Tag: 1st amendment

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

After Calling for “Death to the IDF” at Glastonbury, US Fall Tour by “Violent” British Punk Band Bob Vylan Being Looked at By DOJ Anti-Semitic Task Force Led by Leo Terrell

The Justice Department’s Anti-Semitic Task Force, led by Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Leo Terrell, is looking at a planned fall U.S. tour by the terrorist supporting, anti-Semitic and self described “violent” British punk band Bob Vylan after violence promoting, anti-Semitic remarks were made by the group at the Glastonbury Festival.

Terrell posted about the investigation on Sunday, saying he would be contacting the State Department and tagging President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio:

Statement from Leo Terrell on Antisemitic Chants by Bob Vylan:

Leo Terrell, Chair of the DOJ Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, strongly condemns the antisemitic chants made by Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival. These abhorrent chants, which included calls for the death of members of the Israeli Defense Forces, are abhorrent and have no place in any civil society.

We understand that Mr. Vylan is planning to travel to the United States as part of the Inertia Tour. In response, Mr. Terrell’s Task Force will be reaching out to the U.S. Department of State on Monday to determine what measures are available to address the situation and to prevent the promotion of violent antisemitic rhetoric in the United States.

Keep reading

Student Visa Applicants Will Now Be Forced To Make Their Social Media Accounts Public

In a Monday announcement, several U.S. embassies stated that student visa applicants will be required to turn the settings on their social media accounts to “public” in order to facilitate scrutiny of their posts, presumably for ideological screening. The change is part of a recent string of crackdowns on international students, which has targeted many who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests or expressed anti-Israel views.

In a social media post, the U.S. Embassy in London wrote that “every visa adjudication is a national security decision,” adding that applicants for several kinds of student visas would be required to “adjust the privacy settings on all of their personal social media accounts to ‘public’ to facilitate vetting necessary to establish their identity and admissibility to the United States.” Several other embassy social media accounts also posted the statement.

The directive comes after months of ramped-up efforts to ideologically filter prospective international students. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio began canceling the visas of some college students who participated in anti-Israel protests—or, in one student’s case, simply wrote an op-ed. In one March press conference, he estimated that his office had canceled more than 300 visas.

“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.” Rubio said. “At some point, I hope we run out because we’ve gotten rid of all of them, but, we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.”

A domestic cable sent to embassy officials in May telegraphed this latest development, ordering officials to scour social media posts from prospective Harvard students, noting that the order “will also serve as a pilot for expanded screening and vetting of visa applicants” and “will be expanded over time.” Last week, additional policy updates directed embassy officials to review F, M, and J visas (which are common student visas) for “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.”

This latest move in the Trump administration’s mission to prevent students with disfavored views from studying in the U.S. is nothing less than outright viewpoint discrimination. While the U.S. has a national security interest in vetting visa applicants for affiliations with outright terrorist groups, merely opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza hardly approaches that line. And, as many free speech advocates have pointed out, this precedent can easily be utilized to punish many other viewpoints.

“There is nothing stopping this or another administration from using that authority tomorrow against critics of other countries, whether they’re protesting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s oppression of Uyghurs,” reads a recent statement from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment group. “That’s wrong. Requiring foreign students and faculty to self-censor their views about American foreign policy in order to stay in the country violates American principles of free speech and the First Amendment.”

Keep reading

Obama Wants Filters Not Freedom

Barack Obama’s recent appearance at The Connecticut Forum once again revealed a troubling truth: the political establishment is becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of government-managed speech.

In an extended conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson, the former president signaled that his tolerance for open discourse ends where his ideological preferences begin.

Amid warnings about the spread of “propaganda” and falsehoods online, Obama floated the notion of imposing “government regulatory constraints” on digital platforms.

His rationale? To counter business models that, in his opinion, elevate “the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence.”

But it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see what’s really being proposed: a top-down mechanism to filter speech based on government-approved standards of truth.

This wasn’t framed as a direct assault on the First Amendment, of course. Obama was careful to qualify that such regulations would remain “consistent with the First Amendment.”

