Americans are ‘deer in the headlights’ in face of Trump assault on free speech, Maria Ressa tells Jon Stewart; The Guardian, September 19, 2025

 Jonathan Yerushalmy , The Guardian; Americans are ‘deer in the headlights’ in face of Trump assault on free speech, Maria Ressa tells Jon Stewart

[Kip Currier: How smart for Jon Stewart to talk with 2021 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Maria Ressa at this break-the-glass and Call-911 moment, when American free speech and independent non-state-run media are under attack by the Trump 2.0 administration. Ressa was awarded the 2021 Peace Prize with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov for free speech advocacy in their respective Philippines and Russia.

Ressa's phone number should be on speed dial for any American reporter, politician, and civil watchdog group committed to championing freedom of the press and free speech by learning from her first-hand experiences with authoritarianism and dictators, like the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte. Her 2022 book How To Stand Up To A Dictator serves as a battle-seasoned anti-totalitarianism fighter's counter-playbook to the now-predictable authoritarian playbooks of autocrats like Hungary's Viktor Orban and Russia's Vladimir Putin.

The notes feature on my phone is full of practical insights from Ressa, too, on the dangers of unchecked social media and disinformation, which are more recent tools for opponents of democracy and informed citizenries:

"By design social media divides and radicalizes." Fresh Air, 12/1/22

"Disinformation is like cocaine."

"Silence is consent."

"Cynicism and hopelessness are the tools of a tyrant."

"Inspiration spreads as fast as anger". Ressa gave the example of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy choosing not to flee when Russia invaded Ukraine on 2/24/22.

"What are you willing to sacrifice for the truth?"]

[Excerpt]

"The Nobel prize winner Maria Ressa has said Americans are like “deer in the headlights” amid the collapse of US institutions and free speech under the Trump administration, particularly after Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.

Speaking to Jon Stewart on the satirical news programme The Daily Show, the journalist and author of How to Stand Up to a Dictator said the speed at which Donald Trump had “collapsed” US institutions happened much faster than she anticipated.

She drew comparisons between the Trump administration and the government of the former president Rodrigo Duterte in her home country of the Philippines, saying: “If you don’t move and protect the rights you have, you lose them. And it’s so much harder to reclaim them.”...

Ressa, who won the 2021 Nobel peace prize for her fight for freedom of expression in the Philippines, told Stewart people the world over were electing “illiberal leaders democratically because of insidious manipulation … [which] starts with the manipulation and corruption of our public information ecosystem”.

She said “there is a ‘dictator’s playbook’”, comparing the Trump administration’s attacks on alleged Venezuelan drug boats to former president Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal crackdown on drug-dealing in the Philippines.

When asked by Stewart what happens next, Ressa pointed to her own work as a journalist in the Philippines, saying: “We just kept doing our jobs, we kept putting one foot in front of the other.”"

Is ‘The Pitt’ Really an ‘ER’ Spinoff? Michael Crichton’s Estate Says It Is.; The New York Times, September 12, 2025

Nicholas Kulish, The New York Times ; Is ‘The Pitt’ Really an ‘ER’ Spinoff? Michael Crichton’s Estate Says It Is.

The estate of the best-selling author, which has intellectual property rights to “ER,” and the creators of the new hit TV show are waging a legal battle over whether it’s a stealth reboot.

"On Nov. 4, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint, citing their constitutional free speech rights and arguing that “The Pitt” is not a derivative work of “ER.” They emphasized that the new series is about the post-Covid world, reminding the judge that it deals with events that arose after Mr. Crichton’s death...

Rewatching “ER” through the lens of the lawsuit — as a jury might be asked to — can be a strange experience. Is the struggle over whether to put a dying elderly patient onto a ventilator a distinct plot point (this would support Team Crichton) or an everyday tragedy in a large urban hospital (Team Pitt)?

“‘The Pitt’ has no connection to ‘ER’ — it does not use ‘ER’’s intellectual property, characters, plot, setting or narrative pacing,” the defendants said. “While both series are medical dramas set in a hospital, this concept is hardly unique.” They name-checked “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Chicago Med,” “House” and “The Good Doctor.”...

The case “could serve as a model for how to figure out how much things are worth in the streaming space,” said Jennifer Porst, a professor of media industry studies at Emory University in Atlanta."

Trump is targeting several Smithsonian artworks. Here they are.; The Washington Post, August 26, 2025

 

Kelsey Ables

, 

Samantha Chery

 and 

Sophia Nguyen,

The Washington Post; Trump is targeting several Smithsonian artworks. Here they are.

