In his later years, celebrated Judge Learned Hand expressed a growing concern that Americans were increasingly reliant on legal structures and lawyers, potentially overestimating their impact on safeguarding individual liberty. He spoke to a crowd of over a million at an event commemorating the spirit of American citizenship in Central Park in 1944; a powerful assertion that true liberty is an internal essence within men and women, one that wouldn’t perish – and conversely, couldn’t be salvaged – by the constitution, law, or court if it has ceased to exist within people’s hearts.
Judge Hand’s words, renowned for capturing ‘The Spirit of Liberty’, resonate even today as I observe the interactions between large American media entities, tech conglomerates, and one figure who has been a catalyst in this scenario – Donald Trump. These organizations, endorsing Trump and doling out substantial sums to settle legal issues, often of questionable merit, seems to contradict the very essence of freedom of speech that they are privileged to enjoy in the United States.
Freedom of speech and expression provided under the First Amendment is envied by publishers and platforms worldwide. It appears alarming that these modern giants seems hesitant or, perhaps, even scared to wield this power confidently today. Their display of obeisance towards Mr. Trump, against the backdrop of media power they wield, has become a repeating pattern, popular enough to be mistaken for a regular television event.
To illustrate this, take the case of ABC News from late last year. They agreed to a settlement of $15 million in a defamation lawsuit initiated by Mr. Trump. The news network’s anchor, George Stephanopoulos, was accused by Mr. Trump for misrepresenting facts about a court case involving him on his television show, which Mr. Trump claimed had caused him significant harm.
The sum from the settlement is set aside for Trump’s forthcoming Presidential foundation and its associated museum, with an additional $1 million for legal fees. The reasons behind ABC News choosing settlement over trial remains murky. Although Stephanopoulos’s statement was not entirely accurate, it hardly would constitute a liability substantial enough to justify the substantial settlement amount.
Even with the protection of the First Amendment in ABC’s favor and the challenge of Mr. Trump proving substantial reputational harm, the settlement ensued. Speculations include potential complications from discovery materials ABC had to share to Mr. Trump. However, the high payout of $15 million imparts an impression of submission rather than a pragmatic compromise.
The settlement with Trump by Meta following ABC’s was even more eyebrow-raising. The accusations levelled by Trump centered on violation of the First Amendment, asserting that Meta unlawfully censored him by suspending his Facebook and Instagram accounts post the January 6th events at the Capitol.
In order to call it even with Trump, Meta consented to a payout of $25 million, a major portion of it geared towards his presidential library. The case against Meta, however, seemed even less grounded than that against ABC, if that’s even possible. Meta’s decision to enact its policies against Trump, uncomfortable as that decision might be, was well within the bounds of its rightful exercise of First Amendment freedoms.
In a memorable Supreme Court ruling last term, it was clarified that a foregone conclusion – the decisions regarding content moderation by social media platforms represent a constitutionally protected exercise of editorial judgement. With this ruling taken into consideration, Trump’s case against Meta hardly stood a chance, and assuredly, Meta’s legal team was well aware of that.
However, it appears that settling the case instead of contesting provided Meta an expedient method to appease Mr. Trump. Currently, the rumor mill is running with speculations that CBS News – owned by Paramount – is also considering a settlement in a lawsuit initiated by Mr. Trump. This is based on his claim that ’60 Minutes’ portrayal of an interview with Kamala Harris was misleading.
This lawsuit appears just as unconvincing as the previous ones. Its demand for a staggering $10 billion in damages lacks solid evidence suggesting Mr. Trump was significantly harmed. Hence, the whole litigation saga symbolizes more of a farcical nature than a serious accusation of deceptive practices.
While these high-profile settlements inadvertently elevate Trump’s influence, their motives remain unclear. Do these organizations see these massive payouts less as settlements and more as repercussions of tangling with Trump? Given the First Amendment protections, it is indeed surprising why negotiations over trials seem to be trending.
In times like these, the words of Judge Hand echo louder than ever, serving as a reminder that liberty indeed lies within the hearts of men and women. When courage dwindles, neither constitution nor law can instill bravery. It must spring from within, embracing the spirit of liberty that our forefathers held dear.