Florida biologist fired over Charlie Kirk post wins $485,000 settlement; The Guardian, May 22, 2026

Associated via The Guardian; Florida biologist fired over Charlie Kirk post wins $485,000 settlement

Biologist was fired by a state agency for criticizing Charlie Kirk on social media after his shooting death

"Florida officials have agreed to pay nearly half a million dollars to a biologist who was fired by a state agency for criticizing conservative political activist Charlie Kirk on social media after his shooting death.

The state’s fish and wildlife conservation commission (FWC) fired biologist Brittney Brown in September after she reposted a meme on her personal Instagram account that claimed Kirk wouldn’t care about children being shot in their classrooms. She filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement, saying she struggled to find other work because the state agency is the regulatory body for her research specialization in bird conservation.

Brown on Thursday signed a $485,000 settlement agreement with agency directors that covers backpay, damages and attorney costs. She agreed as part of the deal to not seek future employment at the agency...

Kirk’s supporters combed social media after the killing for posts they viewed as celebrating his death. Influencers like Laura Loomer pledged to ruin the careers of people who made light of the killing, and the conservative social media account Libs of TikTok shared the identities and workplaces of many who posted with its audience of millions...

In a rare instance in Tennessee, a retired police officer was jailed for 37 days over a Facebook post joking about Kirk’s assassination. Tennessee officials agreed on Wednesday to pay $835,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the man, Larry Bushart. While behind bars, Bushart lost his postretirement job and missed the birth of his granddaughter before authorities eventually dropped a felony charge against him, he said in the lawsuit."

ABC Accuses Government of Violating First Amendment; The New York Times, May 8, 2026

Jim Rutenberg and John Koblin , The New York Times; ABC Accuses Government of Violating First Amendment

The network’s argument, made to the F.C.C., is the most aggressive posture taken yet by a television network toward the Trump administration.

"ABC has accused the Federal Communications Commission of violating its free speech rights, potentially setting the stage for a protracted, high-stakes legal battle between the network and the Trump administration.

The company said in a filing with the agency that regulators had a “chilling effect” on free speech by trying to punish political content they disagreed with. The filing, made public on Friday, is the most aggressive defense from any television network since President Trump kicked off an extended campaign last year to bring media organizations to heel.

It represented a striking departure for ABC. The network, under the corporate stewardship of the Walt Disney Company, set an early tone of compliance toward Mr. Trump when it settled a defamation lawsuit with him for $15 million in December 2024. Many legal experts considered Mr. Trump’s case unlikely to succeed in court.

The filing was registered on behalf of a single ABC station in Houston and involved a minor regulatory dispute over the talk show “The View.” But in a signal of its importance, the company’s paperwork was signed by one of the most experienced Supreme Court litigators in the country, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush."

New Mexico proposes $3.7bn fine for Meta and sweeping changes to its social platforms; The Guardian, May 6, 2026

Katie McQue, The Guardian; New Mexico proposes $3.7bn fine for Meta and sweeping changes to its social platforms

"Meta has returned to court in the US this week for the second phase of a lawsuit brought by Raúl Torrez, New Mexico’s attorney general, following a March verdict that found the company liable for child safety failures and imposed a $375m fine. On Monday, the state petitioned for a legal sanction against the company, a monetary penalty 10 times the original amount, and a sweeping, drastic overhaul of Meta’s child safety protocols.

In the second part of the landmark case, known as the remedies phase, the state is asking for Meta to be declared a public nuisance and for the judge to order the company to pay $3.7bn in an abatement plan. The money would fund programs for law enforcement, mental health services and educators. The state is also requesting that the judge force a series of design changes to Meta’s platforms aimed at improving child safety, including universal age verification, de-encryption of children’s messages, a guardian account linked to every child’s account, and a child safety monitor tasked with holding Meta to account for five years.

The New Mexico department of justice argues that these changes would make Meta’s social networks safer for underage users in the state. Meta, however, says the proposed reforms are unfeasible and could ultimately force it to shutdown its platforms in the state altogether.

The second phase of the trial is expected to last three weeks. Before opening statements on 4 May, Judge ⁠Bryan Biedscheid, said he needed to remain cognizant of free speech protections when evaluating the state’s arguments for Meta to impose the design measures, which he said could amount to “overreach”."

