Tag: 1st amendment

The Department of Justice Just Sided with RFK Jr. Group’s Claim That News Orgs Can’t Boycott Misinformation

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to end “childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure,” submitted an antitrust complaint against The Washington Post, the BBC, the Associated Press, and Reuters in January 2023. On Friday, the Justice Department published a statement of interest in favor of the CHD, which implores the federal court hearing the case to recognize that harm to viewpoint competition is grounds for antitrust prosecution. 

In the case, Children’s Health Defense v. Washington Post, the CHD alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust law through their establishment of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint claims that the TNI formed a “group boycott” to exclude publishers of “misinformation” partially or entirely from popular internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

The complaint cites a March 2022 statement by Jamie Angus, senior news controller at BBC, who said “the real rivalry now is…between all trusted news providers and a tidal wave of unchecked [reporting] that’s being piped out mainly through digital platforms,” as evidence of “the economic self-interest behind the TNI’s group boycott [and] the anti-competitive purpose and effect of that boycott.” CHD misconstrues the meaning of Angus’ words in an attempt to persuade the court that the TNI is a “horizontal agreement among competitor firms to cut off from the market upstart rivals threatening their business model.”

CHD alleges that TNI’s restrictions are unreasonable not only because they “collusively reduce output” and “lower product quality”—conventional indicators of illegal collusive behavior—but because “they suppress competition in the marketplace of ideas.” Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is running with CHD’s argument.

Slater said that the “Antitrust Division will always defend the principle that the antitrust laws protect free markets, including the marketplace of ideas,” in a press release. In the department’s statement of interest, Slater references the majority opinion from U.S. v. Associated Press (1945) to argue that “right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.”

Joseph Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation policy at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, agrees with Slater that “collusive viewpoint restrictions can be antitrust violations.” However, he emphasizes that, “if the platforms allegedly taking down content are not defendants and don’t have vertical agreements with…TNI to do so, it’s hard to see how the latter could be illegal.” (CHD alleges that censorship “by Facebook, Google and Twitter, [caused] damages to date of over $1,000,000,” but does not name these platforms as defendants in its suit.)

Slater’s statement was submitted amid ongoing litigation between Media Matters and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the other federal antitrust enforcement agency. The FTC opened an investigation into Media Matters in May for facilitating an alleged advertising boycott against the social media platform X. Advertising holding companies Omnicom Group and Interpublic Group of Companies agreed not to enter into “any agreement or practice that would steer advertising dollars away from publishers based on their political or ideological viewpoints” as a condition of their merger settlement with the FTC in June. Media Matters has challenged the FTC’s probe into its operations on First Amendment grounds.

Keep reading

The Biden Admin Stole Your Data to Rig Elections and Censor Speech

Jason Chaffetz has delivered a devastating exposé that should terrify every American who values his or her constitutional rights. Writing in the New York Post, the former House Oversight Committee chairman pulls back the curtain on what may be the most comprehensive assault on American democracy we’ve witnessed in our lifetime—and it’s happening with our own tax dollars.

Chaffetz revealed that the Biden administration didn’t just weaponize federal agencies against political opponents; it orchestrated an elaborate data-theft operation that would make authoritarian regimes jealous. As Chaffetz explains, “Federal entities outsourced unlawful data collection to politically sympathetic partners. Rather than directly amassing data, they procured or exchanged it from or with nonprofits and technology firms.”

This isn’t some conspiracy theory cooked up by partisan critics. This is documented reality, backed by Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional testimony that the mainstream media has conveniently ignored.

The scope of this operation is breathtaking. Chaffetz exposes how the Small Business Administration—an agency supposedly focused on helping entrepreneurs—was transformed into a partisan voter registration machine. The SBA “proactively reached out to states, especially battleground states like Arizona and Georgia, to seek recognition as voter-registration organizations, despite federal law stipulating that states must initiate this process under the National Voter Registration Act.”

When SBA Associate Administrator Jennifer Kim was pressed during a 2024 hearing about whether the agency conducted events in non-Democrat-leaning regions, she couldn’t provide a straight answer. The evidence speaks for itself: “documented evidence of partisan bias in these efforts” reveals an administration that viewed federal resources as tools for electoral manipulation.

But voter manipulation was just the beginning. The Biden administration’s data dragnet extended into financial surveillance that targeted Americans based on their political beliefs. Christian nonprofits, gun manufacturers, conservative protesters—even members of the Trump family—found their accounts terminated without justification. As Chaffetz notes, “This initiative ultimately targeted Christian nonprofits, gun manufacturers, conservative demonstrators — even Melania and Barron Trump — shutting down their accounts without justification.”

