>I'm not sure it's authoritarian to remove their liability protections, is it?
If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters.
>nor does it mean we have to ignore that question.
We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer.
>What's the obvious First Amendment violation here?
The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent.
Granted, the First Amendment only explicitly applies to Congress, but I feel like if states can be accused of violating it (as they often were regarding quarantine and shelter-at-home orders) then the President can as well.
If the intent is to punish critics and suppress the speech of party opponents, then yes. Any authoritarian can justify their actions in abstract and general terms, but context matters.
>nor does it mean we have to ignore that question.
We don't have to ignore it, but we also don't have to accept an autocrat's temper tantrum by fiat as an answer.
>What's the obvious First Amendment violation here?
The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from infringing freedom of speech - the President is attempting to use government power to infringe freedom of speech, to do exactly what the First Amendment was created to prevent.
Granted, the First Amendment only explicitly applies to Congress, but I feel like if states can be accused of violating it (as they often were regarding quarantine and shelter-at-home orders) then the President can as well.