In an admittedly non-scholarly (and perhaps dishonest) use of the following article, I have substituted the name “Trump” for the word “government” throughout because doing so makes a statement about my view of the dangers of Trump’s relationship to and vilification of the press. This is a hurried exercise on my part, and I [we] will find a description that is in point of fact about Trump; however, beginning this project immediately is of utmost importance, so it will be obviously inexact for the time being.
In a 2006 article, David Fagundes discusses the dangers of government participation in the U.S. system of freedom of expression.
The distinctive role played by
government[Trump] as both peril to and participant in the system of freedom of expression warrants a unique approach for analyzing [his] speech [. . . .] Such an approach must also take into account that [Trump], like any other speaker, possesses the capacity to contribute to the marketplace of ideas, but must also consider [Trump]’s ability—and, some might argue, responsibility—to shape that marketplace by affecting citizens’ ability and willingness to contribute to it. Finally, such an approach must be cognizant of [Trump]’s capacity to degrade public discourse by dominating discussions and drowning out dissenting ideas. [Trump] can speak, but [his] possession of coercive authority along with [his] ability to shape public discourse makes [him] unlike any other speaker. Any approach to the constitutional status of [Trump]’s speech should take each of these factors into account.
(Fagundes, David. “State Actors As First Amendment Speakers.” Northwestern University Law Review 100.4 (2006): 1637-1688.)