Tag: 1st amendment

Court: First Amendment Protects Recording Police in Public

Here’s a ruling that is at the same time a major victory and a disappointment for digital and civil rights. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has for the first time recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement activity in public.

This is the ninth US federal circuit court to do so, and as an appeals ruling it is binding in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

But the same ruling, issued on Monday, upheld the qualified immunity of the officers who made the arrest, which means the plaintiff, Keith Massimino, loses his case despite the court establishing the principle in his favor.

Massimino was arrested on October 30, 2018, for filming the outside of the Waterbury Police Department from a public sidewalk. The incident was far from an isolated one, as the man, represented by the ACLU of Connecticut, describes himself as a “First Amendment auditing hobbyist.”

During the 2018 incident, officers Matthew Benoit and Frank Laone confronted him, and Massimino gave them vague responses about his purpose, and refused to show his ID, which the officers said was a “lawful order.”

He was arrested for obstruction under a Connecticut statute (obstructing, resisting, hindering or endangering a peace officer), held for several hours, and released. The charge was dismissed in May 2021.

In August 2021, Massimino sued the two police officers with three claims: a First Amendment claim (right to record police), a Fourth Amendment claim (unlawful detention and arrest without probable cause), and a malicious prosecution claim.

But even though the Second Circuit panel recognized the First Amendment right, they upheld the district court’s decision to grant the officers qualified immunity because the right had not been “clearly established” in the Second Circuit at the time.

And although the right is now clearly established in that circuit, thanks to this ruling, that came too late to help Massimino in his case.

The ruling is a victory of sorts, as it means that going forward, police in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont may no longer expect to have qualified immunity if they arrest someone for filming them in public.

The court also rejected Massimino’s Fourth Amendment and malicious-prosecution claims, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop him and probable cause to arrest him after he refused to show his ID.

But in the opinion written by Judge Myrna Pérez, the court held that the right to record “encompasses Massimino’s recording of the exterior of a police station from a public sidewalk,” and had this to say: “When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door – but not ban speech.”

Keep reading

District attorney strips police department of prosecution power after cops arrest citizen journalists for exercising their 1st Amendment rights

The Henderson County District Attorney and County Attorney have informed the Trinidad, Texas Police Department that they will no longer accept ANY cases for prosecution solely investigated or filed by the department until further notice.

The letter, obtained by local media, effectively neuters the Trinidad PD’s ability to bring meaningful criminal cases. The Henderson County Sheriff’s Office will now handle crimes inside city limits.

Pending cases will be reviewed one by one. The prosecutors themselves requested the ongoing Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) audit of the department, FOX 4 reported.

This is the direct fallout from Trinidad’s heavy-handed war on free speech.

Trinidad, a town of fewer than 1,000 people about an hour southeast of Dallas, has struggled for years with serious water problems, discolored water, sediment, strong odors, and chemical readings far above legal limits.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality later confirmed major deficiencies, including chemicals more than 300% above federal limits and a failing distribution system.

Citizen journalist Jennifer Combs, who runs the Southern Belle Watch Facebook page, posted that she had received reports of residents being hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. She asked people to share what they were seeing so the information could be passed to state regulators.

Then-Police Chief Charles Gregory responded by having her arrested on a state jail felony charge of false alarm or report. Gregory claimed the post “creates fear, panic, or unnecessary emergency response within a community.”

Combs, a mother with a clean record, was taken from her home, handcuffed, and spent 23 hours in jail.

A Henderson County grand jury quickly no-billed the case, declining to indict her. Combs then filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas against the city and several officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and a deliberate effort to punish her reporting.

Those allegations remain pending and have not been adjudicated. The federal case is Combs v. Gregory et al.

The warrant process came under its own devastating scrutiny. Henderson County Judge R. Scott McKee later wrote that two Trinidad officers omitted material information about citizen complaints, water concerns, and the context of Combs’ statements when seeking a Facebook search warrant.

