Tag: 1st amendment

Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to free speech. This right has long differentiated the United States from other Western nations like the United Kingdom and Canada where laws against so-called “hate speech” laws exist and are enforced.

Thankfully, America is different. In our country, even alleged hate speech is protected speech to ensure democratic principles and debate.

In a 1929 dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the Constitution secured “freedom for the thought that we hate.” In 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts said in a ruling that the First Amendment serves “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

This constitutional protection has been increasingly threatened recently, particularly by pro-Israeli forces that have tried to frame any criticism of that government as “anti-Semitism” and thus hate speech punishable by law. This has included everything from arrests, to squashing campus debate to buying TikTok to an attempt to cover up human rights absuses in Gaza. President Donald Trump has even issued executive orders that use vague definitions of what constitutes “anti-Semitism” that comes with criminal penalties.

Mark Levin is an American-born Zionist radio host who is an outspoken advocate for Israel’s government, regularly calling anyone who criticizes the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and conflict in Gaza “Nazis.”

Toward this agenda, Levin recently appeared to not agree with his own country’s free speech rights. On his latest Sunday Fox News program, unironically called Life, Liberty and Levin, the neoconservative pundit explained why free speech liberties in the U.S. have gone too far.

Seemingly worried that certain speech is protected in the United States, Levin said in the wake of the Secret Service taking down a shooter at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Friday, “First time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected.”

“And you hear people say, don’t you believe in the First Amendment?” Levin said. “They don’t even know what the First Amendment believes.”

Keep reading

Founding Felons: Jefferson Would Be on a Watch List Today — You Might Be Next

Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head.

We are being asked — no, told — to believe that the greatest threat to America today is not government overreach, endless war, corruption, surveillance, or the steady erosion of constitutional rights.

No, the real threat, it seems, is speech.

Dangerous speech. Hateful speech. Critical speech. Speech that dares to challenge power.

In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president — especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist — is not just wrong, but responsible for violence.

The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration.

Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism — but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.

When White House officials suggest that calling a president a fascist may constitute libel or slander, they are not merely defending reputations — they are laying the groundwork for criminalizing dissent.

This is how it begins.

This is how republics become regimes.

First, criticism is labeled dangerous. Then it is labeled harmful. Then it is labeled illegal. And before long, it is gone.

Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech — especially when the justification is “safety.” Because every time the government claims it must limit freedom to protect the public, what it is really doing is expanding its own power.

The irony is almost too glaring to ignore.

By the standards now being floated by those in power, America’s founders themselves would be considered extremists.

Seditionists. Radicals. Domestic threats.

Keep reading

Texas city CANCELS ‘unconstitutional’ Muslim-only day at water park under pressure from public, elected leaders

The Texas City of Grand Prairie has canceled their planned “Muslims only” day at an indoor water park. Epic Waters said their planned, discriminatory day has been removed from the schedule after Governor Greg Abbott said he would consider pulling state funding from the town over their unconstitutional practices.

A spokesperson for the water park said “After further review and in the best interest of the City of Grand Prairie, the June 1 EID event at Epic Waters Indoor Waterpark has been canceled.”

Abbott on Wednesday demanded that the City of Grand Prairie cancel a “Muslims only” event scheduled at a city-owned water park, warning local officials they could lose more than $530,000 in state grant funding if the event is allowed to move forward.

In a post on X, Abbott wrote that a city-owned facility had “openly advertised a ‘MUSLIMS ONLY’ event” and called the situation unconstitutional. “A city-owned water park in Grande Prairie openly advertised a ‘MUSLIMS ONLY’ event — closed to the general public,” Abbott wrote. “That’s religious discrimination. It’s unconstitutional.”

Abbott added that he had signed HB 4211 into law, which he said bans “Muslim only no-go zones” in Texas. “I signed HB 4211 into law — banning Muslim only no-go zones in Texas,” Abbott wrote. “The City must cancel the event and commit to never allowing something like it again by May 11th, or lose $530,000 in state grants.”

He continued, “Let this be a lesson to local officials: Facilities funded by ALL taxpayers are not just for a subset of Texans.”

Keep reading

Judge Halts Colorado AI Law After First Amendment Challenge

A federal judge has frozen enforcement of Colorado’s first-in-the-nation AI law, the statute that would have required developers to police their own models for “algorithmic discrimination” and to inform the state of “foreseeable risks” before the rules took effect on June 30.

