Scholar Stuart Brotman sounds the alarm: Free expression is under fire

Listen to the audio

Available now on:

Click to Download the
Complete Audio Transcript

In an era of digital noise, political polarization, and a public grappling with truth itself, Stuart N. Brotman sees the American experiment with free expression at a crossroads. His new book, “Free Expression Under Fire,” is both a warning and a call to action. As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Brotman argues it’s time to revisit the foundational principles that protect democratic dialogue. “I thought this would be really the opportune time for us to reflect collectively and as a country about this journey from independence to protecting the individual freedom of the First Amendment,” he said.

That journey began long before Brotman became a globally respected First Amendment scholar. He traces its personal roots back to a New Jersey high school newsroom. “I started as a high school journalist, like many high school students,” he recalled. “At the time I had two wonderful advisors… who essentially said, we are there to protect your ability to report and to get news and let other students know about it.” Those lessons stayed with him. “We didn’t know very much about the First Amendment at that point, but we certainly learned about a freedom to report and what a free press meant at that point.”

Defining the real threats to free expression

Access
"Free Expression Under Fire" 

In “Free Expression Under Fire,” Brotman identifies a wide range of threats to the constitutional protections Americans often take for granted. One of the most urgent, he argues, is the ongoing lack of federal protection for journalists’ sources. “We still do not have a federal law that protects confidential sources,” he said. “They have very little legal ability to protect those sources.”

But the danger goes beyond courtroom subpoenas. Brotman also sees growing threats in the form of limited press access imposed by public officials. “We’ve seen limitations, for example, in the Pentagon where press access now is being restricted to reporters who agree in advance to have their stories cleared,” he explained. He cited another troubling case: “The Associated Press was essentially denied its full press access because it did not agree to change the terminology of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.”

Public confusion and political exploitation

One of Brotman’s central arguments is that the public lacks a clear understanding of what the First Amendment does—and doesn’t—do. “The main conflict, or at least misperception, is that the First Amendment is really a barrier between government and the citizens of the United States,” he said. “It doesn’t give citizens a general right to free speech or a general right to free press, but it’s a protection of free speech and free press from the government.”

That distinction, he warns, is being blurred in today’s hyper-partisan environment. “That barrier essentially must be a firm and high barrier,” Brotman emphasized. “And it’s being tested all the time.”

Technology’s rapid evolution outpaces the law

From social media to AI, Brotman sees technology moving faster than legal safeguards can keep up. Social platforms, he explained, aren’t bound by the First Amendment because they’re private entities. “Social media certainly has the ability to restrict or channel different types of speech,” he said. “Many people believe that social media is a public square, a public forum. It’s not really a public forum, it’s a private forum.”

That misunderstanding fuels public frustration, especially as algorithmic filtering shapes what users see. “Transparency is really important here,” Brotman said. “At this point we have very little transparency in terms of understanding what’s happening with some of the algorithms.”

AI only deepens the challenge. “We are not in the position to decide we would want to have one system over another,” he warned. “People are not aware of it or certainly are not in the position to decide.”

A government flying blind

When it comes to regulation, Brotman believes the government is ill-equipped. “About 20 years ago, Congress abolished something called the Office of Technology Assessment,” he said. That office provided nonpartisan insights into emerging technologies. “It only took up about a hundred million dollars of our budget. So it was not a major budget item.” Without it, lawmakers have been left unprepared. “Since we’ve had the abolishment… we essentially have said we are not interested in knowing how all of these technologies are developing.”

Campus conflicts offer a troubling window

As an academic, Brotman is particularly concerned about how younger generations are engaging—or failing to engage—with core freedoms. “Students really don’t have a good grasp of the First Amendment or the notion of free speech or free press,” he said. Survey data only confirms his concerns. “Now about a third of students, and again, this is nationwide, believe that violence should be used to suppress speech.”

More than just theory, those views are playing out on campuses. “We’ve seen obviously a number of speakers who are brought to campus who are shut down. Some are even shut down through violent means,” Brotman explained. “That’s a very dangerous situation.”

Hope in local journalism

Despite his warnings, Brotman still sees hope—especially at the local level. “One of the messages of the book is a level of optimism because I think we can reach a level of common ground regardless of a partisan divide,” he said. Local media, he argues, has a unique power to create that common ground. “You can create community conversations around that,” he explained. “Local media teaches us how to live in our communities, how to be good citizens.”

He believes that informal civics education—through events, engagement, and transparency—can rebuild trust. “Local media has a very interesting role to play in an informal way,” he said. “They will be tremendous movers of informal civic education, which could be very powerful in this area.”

Raising the visibility of the First Amendment

Brotman closes his book with tangible ideas for elevating the First Amendment in everyday life. “What if the announcer said, let’s please rise and recite the First Amendment? And on the Jumbotron you would have the 45 words of the First Amendment,” he suggested. “That would be a very powerful message.”

He imagines similar moments in movie theaters and community spaces. “Have Tom Cruise or someone come on and say, welcome to the theater… and the reason is because of the First Amendment,” he said. “What if every local publisher essentially paid to have a banner put in the public library of their community with the words of the First Amendment and put the name of the newspaper next to that? That would be a powerful message.”

Through these small but symbolic gestures, Brotman believes local journalism can help remind Americans why the freedom to speak, report, and dissent still matters. “Here’s what we live for,” he said. “And here is an organization that supports it.”