[Kip Currier: Donald Trump and his administration's efforts to remove, revise, and erase artistic and historical content are the opposite of free speech and intellectual freedom. Art should challenge us to think and feel in new ways. We as individuals are certainly free to like a piece of art, hate it, or everything in between on the spectrum of how we feel about it. But the federal (or state) government should not be controlling access to art and suppressing or falsely presenting history in a free democracy. That's what authoritarians and dictators do in non-democratic nations like Russia, China, and North Korea.

If you don't like a particular painting, book, or movie, you can simply walk away from that painting, not read that book, or not watch that movie. But it isn't your right to stop everyone from seeing art, reading books, and watching films. To paraphrase the late Robert Croneberger, Director of the venerable Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and a prolific proponent of intellectual freedom, a library isn't doing its job if it doesn't have at least one item that offends each person.

Similarly, museums, like libraries in healthy democracies, are not meant to reflect a compulsory unitary state viewpoint. We're not the Star Trek Borg Collective where everyone must think alike and individuality is verboten. The mantra of the Borg is that Resistance is Futile. Fortunately, we know that resistance is not futile: we can continue to resist efforts to sanitize art, literature, culture, and history. Exercise your right to consume what you want and disregard what you don't want. But don't tell everyone what they can and can't choose to view and read. That's undemocratic and un-American.]

[Excerpt]

"When the White House posted an article condemning a long list of Smithsonian content last week, it pointed to several specific artworks, a sampling that underlined the kind of material that could be targeted by a president who is increasingly interested in influencing what Americans see in public museums.

The list also criticized Smithsonian exhibition texts, learning materials, past performances and the institution for previously flying the intersex-inclusive Pride flag. This month, President Donald Trump said White House officials were conducting a review of the Smithsonian Institution — months after he signed an executive order seeking to root out “anti-American ideology” in the museum and research complex, an effort that experts say would amount to censorship.

The pieces are an eclectic bunch, united mainly by the Trump administration’s public criticism of them. Not all the artworks are currently on view at the museums. Taken together, they tell a story of a White House that is sensitive to imagery that appears to contradict its messaging, whether it shows a transgender woman cast as the Statue of Liberty or a boy peering over the Southern border...

Here is a look at the artworks named by the White House as evidence that Trump is “right” about the Smithsonian — and how several of the artists have responded."

List of Books Removed from USNA Library; America's Navy, April 4, 2025

America's Navy; List of Books Removed from USNA Library

[Kip Currier: The freedoms to read, speak, and think are fundamental American values enshrined by our Constitution. Libraries should and must have books and resources that represent a wide range of information, views, and lived experiences. Whether or not we as individuals or members of groups agree or disagree with every book in a library is immaterial and contrary to our freedoms. As the late Robert Croneberger, Director of Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh (1986-1998), aptly observed, a library is not doing its job if it doesn't have at least one book that offends every person.

Military service members have served, fought, and died to preserve our freedoms and core values. Enlisted persons and their families should and must have access to a broad continuum of ideas and information. Anything less is blatant censorship that is antithetical to the American way of life.]

[Excerpts from list]

     "How to be an antiracist / Ibram X. Kendi.

Uncomfortable conversations with a black man / Emmanuel Acho.

Why didn't we riot? : a Black man in Trumpland / Issac J. Bailey.

Long time coming : reckoning with race in America / Michael Eric Dyson.

State of emergency : how we win in the country we built / Tamika D. Mallory as told to Ashley A. Coleman ; [forewords, Angela Y. Davis and Cardi B].

How we can win : race, history and changing the money game that's rigged / Kimberly Jones.

My vanishing country : a memoir / Bakari Sellers.

The gangs of Zion : a Black cop's crusade in Mormon country / Ron Stallworth, with Sofia Quintero.

American hate : survivors speak out / edited by Arjun Singh Sethi.

The rage of innocence : how America criminalizes Black youth /
Kristin Henning.

Our time is now : power, purpose, and the fight for a fair America /
Stacey Abrams.

What's your pronoun? : beyond he & she / Dennis Baron.

Rainbow milk : a novel / Paul Mendez.

The genesis of misery / Neon Yang.

The last white man / Mohsin Hamid.

Light from uncommon stars / Ryka Aoki.

Everywhere you don't belong : a novel / by Gabriel Bump.

Evil eye : a novel / Etaf Rum.

Lies my teacher told me : everything your American history
textbook got wrong / James W. Loewen.