Judge Cyrus Y. Chung signed off on a joint request from xAI and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on April 27, putting the law on ice while state lawmakers draft a replacement.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The order was filed in xAI v. Weiser. The state agreed not to enforce SB 24-205 against xAI, or to issue rules under it, until at least 14 days after the court rules on a forthcoming preliminary injunction motion.

The June 16 scheduling conference was cancelled. The deadlines in the case are suspended.

This is a significant retreat as Colorado spent two years insisting the law was a model for the country. It was the only state AI statute named in President Trump’s AI executive order last year. Now the state is asking a court to stop the clock while its own governor’s policy group drafts a bill to repeal and replace it.

The law itself is the reason the climbdown looks the way it does. SB 24-205 told developers of “high-risk” AI systems they had to take “reasonable care” to prevent algorithmic discrimination, with one carveout that has done more work in the lawsuit than any other clause: the law exempts discrimination intended to “increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.”

The state forbids one kind of discrimination by an algorithm. It permits, and arguably requires, another. The developer is left to figure out which is which, with the attorney general’s office deciding after the fact.

xAI sued on April 9, calling the statute a First Amendment problem dressed up as consumer protection. The company’s complaint is more blunt than most filings of this kind. “SB24-205 is decidedly not an anti-discrimination law,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “It is instead an effort to embed the State’s preferred views into the very fabric of AI systems.”

The argument is that Colorado isn’t regulating outputs neutrally. It’s choosing which viewpoints an AI model is allowed to produce, then enforcing the choice through “onerous policy, assessment, and disclosure requirements,” in the words of the Justice Department’s filing.

The DOJ moved to intervene on xAI’s side, the first time the federal government has joined a constitutional challenge to a state AI regulation.

Keep reading

Censorship in Disguise? Congress Introduces Antisemitism Resolution

Two congressmen introduced a resolution this week that appears to include pressure on tech companies to censor people.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) have co-sponsored a resolution “condemning antisemitic rhetoric from prominent online personalities.” At four pages long, it urges “social media platforms and public leaders to denounce and address” antisemitism.

The resolution blames online platforms for the recent rise in anti-Jewish bigotry. It claims antisemitic incidents have “significantly increased, including a 344 percent increase over the past 5 years, and [an] 893 percent increase over the past 10 years.” And the reason is because online platforms have served as “a major vector for the spread of such hatred.”

Piker and Owens

Two influencers are targeted in the resolution, Hasan Piker and Candace Owens, both of whom have intensely criticized the Israeli government’s military operation in Gaza. “Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on October 7th, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers.”

“Hatred is hatred, period,” Gottheimer said. “We must stand up and speak out. I get that speaking up is not easy, but our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path. That’s what principled leadership is all about.”

Piker denied being an antisemite. “They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, according to reports. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of bigotry including antisemitism and will continue to do so in spite [of] this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”

Owens has called the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza a genocide. So has another popular podcaster, Tucker Carlson. The Israeli human-rights groups B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel agree. As do millions of people around the world. And, if polls are to be believed, most American Jews believe Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, with about four in 10 saying it’s guilty of genocide.

Israel and Gaza

Reports say 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza, most of them civilians, thousands of them children. Most of the Gaza Strip has been carpet bombed, leaving a majority of people homeless. A few months back, U.S. President Donald Trump admitted people were starving in Gaza. Understandably, people have spoken out against that.

Israel has justified its severe response as a proper way to address the October 7 massacre during which Hamas brutally killed 1,200 Israelis. While it goes widely unreported, it should not be overlooked that Israeli defense officials reportedly ignored several warnings from within its own defense apparatus of what was coming. Nevertheless, this has all inflamed tremendous criticism toward the Israeli government. In some cases, it has ginned up genuine anti-Jewish bigotry.

Keep reading

Taxpayer-funded Texas waterpark announces ‘Muslim only’ day featuring modest dress and Halal-slaughtered meat

A taxpayer-funded Texas waterpark has sparked backlash by organizing a Muslim-only day to celebrate Eid. 

Epic Waters in Grand Prairie, Texas drew outrage this week as it released fliers for the June 1 event, which will demand a ‘modest dress code’ and serve only Halal-slaughtered meat. 

Posters for the event say it will be ‘for Muslims only’ to create a ‘family-friendly environment’, with tickets starting at $55 each. 

The waterpark’s website notes that men and women will not be separated during the event, but attendees are told to ‘uphold Islamic etiquette’ by ‘lowering the gaze’ throughout the day. 

‘Please follow the event’s modest dress code, and practice ḥayāʾ (modesty) through respectful behavior,’ the event says. 

