legislation, but through a slow erosion of our digital liberties.

​

Historically, dissent has always played a vital role in shaping American democracy. From the civil rights movement to the Vietnam War protests, from women’s suffrage to labor unions—progress has often been born from controversy. The very movements we now celebrate were once seen as radical, even dangerous. And yet, they were allowed to speak. They were allowed to protest. They were allowed to publish. The argument that certain speech must be controlled for the sake of national security or public safety is not new. It has been used throughout history to justify censorship. But we must be vigilant. Because once we accept the premise that the government can determine what is acceptable speech, we no longer live in a democracy—we live under authoritarian rule.There is a crucial distinction to be made: the First Amendment does not protect all speech in all circumstances. Incitement to violence, defamation, and true threats are not protected. But expressing an unpopular opinion, questioning foreign policy, or posting in support of humanitarian causes—these are not crimes. They are the embodiment of what it means to be free.

​

The government, in its attempt to sanitize the digital space, has not only overstepped its constitutional bounds but has also betrayed the very people it claims to represent. In collusion with social media companies, it has created a reality where information is no longer free-flowing, but filtered. Where truth is not discovered, but decided. And where the people are no longer participants in democracy, but spectators of propaganda. This is not just a legal issue. It is a moral and societal one. For a country that prides itself on liberty and justice, it is shameful to see individuals punished not for what they do, but for what they say. It is disgraceful that speech about Palestine or Luigi Mangione is deemed dangerous, while actual hate and abuse are allowed to flourish. To those who argue that social media platforms are private entities and can therefore curate content as they please, one must ask: when does influence become coercion? When the government uses backchannels to suggest, request, or pressure platforms to silence voices, it becomes an agent of censorship. It becomes complicit in the violation of constitutional rights.

​

The American people deserve better. They deserve a digital space where speech is free, where press is uncensored, and where ideas, no matter how controversial, are allowed to flourish and compete. Because it is only through this competition of ideas that truth can emerge. Regardless of where you stand politically, the right to express yourself must remain sacred. We do not have to agree with each other. We do not have to like each other’s opinions. But we must defend each other’s right to have them. That is the promise of America. That is the promise we must keep. This trend poses a dire threat to the foundations of a free society. When freedom of the press is compromised, every other democratic principle is put at risk. The ability to protest, to speak freely, to assemble, to petition the government—all of these hinge upon the people being informed and empowered by access to unbiased, uncensored information.

​

To reclaim the original intent of the First Amendment, we must advocate for independent journalism and support media literacy. Citizens must become critical consumers of information, capable of distinguishing between fact and propaganda. Education systems should incorporate media literacy as a core component, teaching young people how to question sources, recognize bias, and think independently. Furthermore, we must push for legislative protections for journalists and whistleblowers. Shield laws must be strengthened, and the government must be held accountable when it infringes upon press freedom through surveillance, intimidation, or censorship. The judicial system must continue to uphold the rights of the press as outlined in landmark cases like New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), which reaffirmed the press’s role in publishing information vital to public discourse, even when the government claims national security is at risk.

​

Finally, media institutions must recommit themselves to the ethics of journalism. Truth-telling, fairness, accuracy, and a commitment to public interest must take precedence over political or financial gain. Transparency in sourcing, correction of errors, and an open forum for dialogue must replace editorial agendas and echo chambers. As Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison foresaw, a free press is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Without it, democracy dies in silence. Let us remember the historical context in which these freedoms were born. The colonists who defied British tyranny did so through speech, assembly, and the written word. The founding of this nation was an act of dissent, fueled by an unwavering belief in the power of truth and the right of individuals to express it.

Let us honor that legacy by defending the freedom of the press with the same conviction. Let us ensure that future generations inherit a country where truth can still challenge power, where facts can still inspire change, and where the voice of the people remains louder than the silence of fear.

​

In the end, the First Amendment is not just a collection of words—it is a living promise. A promise that no government, no matter how powerful, can extinguish the light of a free and informed people. It is up to us to keep that promise alive.

​

To the people who read this: ask questions, demand answers, and never let your voice be quieted by fear or convenience. The First Amendment was written for you, and its defense rests in your hands.

​

The pen, after all, is only as powerful as the hand that holds it.