Keep reading

The Protest-Industrial-Complex Isn’t Peaceful, It’s “Civil Terrorism” …

Ilya Shapiro and Jesse Arm of the Manhattan Institute authored an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, unveiling a plan for the federal government to take decisive action against the rogue permanent protest industry—comprising some Marxist groups and professional agitators—waging continuous color revolutions that have brought chaos to American cities. 

“Americans instinctively understand that what happened in Los Angeles wasn’t peaceful organizing or messy democracy. Such unrest invites criminal mayhem and political violence, or what our Manhattan Institute colleague Tal Fortgang has described as “civil terrorism.” It’s often perpetrated by agitators who hide behind masks,” Shapiro and Arm wrote. 

What’s clear is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to peaceful protest—it does not shield anonymous social justice warriors and paid demonstrators affiliated with anti-American, Marxist movements, some of whom are funded by dark money NGOs and even entities based in countries deemed foreign adversaries. These bad actors appear to be waging a form of hybrid or irregular warfare aimed at sowing chaos within the U.S. The two authors from the Manhattan Institute argue for “stronger enforcement of existing state antimasking laws and new federal action.”

Shapiro and Arm state the urgent need for modernizing antimasking statutes to criminalize masking while committing crimes or obstructing public order.

Their approach is outlined here:

  • First, the Justice Department should direct federal prosecutors to pursue enhanced sentences for masked criminals. Federal guidelines allow sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice or premeditated conduct. A masked assault can lead to a two-level sentence increase, making it more likely that violent offenders serve real time.
  • Second, the Homeland Security Department should deploy Federal Protective Service officers to respond to masked protesters on federal property. DHS is already empowered to secure federal buildings and grounds. New regulations prohibit the use of masks to avoid identification while breaking the law on federal property. That authority now needs to be enforced aggressively.
  • Finally, the administration should make prosecution of federal crimes committed by masked offenders a priority. These offenses include assaulting a federalized National Guard member and damaging federal property. They already are federal crimes, but the added presence of a mask should be treated as a red flag and an aggravating factor. Prosecutors should move swiftly and law enforcement should make arrests public.

The two emphasized: “These measures wouldn’t criminalize protest, chill dissent or limit protected speech. They would send a clear signal: If you hide behind a mask to commit a crime or intimidate others, the federal government will hold you accountable.” 

They added: “Americans have every right to protest their government, but not to do so anonymously while terrorizing others and flouting the law.” 

Keep reading

Court Overturns Douglass Mackey Meme Conviction

A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of Douglass Mackey, the man prosecuted for posting satirical memes ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 9 that the government failed to prove Mackey knowingly participated in a conspiracy, a requirement under the statute used to charge him.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

Mackey had been found guilty in 2023 of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241, a law dating back to Reconstruction that punishes conspiracies to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. Prosecutors claimed that Mackey’s memes, which joked that Hillary Clinton supporters could vote via text, were part of a coordinated scheme to suppress votes.

That case has now unraveled.

“The mere fact that Mackey posted the memes, even assuming that he did so with the intent to injure other citizens in the exercise of their right to vote, is not enough, standing alone, to prove a violation of Section 241,” wrote Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston in the court’s opinion. Because Section 241 applies only to conspiracies involving “two or more persons,” the government had to prove that Mackey entered into an agreement with others, a threshold it did not meet.

Prosecutors attempted to tie Mackey to private Twitter message groups such as “War Room” and “Madman #2,” where users discussed political memes.

The court found no evidence that Mackey saw, let alone participated in, any of the conversations that allegedly formed the conspiracy. “This the government failed to do,” the panel wrote, noting that “Mackey did not send any messages in the War Room in the two weeks before he tweeted the text-to-vote memes.”

Keep reading

Understanding the RICO Charges in Atlanta

Since the beginning of 2023, prosecutors in Georgia have threatened to charge activists protesting against a planned police militarization facility known as “Cop City” with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Last week, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr indicted 61 people on RICO charges in Fulton County.

In indiscriminately lumping together scores of arrestees, many of whom have ostensibly never met, into a fabricated conspiracy case, the prosecution is attempting to criminalize protest itself. This case represents politically driven repression aimed at suppressing all forms of activism and dissent, in the style of Vladimir Putin. It should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about civil liberties such as the freedom to protest or the freedom to advocate against police brutality and authoritarianism or in favor of preserving the environment.

The indictment does not seem to indicate that prosecutors have any previously unreleased information at their disposal indicating the existence of a conspiracy, in the sense that the word is ordinarily employed. Rather, they have brought new charges against those whose names they already had as the result of previous arrests, and are now clumsily endeavoring to frame them as participants in a cohesive criminal enterprise.