All attendees are ‘expected to dress in accordance with Islamic values’, and the waterpark says all swimwear must meet Muslim guidelines. 

The event was criticized across social media, with many questioning if a taxpayer-funded space is allowed to exclude certain demographics from its events. 

Conservative commentator and radio host Dana Loesch led the backlash, questioning: ‘How is a taxpayer-funded, city-owned entity allowed to discriminate against non-Muslims at a public water park?’

Loesch added: ‘There would be literal riots if Muslims were similarly excluded and we all know that’s 100% accurate.’ 

Conservative influencer Sara Gonzalez also said she was intent on calling the city of Grand Prairie ‘with my questions’ as she questioned the legality of the event.  

Epic Waters, which is funded by an additional sales tax on Grand Prairie residents, included on the event a list of suggested swimwear for women. 

‘Explore our recommendations and get ready to make a stylish – and modest – splash!’ the website says. 

The suggested swimwear included full head-to-toe coverings with bathing suit material, alongside full body coverings for children. 

The site also includes testimonials from past attendees praising the event, including one from Ahmed S who said: ‘I loved the modesty and the Anasheed.’ 

Keep reading

Anti-boycott laws run afoul of the free press

The First Amendment is under attack. The formidable frontal assault came quietly, stealthily into state legislatures across the nation. The attackers wielded pens proving mightier than swords and signed laws that punish the refusal to sign a pledge of allegiance — not the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States; rather, a pledge of deference to a foreign government and a promise not to boycott the nation that government represents.

What’s more American than a boycott, Alan Leveritt pondered when he spoke with Editor & Publisher during a vodcast with E&P Publisher Mike Blinder back in December 2021. Leveritt had penned a Nov. 22, 2021, op-ed for The New York Times about a legal case he’s been waging against an obscure Arkansas state law that suppresses free speech and requires people and businesses who contract with the state to sign away their rights to “boycott,” a subjective term.

Leveritt cited the Boston Tea Party and the centuries-old tradition of boycotts, using rhetoric and the power of the purse strings to influence people, companies and even government.

Leveritt comes from a family of Arkansas farmers. “We’re just white-trash farmers. I mean, that’s where we come from,” he explains in the new documentary film, “Boycott,” by Director Julia Bacha and the team at Just Vision, an award-winning production company.

Leveritt carries on that farming tradition today; in the film, he’s seen tending gardens and gathering eggs. But his day job — one that he’s held for nearly 50 years — is serving as publisher of the Arkansas Times, a free, local news source he co-founded in his 20s. Since the beginning, the venture has been entirely advertising-supported, and a significant amount of it comes from state agencies, including the state university system.

“I was raised conservative, and I started moving to the left over the years. As a recovering conservative, I want to be left alone, you know? Do your job. You get your business on merit, and you get paid for it, and you don’t pass some political litmus test. This is America,” he says in the film.

Keep reading

Missouri State U. shuts down Bias Response Team amid First Amendment lawsuit

Missouri State University has accelerated the process of shutting down its Bias Response Team amid a lawsuit brought by Defending Education, a national grassroots organization that fights left-wing indoctrination in classrooms.

The complaint, filed April 21, claims campus leaders abused students’ constitutional rights and chilled free speech by allowing the team to monitor and investigate alleged acts of bias.

“Missouri State University and its officials have enacted a far-reaching policy that is designed to deter, discourage, and otherwise prevent students from expressing disfavored views about the political and social issues of the day,” violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the complaint stated.

In response, the university argues it is now shutting down the 10-year-old Bias Response Team.

Missouri State University spokeswoman Andrea Mostyn said officials made the decision to begin disbanding its Bias Response Team last month, before any litigation was issued. It was originally planned for July, but “has now accelerated that timeline.”

However, she added, the “university stands behind the work of the Bias Response Team.”

“The team’s purpose was limited, and its work was conducted in accordance with the university’s obligations under the First Amendment and other applicable law,” she said in an email to The College Fix. 

“The team historically reviewed isolated, anonymous reports of bias on campus, such as graffiti containing swastikas or racial epithets,” but rarely met since it was limited in scope and infrequent, with its most recent meeting being last September, she said.

In February 2025, the Bias Response Team page, which is now inactive, stated that it “serves to advocate for both individuals and groups impacted by acts of bias” by students they deem “perpetrators.”

Defending Education mentioned three students at MSU who want to engage in open debate and dialogue, “but they credibly fear that the expression of their deeply held views will be considered ‘biased,’ ‘offensive,’ ‘discriminatory,’ or the like.” 