McKee ordered the officers to appear personally for future warrant applications so that the court could question them under oath if necessary. KLTV reported that the judge said omissions can mislead a probable-cause determination just as affirmative misrepresentations can.

One day after FOX 4 aired its first report on Combs, YouTube journalist Winston Noles — known online as Otto the Watchdog — traveled to Trinidad to protest. He stood outside city hall with a profane sign condemning “bad cops” and livestreamed the encounter to his audience.

Eighteen minutes into the livestream, police arrested him for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Keep reading

8 Examples That Demonstrate That The Islamization Of America Is Steadily Progressing

In Islam, there is no separation between mosque and state. The goal is to use the state to make everyone submit to Islam. If you want to see what this looks like, just check out almost any country in the Middle East that has a Muslim majority. They don’t believe in freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Do you want to know how many churches there are in Saudi Arabia? The answer is zero, because churches are banned in Saudi Arabia. Now this same ideology is spreading in America, and that should deeply alarm all of us.

Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America.

It used to be witchcraft, but now Islam has taken the top spot.

There are now more than 2,700 mosques in the United States.

In 1970, there were about 100.

But it isn’t just mosques that are going up everywhere.

Enormous Islamic “mini-cities” are being constructed in states such as California and Texas.

And rapidly growing Islamic populations are taking over entire sections of the states of Minnesota and Michigan.

What we have been witnessing all over Europe is now happening here.

The following are 8 examples that demonstrate that the Islamization of America is steadily progressing…

#1 Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has a really good chance of winning in November, and he has publicly stated that he has a sacred “obligation” to obey Islamic law in every area of his life until he dies…

Muslim Democrat Michigan Senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed has previously declared his sacred “obligation” to follow Islamic law in every aspect of his life until he dies and stands before Allah. He has claimed he does not want to subvert the Constitution and mandate Islamic law but that is part of his religion.

Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is having his words, vows, and religion come back to haunt him. According to The Washington Free Beacon, years ago he declared his sacred “obligation” to follow Islamic law in every aspect of his life until he dies and stands before Allah. This comes from remarks he made to the New York Times back in 2009, when he was younger and buying his first home.

#2 In the supposedly “deep red” state of Mississippi, a hijab-wearing Muslim woman has been sworn in as a municipal judge…

Assma Ali has made history. The daughter of Yemeni immigrants to the United States, Ali is now municipal judge for the City of Benoit, a small town in southwest Bolivar County in the Mississippi Delta.

Ali was sworn in as municipal judge on Aug. 5. She has spent nearly a decade serving as an attorney in Mississippi after graduating with her law degree from Mississippi Christian University (formerly Mississippi College) in 2017 and interned in both Rankin and Madison counties while attending law school.

#3 I know that this is hard to believe, but a bill in the state of Massachusetts would “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government”. Needless to say, this is very unconstitutional…

Keep reading

Disney Sues FCC for ‘Retaliatory’ Investigation of ABC

The broadcast network ABC, parent company Disney, and eight ABC affiliates filed a lawsuit today against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

ABC alleges the government is targeting the network for its speech, and it makes a convincing argument.

“Government censorship is deeply un-American,” the lawsuit begins. “That fundamental principle predates the Republic, with our Founders recognizing that ‘the freedom of the press is one of the great[est] bulwarks of liberty.'”

The filing cites NRA v. Vullo, a 2024 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the state of New York’s efforts to prevent banks and insurance companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association.

The government, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” According to ABC’s lawsuit, “This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that. Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”

Plaintiffs typically face a difficult task proving selective or vindictive treatment by the government. But this is not a typical situation: The lawsuit catalogues dozens of times that President Donald Trump suggested broadcast networks, including ABC, should be taken off the air for displeasing him.

“ABC & NBC FAKE NEWS, two of the worst and most biased networks in history, give me 97% BAD STORIES,” he wrote last year in a characteristic Truth Social post. “IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY, HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED BY THE FCC.”

“If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows, are almost 100% Negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party,” he complained in another, “shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say, YES!”