Analyzing Indictment of James Comey for "86 47" Post; reason, The Volokh Conspiracy, April 28, 2026

EUGENE VOLOKH, reason, The Volokh Conspiracy; Analyzing Indictment of James Comey for "86 47" Post

 "I think this prosecution is unjustified, and will get thrown out. Let me quickly analyze why."

‘Weak Case’: Fox’s Jonathan Turley Deeply Skeptical of Trump DOJ’s New Indictment of James Comey; Mediaite, April 28, 2026

Isaac Schorr, Mediaite; ‘Weak Case’: Fox’s Jonathan Turley Deeply Skeptical of Trump DOJ’s New Indictment of James Comey 

"Is showing a picture of shells that say ’86 47′ is that-, I mean, that could be could be taken as a threat, but does it amount to one to you?” followed up John Roberts.

“In my view, it would very likely be viewed as protected speech if it was the basis of a criminal indictment. That alone would have a hard time standing up in court,” answered Turley. “I’ve seen that reporting, and we’ll have to see how they would stick that landing in an indictment, but just showing a picture like that would be a very difficult foundation, a very unstable foundation for a prosecution, because right out of the gate will come a First Amendment challenge that the court, I think, would consider first and foremost.”"

Trump Administration Secures New Indictment Against Comey; The New York Times, April 28, 2026

Devlin Barrett and Tyler Pager , The New York Times; Trump Administration Secures New Indictment Against Comey

The new case stems from a social media post showing seashells on a North Carolina beach that the Trump administration characterized as a threat against the president.

"The Justice Department has secured a new indictment of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, over a social media post, after an indictment effort spurred by President Trump last year ended in failure.

An indictment filed in North Carolina charges Mr. Comey with making a threat against the president, and transmitting a threat across state lines, according to court records.

The new case represents another twist in the department’s tortured efforts to satisfy the demands of Mr. Trump to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Comey, a longtime target of the president’s wrath. The first indictment against Mr. Comey was thrown out by a judge, and other prosecutorial efforts against Trump targets have faltered in the face of grand juries or judges."

Decoding the 2026 White House AI Blueprint: U.S. AI Policy Starts to Take Shape; ReedSmith, March 24, 2026

 Tristan J. Albrecht, ReedSmith; Decoding the 2026 White House AI Blueprint: U.S. AI Policy Starts to Take Shape

"The White House's March 2026, National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence highlights a central tension: while AI adoption is accelerating, the United States still lacks a comprehensive federal AI regulatory regime. The framework sets out legislative recommendations aimed at balancing innovation, economic growth, and risk mitigation, while proposing federal preemption of state laws that “impose undue burdens" or undermine the national strategy to achieve “global AI dominance”.

The White House framework focuses on seven priority areas:...

Intellectual Property: A measured approach that defers key copyright questions, whether AI training on copyrighted material constitutes fair use in the courts. The Administration states it “believe that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws” but supports judicial resolution. The framework also contemplates collective licensing frameworks and protections against unauthorized digital replicas of individuals’ voice or likeness...

As AI capabilities rapidly evolve, the White House framework signals a federal preference for light-touch regulation and industry standards over rigid compliance mandates in clear contrast to approaches like the EU AI Act. In the absence of comprehensive legislation, organizations must continue navigating a dynamic and fragmented regulatory landscape, with careful attention to how preemption may reshape the field."

The Copyright Act in the age of AI; Politico, April 6, 2026

 AARON MAK , Politico; The Copyright Act in the age of AI

"The Copyright Act is reaching a major milestone this year, yet some legal scholars aren’t sure how well it will hold up in the age of artificial intelligence.

Stanford University held a summit on Friday to celebrate (and fret about) the 1976 act, which is the foundation of modern copyright law, as the 50th anniversary of its signing approaches in October. Academics advanced a number of proposals to update and reinterpret American copyright law, though several also warned against stretching it too far. The consensus: AI will reshape copyright whether we like it or not, and that it’s time to grapple with the implications."

Judge appears skeptical of Pentagon’s latest press restrictions: ‘Is this a Catch-22?’; Politico, March 30, 2026

JOSH GERSTEIN , Politico; Judge appears skeptical of Pentagon’s latest press restrictions: ‘Is this a Catch-22?’

