Tag: 1st amendment

House Report: EU Pushed Tech Giants to Police US Speech

A newly released report from the House Judiciary Committee reveals a coordinated effort by European Union regulators to pressure major technology companies into enforcing censorship standards that extend far beyond Europe’s borders.

The findings, drawn from thousands of internal documents and communications, detail a long-running strategy to influence global content moderation policies through regulatory coercion and the threat of punishment under Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

The Committee’s latest publication, “The EU Censorship Files, Part II,” coincides with a scheduled February 4 hearing titled “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation: Part II.”

We obtained a copy of the report for you here. 

According to the materials, European officials have been meeting privately with social media companies since at least 2015 to “adapt their terms and conditions” to align with EU political priorities, including restricting certain kinds of lawful political expression in the United States.

Internal records from TikTok, then-Twitter, and other firms show that the Commission’s so-called “voluntary” DSA election guidelines were in fact treated as mandatory conditions for doing business in Europe.

Keep reading

Group Chats About ICE Whereabouts Are Protected Speech. The FBI Is Investigating Anyway.

Group chats about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents aren’t illegal. But FBI Director Kash Patel doesn’t seem to care.

On Monday, Patel told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that the FBI was investigating a Signal group in which people had been chatting about ICE agents’ whereabouts.

The Trump administration has said that people are doxing federal agents, employing a term once reserved for the act of publishing private information about someone’s identity or address online. “Doxing” generally implies that this sharing is done with ill intent.

But there are all sorts of perfectly benign reasons why Americans—whether in the country legally or not—might want to keep tabs on where immigration authorities are going. Sharing this information allows people to protest, observe, or document ICE activity, or avoid run ins with ICE agents.

Chatting about ICE agent whereabouts is unambiguously speech that’s protected by the First Amendment. So the idea that the FBI would investigate on these grounds is worrying.

“There does not appear to be any lawful basis for this investigation,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “The First Amendment generally protects the publication of legally-obtained information, including much of what the Trump administration has labeled ‘doxxing.’ That protection extends to using an app to share information about ICE activity.”

In his interview with Johnson, Patel paid lip service to the First Amendment. Yet he also framed Signal chats pertaining to ICE whereabouts as inherently suspect and/or likely to lead to criminal actions. “You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm’s way,” he said, drawing a direct link between constitutionally protected activity and criminality.

Of course, trapping ICE agents and harming them would indeed be illegal. But the illegal part of that is the trapping, the plotting harm, and the harming, not merely the knowing where the agents are or chatting about where they are. And even if some individual ultimately uses the location information to inflict harm, it still would not make the mere sharing of that information illegal.

“The First Amendment has narrow exceptions for true threats and speech intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful action, but the government cannot trigger those exceptions simply by claiming that speech puts officials in harm’s way,” notes Terr. “The First Amendment also does not protect criminal conspiracy, but that requires evidence of an agreement to commit a specific crime and a substantial step toward carrying it out. No such evidence appears in the Signal messages that have been made public.”

Keep reading

Meta, TikTok, YouTube Face Trial Over Youth Addiction Claims

Three of the world’s biggest tech companies face a landmark trial in Los Angeles starting this week over claims that their platforms — Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok and Google’s YouTube — deliberately addict and harm children.

Jury selection starts this week in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. It’s the first time the companies will argue their case before a jury, and the outcome could have profound effects on their businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

The selection process is expected to take at least a few days, with 75 potential jurors questioned each day through at least Thursday. A fourth company named in the lawsuit, Snapchat parent company Snap Inc., settled the case last week for an undisclosed sum.

At the core of the case is a 19-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.

She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury and what damages, if any, may be awarded, said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow of technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Importantly, the lawsuit claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.

This argument, if successful, could sidestep the companies’ First Amendment shield and Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability for material posted on their platforms.

