Tag: 1st amendment

Supreme Court Declines to Stop $800 Per Day Fine For Catherine Herridge After Obama Judge Holds Her in Contempt For Refusing to Give Up Her Sources

The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to halt the $800 a day fine for former Catherine Herridge after a judge held her in contempt for refusing to give up her confidential sources.

Justice Kavanaugh dissented.

In 2024, Catherine Herridge, an Emmy-winning and nominated reporter known for her work on national security and intelligence, was held in civil contempt by an Obama-appointed federal judge for her refusal to unmask her confidential sources related to a blockbuster story on how there is an infiltration from China in US universities.

In August 2024, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Christopher Cooper, ordered Herridge to sit down for a sworn deposition regarding a confidential source she used for a 2017 story she covered on a Department of Defense-funded school that was at the center of federal investigations over Chinese military ties while she was at Fox News.

The judge ordered Herridge to turn over her source(s) in response to a lawsuit that was filed by Chinese-American scientist Yanping Chen against the FBI. Chen subpoenaed Herridge in an effort to find out who her sources were.

Herridge argued she should not be forced to disclose her source because of her First Amendment rights.

Keep reading

The House Just Voted for KOSA, a Privacy and Free Speech Disaster

The House voted Monday night to build the machinery of online identity checks into federal law, packaging the mandate inside a bundle of kids online safety bills that cleared the chamber 267-117, with 47 members not voting.

It marks the first time any version of the Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA, has escaped the lower chamber, and the version that survived carries a structure that pushes platforms to figure out who you are before you can use them.

The legislation, called the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, or KIDS Act (H.R. 7757), stitches together more than a dozen separate bills, including KOSA, the SCREEN Act, the SAFE BOTs Act, COPPA 2.0, and the SPY Kids Act, plus data broker rules and research initiatives.

House leaders rushed it to the floor under suspension of the rules, a fast-track path requiring a two-thirds majority. Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and ranking Democrat Frank Pallone, who announced their agreement a week earlier, said the bill would “hold Big Tech accountable” and described months of cross-aisle work toward what Guthrie called a “workable compromise.”

If you’ve been following our updates, you’ll know the accountability positioning hides the actual design. The bill defines “know” or “knows” to mean “to know or should have known,” and that phrase runs through sections covering platforms, AI chatbots, and gaming services.

A company that fails to spot a minor faces legal exposure, which gives every platform a reason to gather more information about everyone who shows up. The text tries to defuse this, stating that nothing in it may be construed “to require the provider of a covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality on the covered platform.”

The reassurance collapses on contact. A platform forbidden from ignoring a user’s age, yet liable the moment it “should have known” someone was a minor, has one move left. It starts checking ages, deploying age-estimation tools, demanding ID, or watching behavior closely enough to guess. The law does not order surveillance outright, it engineers the incentive and lets companies build the rest.

That is the First Amendment problem dressed as a child-safety provision. Verifying age means verifying identity, and identity checks sit between a person and ordinary protected activity, whether that is reading, watching, posting, or speaking. Adult websites would face explicit age-verification requirements under the package, which functionally means every visitor proves who they are before viewing lawful content. Anonymous and pseudonymous speech, the kind the Supreme Court has shielded for decades, gets harder to find the more platforms lean on identity to limit their liability.

The bill tightens how data brokers handle children’s information and updates the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to widen its reach.

But, to do that, it would require platforms that know a user is a minor to offer controls that limit communications, restrict geolocation sharing, cut compulsive-use features, and let users opt out of personalized recommendation systems, with default settings for minors set to what the bill calls “the most protective level of control with respect to privacy and safety.”

These are strong protections on paper and would be good if they applied evenly to all users, but they all depend on the platform identifying minors first, which loops straight back to the same question of how much data gets pulled from users, adult or not, to sort out who the children are.

The encryption language carries the same gap. The bill says platform requirements may not override encrypted communications and that companies must comply in ways that “do not compromise the integrity of strong encryption.” That could read as a shield until you notice that regulatory pressure to monitor behavior or flag certain users can hollow out encryption without ever formally banning it. Compliance routes around the protection the text claims to offer.

