Rejecting the “free speech” frame

“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.”

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.

Richard Tofel   The press might get better at vetting presidential candidates

Emily Nonko   Incarcerated reporters get more bylines

Jarrad Henderson   Video editing will help people understand the media they consume

Eric Ulken   Generative AI brings wrongness at scale

Ben Werdmuller   The internet is up for grabs again

David Cohn   AI made this prediction

Alan Henry   A reckoning with why trust in news is so low

Joe Amditis   AI throws a lifeline to local publishers

Jim Friedlich   Local journalism steps up to the challenge of civic coverage

Mael Vallejo   More threats to press freedom across the Americas

Kaitlyn Wells   We’ll prioritize media literacy for children

Joni Deutsch   Podcast collaboration — not competition — breeds excellence

Molly de Aguiar and Mandy Van Deven   Narrative change trend brings new money to journalism

Peter Sterne   AI enters the newsroom

Jennifer Brandel   AI couldn’t care less. Journalists will care more. 

Sarah Stonbely   Growth in public funding for news and information at the state and local levels

Sam Guzik   AI will start fact-checking. We may not like the results.

John Davidow   A year of intergenerational learning

Alexandra Borchardt   The year of the climate journalism strategy

A.J. Bauer   Covering the right wrong

Doris Truong   Workers demand to be paid what the job is worth

Karina Montoya   More reporters on the antitrust beat

Cory Bergman   The AI content flood

Leezel Tanglao   Community partnerships drive better reporting

Anita Varma   Journalism prioritizes the basic need for survival

Jakob Moll   Journalism startups will think beyond English

Christina Shih   Shared values move from nice-to-haves to essentials

Tamar Charney   Flux is the new stability

Nikki Usher   This is the year of the RSS reader. (Really!)

Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper   Mission-driven metrics become our North Star

Alex Perry   New paths to transparency without Twitter

J. Siguru Wahutu   American journalism reckons with its colonialist tendencies

Sue Cross   Thinking and acting collectively to save the news

Eric Nuzum   A focus on people instead of power

Michael W. Wagner   The backlash against pro-democracy reporting is coming

Joanne McNeil   Facebook and the media kiss and make up

Mar Cabra   The inevitable mental health revolution

Susan Chira   Equipping local journalism

Andrew Donohue   We’ll find out whether journalism can, indeed, save democracy

Joshua P. Darr   Local to live, wire to wither

Alex Sujong Laughlin   Credit where it’s due

Anna Nirmala   News organizations get new structures

Matt Rasnic   More newsroom workers turn to organized labor

Sue Robinson   Engagement journalism will have to confront a tougher reality

Errin Haines   Journalists on the campaign trail mend trust with the public

Esther Kezia Thorpe   Subscription pressures force product innovation

Jennifer Choi and Jonathan Jackson   Funders finally bet on next-generation news entrepreneurs

Valérie Bélair-Gagnon   Well-being will become a core tenet of journalism

Basile Simon   Towards supporting criminal accountability

S. Mitra Kalita   “Everything sucks. Good luck to you.”

Zizi Papacharissi   Platforms are over

Amethyst J. Davis   The slight of the great contraction

Nicholas Diakopoulos   Journalists productively harness generative AI tools

Gabe Schneider   Well-funded journalism leaders stop making disparate pay

Jody Brannon   We’ll embrace policy remedies

Rachel Glickhouse   Humanizing newsrooms will be a badge of honor

Delano Massey   The industry shakes its imposter syndrome

Simon Galperin   Philanthropy stops investing in corporate media

Nicholas Jackson   There will be launches — and we’ll keep doing the work

Snigdha Sur   Newsrooms get nimble in a recession

Jenna Weiss-Berman   The economic downturn benefits the podcasting industry. (No, really!)

Rodney Gibbs   Recalibrating how we work apart

Sarah Marshall   A web channel strategy won’t be enough

Hillary Frey   Death to the labor-intensive memo for prospective hires

AX Mina   Journalism in a time of permacrisis

Brian Moritz   Rebuilding the news bundle

Julia Angwin   Democracies will get serious about saving journalism

Lisa Heyamoto   The independent news industry gets a roadmap to sustainability

Cassandra Etienne   Local news fellowships will help fight newsroom inequities

Stefanie Murray   The year U.S. media stops screwing around and becomes pro-democracy

Sumi Aggarwal   Smart newsrooms will prioritize board development

Jacob L. Nelson   Despite it all, people will still want to be journalists

Larry Ryckman   We’ll work together with our competitors

Mariana Moura Santos   A woman who speaks is a woman who changes the world

Bill Adair   The year of the fact-check (no, really!)

Daniel Trielli   Trust in news will continue to fall. Just look at Brazil.