Keep reading

ICE Tells Legal Observer, ‘We Have a Nice Little Database, and Now You’re Considered a Domestic Terrorist’

Video taken this morning in Maine shows an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer taking pictures of a legal observer’s car. When she asks why he’s doing that, he says, “Because we have a nice little database, and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”

The video is the latest example of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) labeling anyone who engages in First Amendment–protected activity opposing the Trump administration’s mass deportation program as a “domestic terrorist” and suggesting they’ll be subject to federal investigations.

The DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment on the scope of the database mentioned by the officer or whether it considers protected First Amendment activity to be conduct that warrants inclusion on the database.

Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported today that an unnamed federal law enforcement official told him that DHS “has ordered immigration officers to gather identifying information about anyone filming them.”

In September, President Donald Trump issued a memo ordering federal law enforcement to focus on ideologies that are allegedly fueling “domestic terrorism.” These include “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender,” as well as opposition to “foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control).”

As Reason‘s Joe Lancaster wrote at the time, the memo was “an assault on the First Amendment” that listed protected free speech “as evidence of criminality that requires federal intervention.”

And since the Trump administration’s deportation campaign began last year, DHS officials have repeatedly insisted that following and recording federal immigration agents in public is a violation of a federal statute that makes it a crime to assault or impede law enforcement officers.

There have been dozens of recorded instances of ICE and Border Patrol officers harassing, assaulting, and detaining people for filming and following them, even though there is a well-established First Amendment right to record and observe the police.

For example, today Slate published the first-person account of Brandon Sigüenza, a Minneapolis man who was volunteering with a local group that monitors and records ICE activity. Federal immigration officers surrounded his car, smashed out his windows, roughly arrested him, and detained him for hours.

Sigüenza also submitted a sworn declaration describing his experiences in a civil rights lawsuit challenging the DHS’ actions in Minneapolis.

Keep reading

Miami Beach police chief defends detectives’ visit to activist over Facebook post about mayor

Miami Beach Police Chief Wayne Jones issued a statement Friday explaining why detectives visited the home of a local political activist earlier this week following a social media comment about Mayor Steven Meiner.

“Given the real, ongoing national and international concerns surrounding antisemitic attacks and recent rhetoric that has led to violence against political figures,” Jones wrote that he “directed two of his detectives to initiate a brief, voluntary conversation regarding certain inflammatory, potentially inciteful false remarks made by a resident to ensure there was no immediate threat to the elected official or the broader community that might emerge as a result of the post.”

He went on to write that “the interaction was handled professionally and at no time did the mayor or any other official direct me to take action.”

The statement comes after Raquel Pacheco, a Miami Beach political activist and veteran who previously ran for city commission and a Democratic state Senate candidate, said Miami Beach detectives arrived at her home.

“He said, ‘We are here to talk to you about a Facebook comment’ and I said – ‘What? Is this really happening?” Pacheco told Local 10 News.

Pacheco had commented on a Facebook post by Meiner, who is Jewish, in which he described Miami Beach as “a safe haven for everyone,” contrasting it with New York City, which he said was “intentionally removing protections” for and “promoting boycotts” of Israeli and Jewish businesses.

Pacheco responded to the post by writing, “The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way (even leaves the room when they vote on related matters) wants you to know that you’re all welcome here,” followed by three clown emojis.

She recorded the brief exchange with the detective who spoke with her about the post. In the video, Pacheco is heard asking, “Am I being charged with a crime?” and “So you are here to investigate a statement I allegedly made on Facebook?”

She later added, “This is freedom of speech. This is America, right?”

Pacheco said she believes the visit was politically motivated rather than a matter of public safety.

In the video, the detective is heard saying, “What we are just trying to prevent is somebody else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement, we are not saying if it’s true or not.”

“So that, to me, is a clear indication that people are not allowed to agree with anyone but the mayor and that is not how America works,” Pacheco said. “I don’t agree with him and I am going to continue to voice that.”

The encounter comes amid a national conversation about censorship and free speech, including recent debates sparked by the brief suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

While the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, it does protect Americans from government interference in speech.