But that’s little comfort when the very premise involves the government determining which voices deserve a platform. Once the state takes a role in deciding what is true or acceptable, the line between moderation and censorship evaporates.

Obama’s remarks included a reference to a saying he alleges is attributed to Russian intelligence and later adopted by Steve Bannon: “You just have to flood the zone with so much poop…that at some point people don’t believe anything.”

This, he argued, is the tactic used by bad actors to disorient the public. What he failed to acknowledge is that the antidote to this isn’t more control, but more speech. Free people, given access to a full spectrum of views, are capable of discerning fact from fiction without government supervision.

The real danger isn’t “too much speech.” It’s the increasing desire to place speech under bureaucratic management.

Obama’s suggestion that some speech is too “hateful” or “dangerous” to be left unchecked invites a future where those in power decide what the public is allowed to hear, a vision completely incompatible with a free society.

And we’ve already seen how that plays out.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Orders UO to Pay $191K to PSU Professor Blocked for “All Men Are Created Equal” Comment

The University of Oregon is facing the financial consequences of an unconstitutional attempt to suppress speech after a federal judge ordered it to pay $191,000 in legal fees to Portland State University professor Bruce Gilley.

The order, issued by US District Judge John V. Acosta, follows a settlement reached in March 2025 in which the university acknowledged Gilley’s comments should not have been censored and agreed to implement major policy reforms.

The legal fees, which will be covered by UO’s insurer United Educators, include $147,070 awarded to the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) and $43,930 to the Angus Lee Law Firm.

These payments, combined with more than $533,000 that the university had already spent on its own legal representation by late 2024, push the cost of defending its actions to at least $724,000.

That figure excludes further expenses accrued since November.

These high costs are directly tied to UO’s decision to support its DEI officials after they blocked Gilley for replying “all men are created equal” to a university post on X.

This fee award reflects the substantial resources required to vindicate fundamental constitutional rights in the digital age, as well as the vigor with which the University of Oregon chose to defend unconstitutional policies,” said Del Kolde, IFS Senior Attorney.

“The university made a costly decision to prioritize DEI principles over constitutional principles, aggressively litigating this case for nearly three years rather than acknowledging the obvious, that blocking someone for quoting the Declaration of Independence violates the First Amendment.”

Keep reading

X Sues New York For Demanding Social Media Data To Censor Speech

Social media company X sued New York to challenge a state law that requires social media companies to submit semi-annual reports about how they are suppressing certain kinds of speech to the New York attorney general. According to the lawsuit, provisions in the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” violate social media companies’ First Amendment rights and threaten free speech.

The law, in part, outlines “terms of service reports” in which companies must disclose to the state whether the terms of service for each of their platforms define certain “categories,” including hate speech, racism, extremism, misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. If their terms of service do include these categories, the companies would also be required to include those definitions in the report. The reports would also require companies to disclose a “detailed description” of their “content moderation practices” regarding these categories. Failing to submit the report could engender $15,000 per day. Governor Kathy Hochul signed the law in December, and it is set to go into effect this year.

X challenged the constitutionality of the “Content Category Report” portions of the law, arguing that they force companies to disclose “highly sensitive and controversial speech” protected under the Constitution. X also noted that content moderation “engenders considerable debate among reasonable people about where to draw the correct proverbial line,” and that “[t]his is not a role the government may play.”

Musk, who has described himself as a “free speech absolutist,” bought Twitter in 2022 to return the platform to “a digital town square” where ideas could be debated freely. He loosened the platform’s content moderation rules and readmitted suspended users, including President Donald Trump.

New York State Sen. Brad Holyman-Sigal and Assemblywoman Grace Lee, both Democrats, sponsored the law. In a letter that X quoted in the lawsuit, the two politicians said that X and Musk have a “disturbing record,” which “threatens the foundations of our democracy.” In a Tuesday statement responding to the lawsuit, the two lawmakers called social media companies, including X, “cesspools of hate speech,” and claimed the “Stop Hiding Hate Act” is necessary for “transparency.”

Keep reading