The Politicization of Antitrust: A Threat to Free Speech

The lawsuit filed by twelve state attorneys general against Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery has raised eyebrows in the media and business communities, but it appears to be more than just a straightforward antitrust case. At its core, this is an attempt to use government power to silence certain viewpoints and enforce approved speech.

One concern raised by the AGs is the potential impact on competition in three narrowly-defined markets: wide-release theatrical films, anticipated “top-grossing” theatrical films, and affiliate fees from cable television distributors. However, Chris Wallace notes that this lawsuit doesn’t mention the merger of CBS News and CNN, two major news outlets directly affected by such a deal.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s statements on the matter reveal the true motivations behind the lawsuit. In an interview, he expressed concern about what’s happening at CBS News, implying that the network is currying favor with the president in exchange for favorable treatment. This raises questions about whether some AGs are motivated by a desire to exert control over the media landscape.

Bonta’s comments suggest that this is not about protecting competition or promoting diversity of viewpoints but rather using antitrust laws as a tool for censorship. New York Attorney General Letitia James reinforced this concern when she claimed blocking the merger would ensure “diversity of opinions, diversity of viewpoints” in the news.

However, Wallace points out that this concern about diversity is outdated and no longer relevant to today’s media marketplace. The numbers are stark: CNN averaged 711,000 viewers in primetime last quarter, while the CBS Evening News attracted 3.9 million viewers on a given evening – a combined audience of 4.6 million representing just 1.7% of adults in this country.

What we’re seeing here is an attempt to use antitrust laws as a proxy for censorship, allowing government officials to dictate which media owners are acceptable and what kind of journalism is permitted. This is precisely the kind of politicization of antitrust that has been criticized in the past, particularly during the Trump administration.

The true intentions behind this lawsuit were revealed when Norm Eisen celebrated the court’s temporary restraining order blocking the merger. He specifically targeted the Ellison family, claiming they believed their relationship with President Trump would help them push through a “disastrous deal” threatening democracy, creative freedom, and independent journalism.

While it’s legitimate to oppose the Ellisons or disapprove of changes at CBS News, government officials using antitrust laws for political purposes undermines fundamental First Amendment protections. If you don’t like coverage on a network, change the channel; if you don’t like what you read in a newspaper, cancel your subscription.

However, when state attorneys general bring an antitrust lawsuit to get around First Amendment protections, that’s a different story altogether. It becomes a backdoor way for politicians to decide which media owner and what kind of journalism is acceptable – and one that has far-reaching implications for free speech and the media landscape as a whole.

This case is about more than just Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery – it’s about whether government officials will be allowed to use antitrust laws to silence certain viewpoints and enforce approved speech. The stakes are high, and the implications far-reaching.