Wannabe Dictator, Autocrat, Authoritarian, King...It's All Semantics - Part I - Stifling Dissent & Free Speech

The New York Times recently published an article Are We Losing Our Democracy? where they looked at various signs of dictatorship or autocracy and whether we had crossed that line. (I also provided the text in a Facebook post for those without NY Times access). I am going to look at each segment in turn and provide my own thoughts. 

#1 An Authoritarian stifles dissent and speech.

One of the excuses Trump supporters gave before the 2024 election was that Harris, and indeed the Democrats, would put an end to the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. 

A clip from a speech that Vice President Harris made in 2019 when she was a Senator running for president was making the rounds on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Typically the tweet would start with something along the lines of: "Kamala: I will censor content on X that I don't like", followed by a clip where she doesn't say anything like that. In the clip she is actually saying:

"We'll put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will double the Civil Rights Division and direct law enforcement to counter this extremism. We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”

She is addressing the NAACP, a Black advocacy organization, and there had been a number of killings inspired by racial animus that had been abetted by social media posts. She specifically invokes the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. It's unclear from the context what she intends by "hold them accountable". What is clear is that does not mention censoring social media platforms or shutting them down. I can draw some conclusions based on who she is speaking to and what was going on nationally. 

 One can infer from her remarks that she is targeting online incitement to violence. I have seen arguments that what she is saying amounts to de facto censorship, if not censorship de jure. If Harris' 5-year old speech is indicative of her current policy position and it means censorship, of course I was concerned, but I don't believe that's the most logical, reasonable inference to be made. (More on this subject here)

But what actions has the supposed free speech president taken since his inauguration? What comments has he made that point to future actions?

• He claimed that criticism of him on television was illegal. Recently his FCC Director pressured ABC/Disney to remove Jimmy Kimmel for remarks he made critical of Trump, that the regime characterized as celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. ABC/Disney reversed their initial decision to remove Kimmel, but Trump has pushed for other comedians and talk show hosts who were critical of him to be removed. 
• Pam Bondi, his Attorney General claimed that "hate speech", which she suggested was speech that the regime didn't like, was not included in free speech. 
• Non-citizens, including those who were in the United States legally, had their visas or green cards revoked for participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. 
• Trump says that peaceful protesters should be put in jail
• Universities are being forced to change their curricula if it does not line up with his ideology
• Investigations have been ordered into liberal organizations
• News organization covering the Pentagon were required to sign an agreement stating that they would not report information that hadn't been pre-approved
• Associated Press was removed from the White House press pool for refusing to use the term "Gulf of America"
• News organizations that reported negatively about Trump were threatened with investigations
• Private companies that have Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies are being threatened with federal investigation on the pretext that they are discriminatory
• Secret Service protection has been withdrawn from former officials who criticized Trump
• Several news organizations have been sued by Trump personally and have settled for hundreds of millions of dollars
• Pro-Palestinian activists are being investigated for their speech, characterizing it as "material support for terrorism"
• Law firms who represented clients opposed to Trump are being pressured
• Department of Justice employees who were involved in prosecutions of Trump were fired
• Of course, the most recent is the pressure from Trump and his top officials to go after anyone who spoke negatively about Charlie Kirk 

Some of these items are overt actions, some are threats, others are just talk. But even the threats and  talk have the effect of stifling dissent and free speech when it comes from the administration and the president himself. Trump supporters have attempted to debunk the opinion that Trump's actions amount to autocratic maneuvers. They say that since I can speak my mind and haven't been locked up (yet), and that millions have been able to protest on No Kings Day, that proves we are not a dictatorship. But elimination of a free press, freedom of speech and freedom to peacefully assemble to let the government know what our grievances are, doesn't necessarily happen all at once. The First Amendment is being chipped away, bit by bit, not blown up with dynamite. But it's heading in that direction.