Gender queer : a memoir / by Maia Kobabe ; colors by Phoebe
Kobabe.

The third person / Emma Grove."

Jeff Bezos is muzzling the Washington Post’s opinion section. That’s a death knell; The Guardian, February 26, 2025

 Margaret Sullivan, The Guardian ; Jeff Bezos is muzzling the Washington Post’s opinion section. That’s a death knell

"Owners and publishers of news organizations often exert their will on opinion sections. It would be naive to think otherwise.

But a draconian announcement this week by Jeff Bezos, the Washington Postowner, goes far beyond the norm.

The billionaire declared that only opinions that support “personal liberties” and “free markets” will be welcome in the opinion pages of the Post.

“Viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others,” he added.

The paper’s top opinion editor, David Shipley, couldn’t get on board with those restrictions. He immediately – and appropriately – resigned.

Especially in the light of the billionaire’s other blatant efforts to cozy up to Donald Trump, Bezos’s move is more than a gut punch; it’s more like a death knell for the once-great news organization he bought in 2013...

What is clear is that Bezos no longer wants to own an independent news organization. He wants a megaphone and a political tool that will benefit his own commercial interests.

It’s appalling. And, if you care about the role of the press in America’s democracy, it’s tragic.

“What Bezos is doing today runs counter to what he said, and actually practiced, during my tenure at the Post,” Martin Baron, the paper’s executive editor until 2021 and the author of the 2023 memoir Collision of Power: Trump, Bezos and the Washington Post, told me in an email Wednesday.

“I have always been grateful for how he stood up for the Post and an independent press against Trump’s constant threats to his business interest,” Baron said. “Now, I couldn’t be more sad and disgusted.”...

This outrageous move will enrage them. I foresee a mass subscriber defection from an outlet already deep in red ink; that must be something businessman Bezos is willing to live with.

He must also be willing to live with hypocrisy.

“Bezos argues for personal liberties. But his news organization now will forbid views other than his own in its opinion section,” Baron pointed out, recalling that it was only weeks ago when the Post described itself in an internal mission statement as intended for “all of America”.

“Now,” Baron noted, “its opinion pages will be open to only some of America, those who think exactly as he does.”

It’s all about getting on board with Trump, to whose inauguration Bezos – through Amazon, the company he co-founded – contributed a million dollars. That allowed him a prime seat, along with others of his oligarchical ilk."

What's in a Name Anyway? Trademark Basics for Community Associations; The National Law Review, December 6, 2024

Erica B. E. Rogers of Ward and Smith, P.A. , The National Law Review; What's in a Name Anyway? Trademark Basics for Community Associations

"This article explores the essentials of trademark rights, their relevance for community associations, and the balance between protecting these trademarks versus respecting the free speech of homeowners...

IV. VALUE PROPOSITION FOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Trademark rights are crucial for protecting the identity and reputation of a community association. They help prevent confusion among property owners and prospective residents by ensuring that the association's name and symbols remain distinct. However, while trademarks are valuable tools for community associations to deter unauthorized use, they cannot be used to silence opinions or criticisms. Understanding this balance is essential for effectively managing and enforcing trademark rights in a manner that respects both legal protections and fundamental freedoms of the property owners."

‘Please let me get what I want’: can artists stop politicians from using their songs?; The Guardian, January 30, 2024

Matthew Cantor , The Guardian; ‘Please let me get what I want’: can artists stop politicians from using their songs?

"How much power do artists actually have in this scenario? It depends on the circumstances, says Ben Depoorter, a professor at University of California Law San Francisco. In the US, licensing companies including Ascap and BMI manage copyright issues on behalf of artists. Generally, venues like convention centers have their own licenses with these companies, meaning that, broadly speaking, the venues can play whatever they want.

However, the rules are a little different when a third party is involved. When a candidate “walks on and they play music, that is actually not covered by the standard license of the venue”, Depoorter says. Political campaigns often don’t realize that they need their own music licenses, under which musicians can opt out of having their music played. “When these authors are saying, ‘Hey, I don’t want him to play my music any more,’ it’s actually a legal right they have,” Depoorter explains."

California copyright-case leaves tattoo artists in limbo; Fox26 Houston, January 29, 2024

Tom Zizka

, Fox26 Houston ; California copyright-case leaves tattoo artists in limbo

"Patent and Copyright expert Joh Rizvi, known at The Patent Professor, says the California case never got to the issue of whether images reproduced in tattoos are fair to use as art and expression. 

