Will The Reich Press Law of 1933 Replace our First Amendment?

I can easily imagine a nation in which there is only one newspaper. Where only opinions favored by the political party in power get printed. Where a single newspaper is allowed to exist, and is the voice of the state. Where all other ideas, which in any manner, are "misleading to the public," or otherwise unacceptable to the state, are buried.

Impossible in America?

In January of 1933 Adolph Hitler became the German Chancellor. On October 4, 1933, he decreed a new Reich Press Law. William L. Shirer describes its operation.

"Section 14 of the Press Law ordered editors to 'keep out of the newspapers anything, which in any manner, is misleading to the public, mixes selfish aims with community aims, tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich or ... the common will of the German people, ... or offends the honor and dignity of German.' "

Shirer notes that had there been a comparable law before Hitler came to power, the law "would have led to the suppression of every Nazi editor and publication in the country. It now led to the ousting of those journals and journalists who were not Nazi, and declined bo become so."

In case you haven't noticed, small independent American newspapers run by small businesses or individuals are all but gone. Major newspapers, like the Chicago Tribune, are all owned by giant media companies. Today, even very large newspaper organization, like Lee Enterprises (77 markets in 26 states), are endanger of being devoured by even larger newspaper chains.


But today print newspapers are endangered of going the way of the dinosaurs. Many adult Americans today are getting their news instead from the enormous social media platforms.

According to Pew, 31% of U.S. adults say they get news regularly on Facebook. 22% say they regularly get news on YouTube. 13% say the regularly get their news on Twitter. 11% on Instagram.

But besides getting their news on Facebook and Twitter, many American have used these platforms to put their political, religious, and medical ideas and opinions before the American people.

And more and more of those Americans are finding their opinions (and even their statements of facts) banned from Facebook, Google and Twitter, in some cases for life, because they "mislead the public," "because the are contrary to settled science," or because some fascist at Twitter or Facebook who disagrees with the opinions labels them "hate speech," etc. Among the banned are former President Trump, Republican Senators Rand Paul and Ron Johnson. The given reasons why they have been banned may differ, but they all come down to Facebook and Twitter claims that "they are
misleading the public."

In America, a newspaper or a TV station cannot be sued for not printing or not broadcasting the statements of another American. Our Bill of Rights, guaranteeing Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, only protects our rights against Governmental interference. Twitter and Facebook are not "governments" or entities of government. They are private businesses.

But President Trump in July of 2021 sued Twitter for his being banned for life by Twitter. In his Complaint, he alleges:

"Twitter has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors. Defendant Twitter’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor, and as such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in the censorship decisions it makes.

The gist of Mr. Trump's allegation is that Twitter is no longer acting as just a mere private business. Twitter, he claims, is instead "willfully participating in joint activity with federal actor." Mr. Trump further spells out his claim, saying, 

"Twitter’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor, and as such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment's guaranty of free speech and freedom from censorship in the decisions it makes."

Note also Mr. Trump's claim that Twitter has been coerced into its actions by "threatened legislative actions." The complaint names names.

Among his other arguments, Mr. Trump alleges that Twitter bases its censorship upon a misuse of §230, which was intended only to protect minors from the transmission of obscene materials on the Internet, is being misused to authorize censorship and prior restraint of Constitutionally protected speech.

Mr. Trump's complaint runs 34 pages and some 143 allegation, and cannot be discussed in detail here. But two allegations are of particular interest.

"Dorsey and Twitter acted to censor other medical opinions that did not uphold that narrative of Dr. Fauci and the CDC, which took on both a political and medical nature ....

"Congress cannot lawfully induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what [Congress] is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

If the former President loses this law suit, the First Amendment is a dead letter, and its guaranty of free speech illusory. If only those who express opinions approved by the Government can use Twitter and Facebook, §14 of the Reich Press Law will replace our 1st Amendment.