"A federal judge expressed skepticism Monday about the Pentagon’s new press access policy after invalidating an earlier version that prompted almost all holders of media credentials to turn them in.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman convened a hearing in response to complaints from The New York Times that the Pentagon is defying his earlier order to restore access by subsequently shutting down the decades-old Correspondents Corridor and giving journalists unescorted access only to a library at the margins of the complex."

Where Censored Words Find a Safe Haven: Inside Minecraft; The New York Times, March 11, 2026

Will Bahr, The New York Times; Where Censored Words Find a Safe Haven: Inside Minecraft

"I’m standing in the middle of a cavernous hall, watching the Statue of Liberty drown in a pool of her own tears. Twin blue streams run from her emerald eyes, collecting in a reservoir that submerges the statue up to her waist.

A series of lecterns line an observation deck beneath this tableau. Each displays a divisive text: Stephen Colbert’s interview with a Senate candidate that he said CBS barred from television; a report on sea-level rise that was scrubbed from government websites in President Trump’s second term; a two-volume interactive timeline of the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol.

On the far wall, flanked by torches, is a mural of Ann Telnaes’s rejected cartoon for The Washington Post, featuring tech moguls like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg bending the knee to Trump, offering up bags of cash. Hanging just above is an enormous American flag, stars and stripes rendered in pixel.

Welcome to the new United States wing of the Uncensored Library, an unlikely stronghold of online press freedom within Minecraft, the best-selling video game of all time."

Boston University Pulls Pride Flags, Raising Free Speech Worries; The New York Times, March 23, 2026

Alan Blinder , The New York Times; Boston University Pulls Pride Flags, Raising Free Speech Worries

The university said the flags broke a rule against hanging signs, a policy embraced by other campuses that cracked down on protests. Professors and others say such rules chill speech.

"Boston University removed Pride flags that were displayed in campus buildings this month, angering professors who believe school leaders may be suppressing expression because they fear the Trump administration.

University officials have suggested the displays could imply the school endorses them, violating its pledge to be evenhanded with its standards around speech.

The university’s decision is a new skirmish in academia about campus expression, and it comes after more schools across the country embraced so-called neutrality policies, curbing the views they express publicly. Universities have also imposed more stringent limits on protests in the years since demonstrations over the war in Gaza rocked campuses."

F.C.C. Chair Threatens to Revoke Broadcasters’ Licenses Over War Coverage; The New York Times, March 14, 2026

Ashley Ahn , The New York Times; F.C.C. Chair Threatens to Revoke Broadcasters’ Licenses Over War Coverage

The comment from Brendan Carr came on the heels of a social media message from President Trump criticizing the news media’s coverage of the war with Iran.

"Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, threatened on Saturday to revoke broadcasters’ licenses over their coverage of the war with Iran, his latest move in a campaign to stomp out what he sees as liberal bias in broadcasts."

Politicians Are Trying to Control the News; The New York Times, March 5, 2026

The Editorial Board, The New York Times ; Politicians Are Trying to Control the News

"The shadow of press repression is spreading around the world. In the past decade, the number of journalists detained and imprisoned has soared as governments seek tighter control over the media. What started as a crackdown first by dictatorships and then by illiberal democracies is expanding to onetime bastions of civil liberties.

A recent high-profile case is Jimmy Lai, whom authorities in Hong Kong sentenced to 20 years in prison last month. He had campaigned against China’s choking of the territory’s freedoms. Mr. Lai, 78, has already spent five years in a dark cell and is ailing. The sentence effectively condemns him to dying in prison. Mr. Lai has denied all the charges against him.

His plight is increasingly common. At least 330 journalists worldwide were in prison at the end of 2025, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, up from fewer than 200 a decade ago. More than a third of them were serving sentences of five years or more. Nearly half remained behind bars despite never having been formally sentenced. One-fifth say they were tortured or beaten. An additional 129 members of the press died while doing their jobs or because of them, the highest number since records began in 1992. Among the worst offenders against press freedom have been China, Russia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Sudan and Turkey.