Getting the package across the floor cost the duty of care provision, the piece many child-safety groups and KOSA’s Senate authors consider the heart of the bill. The text now states that nothing in it may be construed to “impose a duty of care on a provider of a covered platform.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a KOSA co-author, wrote that “KOSA without a duty of care isn’t KOSA,” and said last week that the House version is “dead in the Senate.” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), the other co-author, agrees the provision was central. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, told reporters he stays open to negotiating with the House.

That stalemate is the most encouraging thing about this whole fight.

The Senate’s standalone KOSA (S.1748) keeps the duty of care, which would legally require platforms to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent broad categories of harm to minors. On the free speech axis, that is the more dangerous of the two bills, not the safer one. A duty of care over vaguely defined harms compels companies to police or re-engineer recommendation algorithms for lawful, constitutionally protected content, under threat of liability so open-ended that the rational corporate response is to over-remove anything that might draw a lawsuit.

So neither chamber holds the civil-liberties high ground. The Senate bill compels platforms to suppress protected speech, while the House bill conscripts them into identity verification, and a conference committee tasked with reconciling the two could just as easily graft the worst of each onto a single law as split the difference.

The good news for anyone who values either anonymity or free expression is that the two chambers, each representing a different type of civil liberties disaster, do not appear close to agreement.

Keep reading

Backlash as Texas Approves ‘Unconstitutional’ Mandatory Bible Lessons in Public Schools

As education officials in Texas ban hundreds of books that run afoul of their interpretation of Christian morality, the State Board of Education on Friday approved a required reading list that forces the state’s more than 5 million public school students to read from the Bible.

The Republican-controlled SBOE voted 9-5 with one abstention to approve the list, which includes passages from the Book of Exodus as well as the Shepherd’s Psalm and the myths of Adam and Eve and David and Goliath.

“We’re going to stop watering down American history. We’re going to teach the truth. Our nation was founded as a Christian nation, and Texas is a Christian state,” Republican board member Brandon Hall—who is also a youth pastor at Cavalry Baptist Church in Springtown—said during a Thursday press conference in Austin.

That “truth” omits or marginalizes climate change, US imperialism, women’s history, the genocide of Indigenous peoples, slavery, and racism.

Evelyn Brooks, the only Republican SBOE member to vote against the required reading list, told CNN on Friday that she believes the board’s move is “unconstitutional.”

Keep reading

US Jewish leaders throw support behind bipartisan House antisemitism bill

New York Reps. Dan Goldman and Mike Lawler introduced bipartisan legislation Wednesday aimed at expanding federal support for securing Jewish institutions and combating antisemitism.

The bill, a House companion to the Jewish American Security Act in the Senate, would increase funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which helps secure religious institutions,  to $1 billion, extend funding to Jewish organizations, and allow additional funds to be directed toward law enforcement.

It would also mandate that the Department of Education appoint a dedicated antisemitism coordinator and force social media platforms to explain their handling of online antisemitism.

The bill received support from major national Jewish groups. On Wednesday, during a press conference in Washington, DC, Lawler and Goldman were joined by a host of Jewish leaders, including representatives from the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the American Jewish Committee, as well as organizations affiliated with the Reform and Orthodox movements.

“Jewish communities across the United States are facing a real and growing security crisis, and the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans can gather, worship, and live openly and safely as who they are,” Eric Fingerhut, the CEO and president of the Jewish Federations of North America, which has promoted the bill, said in a statement.

Keep reading

DHS Says It Has ‘Zero Tolerance’ for Protesters’ ‘Verbal Assaults.’ Here’s What the Law Says.

Protests over poor living conditions for detainees at Delaney Hall immigration detention center erupted over the weekend, leading to the arrest of over 80 people, the Associated Press reported on Saturday. Some of the protesters arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are accused of assaulting law enforcement officers, obstruction, and threats. But questions remain about whether the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) enforcement policies violate the First Amendment and chill speech on the ongoing public debate over immigration policies.