Trump has said this for years, even though it’s not how it works: Networks create content, but the local affiliates that air it have broadcast licenses. Disney only owns eight of ABC’s hundreds of affiliates, meaning the vast majority are owned by third parties.

Just last month, Trump threatened to revoke ABC’s and NBC’s broadcast licenses for not airing one of his speeches.

But Trump is not the only example cited in the lawsuit. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has also repeatedly threatened Disney and ABC with reprisal over what largely amounts to hurting the president’s feelings.

In September 2025, when Jimmy Kimmel suggested in his late-night show’s monologue that slain conservative activist was killed by a member of “the MAGA gang,” FCC Chair Brendan Carr called on ABC’s affiliates to “step up” and reject the network’s programming; otherwise, “we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he warned. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Numerous affiliates preempted Kimmel’s show, and ABC suspended production until the following week.

This year, Carr threatened ABC’s daytime chat show The View for not following the federal “equal time” rule that says when a candidate for public office appears on a broadcast network, their opponents must be offered equal time. The FCC had exempted shows like The View from the rule for decades before Carr reversed course.

Carr also opened an investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies; while Disney had already rolled back its DEI programs, “significant concerns remain,” Carr claimed.

ABC’s lawsuit calls the investigation “pretextual.” Indeed, it formed the basis of an action earlier this year, when the FCC called in the broadcast licenses of all eight Disney-owned ABC affiliates for “early renewal,” years before any of them were set to expire. Notably, though, it came just days after Kimmel made another intemperate comment at Trump’s expense.

“Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC,” Trump wrote on Truth Social the day before the FCC announced it was calling in the licenses.

ABC’s lawsuit seeks relief from the review, which it characterizes as completely unprecedented. The FCC “had not called for a renewal application ahead of schedule in more than half a century,” the filing claims. “Nor had it ever demanded simultaneous early renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned by a single broadcast network.”

Carr apparently agrees: “It’s probably been 50, 60 years or longer since the FCC has used this tool,” he told the Financial Times. “If you didn’t take us seriously, now you should.”

And last month, Carr suggested that ABC’s decision not to air Trump’s speech would factor into the FCC’s review.

ABC’s lawsuit says the network faces “irreparable harm” from the government, but it also suggests dire potential consequences for the entire broadcast industry. “If the Administration gets its way, the message to every media company will be unmistakable: tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government,” it warns. “In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free.”

“The current FCC has repeatedly used its power over broadcast speech to jawbone, punish, and threaten censorship of its political opponents,” David Inserra, a fellow for free speech and technology at the Cato Institute, said in an emailed statement. “Today’s lawsuit by ABC Disney against the FCC directly challenges the broad and abusive powers that Congress and prior court decisions gave the FCC. No government agency should ever be empowered to restrict free expression based on what it thinks is fair, equal, or in the best interest of the public. In a world where the American people and press can speak through print, broadcast, cable, satellite, internet, and other forms of media, there is no justification for the FCC to continue to wield such significant power over broadcast speech.”

“Disney is entirely justified in asking a court to stop the FCC’s attempt to coerce its broadcast stations’ programming through an unlawful campaign of regulatory scrutiny,” added Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “The lawsuit makes clear that this campaign has already chilled ABC’s speech. The First Amendment prohibits the government from using regulatory threats to chill speech that the government doesn’t like, which is exactly what the FCC is doing here.”

Keep reading

Battle Over Ten Commandments Arrives At Supreme Court

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 17 to review a federal appeals court decision that upheld a Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cleared the way in April for the Texas law to take effect.

The state law known as Senate Bill 10, or SB 10, requires that public elementary and secondary schools conspicuously display in classrooms an easily readable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments with no additional commentary.

The Fifth Circuit’s 9–8 ruling in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District raised questions about freedom of religion and how the Supreme Court had ruled on these issues in the past. If the justices agree to hear the case, their potentially landmark ruling could change the legal landscape for how governments deal with religion.