These courageous journalists have sought to shine a light on the world around them. They ask questions that political leaders do not want to answer and publish information that leaders do not want the public to know. For their efforts, they have been falsely accused of being enemies of the state, terrorists, foreign agents or spies."

Censorship Comes for Stephen Colbert; The Atlantic, February 17, 2026

David A. Graham , The Atlantic; Censorship Comes for Stephen Colbert

"Crackdowns on speech by prominent figures pave a way for the government to regulate speech more broadly, which should be concerning for people of any political leaning because the party and people in power can change."

Stephen Colbert says CBS lawyers pulled James Talarico interview as early voting begins in Texas; AP, February 17, 2026

MEG KINNARD, JIM VERTUNO AND JOHN HANNA, AP; Stephen Colbert says CBS lawyers pulled James Talarico interview as early voting begins in Texas

"Late-night host Stephen Colbert said his interview with Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico was pulled from Monday night’s broadcast over network fears it would violate regulatory guidance from the Trump administration on giving equal time to political candidates.

The issue came just hours before early voting opened Tuesday in Texas’ primary elections, which feature hotly contested Senate nomination races in both parties. 

“He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said on his program, ”The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

“Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”"

Olympics turn political as US athletes speak out against Trump; The Hill, February 16, 2026

DOMINICK MASTRANGELO , The Hill; Olympics turn political as US athletes speak out against Trump

 "A growing number of Olympic athletes competing for the U.S. in this month’s Winter Games are expressing discomfort with representing the country under President Trump’s administration, sparking intense pushback from the president’s supporters and Trump himself. 

Trump attacked U.S. athlete Hunter Hess directly after Hess said he was conflicted about competing for Team USA given the country’s political climate.

“It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now. I think it’s a little hard,” Hess, a freestyle skier, told reporters during a recent press conference. “There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t. Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.” 

The president in a Truth Social post hours later called Hess a “real loser” and said it is “very hard to root for someone like this” when watching the games. 

Hess’s comments came days after Amber Glenn, an American figure skater, decried the administration’s policies toward people in the LGBTQ community."  

Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts; The New York Times, February 13, 2026

 Sheera Frenkel and Mike Isaac , The New York Times; Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

The department has sent Google, Meta and other companies hundreds of subpoenas for information on accounts that track or comment on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, officials and tech workers said.

"The Department of Homeland Security is expanding its efforts to identify Americans who oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement by sending tech companies legal requests for the names, email addresses, telephone numbers and other identifying data behind social media accounts that track or criticize the agency.

In recent months, Google, Reddit, Discord and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, have received hundreds of administrative subpoenas from the Department of Homeland Security, according to four government officials and tech employees privy to the requests. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Google, Meta and Reddit complied with some of the requests, the government officials said. In the subpoenas, the department asked the companies for identifying details of accounts that do not have a real person’s name attached and that have criticized ICE or pointed to the locations of ICE agents. The New York Times saw two subpoenas that were sent to Meta over the last six months.

The tech companies, which can choose whether or not to provide the information, have said they review government requests before complying. Some of the companies notified the people whom the government had requested data on and gave them 10 to 14 days to fight the subpoena in court."

Don’t turn the military’s newspaper into a message platform; Stars and Stripes, February 10, 2026

RUFUS FRIDAY | CENTER FOR INTEGRITY IN NEWS REPORTING, Stars and Stripes; Don’t turn the military’s newspaper into a message platform

"There are places where a news organization’s values aren’t just written down, they’re literally inscribed on the walls.

Recently, staff at the Stars and Stripes press facility at Camp Humphreys in South Korea, the largest United States overseas military facility, unveiled a large mural titled “Stars and Stripes’ Core Values.” The words aren’t subtle: Credibility. Impartiality. Truth-telling. Balanced. Accountable.

Those aren’t marketing slogans. They are the compact between a newsroom and its readers, and especially important when the readership is the U.S. military community, often far from home, often in harm’s way.

That is why the Department of Defense’s recent posture toward Stars and Stripes is so alarming.

According to reporting by The Associated Press and other news organizations, the Pentagon said in a public statement by a spokesperson for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that it would “refocus” Stars and Stripes away from certain subject areas and toward content “custom tailored to our warfighters,” including weapons systems, fitness, lethality and related themes. The same reporting describes proposed steps such as removing content from wire services like the AP and Reuters and having a significant portion of content produced by the Pentagon itself.