The crackdown on protesters is not surprising given Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s statements during congressional hearings last week, in which he took a hard line against violent protesters. During a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on June 3, Mullin testified that he is “OK with protest,” so long as it is done “in a peaceful way, in a legal area.” However, Mullin asserted, he has “zero tolerance” for individuals who “verbally assault our officers,” “go after our vehicles,” or “assault our property.” “You assault one of our officers, we will find you. We will arrest you,” he continued. 

While Mullin is right that the destruction of government property and assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers are both federal crimes, there is no such thing as “verbally assaulting” an officer under the law, Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), tells Reason.

Under the First Amendment, individuals are free “to criticize, mock, or disparage law enforcement officers” who “have no greater right than anyone else to be shielded from offense or criticism,” Terr explains. “In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized that properly trained officers are expected to show even more restraint than the average citizen when confronted with provocative or challenging speech.” 

“The First Amendment’s broad protections are essential to preserving the public’s ability to criticize and hold accountable those entrusted with enforcing the law,” Terr says, which is why speech is generally protected “unless the speech falls into one of the narrow categories of unprotected expression.” 

One such category includes true threats, defined by the Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black (2003) as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Keep reading

Nude Shrek Text to Ohio State Senator Reportedly Lands Blogger in Jail

Last week, The Columbus Dispatch reported that D.J. Byrnes—an Ohio blogger who runs a Statehouse gossip Substack called The Rooster—was arrested on a misdemeanor warrant at the Ohio Statehouse. Byrnes’ arrest, according to reporting by Signal Ohio, likely stems from a picture he texted to state Sen. Jerry Cirino (R–Kirtland) on May 6. The offending image? A “digitally altered version of Shrek, the ogre with a titular children’s movie franchise, with his penis exposed,” according to Signal Ohio. Police records did not identify Cirino by name, but the outlet confirmed he was the “recipient of the text messages based on the text messages themselves and other details within the police report.”

An affidavit with Byrnes’ arrest report described the ogre as “fully nude with an exposed and erect humanlike penis engaged in an act of masturbation,” according to the outlet. The text exchange also included a message calling Cirino “Young Mussolini.”

On May 8, Cirino reportedly emailed the Kirtland Police Department asking officers to file charges against Byrnes.

“Not only is the message harassing but the disgusting picture is pornographic in nature and not something I want to see on any of my devices,” said the email sent to Kirtland police.

After his arrest on June 1, Byrnes was booked into the Franklin County Jail, where he says he spent 23 hours in custody, according to a statement posted on The Rooster. The Columbus Dispatch reported that he was released on bond on June 2. Byrnes wrote that he would not comment on the specifics of the allegations, but he says he believes he will be found innocent in court. He was arrested on telecommunications harassment charges, according to Signal Ohio, and could face up to six months in jail.

In its analysis of the case, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a pro–free speech organization, cautioned that, “as in essentially all First Amendment cases, context and details matter.” Based on the available facts, however, the organization wrote that “Byrnes should not be facing telecommunications harassment charges.”

FIRE argues that Byrnes’ “shrexting” did not amount to obscenity because the image fails to pass the three-prong obscenity test set by Miller. v. California: Would the average person see the work as appealing “to the prurient interest”? Does it depict sexual conduct in a “patently offensive way” as defined by state laws? And finally, does the work lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”? The text was clearly a piece of “political mockery,” and it was not intended to “arouse anyone’s sexual interest,” FIRE wrote, meaning it fails the Miller test. The “handful of afternoon texts,” from what FIRE reviewed, did not constitute harassment either.

More details about Byrnes’ case may emerge when he appears in court, but if a public official did in fact direct the police department to arrest Byrnes because of his texts, that poses a clear threat to free speech. The Shrek image may be absurd, shocking, and hilarious (depending on your sense of humor), but being punished for exercising your free speech right to criticize and troll (or ogre) public officials is no laughing matter.