"What I find is the more interesting question is, 'Is a tattoo different? Is this free speech?'" he wonders.

Fair Use has been the subject of countless lawsuits, and Rizvi says this one leaves artists in a legal gray area, with no precedent."

Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use; ARL Views, January 23, 2024

Katherine Klosek, Director of Information Policy and Federal Relations, Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Marjory S. Blumenthal, Senior Policy Fellow, American Library Association (ALA) Office of Public Policy and Advocacy |, ARL Views; Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use

"In a blog post about the case, OpenAI cites the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) position that “based on well-established precedent, the ingestion of copyrighted works to create large language models or other AI training databases generally is a fair use.” LCA explained this position in our submission to the US Copyright Office notice of inquiry on copyright and AI, and in the LCA Principles for Copyright and AI.

LCA is not involved in any of the AI lawsuits. But as champions of fair use, free speech, and freedom of information, libraries have a stake in maintaining the balance of copyright law so that it is not used to block or restrict access to information. We drafted the principles on AI and copyright in response to efforts to amend copyright law to require licensing schemes for generative AI that could stunt the development of this technology, and undermine its utility to researchers, students, creators, and the public. The LCA principles hold that copyright law as applied and interpreted by the Copyright Office and the courts is flexible and robust enough to address issues of copyright and AI without amendment. The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

On the question of whether ingesting copyrighted works to train LLMs is fair use, LCA points to the history of courts applying the US Copyright Act to AI."

Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict; Science, October 24, 2023

 SCIENCE NEWS STAFF, Science; Prominent journal editor fired for endorsing satirical article about Israel-Hamas conflict

"Michael Eisen, editor-in-chief of the prominent open access journal eLife and a longtime critic of traditional journals, says he is losing that job for publicly endorsing a satirical article that criticized people dying in Gaza for not condemning the recent attacks on Israel by the Palestinian group Hamas...

Eisen has previously been a frequent, feisty participant in debates about scientific publishing, doggedly supporting the development of free access to journal articles. In 2003, he co-founded the Public Library of Science (PLOS), whose journal PLOS ONE grew to become one of the largest open-access journals. Authors pay a fee so that their articles in PLOS journals are free to read when published. Eisen has criticized the paywalls still in place at many subscription journals as slowing the progress of science and the diffusion of useful findings. But critics of PLOS’s model have suggested author fees create an incentive for journals to maximize the number of papers published at the expense of adequate peer review and quality and can create barriers for authors with limited resources."

‘Trump Too Small’ Fight Splits First Amendment Trademark Views; Bloomberg Law, September 22, 2023

Kyle Jahner, Bloomberg Law; ‘Trump Too Small’ Fight Splits First Amendment Trademark Views

"A dispute over a “Trump Too Small” trademark application hinges on whether a statutory ban offends the First Amendment, as the US Supreme Court recently found two other restrictions did."

Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement; Reuters, February 15, 2023

Deirdre M. Wells, William H. Milliken, and Kristina Caggiano Kelly, Reuters; Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement

"The 9th Circuit ultimately vacated the district court's judgment on trademark infringement, based on the two-part Rogers test. The Rogers test was established in the 1989 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Rogers v. Grimaldi, and balances trademark and free speech rights. Under this test, a trademark can be used without authorization as long as it meets a minimal level of artistic expression and does not explicitly mislead consumers.

To overcome VIP's First Amendment right to humorous expression, Jack Daniel's was required to show that VIP's use of its trademarks is either (1) not artistically relevant to the underlying work, or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work. The trial court did not apply the Rogers test as part of its analysis...

The 9th Circuit's application of the Rogers test — which has traditionally been used for expressive works like movies, music, and books — to the commercial setting has garnered the attention of attorneys and brand owners alike. The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for gag gifts, novelty T-shirts, and even subtler fashion products."

Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use; Bloomberg Law, December 29, 2022

Dorothy Auth, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Howard Wizenfeld, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Bloomberg Law; Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use

"The upcoming term for the US Supreme Court includes an ambitious schedule of intellectual property cases, spanning patent, trademark, and copyright law...

Jack Daniel’s

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC addresses creative works in the context of trademark law, asking whether humorous use of another’s trademark is protected by the First Amendment. 

Under normal circumstances, a trademark infringement is determined based on whether the use of another’s mark is “likely to cause confusion” with that of the trademark owner.

However, when a mark is used in an artistic manner, courts instead use the Rogers test, which is intended to protect the free speech. Unlike the likelihood-of-confusion test in the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946), the Rogers test allows use of another’s mark as an expressive work unless the use contains no artistic relevance or explicitly misleads about the source or content of the work.