Stars and Stripes is unusual and intentionally structured as-so on purpose. The paper’s own “About” page states plainly that it is “editorially independent of interference from outside its own editorial chain-of-command,” and “unique among Department of Defense authorized news outlets” in being “governed by the principles of the First Amendment.” 

In August 2025, Stars and Stripes took a step that I believe should be studied by every news organization trying to rebuild trust: it adopted and published a statement of core values emphasizing credibility and impartiality, and drawing a bright line between news and opinion. 

When a government authority suddenly declares that a news outlet must abandon certain viewpoints and then signals it will take a more hands-on role in shaping editorial operations, it sends a clear message to readers: the outlet is being pressured to produce coverage that satisfies those in power, rather than reporting grounded in facts.

No serious newsroom can sustain trust under that condition, which is already in dangerously short supply. Gallup reports that Americans’ confidence in mass media has fallen to historic lows, with just 28% expressing a great deal or fair amount of trust. When Gallup began measuring media trust in the 1970s, that figure routinely exceeded two-thirds of the public.

If our nation is struggling to persuade people that journalism is independent, accurate, objective, impartial and not an instrument of power, why would we take one of the country’s most symbolically important newsrooms, an outlet serving people in uniform, and wrap it more tightly inside the very institution it is entrusted to cover?

Last fall, I was in Japan for the 80th anniversary celebration of the Pacific edition of Stars and Stripes. In a detailed first-person account, the gala’s keynote speaker, journalist Steve Herman, described the paper’s long history of resisting becoming a “propaganda rag,” including General Eisenhower’s defense of the paper’s independence. 

That history matters because it explains why generations of commanders tolerated uncomfortable stories: a paper that service members trust does more for cohesion and legitimacy than one that reads like a propaganda platform for approved narratives.

The Stars and Stripes values statement puts it plainly: “Credibility is the greatest asset of any news medium,” and impartiality is its “greatest source of credibility.” It describes truth-telling as the core mission, accountability as a discipline, and it emphasizes the strict separation between news and opinion. 

Those principles are neither ideological nor hostile to the military. They are the foundational principles of a free press, and they are especially important when the audience is made up of people who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The Americans who serve in our Armed Forces deserve more than information that flatters authority.

They deserve journalism that respects them enough to tell the truth.

That mural in South Korea has it right. Credibility. Impartiality. Truth-telling. Balanced. Accountable.

We should treat those words as a promise kept and a commitment upheld.

Rufus Friday serves as chairman of the Stars and Stripes publisher advisory board of directors and is the former publisher of the Lexington Herald-Leader in Lexington, Kentucky. Currently he is the executive director of the Center for Integrity in News Reporting."

The world heard JD Vance being booed at the Olympics. Except for viewers in the US; The Guardian, February 7, 2026

Bryan Armen Graham  , The Guardian; The world heard JD Vance being booed at the Olympics. Except for viewers in the US

"The modern Olympics sell themselves on a simple premise: the whole world, watching the same moment, at the same time. On Friday night in Milan, that illusion fractured in real time.

When Team USA entered the San Siro during the parade of nations, the speed skater Erin Jackson led the delegation into a wall of cheers. Moments later, when cameras cut to US vice-president JD Vance and second lady Usha Vance, large sections of the crowd responded with boos. Not subtle ones, but audible and sustained ones. Canadian viewers heard them. Journalists seated in the press tribunes in the upper deck, myself included, clearly heard them. But as I quickly realized from a groupchat with friends back home, American viewers watching NBC did not.

On its own, the situation might once have passed unnoticed. But the defining feature of the modern sports media landscape is that no single broadcaster controls the moment any more. CBC carried it. The BBC liveblogged it. Fans clipped it. Within minutes, multiple versions of the same happening were circulating online – some with boos, some without – turning what might once have been a routine production call into a case study in information asymmetry.