In the video, the detective advised Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that,” telling her that her comment about Meiner’s views on Palestinians “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.”

Pacheco, who said she was simply “calling out” what she described as Meiner’s “hypocrisy,” said her comments do not meet that standard.

Keep reading

Video Shows Border Patrol Threaten Legal Observer in Key Largo for Following Him

A U.S. Border Patrol officer threatened to arrest a legal observer in Key Largo, Florida, today for following the officer, video of the encounter posted on Instagram shows.

The video is another instance of federal immigration officers threatening and harassing legal observers for conduct that civil liberties groups and multiple federal circuit courts say is firmly protected First Amendment activity.

The observer and activist, a 64-year-old Key Largo man who requested that his name not be printed to avoid retaliation, tells Reason he is part of a local group that tracks federal immigration enforcement activity in the Upper Florida Keys. Key Largo was the scene of a Border Patrol stop in December that generated national headlines after officers dragged a U.S. citizen out of her car.

The observer says he was following an unmarked Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicle from a safe distance when the car turned into a restaurant parking lot. The observer says he parked well over 25 feet away from the CBP vehicle, at which point the Border Patrol officer got out of his car, put on a mask, and approached the observer’s car. 

Keep reading

Jack Smith Deposition Shows His Get-Trump Lawfare Was Also A War On Free Speech

In the last few months, we have gained valuable insights into former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unprecedented effort to criminally prosecute President Donald Trump, at the time a former president and leading contender for the presidency.

In Injustice, Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis, appearing to rely heavily on accounts from Smith’s top deputies, paint a picture of a prosecutor doggedly focused on one objective: prosecuting Trump. On New Year’s Eve, however, the House Judiciary Committee released the transcript of Smith’s closed-door deposition. While a prosecutor’s crusade to imprison a presidential candidate is troubling in itself, Smith’s deposition testimony was alarming, as it betrayed Smith’s utter disdain for the fundamental right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment. 

Smith’s so-called “election interference” case in Washington, D.C., has long raised a fundamental question: What was the crime? In his deposition, Smith claimed Trump’s statements that the 2020 election was “rife with fraud” were “absolutely not” protected by the First Amendment and, indeed, formed the basis for his prosecution. Smith went on to claim that Trump would reject information that Smith believed he should have credited and reached out to individuals whom Smith deemed uncredible. 

Whether you are the president of the United States or an anonymous poster on X, the First Amendment protects your right to speak about elections. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is a critical check on the power of the government, as it prevents the government from punishing those who speak out against it. Punishing speech regarding an election is especially insidious: American history is replete with instances in which litigation has changed the results of elections, and election fraud has been proven.

For example, in Hawaii, a court-ordered recount changed the outcome of the presidential contest in that state. And it was only because President John F. Kennedy sent a slate of alternate electors to Washington that Kennedy’s victory in Hawaii was counted. Criminalizing the questioning of elections is an invitation for election fraud and, regardless, tramples on the right we all enjoy to criticize our government. 

Smith’s disdain for the First Amendment did not end with his attempt to prosecute Trump for speaking about the 2020 election. Speaking about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, Smith stated unequivocally that Trump “caused it.” The Department of Justice (before and after Smith’s appointment as special counsel) and the Jan. 6 Committee each spent years (and millions of dollars of taxpayer money) investigating the Capitol demonstration, and neither uncovered a shred of evidence that Trump had any role in planning the riot. Indeed, Smith never sought an indictment against Trump for inciting a riot, which would have been the obvious charge if Smith had uncovered such evidence. Yet Smith tried to justify his extraordinary claim that Trump caused the riot by saying Trump’s statements about the 2020 election “created a certain level of distrust.”

If an American — president or otherwise — could be criminally responsible for what others do in response to political speech, the possibilities for prosecution would be limitless. In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Trump survived two assassination attempts. The would-be assassins were surely radicalized by someone, likely media figures or other politicians who spent years falsely deriding Trump as a dictator or puppet of Vladimir Putin.

