Tag: 1st amendment

Minnesota To Mandate Mental Health Warnings on Social Media; First Amendment Questions Loom

Minnesota has positioned itself at the forefront of a deeply contentious regulatory frontier by enacting the nation’s first law requiring social media platforms to display mental health trigger warning labels to all users.

Tied to the 2025 Special Session Health and Human Services bill and awaiting the governor’s signature, the law takes effect July 1, 2026, and imposes unprecedented obligations on digital platforms to act as public health messengers.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Drafted by State Representative Zack Stephenson (DFL-District 35A), the measure compels platforms to display prominent mental health warnings on login, highlighting alleged risks associated with usage, particularly among youth, and directing users to crisis services like the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

These alerts must be acknowledged before access is granted, cannot be hidden in terms of service, and must not be dismissible without interaction. Content for the mandated warnings will be controlled by the Minnesota Commissioner of Health, alongside the Commissioner of Commerce.

Keep reading

Southern Baptists target porn, sports betting, same-sex marriage and ‘willful childlessness’

Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage.

The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization’s public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn’t extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions.

In a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid.

Remnants of the epic showdown in Dallas 40 years ago

Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics.

The 1985 showdown was “the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,” said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination’s rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985’s, but that meeting’s influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members.

Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support.

A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family” and to oppose laws contradicting “what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.”

To some outside observers, such language is theocratic.

Keep reading

State criminalizes political memes, gets sued by popular satire site

The Babylon Bee, a popular satire website, has filed a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii challenging a state law that censors online content, “including political satire and parody.”

An announcement from the ADF, which is representing the publication as well as a Hawaii resident in the case, said, “The law violates fundamental free speech and due process rights by using vague and overbroad standards to punish people for posting certain political content online, including political memes and parodies of politicians.”

The ADF explained Gov. Josh Green signed S2687 into law in July 2024, and it bans the distribution of “materially deceptive media” that portrays politicians in a way that risks harming “the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate.”

Further, the state forces satire artists to post disclaimers, destroying the purpose of satire.

“Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire is censorship, pure and simple,” said ADF lawyer Mathew Hoffmann. “Satire has served as an important vehicle to deliver truth with a smile for centuries, and this kind of speech receives the utmost protection under the Constitution. The First Amendment doesn’t allow Hawaii to choose what political speech is acceptable, and we are urging the court to cancel this unnecessary censorship.”

Seth Dillon, chief of the Bee, said, “We’re used to getting pulled over by the joke police, but comedy isn’t a crime. The First Amendment protects our right to tell jokes, whether it’s election season or not. We’ll never stop fighting to defend that freedom.”

Keep reading

Ohio podcaster files to reverse conviction for felony intimidation

A true crime podcaster convicted of felony intimidation for attacking the reputations of Norwalk, Ohio, city employees in a social media post is asking an Erie County judge to reverse that decision, the law firm that filed the motion announced on Tuesday.

The Pattakos Law Firm argues that Ashli Ford’s Facebook post is free speech protected by the First Amendment and is not a threat that should warrant her conviction. The firm also claims the conviction has had a “chilling effect” that silences the “non-threatening expression” made by Ford.

According to court documents, the September 2023 Facebook post made allegations against multiple city officials in Norwalk: Mayor David Light, the city’s law director and prosecutor Stuart O’Hara, the city’s safety and service director Michael White and former Norwalk police chief David Smith.

“Ford stated she had the four men ‘on [their] knees,’ and she would ‘slowly crumble the reputation of every person who stands in the way of justice,’ according to court documents. “She went on to claim she would ‘escort [them] to [their] demise in a manner more akin to Malcolm X than Martin Luther King Jr.'”

The Akron-area law firm claims “the Facebook post for which Ford was convicted consists entirely of classic political speech and does not contain any content that could be reasonably construed as a ‘true threat’ so as to overcome the First Amendment’s robust protections for such speech.”

Keep reading

British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment

Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation’s founding document. It’s a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one.

These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora’s Box.

I’d be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It’s a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation.

For a sense of where we might be without it, I’d recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities.

As Tablet magazine reported, “74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading ‘Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'” Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound.

This isn’t as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government’s critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that’s thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone’s freedoms.

Keep reading

ADL Regional Director Calls for Government-Regulated Online Censorship

The Anti-Defamation League’s David Goldenberg is demanding a broad overhaul of how speech is governed on the internet, calling for both government intervention and intensified corporate censorship. In a recent appearance, Goldenberg, who heads the ADL’s Midwest operations, expressed frustration over what he sees as declining efforts by tech firms to suppress online content he deems hateful.