The defendants include 42 people already charged with “terrorism” for allegedly participating in the movement to #StopCopCity, many of them on the basis of actions as simple as entering a forest or posting to social media; three more people already charged with felonies for allegedly distributing handbills; and another three people charged last May with “money laundering” and other crimes for organizing legal support for activists. None of these previous charges has resulted in a single conviction.

The only thing that connects all of these indictees is that they all appear to have been arrested or detained at some point, however randomly, on suspicion of protesting against the government’s plan to destroy the Weelaunee Forest.

Keep reading

Virginia Enacts Law To Ban Nazi Symbols, Protects Sacred Swastika From Misrepresentation

Virginia has officially enacted House Bill 2783, which criminalises the display of Nazi symbols, including Hitler’s Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross), when used with the intent to intimidate. The law, effective from July 1, makes such acts a Class 6 felony. What makes this legislation particularly historic is a culturally sensitive amendment that clearly differentiates Hitler’s Hakenkreuz, a symbol of hate, from the sacred Swastika, an ancient symbol of peace and prosperity revered by nearly two billion Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and other communities worldwide.

The final version of the Bill marks a major victory for minority communities in Virginia, particularly after a strong advocacy effort led by the Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA) and allied groups. “We are pleased to see how Virginia is tackling growing hate while being sensitive to minority groups that revere the Swastika,” said Nikunj Trivedi, President of CoHNA.

He added, “Now the need of the hour is for the media, law enforcement, and educational institutions in Virginia to update their language to reflect this critical nuance and ensure fair treatment for all.”

Evolution of HB2783

Initially, HB2783 had a major cultural oversight—wrongly referring to the Nazi symbol as the Swastika. In reality, Hitler never used the word ‘Swastika’; his symbol was the ‘Hakenkreuz’—German for ‘Hooked Cross.’ The Bill’s early wording incorrectly suggested that the Nazi emblem was “commonly known as the Swastika,” inadvertently linking a sacred symbol to one of history’s darkest ideologies.

Keep reading

Judge: Yardley Officials Illegally Deleted Criticism on Facebook

A federal judge has determined that leaders of Yardley Borough, Buck’s County, Pennsylvania, unlawfully silenced a resident when they deleted his comment from the local government’s Facebook page.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The controversy centers on Earl Markey, a corporate trainer and active member of the local Republican committee.

In October 2022, Markey posted a comment on the Yardley Boro Facebook page urging voters to back a referendum that would have trimmed the borough council from seven members to five.

His comment was sharply critical of a sitting councilman.

Markey wrote, “Appointed Councilman Matt Curtin wants to raise property taxes by two mills. Stop unelected, out of touch investment bankers, like Matt Curtin, from volunteering our hard-earned money for higher taxes. Vote YES on the referendum to reduce the size of the Yardley Borough Council.”

Not long after, the comment disappeared.

The borough’s manager, Paula Johnson, labeled the post a personal attack. Council President Caroline Thompson approved its removal.

Markey saw this as a clear act of censorship and took legal action, filing a lawsuit against Thompson, Johnson, and the borough. He also named two other officials who were eventually removed from the case.

“For me that crossed a line,” Markey said. He described the deletion as “censorship by public officials.”

Although borough leaders tried to defuse the matter by letting Markey repost his comment, reimbursing his legal filing fee, and drafting a revised social media policy, Markey pressed forward with the lawsuit.

Keep reading

South Dakota Follows Texas with Broader Online Digital ID Law

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of Texas’ age verification law for adult websites has paved the way for a surge of similar online digital ID measures across the country.

South Dakota is the first to follow, as its new statute requiring age verification or estimation for sites distributing adult content takes effect today.

However the South Dakota law is much broader and applies to a wider range of websites, not just those that have a large percentage of adult content.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The law applies broadly to any platform that regularly deals in explicit material, without setting a specific threshold for how much of the site’s content qualifies.

This contrasts with Texas’ approach, where the rule kicks in if at least one-third of a site’s material is deemed pornographic.

Keep reading

California’s Pro-Israel AB 715: A Horrific Affront to Free Speech

While freedom of speech is one of the most prized freedoms celebrated in American society and the West, since the outbreak of the Gaza War, Zionist sympathizers in both major political parties have tried to quash dissent regarding US support for Israeli imperialism. In a new attempt to crush anti-war sentiments and indoctrinate millions of students into becoming pro-Israel sycophants, the California State Assembly has unanimously passed and referred to the State Senate a bill that would threaten freedom of speech in California public schools.

