Protecting Free Speech

Whether it’s a protest like the recent “No Kings 2” rallies held in more than 2500 locations around the US, letters to the editor, social media posts, or public presentations, Americans have the right to speak up when they’re displeased with national policy and elected leaders. And it’s not just an American value. More than ten other nations’ citizens participated in the “No Kings” day protests, including those from several European countries, Canada, and Mexico.

Although the freedom to speak freely has been recognized as a basic human right, there are a few limits to this freedom in the US. Threatening or incendiary speech can often be considered illegal. Unfortunately, many in the current administration are stretching the definitions of prohibited speech to include speech they disagree with—the very situation the First Amendment was designed to prevent. This brings up important questions. Who decides what speech is threatening? Whose speech is protected?

Apparently, the current administration is of the opinion that only their speech is protected and all other speech they disagree with is “terrorist,” or “fascist,” or “woke” (worse than the other two). As a result, a great deal of energy has been put into stifling our exercise of the First Amendment.

So far in 2025, the administration has curtailed many of the rights we have taken for granted:

1. Continuing wave of library book challenges / bans (2024–25 school year; documented through 2025)
   Summary: Multiple organizations (PEN America, ALA, ACLU) documented thousands of book-removal or challenge instances in the 2024–25 cycle, with certain states (Florida, Texas, Tennessee) especially active — a development widely characterized as a nationwide curtailment of students’ access to ideas and literature. PEN America

2. Supreme Court decision about state regulation of online adult content (Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton) — limits and new tests for online age-verification (June 27, 2025)
   Summary: The Court held Texas’s age-verification law survived intermediate scrutiny (affirming lower court). The opinion clarified when states may regulate online content to protect minors — an outcome that advocates say could legitimize broader state controls that incidentally burden adult access to online speech. Supreme Court

3. State anti-protest bills; surge in laws restricting demonstrations (2025)
   Summary: Numerous state legislatures introduced or advanced bills in 2025 that supporters described as public-order measures and critics described as criminalizing common protest tactics (e.g., “cumulative” protest measures, heightened penalties). Advocacy groups warned these bills could chill lawful protest and assembly. The Guardian

4. University / campus restrictions and restraints on protests and expression (2025)
   Summary: Several high-profile campus episodes in 2025 produced state laws or system rules (and immediate litigation). Example: courts temporarily enjoined enforcement of Texas campus restrictions after students challenged statutes they said broadly suppressed campus expressive activity. These cases highlight friction between protests (e.g., Gaza-related demonstrations in spring 2025) and new campus limits. Statesman

5. Documented arrests, detentions, and assaults of journalists covering 2025 protests
   Summary: Trackers and press-freedom watchdogs reported numerous incidents in 2025 in which reporters were detained, arrested, or assaulted while covering protests — practices that press advocates say impede newsgathering and chill press freedom. (Dozens of incidents reported through mid/late 2025.) U.S. Press Freedom Tracker

6. Government revocation of visas for foreign nationals for offensive social-media posts (October 2025 reporting; related legal/free-speech debate ongoing in 2025)
   Summary: The U.S. State Department (2025 reporting) revoked visas for several foreign nationals after public posts that celebrated the killing of a U.S. activist — provoking debate about surveillance of social media, extraterritorial speech policing, and speech-related due process for noncitizens lawfully present or applying to come to the U.S. Politico

7. Reports and conferences warning of “normalization” of censorship trends (2025 reports)
   Summary: Civil-liberties groups and research organizations published 2025 reports documenting how coordinated campaigns, official pressure, and new laws produced an environment where censorship (especially in schools/libraries and online) has become more normalized. These reports synthesize thousands of individual incidents and legal changes across the year.

8. Appeals-court and lower-court rulings on student speech and school dress codes (2025)
   Summary: Courts in 2025 issued rulings about school authorities’ ability to regulate student clothing and messages. Some rulings uphold school bans on vulgar political expressions while protecting other political speech, underscoring the tricky balance of student First Amendment protections in K–12 settings. As long as individual districts can interpret what is “vulgar” or unacceptable “political” speech, there will be inconsistency in such bans. While “Make America Great Again” apparel has been considered acceptable, some Pro-LGBTQ clothing has been banned; these are only a few examples. (See appellate reporting on “Let’s Go Brandon” shirt cases and other school-speech cases in 2025.)

9. The Pentagon’s new press rules (Oct. 6, 2025)

Summary: Rolled out under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, these rules require journalists to acknowledge that they may lose Pentagon credentials if they solicit or publish unauthorized information (even if unclassified), submit to security screenings, remain escorted inside certain areas, and accept Pentagon-approved boundaries on access. Nearly all major U.S. media organizations refused to sign the agreement, many returning their press badges and vacating Pentagon workspaces in protest; only fringe outlets like One America News accepted the terms. Journalists and press groups have denounced the rules as an unprecedented infringement on press freedom and a threat to accountability.

Sadly, these are not the only examples. The above items mix court decisions, state legislative activity, reported enforcement actions, and civil-society reporting — each reflects a different mechanism by which speech access or press freedoms have been narrowed or contested in 2025.

This administration is less than a year old. How many more incidents might we see before the end of this Trump term? Before the end of this year? The pace of free speech limitations seems to be accelerating, with a very small group of people defining what is and is not acceptable. We need to support organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and others that can file suit against the administration. We must protect our basic right to express ourselves and dissent when necessary. To do so, we must remain vigilant.

Thanks for reading Truthify! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.