Citing Meta’s rollback of its fact-checking team in the United States, he argued that platforms must be forced to take action. “You have a platform like Meta that just gutted its entire fact-checking department…And so what we need to do is we need to apply pressure in a real significant way on tech platforms that they have a responsibility, that they have an absolute responsibility to check and remove hateful speech that is inciteful.”

Goldenberg advocated not just for voluntary moderation, but for legislative and regulatory measures, both at the federal and state level, that would compel platforms to act as speech enforcers. He pointed to efforts in states like California as examples of where local governments are already testing such models.

His concern centers around what he perceives as an ecosystem of radicalization made easily accessible by today’s digital infrastructure. He warned that extremist ideologies no longer require obscure forums or dark web communities to spread. “It used to be you had to fight going into the deep dark web… Now… it’s easier and easier to be exposed in the mainstream,” he said.

Framing the online environment as a catalyst for violence, Goldenberg argued that free access to controversial viewpoints must be curtailed. He called for social media companies to take a stronger stance by excluding users whose views fall outside accepted boundaries, adding that regulation should enforce this responsibility.

He zeroed in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a critical piece of legislation that shields platforms from legal liability over user-posted content. “Congress needs to amend Section 230, which provides immunity to tech platforms right now for what happens,” Goldenberg said. He dismissed comparisons between modern platforms and telecommunications companies, referencing past remarks by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about how phone providers were not liable for threats made over calls. Goldenberg’s view was blunt: “These tech platforms are not guaranteed under the Constitution. They’re just not.”

From his perspective, private companies should be free to “kick people off, to de-platform,” and if they fail to do so voluntarily, they must be pressured or regulated into compliance. He described accountability as a mechanism for shaping behavior, stating, “Accountability is a tool that can be incredibly effective in changing behavior.”

Keep reading

Rubio Announces Visa Restrictions on Foreign Nationals Involved in Censoring Americans

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 28 new visa restrictions against foreign nationals involved in censoring the speech of U.S. citizens.

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio announced in a post on social media platform X.

“Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life—a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”

Rubio said foreign nationals involved in suppressing the rights of Americans shouldn’t be allowed to visit the United States.

“Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over,” he said.

Keep reading

Justices Alito, Thomas blast SCOTUS for passing on censorship of ‘only two genders’ student

When the Supreme Court put the onus on states to set their own abortion policies with 2022’s Dobbs ruling, it unexpectedly subjected pro-life activists and their legislative allies to an onslaught of abortion-expansion proposals that made it into even red states’ laws, with a pro-life research group concluding last week that abortions are rising.

By passing on a case that sought to protect student expression that questions gender ideology from censorship in public schools, SCOTUS may similarly send free speech, gender-critical, religious freedom, conservative and pro-life advocates scrambling at the state and school district levels to protect nondisruptive speech at odds with progressive shibboleths.

The high court Tuesday turned away pleas from those advocates and Republican state attorneys general to hear and reverse the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Liam Morrison, upholding his Massachusetts middle school’s ban on wearing shirts that read “there are only two genders” and, after his first punishment, “there are only censored genders.” 

First Circuit Chief Judge David Barron – previously a Justice Department lawyer known for secretly advising the president who later nominated him that Barack Obama could legally kill Americans by drone strike – had portrayed the issue as a matter of judicial deference.

Keep reading

Forcing Lawyers To Join Leftist Bar Associations Violates Basic First Amendment Freedoms

In courtrooms across America, a battle is being waged between state bar associations and attorneys who don’t believe the right to practice law should depend on their willingness to be associated with leftist political candidates and causes.

It’s a classic case of “join or starve,” with many states requiring lawyers to maintain membership in state bar associations, despite — or perhaps because of — the organizations’ increasingly liberal tilt.

In response, the Freedom Foundation has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Crowe v. Oregon State Bar, challenging this forced membership arrangement as a flat-out violation of freedom of association.

The argument is straightforward: Lawyers in Oregon are being forced to be members of an organization that spouts political views they reject. The Oregon bar allows dissenting members to apply for a refund of money spent on political speech but maintains the requirement that all active lawyers be members of the association.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized there can be a violation of the freedom of expressive association when a group speaks and it’s assumed all members support the position taken. But ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld Oregon’s scheme, merely requiring the bar to add a weak disclaimer to indicate that not all members of the bar share its opinion when the bar speaks on a given topic.

But the Freedom Foundation lawsuit argues this misses the point entirely. Forced association itself is the problem.

To understand the gravity of the issue, consider a parallel scenario: Imagine a journalist required to be a member of a media association that consistently promotes views contrary to his or her own, or a teacher forced to support an educational organization that advocates for policies they find deeply problematic.

Can you even contemplate the outrage that would ensue if gun owners had to be members of an organization that actively supported, for example, banning all privately owned guns? Even if the organization made it clear that its position on banning guns is not the position of all its members, the very fact that gun owners must be members would itself violate the First Amendment.

Keep reading