Politicians’ reckless rhetoric in the wake of George Floyd’s death led to massive riots in multiple American cities, causing the destruction of many small businesses. But the notion of a special counsel seeking an indictment of an MSNBC personality for the Trump assassination attempts or a Democrat member of Congress for the Black Lives Matter riots is downright farcical (as it should be).

Keep reading

The First Amendment Allows You to Report Things the Government Doesn’t Want Reported

The House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed journalist Seth Harp (Washington Post, 1/8/26) over his posting on X a photo and publicly available biographical information about the US colonel who apparently leads the Army’s Delta Force unit, which played a key role in the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Committee member Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R–Fla.) called for Harp’s criminal prosecution, accusing him of “leaking classified information” and “doxing” the colonel. In a statement to the Washington Post, she said:

The First Amendment does not give anyone a license to expose elite military personnel, compromise operations or assist our adversaries under the guise of reporting.

Actually, the First Amendment does give you a license to do all of those things. None of them are covered by the extremely limited exceptions to the freedom of the press recognized by the US Constitution.

And allowing these is not the unfortunate consequence of unbridled free expression; these are liberties that are core to maintaining a semblance of democracy. Do you want to be ruled by secret military commanders? Do you want it to be illegal to report on your country’s use of military force? Do you want to live in a country where journalists are in prison for “assisting our adversaries”?

Unfortunately, though, the House Oversight Committee apparently does want all of those things.

Keep reading

Mary Moriarty threatens prosecutions over ‘hateful’ messages to Somali community

Amid national attention on fraud in Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty has warned that people who send “hateful” messages to the Somali community could face prosecution.

Meanwhile, it was recently revealed that a Somali national who pleaded guilty in two separate sexual assault cases avoided prison under a plea deal negotiated by Moriarty’s office.

Last year, Abdimahat Mohamed received a three-year prison sentence that was stayed and served no time in prison after pleading guilty in two separate sexual assault cases — one involving the rape of a 15-year-old girl in 2017 and another involving an adult woman in 2024.

In both cases, the most serious criminal sexual conduct charges were dropped. Moriarty’s office defended the plea deal after national attention followed, saying it had lost key witnesses and that the case was “substantially weakened.”

According to a later FBI affidavit tied to federal kidnapping charges, Moriarty’s office also agreed not to charge Mohamed for a third sexual assault from 2018 as part of the plea agreement.

Now, Moriarty has issued a public statement warning that her office is receiving “a large number of reports” of members of the Somali community being sent “hateful, threatening, and disturbing messages.”

The statement blamed “far-right propagandists” for “demonizing an entire group of people” and urged the public to report such messages to law enforcement so cases could be reviewed for prosecution.

Moriarty’s statement included contact information for advocacy organizations and pledged the office would “do everything in our power to keep each other safe.”

Keep reading

Jack Smith Says Trump Did NOT Have First Amendment Right to Say 2020 Election Was Fraudulent in Newly-Released Deposition

House Judiciary Republicans on Wednesday released a transcript and video of Jack Smith’s closed-door testimony to Congress.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith appeared on Capitol Hill last month for a closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Republican lawmakers called Jack Smith to testify over his “partisan and politically motivated” Trump prosecutions.

Jack Smith was appointed as Special Counsel in 2022 by Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 bid for the White House.

In June 2023, Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami for lawfully storing presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate, which was protected by Secret Service agents.

In a separate case in Washington DC, Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Jack Smith defended his inquisition in an opening statement to congressional investigators.

“The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts,” Jack Smith said.

During his deposition, Jack Smith said his prosecutors framed the case against Trump as a fraud case rather than a First Amendment issue.

“Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment, so in my mind it was important to make that clear in the indictment…” Jack Smith said as he boasted about the case ‘prevailing’ in the district court with corrupt Obama-appointed Judge Chutkan.

Two of Jack Smith’s charges against President Trump in the DC case were ultimately torpedoed by the US Supreme Court after it issued a ruling on the obstruction statute – 1512(c)(2).

Keep reading