The bill, which seeks to add to already existing anti-discrimination legislation, would ban comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and language which “denies” Israel’s right to exist. After nearly two years of viciously slaughtering Palestinians, it has become clear to the United Nations, Amnesty International, and even once reluctant scholars that Israel is guilty of genocide. Therefore, comparisons between Nazi Germany and the State of Israel do not only seem valid, but necessary for adequately describing the severity of Israeli cruelty in occupied Palestine. Furthermore, the wording of “directly or indirectly denying the right of Israel to exist” is alarmingly unspecific. Many supporters of Israel, including those at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), have equated denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish supremacist state with denying Israel’s right to exist at all. By declaring legitimate criticism or comparisons of Israel as anti-Semitic without any further debate or inquiry, California politicians seek to combat the growing trend of young Americans questioning the US-Israel relationship.

Fundamentally, this bill is a gift to authoritarianism in line with a host of other similar bills in the United States and throughout the West. Ironically, both the deep-blue California and the deep-red state of Florida are united in their endeavor to suppress criticism of Israel. Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 187, officially adopting the incredibly flawed aforementioned IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into law. In the United Kingdom, government officials have encouraged the police to treat those who wave the Palestinian flag or shout pro-Palestinian chants as racist criminals. Elsewhere, Germany has conducted raids on the homes of activists, and France has ordered a ban on pro-Palestine protests entirely.

Thankfully, numerous organizations and individuals have denounced this bill and encouraged the people of California to place pressure on the Senate and Governor Gavin Newsom to reject this bill. On the left, groups like the Jewish Educators Addressing Actual Antisemitism, CODEPINK, and Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area have condemned the bill. Other Muslim and Arab advocacy groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations California, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center Action, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, have similarly condemned the bill.

Keep reading

The First Amendment Protects CNN’s Reporting on ICEBlock and Iran

President Donald Trump has routinely taken umbrage with journalists exercising their freedom of expression to report on the news, which the First Amendment absolutely protects. CNN is the president’s latest target.

At a Tuesday press conference, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that her agency was “working with the Department of Justice” to see if the administration could prosecute CNN for its reporting on an app that alerts users about federal immigration enforcement activity in their area. Noem said CNN “is actively encouraging people to avoid law enforcement.” Trump immediately followed Noem’s comments by saying, “We’ll maybe prosecute them also for having given false reports on the attack in Iran.”

CNN published a story on Monday covering software developer Joshua Aaron’s ICEBlock app, which lets “users alert people nearby to sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in their area.” CNN reports that the app, released in April, has amassed over 20,000 users. The app, which is only available on the App Store (Aaron is concerned about the mandatory data collection on Android devices), allows users to specify where they’ve spotted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity and alerts other users within a 5-mile radius via push notification. The function of the app is not dissimilar from Waze and Google Maps, which help drivers avoid encounters with police officers monitoring highways and roads for traffic violations.

The First Amendment protects ICEBlock, just as it does Waze and Google Maps. Even if it didn’t, it still would protect CNN’s coverage of it. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), tells Reason that prosecuting CNN for reporting on ICEBlock “would be like prosecuting a news outlet for reporting on Virginia drivers illegally using radar detectors to avoid speeding tickets.” Moreover, the First Amendment protects the development and use of the ICEBlock app itself because “putting out general information that someone, somewhere might use to evade law enforcement” is not aiding and abetting but “just providing others true information,” says Terr.

(CNN doesn’t provide users the link to download ICEBlock from the App Store, which is also protected speech.)

Trump’s threats against CNN for its coverage of early U.S. intelligence assessments regarding the strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites are similarly unfounded. Trump’s personal attorney, Alejandro Brito, alleged that CNN’s and The New York Times’ June 24 coverage of the strikes was false and defamatory, reports CNN. At the Tuesday press conference, Trump again insinuated that CNN defamed the pilots who carried out the operation. Establishing a defamation claim against CNN for its reporting on the efficacy of the American strikes against Iran would be hard, if not impossible.

To defame somebody, you must identify a person—the identities of the pilots are secret; publish information about them—CNN published information of public interest, but not about anybody in particular; the meaning of the publication must be defamatory—even if the pilots failed to completely destroy the sites, that would not be an indictment of their characters; the statement must be false—the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear sites remains nonspecific; the statement must be an objectively verifiable statement of fact—it is unclear how anybody could prove CNN’s statements as false, especially at the time of reporting (Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said himself that “the impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran”); and the statement must be damaging and cause injury, which CNN’s reporting did not. All of these elements must be met to establish defamation. CNN’s Iran reporting does not satisfy a single one.

Keep reading