The Fifth Circuit said that the law complied with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Texas law “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment,” because it does not tell houses of worship what to believe, how to worship, or whom to employ, the appeals court said. It does not punish people who reject the Ten Commandments, impose taxes to support the clergy, or require churches to carry out civic functions, the court said.

“These are the kinds of things ‘establishments of religion’ did at the founding. [The Texas law] does none of them,” it said.

The Fifth Circuit also held that a 1980 precedent, Stone v. Graham, which struck down a nearly identical classroom display law, is no longer binding.

The circuit court ruling upholding the Texas statute came after a federal district court preliminarily blocked it, finding the law likely violates both the Constitution’s establishment clause, which forbids the government from favoring one religion over another, and the free exercise clause, which prohibits the government from infringing on worship and other activities. The district judge also found the displays would coerce students and interfere with parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

The challenge in the district court was brought by a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families. The families argue in the petition that the Texas law violates the Constitution by forcing religion on students, and that the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent.

Keep reading

Texas Locked a Foreign Company’s Domain Over Missing Digital ID Checks

In Travis County, Texas, a judge has frozen motherless.com, the .com domain of a foreign pornography operator, taking it down worldwide until it posts a $9.14 million bond and builds an age verification digital ID system to the state’s own specification.

Kick Online Entertainment is a foreign corporation, and the order admits so, which is the reason the writ went somewhere else. A state court cannot summon a company overseas, but it can order the American firm that keeps the registry of every .com name, and that registry is what makes a domain resolve at all.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The case turns on HB 1181, Texas’s age-verification law for adult sites. That firm is Verisign, a nonparty to it, and Judge Maya Guerra Gamble signed the writ of attachment on June 4, 2026, filed four days later in State of Texas v Kick Online Entertainment.

The order directs Verisign to place motherless.com on “a registry lock, hold, or similar status until replevied by Defendant,” the legal term for the operator posting a bond to get its domain back.

The domain is frozen rather than taken, though the difference means little here. What Verisign actually applied on was serverHold plus server-level prohibitions on deleting, transferring and updating the name. A hold pulls motherless.com out of the .com zone file, so it resolves for nobody.

Kick must post a bond of $9,140,000, and that bond is “conditioned on Defendant’s implementation of age verification that conforms with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies code chapter 129B,” together with an affirmation that it will satisfy the civil penalties entered against it on September 30, 2024. A company outside the state’s reach is being made to both pay and obey a Texas statute before its property comes back. This is specific performance of a state law, pulled from a foreign operator by holding an asset hostage at the registry.

Among the court’s stated reasons the writ is “appropriate and justified” is the finding that “Defendant is not a resident of this state and is a foreign corporation,” which turns the state’s inability to reach a company into a ground for taking its property.

The order then pre-authorizes more of the same, closing with the line that “as many writs as the State deems necessary shall issue,” so the count of future seizures is set by the attorney general and not by a judge weighing each one. And Texas was excused from the security these writs normally demand, because the order says “the State of Texas is not required to post a bond prior to the issuance of the Writ of Attachment.”

The party taking the asset posts nothing. The party losing it posts $9.14 million.

Keep reading

Rep. Nancy Mace Goes Nuclear — Says Every Muslim in Public Office Is a “Trojan Horse” and Threat to the Republic: ‘I Don’t Want to be Blown Up by a Suicide Bomber’

South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace is refusing to play the politically correct game.

In a blistering series of posts this weekend, the outspoken Republican declared that every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a direct threat to national security and the republic itself.

Mace wrote: “Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic. We refuse to be silent.”

Enter radical leftist Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who immediately raced to the defense of the very ideology that has produced endless bloodshed on American soil. Jayapal screeched: “This is absolutely disgusting and dangerous. Republicans must denounce this blatant Islamophobia. To Muslim communities across America: I will always stand with you.”

Mace wasn’t having it. She hit back with a video of an Imam in Alabama, openly calling for Muslims to sacrifice their lives through jihad in order to establish “the religion of Allah” right here in the United States.