Some of these views include being pro-life, pro-family, and anti-illegal immigration.

Moreover, the lawsuit noted that students have been previously reported for bias “for writing a satirical article about ‘safe spaces,’ tweeting ‘#BlackLivesMatter,’ chalking ‘Build the Wall’ on a sidewalk, and expressing support for Donald Trump.”

Defending Education declined to comment to The College Fix on the pending litigation.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ranks Missouri State University 123 out of 257 schools in the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, giving it an F speech climate grade. In one poll, almost half of student respondents stated they have to self-censor on campus at least once or twice a month.

A 2020 investigation by The College Fix into some of the bias complaints filed at MSU found that in one instance, police were called to respond to a drawing of a penis.

Keep reading

California Can’t Define ‘Hate Speech’ But May Mandate Workplace Training Anyway

“Hate speech” is notoriously hard to define and is usually a subjective characterization of harsh words. Though the term is thrown around by people describing comments they don’t like, it generally refers to expression that might not be nice but is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as state speech protections. But that’s not going to stop California lawmakers from trying to hector people into refraining from voicing nasty sentiments.

Existing California law requires employers with five or more employees to provide at least two hours of training regarding sexual harassment to all supervisors, and at least one hour of training to all other employees, repeated every two years. Assembly Bill 1803, introduced by Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal (D–Long Beach) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D–Los Angeles) and co-authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D–Moreno Valley), “would additionally require that the above-described training and education include, as a component of the training and education, anti-hate speech training.”

In a press release, Lowenthal claims that “AB 1803 is about making our workplaces safer, more respectful, and more inclusive for everyone. Hate speech has no place on the job, just as sexual harassment has no place on the job. By incorporating anti hate speech training into existing sexual harassment prevention programs, we are building on a proven framework to address harmful behavior before it escalates.”

What the world really doesn’t need, it should be noted, is more state-mandated nagging about the allegedly naughty activities we shouldn’t engage in. As PBS’s Rhana Natour reported in 2018, “there’s little evidence that sexual harassment training works.” A 2016 U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission report concluded that “much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool—it’s been too focused on simply avoiding legal liability.” Research by Justine Tinkler, a sociologist at the University of Georgia, found that such training mostly reinforces traditional views of sex roles by portraying men as predators and women as victims. But training is an effective time suck.

Hate speech has the added burden of being primarily a political term used to describe expression that somebody doesn’t like. This makes it very difficult to describe in an actionable way in a country that has vigorous speech protections. California’s lawmakers have not risen to the challenge.

Keep reading

West Palm Police CONFISCATE ALL of James O’Keefe’s Firearms in Shocking Escalation

The war on the First Amendment has just turned into an all-out assault on the Second.

Legendary investigative journalist James O’Keefe announced on Thursday night that police stormed his O’Keefe Media Group office and seized EVERY SINGLE ONE of his firearms.

“The police just came to my office and confiscated all my firearms. Just happened,” O’Keefe posted on X.

This is the direct result of a Miami-Dade family court “domestic violence stalking” temporary restraining order pushed by none other than Matthew Tyrmand, a former Project Veritas board member.

Earlier this month, James was served with a restraining order while livestreaming from his West Palm Beach, Florida, headquarters on Tuesday.

“Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Department just served me with a domestic violence restraining order from Matthew Tyrmand. The former board member from Project Veritas who said he wants to murder me,” James O’Keefe said.

“Despite admitting multiple times on hidden camera wanting me dead, Matthew Tyrmand filed a restraining order against ME in Miami Dade County,” O’Keefe said.

“Saying such things as: “I would kill him [O’Keefe]. Because he is one of the most evil people I’ve ever known,” he said.

“He even shot up my book with rifle bullets through my heart on the cover. The audacity of evil has no bounds,” O’Keefe said.

It can be recalled that the Project Veritas board conducted a coup and removed founder James O’Keefe as its Chairman in February 2023.

This was after James turned Project Veritas into a multi-million-dollar company through one of the most successful undercover operations in history.

Since 2023, James has been fighting to gain control over his Project Veritas. In the meantime, James started a new business, O’Keefe Media Group, and it has quickly grown into another successful media venture.

Since 2023, James has been fighting to gain control over his Project Veritas. In the meantime, James started a new business, O’Keefe Media Group, and it has quickly grown into another successful media venture.

Then, in February, James O’Keefe honey-trapped Matthew Tyrmand at a restaurant.

Keep reading