Keep reading

Bill Introduced in Congress To Codify the First Amendment Right To Film the Feds and Sue for Violations

Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill in Congress today that would create a right to sue federal law enforcement officers who stop someone from filming or observing police activity.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D–Fla.) introduced the “Right to Record Act of 2026,” which they say would create new consequences for individual federal officers who violate a person’s First Amendment right to document and record police.

The legislation would create a right to sue a federal law enforcement or immigration officers who engage in wide range of retaliatory behavior, including threatening and harassing videographers, surveilling them, and seizing and destroying their equipment.

The lawmakers cited recent allegations of federal officers targeting videographers in New Jersey, Memphis, and elsewhere across the country, as well as the importance of video evidence in refuting the false government narratives of several shootings of U.S. citizens by immigration agents.

“Over the last year, I’ve investigated dozens of cases of Americans brutalized by agents of their own government, and across the board, video footage corroborated their testimony – showing the world what they experienced and making sure that justice was served,” Blumenthal said in a press release. “Without recordings, we wouldn’t know the truth of what happened to Renee Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, Marimar Martinez, George Retes, and so, so many others.”

The bill highlights a growing free speech battle: Civil liberties groups say filming the police is a well-established First Amendment right. Although the Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed the issue, seven federal circuit courts have upheld the right to record and monitor the police, so long as one doesn’t physically interfere with them. However, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials have repeatedly suggested that such activity is doxing and obstruction of justice. Over the past two years, videos from around the country—from Oregon to Maine to the Florida Keys—have shown federal immigration agents arresting or threatening to arrest people for filming them.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which endorsed the Right to Record Act, filed a lawsuit in May alleging that a federal police task force in Memphis is systematically retaliating against residents who try to document its activity.

Keep reading

USDA Secretary Faces Lawsuit for Explicitly Christian Messages to Employees

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has been speaking openly about the Christian faith — and some secularists do not like it.

A lawsuit filed on May 13 by groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of multiple USDA employees claimed that Rollins’ pattern of “proselytizing Christian messaging” violates the First Amendment.

The complaint whined about messages like an email sent to all USDA employees on April 5 — which was Easter Sunday.

“He is risen indeed!” the message said, per a report from The Christian Post.

“From the foot of the Cross on Good Friday to the stone rolled away from the now empty tomb, sin has been destroyed. Jesus has been raised from the dead,” Rollins wrote.

“And so like the very first disciples to encounter our risen Lord in the Upper Room almost two thousand years ago, this Easter let us too be alive with hope, full of Paschal joy, and confident in the mission each of us has been called for,” it added.

The email made no demands of USDA employees to become Christians or otherwise tried to link the Easter holiday to their roles and responsibilities.

Rollins reacted to the lawsuit on social media, indicating that she does not regret sending the communications.

“It’s just another opportunity to remind everyone: He is Risen,” she wrote.

Keep reading

Girl Kept from Church, Bible, and Christian Friends by Portland Judge Awaits Appeals Court Ruling

Despite her love of Christianity, a young Maine girl has been prevented since 2024 from going to church, attending religious holidays, being “exposed” to the Bible or other scriptural literature, and even having Christian friends — all because of a judge’s order in a parental rights case.

The draconian restrictions have been in place for some 18 months as Emily Bickford and her daughter Ava, 13, wait for a decision on an appeal to the state’s Supreme Court eight months ago after Portland District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger issued the shocking ruling in late 2024 as part of a dispute between the girl’s parents.

Not only has the ruling impacted the lifestyle and pursuit of happiness by both mother and daughter, on its face it appears incompatible with the founding principles of the United States.

The right to worship granted by the First Amendment is not in the grip of any judge to grant or abolish, the Portland mother told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview this week.

“That is not theirs to take away,” Bickford said. “It’s in our Declaration of Independence. Our forefathers knew we had inalienable rights given by God. God gave us the freedom to worship him, and there’s no government that can take that away from us.”

Keep reading