Mace posted: “Watch this Imam, in Alabama of all places, say ‘…Muslims must be ready to sacrifice their lives through jihad in order to establish ‘the religion of Allah’ in the United States…’ Islam must be confronted and Islam must be removed from civil society in the US.”

Keep reading

Judge Halts $800-a-Day Fines Against Investigative Journalist Catherine Herridge for Refusing to Betray Confidential Sources in China-Tied Case

Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge secured a major, though temporary, victory for press freedom after a federal judge clarified that she will not have to keep paying an $800-per-day contempt fine while her legal team asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her First Amendment case.

The court also denied plaintiff Yanping Chen’s request to increase the daily fine to a staggering $5,000 and ordered that the money Herridge has already paid be returned, Herridge announced Friday in a statement on X.

The district court has clarified that I don’t have to pay the $800 daily contempt fine for refusing to disclose my confidential sources while our team asks the Supreme Court to hear our First Amendment case.

The court also denied the plaintiff, Yanping Chen’s request to raise the daily contempt fines to 5K. The court ordered reimbursement for the fines I have already paid.

This case is much bigger than one journalist, one story, or one news outlet. The outcome will impact every newsroom in this country and the ability of reporters to protect their sources and do investigative reporting that seeks accountability.

Yet, critical evidence remains hidden from the public and under seal by the District Court.

At a time when many corporate media outlets choose to settle or pressure journalists to surrender their notes, I want to acknowledge that Fox News has continued to stand behind me and fully support the First Amendment and investigative journalism by paying my attorney’s fees.

I remain committed to safeguarding the principles of investigative journalism and a free press.

Keep reading

Christian Parents Sue Oregon After State Brands Them “Child Abusers” for Refusing to “Affirm” Daughter’s Transgender Identity

A Christian mother and her husband are fighting back after Oregon officials effectively branded them child abusers because they refused to “affirm” their teenage daughter’s transgender identity.

Nicole and David Calaway filed a federal lawsuit on July 15 against their daughter’s former therapist and multiple Oregon Department of Human Services officials, accusing them of violating the couple’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

“It has destroyed our lives,” Nicole told The Daily Signal.

According to the lawsuit, Child Protective Services removed Nicole’s then-15-year-old daughter, identified as K.A., from the Calaways’ home on July 18, 2024.

The seizure occurred one day after Nicole and her daughter reportedly terminated the services of therapist Jennifer Forster. Court documents allege that Forster then contacted the child-abuse hotline after being encouraged by ODHS caseworker Rachel Woods.

Forster allegedly told authorities that Nicole had appeared “aggressive and angry” and intended to leave her daughter without mental-health support.

The Calaways contend those statements were false and created a “fabricated appearance of urgency” that Oregon officials used to remove K.A. from their home.

Keep reading

Total Fraud: Adam Schiff Demands AI Political Parodies Be Banned, Forgets He Lied About Trump and Called It Parody in 2019

A politician who’s built his career on lies is suddenly worried about truth in advertising?

California Sen. Adam Schiff, a man with a documented record of deception, has introduced two bills aimed at regulating political speech in election campaigns — including one that would add prohibitions on content generated by artificial intelligence to a law that already prohibits campaigns from impersonating their opponents.

Maybe Schiff has forgotten his own past when it comes to impersonations — and the lies behind his attacks on President Donald Trump.

In a career of lowlights that would make a masochist blush, Schiff achieved one of his most notorious moments during the 2019 hearings that led up to Trump’s first impeachment, when the then-California congressman fabricated quotes from a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelenskyy.

Schiff then defended playing fast and loose with the truth by claiming he was engaging in “parody.”

Well, reasonable people can disagree about whether Schiff was engaging in political “parody” or sinking to the belly-crawling tactics of a lying coward to further the cause of assassinating Trump’s character.  (The vote here is “belly crawling,” just for the record. Schiff’s record is so crooked even his mortgage reeks of fraud.)

But there’s no question that Schiff’s motivation for filing the bill comes from the campaigns that led up to California’s primary elections in June.

Keep reading