For its part, NBC has denied editing the crowd audio, although it is difficult to resolve why the boos so audible in the stadium and on other broadcasts were absent for US viewers. But in a broader sense, it is becoming harder, not easier, to curate reality when the rest of the world is holding up its own camera angles. And that raises an uncomfortable question as the United States moves toward hosting two of the largest sporting events on the planet: the 2026 men’s World Cup and the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

If a US administration figure is booed at the Olympics in Los Angeles, or a World Cup match in New Jersey or Dallas, will American domestic broadcasts simply mute or avoid mentioning the crowd audio? If so, what happens when the world feed, or a foreign broadcaster, shows something else entirely? What happens when 40,000 phones in the stadium upload their own version in real time?

The risk is not just that viewers will see through it. It is that attempts to manage the narrative will make American broadcasters look less credible, not more. Because the audience now assumes there is always another angle. Every time a broadcaster makes that trade – credibility for insulation – it is a trade audiences eventually notice."

NBC appears to cut crowd’s booing of JD Vance from Winter Olympics broadcast; The Guardian, February 6, 2026

Tom Lutz , The Guardian; NBC appears to cut crowd’s booing of JD Vance from Winter Olympics broadcast

[Kip Currier: NBC's decision to edit out booing of JD Vance during the Winter Olympics' Opening Ceremony is not surprising, given prior instances of U.S. media editing of similar occurrences, as noted in this Guardian article. But it is nevertheless troubling. NBC is distorting and altering what actually happened, without informing viewers and listeners of its editorial decision-making.

The Opening Ceremony isn't a fictional movie: it's an historical, newsworthy event. As such, alterations to the historical record should not have been made.

Additionally, if a news organization like NBC decides to make changes to news reporting, like removing or suppressing sound for non-technical reasons, it should be transparent about having done so and explain the reasons for such alterations. Trust in news organizations is vital. Actions like sanitization and alterations of news reporting diminish public trust in the accuracy and integrity of news sources and disseminators.

NBCU Academy's website provides information on ethics in journalism. Its first principle "Seek the truth and be truthful in your reporting." is relevant to the editorial decision to edit out the booing of JD Vance:

What are journalism ethics?

Ethics are the guiding values, standards and responsibilities of journalism. At NBCU News Group, the following principles act as the foundation of ethical journalism:

Seek the truth and be truthful in your reporting. Your reporting should be accurate and fair. Ensure that the facts you gathered are verified, sources are attributed and context is provided. Journalists should be bold in seeking and presenting truths to the public, serving as watchdogs over public officials and holding the powerful accountable.

https://nbcuacademy.com/journalism-ethics/

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) also maintains a Code of Ethics. One of its four guiding principles addresses transparency and accountability:

BE ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT

Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one's work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.

Journalists should:

 

Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.

 

Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

 

Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently.

 

Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

 

Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

 

Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf] 

[Excerpt]

"The US vice-president, JD Vance, was greeted by a chorus of boos when he appeared at the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Milan on Friday, although American viewers watching NBC’s coverage would have been unaware of the reception.

As speedskater Erin Jackson led Team USA into the San Siro stadium she was greeted by cheers. But when the TV cameras cut to Vance and his wife, Usha, there were boos, jeers and a smattering of applause from the crowd. The reaction was shown on Canadian broadcaster CBC’s feed, with one commentator saying: “There is the vice-president JD Vance and his wife Usha – oops, those are not … uh … those are a lot of boos for him. Whistling, jeering, some applause.”

The Guardian’s Sean Ingle was also at the ceremony and noted the boos, as did USA Today’s Christine Brennan. However, on the NBC broadcast the boos were not heard or remarked upon when Vance appeared on screen, with the commentary team simply saying “JD Vance”. That didn’t stop footage of the boos being circulated and shared on social media in the US. The White House posted a clip of Vance applauding on NBC’s broadcast without any boos.

Friday was not the first time there have been moves to stop US viewers from witnessing dissent against the Trump administration. At September’s US Open, tournament organizers asked broadcasters not to show the crowd’s reaction to Donald Trump, who attended the men’s final. Part of the message read: “We ask all broadcasters to refrain from showing any disruptions or reactions in response to the president’s attendance in any capacity.”

Earlier on Friday in Milan, hundreds of people protested against the presence of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at this year’s Olympics. The US state department has said that several federal agencies, including ICE, will be at the Games to help protect visiting Americans. The state department said the ICE unit in Italy is separate from those involved in the immigration crackdown in the United States."