Julia Beizer   News fatigue shows us a clear path forward

Mario García   More newsrooms go mobile-first

Janet Haven   ChatGPT and the future of trust 

Jessica Clark   Open discourse retrenches

Raney Aronson-Rath   Journalists will band together to fight intimidation

Jim VandeHei   There is no “peak newsletter”

Parker Molloy   We’ll reach new heights of moral panic

Don Day   The news about the news is bad. I’m optimistic.

Kavya Sukumar   Belling the cat: The rise of independent fact-checking at scale

Sue Schardt   Toward a new poetics of journalism

Amy Schmitz Weiss   Journalism education faces a crossroads

Ståle Grut   Your newsroom experiences a Midjourney-gate, too

Jesse Holcomb   Buffeted, whipped, bullied, pulled

Ayala Panievsky   It’s time for PR for journalism

Barbara Raab   More journalism funders will take more risks

Bill Grueskin   Local news will come to rely on AI

Kirstin McCudden   We’ll codify protection of journalism and newsgathering

Sarah Alvarez   Dream bigger or lose out

Upasna Gautam   Technology that performs at the speed of news

Alexandra Svokos   Working harder to reach audiences where they are

Josh Schwartz   The AI spammers are coming

Jaden Amos   TikTok personality journalists continue to rise

Peter Bale   Rising costs force more digital innovation

Jonas Kaiser   Rejecting the “free speech” frame

Johannes Klingebiel   The innovation team, R.I.P.

Moreno Cruz Osório   Brazilian journalism turns wounds into action

Kaitlin C. Miller   Harassment in journalism won’t get better, but we’ll talk about it more openly

Tre'vell Anderson   Continued culpability in anti-trans campaigns

Michael Schudson   Journalism gets more and more difficult

Juleyka Lantigua   Newsrooms recognize women of color as the canaries in the coal mine

Wilson Liévano   Diaspora journalism takes the next step

Christoph Mergerson   The rot at the core of the news business

Brian Stelter   Finding new ways to reach news avoiders

Mauricio Cabrera   It’s no longer about audiences, it’s about communities

Al Lucca   Digital news design gets interesting again

Walter Frick   Journalists wake up to the power of prediction markets

Andrew Losowsky   Journalism realizes the replacement for Twitter is not a new Twitter

Elite Truong   In platform collapse, an opportunity for community

Ryan Nave   Citizen journalism, but make it equitable

Danielle K. Brown and Kathleen Searles   DEI efforts must consider mental health and online abuse

Tim Carmody   Newsletter writers need a new ethics

Cari Nazeer and Emily Goligoski   News organizations step up their support for caregivers

Dannagal G. Young   Stop rewarding elite performances of identity threat

Felicitas Carrique and Becca Aaronson   News product goes from trend to standard

Ariel Zirulnick   Journalism doubles down on user needs

Sarabeth Berman   Nonprofit local news shows that it can scale

Anthony Nadler   Confronting media gerrymandering

Cindy Royal   Yes, journalists should learn to code, but…

Dana Lacey   Tech will screw publishers over

Ryan Kellett   Airline-like loyalty programs try to tie down news readers

Shanté Cosme   The answer to “quiet quitting” is radical empathy

Kathy Lu   We need emotionally agile newsroom leaders

Taylor Lorenz   The “creator economy” will be astroturfed

Laxmi Parthasarathy   Unlocking the silent demand for international journalism

Francesco Zaffarano   There is no end of “social media”

Priyanjana Bengani   Partisan local news networks will collaborate

Gordon Crovitz   The year advertisers stop funding misinformation

Pia Frey   Publishers start polling their users at scale

Ryan Gantz   “I’m sorry, but I’m a large language model”

Burt Herman   The year AI truly arrives — and with it the reckoning

Victor Pickard   The year journalism and capitalism finally divorce

Khushbu Shah   Global reporting will suffer

Martina Efeyini   Talk to Gen Z. They’re the experts of Gen Z.

Dominic-Madori Davis   Everyone finally realizes the need for diverse voices in tech reporting

Gina Chua   The traditional story structure gets deconstructed

Janelle Salanga   Journalists work from a place of harm reduction

Masuma Ahuja   Journalism starts working for and with its communities

Kerri Hoffman   Podcasting goes local

Eric Thurm   Journalists think of themselves as workers

Megan Lucero and Shirish Kulkarni   The future of journalism is not you

Eric Holthaus   As social media fragments, marginalized voices gain more power

Surya Mattu   Data journalists learn from photojournalists

Paul Cheung   More news organizations will realize they are in the business of impact, not eyeballs

Laura E. Davis   The year we embrace the robots — and ourselves

Anika Anand   Independent news businesses lead the way on healthy work cultures

Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau   More of the same

Sam Gregory   Synthetic media forces us to understand how media gets made

David Skok   Renewed interest in human-powered reporting

Jessica Maddox   Journalists keep getting manipulated by internet culture

Nicholas Thompson   The year AI actually changes the media business

Emma Carew Grovum   The year to resist forgetting about diversity