JAWBONING Definition Meaning - Merriam-Webster The meaning of JAWBONING is the use of public appeals (as by a president) to influence the actions especially of business and labor leaders; broadly : the use of spoken persuasion
Moral suasion - Wikipedia Informally using government power to censor speech—threatening inquiries and financial harm to silence faculty, and pressuring schools to silence students on the government's behalf—is known as 'jawboning '
What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment? This form of indirect censorship is called jawboning, and it’s a serious threat to free speech — particularly when it’s directed at expression on social media, where much of our discourse now occurs
Jawboning and the First Amendment: Definition and Analysis These are all examples of “jawboning”: a term for when the government pressures a private company or person to restrict another company or person’s First Amendment freedoms, rather than the government doing the restricting itself
Sen. Cruz: We Must Better Protect Americans from Government Jawboning To strengthen protections for American rights to freely speak and inquire, Sen Cruz announced plans to release new legislation to curtail government jawboning and restore accountability, previewed as part of his Legislative Framework for American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence
Jawboning | Knight First Amendment Institute But with this growth, these private platforms are at risk of becoming targets of government efforts to persuade, cajole, or strong-arm them—sometimes called “jawboning”—to change their content-moderation policies
One Quick Question: What are the origins of the term ‘jawboning?’ We asked WWU Professor of Journalism Carolyn Nielsen about its origins, how jawboning has been used in the past, and the legal precedents — all the way to the U S Supreme Court — behind it being viewed as illegal
Jawboning in Plain Sight: The Unconstitutional Censorship Tolerated by . . . What makes it jawboning, and therefore constitutionally problematic, is that a provider might suffer any punitive consequence at all if it does not act against speech in the way the government wants The Constitution forbids such threats as a policy tactic