“The Paramount case is different because it tied all of this together into a coherent system: a politically motivated lawsuit, regulatory leverage from a federal agency, and non-monetary concessions that directly alter editorial behavior. It’s the dream scenario for any would-be strongman: state-sanctioned speech control without the pesky optics of state control.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/greglukianoff/p/about-that-south-park-episode?r=7ew6d&utm_medium=ios
🤖 Tracking strings detected and removed!
đź”— Clean URL(s):
https://open.substack.com/pub/greglukianoff/p/about-that-south-park-episode
❌ Removed parts:
?r=7ew6d&utm_medium=ios
Also from the article
“Closer to home for FIRE, Trump also went after Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer, whose polling predicted Harris taking the lead in Iowa in 2024. Selzer's poll predicted Harris would win Iowa by three points; Trump would carry the state by 13. (At least two factors in the discrepancy are that landline-based phone polls don’t have the same reach because people have shifted to mobile phones, and that Trump supporters in general are less likely to respond to polls.) Trump is suing Selzer under Iowa law, alleging that his later victory in the state means Selzer’s poll constituted “consumer fraud.” We’re defending her, because trying to chill the reporting of unfavorable poll results is a direct assault on the First Amendment.
And it’s not just the press or polling. Law firms and universities have been put in the crosshairs of these pressure campaigns. This is what authoritarianism looks like when it’s wearing a business suit and holding a regulatory approval stamp.”