As a result, the Rogers test narrows the scope of protection for the mark. Here, VIP created a squeaky toy named “Bad Spaniels,” closely resembling Jack Daniel’s famous whiskey bottle and label.

While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy humorously proclaims, “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet” which is “43% Poo by Vol” and “100% Smelly.” 

Should the court affirm the squeaky toy is an expressive work, for being humorous, under the Rogers test, or should a traditional Lanham Act analysis be applied? The court’s answer may have significant implications for companies that sell items with a humorous message based on another’s trademark."

Online Copyright Piracy Debate Ramps Up Over Proposed Legal Fix; Bloomberg Law, March 23, 2022

Riddhi Setty, Bloomberg Law; Online Copyright Piracy Debate Ramps Up Over Proposed Legal Fix

"Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee, recently proposed the SMART (Strengthening Measures to Advance Rights Technologies) Copyright Act of 2022, which aims to hold service providers accountable for fighting copyright theft."

American Girl Walks Back Threat to Sue 'Karen' Doll Parody Meme; Comic Book Resources, July 8, 2020

Kelvin Childs, Comic Book Resources; American Girl Walks Back Threat to Sue 'Karen' Doll Parody Meme

"American Girl has walked back its previous assertion that it would take legal action against a spoof ad for a "Karen 2020 Girl of the Year" doll.

On Twitter, the company said, "American Girl has no intention of censoring this parody meme and anything shared to the contrary was in error. We apologize for any misunderstanding.""

Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns; Vox, June 5, 2020

Theodore Schleifer, Vox; Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns

"This is not the first time Twitter has removed content posted by Trump due to copyright reasons. But notably, this takedown comes shortly after a series of much more controversial decisions by Twitter to limit the reach of Trump’s posts because they either did not pass a fact-check or, in Twitter’s opinion, glorified violence.

Facebook has made different decisions, citing its commitment to free speech, and has been willing to leave Trump’s posts up.

Complaints about copyright violations are not uncommon in the world of social media."

The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage; Slate, May 7, 2020

Joshua Lamel, Slate; The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage

"Copyright is the perfect vehicle for SLAPP suits. First of all, copyright is a government-granted, exclusive right to speech. There is no better way to prevent someone from publicly criticizing you than to use copyright law. Copyright lawsuits are expensive and place enormous costs on defendants. Fair use has to be raised once you are sued, so defendants will likely have to spend more. The potential damages are extreme: For every violation of a copyright, you can get $150,000 in statutory damages. Additionally, copyright law has injunctive relief—you can actually stop the speech from happening.

One would think that Congress would recognize this and specifically include copyright in federal anti-SLAPP efforts. But that is not happening anytime soon. Instead, thanks to their lobbying and fundraising, copyright holders have been successful in convincing senior members of Congress in both parties to exclude copyright. These members have told federal anti-SLAPP advocates that they need to be willing to give up copyright for a chance of being successful. There is not a single good policy argument to exclude copyright. Copyright litigation abuse is exactly what anti-SLAPP legislation should be designed to prevent. This type of abuse is the reason we need a federal fix.

In my dream world, the saturation of Joe Exotic’s story will help everyday Americans understand the relevance of copyright law in our daily lives—maybe even spur federal lawmakers to introduce and pass anti-SLAPP law without a special carve-out for copyright."

EU approves tougher EU copyright rules in blow to Google, Facebook; Reuters, April 15, 2019

Foo Yun Chee, Reuters; EU approves tougher EU copyright rules in blow to Google, Facebook

"Under the new rules, Google and other online platforms will have to sign licensing agreements with musicians, performers, authors, news publishers and journalists to use their work.

The European Parliament gave a green light last month to a proposal that has pitted Europe’s creative industry against tech companies, internet activists and consumer groups."

The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins; The Washngton Post, March 15, 2019

Alex Horton, The Washington Post; The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins

"Lagoze found himself in a murky gray area of free speech and fair-use government products. U.S. citizens can already go on Pentagon-operated sites and download free military photos and video.Their tax dollars fund it, and federal government creations are not protected by copyright.

So could Lagoze take the moments he filmed with government resources and make something new?

He worked with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University to push back against the military’s claims of impropriety. The Marine Corps relented this month."

Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands; The Washington Post, January 4, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands

"The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision...

The case,Iancu v. Brunetti , will probably be heard at the Supreme Court in April."