00:00For more on this, we can bring in Stefania DiStefano, a Paris-based lawyer and the president
00:04of the Transatlantic Forum, as well as a specialist on the U.S. Good morning. Thank
00:09you so much for joining us on France 24. Good morning, and thank you. Thank you for
00:14having me. First, I just want to get your reaction to ABC's decision to indefinitely
00:19suspend Jimmy Kimmel's show. So, thank you. Thank you for the question. I think, I mean,
00:26the first reaction that this suspension is an extremely serious violation of freedom of
00:34expression, but is also a perfect example of jawboning. So, as we know, the First Amendment
00:39of the U.S. Constitution decrees that the federal government shall make no law a bridge in freedom
00:45of speech and freedom of the press. And so, the press is protected from any governmental
00:50interference, but this is a perfect case of jawboning because, as it was recalled earlier,
00:55with Jimmy Kimmel's suspension. After the episode aired, it was the Federal Communication Commission's
01:01boss, Brendan Curran, that threatened Disney and ABC with losing their license. And so,
01:09they have essentially threatened the station itself. Now, these tactics are a violation of the First
01:18Amendment because the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that government officials cannot attempt
01:23to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.
01:29And ultimately, this is a demonstration of the weaponization of the concept of free speech in
01:34the U.S. because the same administration that is strenuously presenting itself as the protector of
01:40free speech is also putting in place tactics that directly violate the First Amendment itself.
01:45Yeah, so, as you're saying, Trump isn't, like, changing the laws necessarily here, but he's coercing
01:52these companies into bowing to his perspective. Are there any legal cases? As you were saying,
01:59you're a lawyer. From a legal standpoint, that could be challenged. Are we seeing that happen?
02:04There are some challenges, but I think one point that should also be seen in this context is that
02:11Trump is using legal tools as well to stifle free speech. And here I'm referring particularly to the
02:19massive defamation lawsuits that have been brought against the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
02:25So, for instance, these lawsuits are also part of a wider strategy to stifle political opposition,
02:30and they're not legally viable. So, it is very difficult for public figures under U.S. law
02:36to prevail in defamation cases because they have to prove that the defendants have published
02:41information that they knew or they should have known was false. And so, these lawsuits lack any
02:47legitimate claims, but they have a high symbolic value because they aim at intimidating news outlets
02:54and inducing them towards self-censorship. Now, the New York Times has stated that it will fight back
03:00against these lawsuits, but at the same time, these defamation suits will have a chilling effect
03:05on many media outlets because they might prefer self-censorship to avoid time-consuming and costly
03:12legal processes. And so, the strategy, despite its lack of real and solid legal claims, would have been
03:19successful in silencing critical news coverage, either of the federal government or of Trump himself.
03:25Yeah, as you're saying, it doesn't need legal foundation to have the silencing effect.
03:31We see a lot of concern in the U.S. Just how unprecedented is the situation currently?
03:38So, I think that the situation is unprecedented on many levels. This is a major escalation of efforts
03:46that had already started at the beginning of the second Trump administration. And I don't think
03:51that this should be seen as a sort of isolated or even unprecedented move. The efforts to stifle
03:57political position in the U.S. have not started with the instrumentalization of the assassination
04:02of Charlie Kirk, which is an absolute tragedy and should be condemned. But this is only the latest
04:08piece and perhaps the most blatant so far, manipulation of reality for the purposes of censorship.
04:15I think the assassination now is being depicted as a sort of assassination of free speech itself
04:20in the U.S. And it is actually being leveraged to suppress freedom of expression. Indeed, we have
04:27been discussing the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel's life, which has sparked outrage and concern from
04:33politicians, from media figures, from free speech organizations. We have seen the protests just now.
04:38But the administration is not only attacking media outlets, it's also attacking higher education.
04:43For instance, it is accusing universities now of radicalizing people. It's also attacking
04:48non-profit organizations, threatening to reduce funding. And so we're seeing that protection of
04:53free speech is essentially being afforded when those ideas that are being expressed are aligned
04:58with the administration agenda. And that same protection is being revoked when those ideas are
05:05critical instead. So it is crucial for this event to be contextualized within the wider,
05:09fuller assault on democratic debate that is currently taking place in the U.S.
05:16Stefania Di Stefano, I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there. But thank you so much for giving
05:20us your insight this morning. That was Stefania Di Stefano, a lawyer and the president of the
05:25Transatlantic Forum, as well as a specialist in the United States.
05:29Transatlantic Forum.
05:29Grossman University.
05:30Transatlantic Forum, as well as ande Japania Di Stefano,
05:31I'm concerned with Mr.Etita Di Stefano, that'sź·¼ man, and I haven't had this problem.
05:34But here's how I can talk about it.
05:36He gave me an explanation.
05:39That was a contributingŠ³Š»ŃŠ“ŠµŠ» of a sequel today.
05:55I'm not colonies.
Comments