The Tara Palmeri Show
Episode: How Trump is Controlling the Free Press with Lawsuits
Date: February 23, 2026
Host: Tara Palmeri
Guest: Stuart Brotman, Media Law Professor and Author of Free Expression Under Fire

Episode Overview

In this illuminating episode, Tara Palmeri dives deep into the precarious state of free expression in America with media law professor Stuart Brotman, whose new book Free Expression Under Fire addresses the culture wars over the First Amendment, the escalating use of lawsuits by powerful figures (notably Donald Trump) to suppress journalism, and the shifting landscape of media regulation and ownership. The conversation cuts through current events—lawsuits against journalists, the rise of cancel culture, governmental pressures on tech and media companies—and puts them in a broader legal and cultural context.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Shifting Battle Over Free Speech

• Fragmented Defenders: Both sides of the political spectrum are undermining free speech and free press, not just through direct government action, but culturally and through private means ([02:50]).

  • Quote: “Free expression under fire—because literally both sides of the political spectrum are sort of firing away, undermining free speech and free press protections.” (Stuart Brotman, 02:50)

• Cancel Culture’s Dual Nature: Cancel culture is often driven by private entities or the public rather than government, but when the state enforces it, the dangers multiply ([03:44]).

  • Example: Social media users and corporations pressuring for consequences based on personal opinions.

2. The Impact and Limits of Cancel Culture

• Company Policies vs Individual Rights: There’s tension between a company’s brand control and the right of individuals to express themselves privately online ([06:26]).

  • Quote: “They’re not saying anything about the company. They’re just an individual. And then somehow people find out that they work for a particular company, so they go to the company and say…we don't believe that person reflects the values of our company, and therefore that person is no longer with the company.” (Brotman, 06:42)

• Self-Censorship: Increasing numbers are afraid to express opinions out of fear of career consequences, leading to a cultural chilling effect ([07:51]).

• Resilience Against Cancellation: True ‘cancellation’ is rare; figures often bounce back unless major crimes are involved ([09:09]).

  • Example: Louis CK, JK Rowling, Mel Gibson are “still around” post-scandal.

• Legal Protections: A Supreme Court decision defended a student’s right to express herself privately online without school punishment ([10:22]).

3. Government Regulation and Media Control

• FCC & Equal Time Rules:

  • On Colbert’s case: Posting interviews to YouTube circumvents FCC rules, raising questions about outdated regulation in a digital media age ([11:20], [19:23]).
  • FCC rules are “selectively” enforced, often reflecting political priorities ([17:12]).
  • Quote: “So CBS or NBC decided they needed to give that [equal time]…during a NASCAR broadcast.” (Brotman, 14:30)

• Independence of Media Regulators at Risk:

  • A pivotal Supreme Court case could allow presidents to fire FCC commissioners, erasing decades of agency independence ([17:04]).
  • Quote: “I think to some extent what's going on now…a lot of the people at the agencies are very fearful that once this decision comes out, they may be fired. So they certainly want to toe the line.” (Brotman, 18:18)

• Digital Platforms vs. Broadcast: As YouTube and similar platforms rise, FCC regulation becomes less relevant ([19:48]).

4. Legal Pressure and Lawsuits (“Lawfare”)

• Trump’s Lawsuits: Trump’s unprecedented litigation against news outlets (e.g., Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Ann Seltzer) exemplify strategic attempts to intimidate and exhaust journalists ([27:46]).

  • Quote: “This is textbook lawfare. Using the courts not to necessarily win, but to intimidate and exhaust.” (Palmeri, 27:46)

• Anti-SLAPP Laws: These laws allow journalists to quickly dismiss frivolous lawsuits aimed at suppressing free expression. Over 40 states have robust protections ([28:25]).

  • Explanation: “SLAPP is Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation…but it's a really powerful defense tool to blunt the force of some of these actions.” (Brotman, 28:25)

• The Hidden Costs: Even when suits are dismissed, they raise insurance premiums and make journalism more expensive and risky ([29:43]).

5. Direct Government Intrusion

• DOJ Targeting Journalists: The arrest of Don Lemon for covering a protest inside a church, using the FACE Act, is seen as a threatening escalation ([22:37]).

  • Quote: “That is an assault on journalists. And I think what we see in the Lemon case clearly is he wants to get this resolved as soon as possible…the Justice Department wants to extend this and go into discovery…” (Brotman, 22:37)

• Homeland Security’s Data Requests: DHS issuing subpoenas to tech companies for user identities criticizing or tracking ICE—potentially chilling to free speech and targeted government overreach ([24:40]).

  • Courts have historically resisted “national security” as a blanket justification ([27:10]).
  • Historical Parallel: Pentagon Papers case set a high bar for government censorship claims ([25:08]).

6. Ownership and Transparency in Media

• Who Owns the Free Press?: Audience questions highlighted the concentration of media ownership, both in “independent” and legacy media ([30:14]).

  • Even new outlets are often backed by wealthy interests, raising concerns over true independence ([32:30]).

• The Benefits and Complexities of Independent Journalism: While more voices exist than ever, financial backing and transparency about funders remain important ([34:19]).

  • Quote: “If you believe in this notion of free expression, you want to always try to promote as many voices as you can out there. So that's sort of where I come out…let's see how we can get more flowers blooming.” (Brotman, 34:19)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Trump likes to argue he's the most transparent president ever. And he does, you know, take questions from reporters. But I think he really enjoys the back and forth and just pummeling them.” (Palmeri, 01:34)

• “The FCC will now be directly controlled by the President. That's terrifying, and that is the really scary outcome that we're potentially looking at…” (Brotman, 18:18)

• “Cancel culture sort of fades away or has a way for people to come back…unless you are maybe a Harvey Weinstein…” (Brotman, 09:34)

• “Using the courts not to necessarily win, but to intimidate and exhaust.” (Palmeri, 27:46)

• “A thousand flowers blooming…If you believe in this notion of free expression, you want to always try to promote as many voices as you can out there.” (Brotman, 34:19)

Important Timestamps by Segment

• [01:02] — New Book Introduction: Free Expression Under Fire
• [03:44] — Expansion of Cancel Culture
• [06:26] — Corporate Brand vs. Personal Expression
• [10:22] — Supreme Court Decisions on Student Speech
• [11:20] — Colbert, Equal Time, and Shifting Regulation
• [17:04] — Risk to FCC Independence
• [19:23] — Rise of YouTube and Diminished FCC Relevance
• [22:37] — Don Lemon’s Arrest and FACE Act
• [25:08] — DHS Subpoenas to Tech Companies and First Amendment
• [27:46] — Lawfare: Trump Suing Journalists and News Outlets
• [28:25] — Anti-SLAPP Laws and Legal Recourse for Journalists
• [30:14] — Audience Q&A on Media Ownership and Transparency
• [34:19] — Multitude of Voices and the Future of Independent Journalism

Tone and Final Thoughts

The episode navigates complex issues with both seriousness and a spirit of healthy skepticism, blending Palmeri’s direct questioning with Brotman’s legal expertise. The prevailing tone is one of concern—but also hope—for the future of American free expression, with practical advice for journalists and a call for transparency in media funding.

Closing Message:
As Tara says, “Go out and buy Stuart’s new book… and keep me in business as an independent journalist.” The challenge ahead, the episode suggests, is ensuring both journalists and the platforms they use to reach the public are resilient, open, and transparent in the face of intensifying political and legal pressure.