With the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the temporary suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, and Pete Hegseth’s actions to exert control over news sites, our rights are more uncertain than ever. John Peter Zenger’s trial, in 1734, was the first breakthrough for free speech. But now, history seems to be undoing itself. 

Represented by Andrew Hamilton, Zenger won his case after being charged with seditious libel for criticism of a British official. Hamilton proved that a person could not be seen as guilty if what they stated was true, and showed how the press was necessary for exposing people in power. Today, President Trump’s recent lawsuit against the New York Times for expressing criticism towards his presidency is a direct contrast to this case.

Another breakthrough case, in more modern times, was New York Times vs. Sullivan, which was brought to the Supreme Court when the Times published an ad paid for by civil rights activists. The ad criticized the police department of Montgomery, Alabama for the way it treated its civil rights protestors, and though it was mostly accurate, the ad made some false statements. The Montgomery police commissioner sued the Times, and while the Alabama court took his side and ruled that the ad was a false representation of the police department, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper.

This decision established the right of a free press to criticize public officials and also stated that, in order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was written or spoken about them was “…with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.” This gave more freedom to what could be published, as long as it was not published with malice and meant to hurt the person involved in the content of the article. 

Recent events in America have gone against these constitutional rights. News sites are being punished for their critical views of the government, and statements that are perceived as hate speech, even without inciting violence, have been penalized. 

Despite this, “…controversial things should not be said in schools, because it could stir up drama,” Mapi Rodriguez, a student at Montclair High School, said. While freedom of speech follows the same rules outside of the school walls, being in school is different. Stating political views and opinions of society, while allowed, are always risky when in a place of learning, compared to the outside world.

“I feel like students should just protest, and talk about the First Amendment, but…students can’t do much because Trump has a mind of his own,” Rodriguez continued.

Even Republicans themselves have become worried about these restrictions on free speech, believing that they will lead to further pushback. On his recent podcast, Republican Senator Ted Cruz stated: “…if the government gets in the business of saying ‘we don’t like what you the media have said, we’re going to ban you from the airwaves, if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.” But it is unclear whether this disagreement will prevent any more threats to free speech from happening. 

Without a person’s ability to criticize the government, no matter what kind of government is in office, a country goes back in time. And the further we go back in time, the more rights we lose. The way it is going now, our newspapers could soon become little more than public relations tools for the government.