Donald Trump has a problem with comedian Seth Meyers and it fits a consistent pattern of hyper-sensitivity to criticism and satire.
Early this month, Trump declared in a that a Meyers monologue was 鈥�100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!鈥� (His capitals, not mine.)
More recently, he in a post that was then reposted by the chair of the Federal Communications Commission.
Meyers is just the latest target. Trump has repeatedly clashed with entertainers and comedians, from Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen to and Stephen Colbert, over their criticism of his administration.
Funny on one level, worrying on another. With next year鈥檚 of the Declaration of Independence, one of the basic tenets of American democracy, freedom of speech, is under threat.
Trump鈥檚 attack on Meyers from Democrat Senator Edward Markey, rebuking the president for suggesting criticism is illegal:
Let me be clear: in America, criticizing the President is not a crime. It is a constitutional right. It is a democratic duty. It is essential for a free society.
Markey went on to point out the principle is enshrined in the first amendment contained in the , which guarantees Congress 鈥渟hall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press鈥�.
Alas, Republicans blocked the resolution, and Trump鈥檚 apparent desire to be above criticism or mockery now recalls the ancient law of 鈥溾�� which protected the dignity of Roman emperors.
This later became known as 鈥�濒猫蝉别-尘补箩别蝉迟茅鈥�, shielding European monarchs from insults, and it appears to be making a comeback in Washington.
Freedom of speech or freedom from criticism?
From the medieval period until the French Revolution, , sometimes punishable by being drawn and quartered. 尝猫蝉别-尘补箩别蝉迟茅 once preserved the authority of absolutist rulers across Europe, Asia and Russia.
It is still a in Thailand and Cambodia to criticise the royal family, and the idea generally aligns with Trump鈥檚 ambitious interpretation of unchecked .
The movement and protests are a response to this overreach and its chilling effect on dissenting opinion.
Over time, societies have responded to the threat by guaranteeing freedom of the press. But these laws and conventions can never be taken for granted.
In 1766, Sweden issued the world鈥檚 , which was also effectively a freedom-of-information act.
There were , however, including prohibitions on blasphemy and attacks on the king, royal family and civil servants. After a brief surge of political pamphlets promoting civil rights, King Gustav III reintroduced a policy of in 1772 that wasn鈥檛 lifted until 1812.
The principle of the free press enshrined in the US Constitution was adopted in 1791, but suspended after only seven years during an with France.
The was an attempt by the majority Federalist Party to control the press, and criminalised 鈥渇alse, scandalous, or malicious writing鈥� against the president and government.
The act expired in 1801 and had been so unpopular that John Adams lost the presidential election to Thomas Jefferson in 1800.
But another law, the Alien Enemies Act, had also been passed in anticipation of an uprising of French nationals if war broke out. In another strange historical echo, the Trump administration this old law to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to prisons in El Salvador.
鈥楾he price of leadership鈥�
Jefferson was a champion of free speech in theory, but less enthusiastic when under personal attack.
In 1802, when a disgruntled former supporter reported Jefferson had fathered children with an enslaved woman, , the president observed:
Indeed the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known [鈥 but it is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press.
In the end, Jefferson thought the public capable of making the distinction between real and fake news:
We have found it better to trust the public judgement, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth & falsehood, and hitherto the public judgement has performed that office with wonderful correctness.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to lean closer to the conventions of 濒猫蝉别-尘补箩别蝉迟茅. Addressing negative media coverage recently, :
When 97% of the stories are bad about a person, it鈥檚 no longer free speech [鈥 They鈥檒l take a great story and they鈥檒l make it bad [鈥 See, I think that鈥檚 really illegal.
No doubt Thomas Jefferson and Seth Meyers would disagree.
But perhaps the last word should go to Lyndon Johnson, president from 1963 to 1969.
Johnson had an adversarial relationship with the media, and blamed the US failure in Vietnam on negative television reporting. He particularly hated being the butt of relentless jokes by TV comedy duo the Smothers Brothers.
After Johnson decided not to run for reelection, the Smothers Brothers apologised for 鈥済oing too far鈥�. :
It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives.
, Senior Lecturer in History,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .
