Tag: 1st amendment

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

Supreme Court Overturns Maine’s Censure of Rep. Laurel Libby in Free Speech Ruling Over Trans Athlete Post

The US Supreme Court has stepped in to overturn the Maine legislature’s censure of Republican Representative Laurel Libby, marking a clear win for those opposing legislative punishments aimed at curbing political expression. The 7-2 ruling, issued Tuesday, instructed Maine lawmakers to rescind the sanctions they imposed on Libby over a social media post that identified a transgender high school athlete who had placed first in a girls’ pole vault event.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The Court found that Libby’s claim merited immediate relief, stating that her right to be free from censure for speech made in her official capacity was “indisputably clear.” Since February, the censure had effectively stripped Libby of her ability to participate in floor debates or vote on legislative matters unless she apologized, a condition she steadfastly rejected.

Following the ruling, Libby posted a celebratory message on X: “This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has affirmed what should NEVER have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.”

Keep reading

Trump’s DOJ Files Federal Lawsuit Against Small Idaho Town for Targeting Evangelical Church

President Trump’s Department of Justice has filed a federal lawsuit against the far-left leadership of Troy, Idaho, accusing the city of blatantly targeting a Christian congregation simply for trying to worship.

The lawsuit, United States v. City of Troy, is a blistering rebuke of how local officials weaponized zoning codes to shut down Christ Church, a growing evangelical church based in neighboring Moscow, Idaho.

Trump’s DOJ alleges that city leaders engaged in open discrimination, suppressing the church’s right to assemble — while allowing secular organizations to flourish in the same exact zone.

Christ Church, with a congregation too large for its Moscow area, sought to expand into Troy.

They tried renting a former bank building downtown to host Sunday services — a common sense solution given the building had been vacant for over a year and had ample street parking.

But after just two services, the city attorney sent a cease-and-desist order. The message was clear: Churches are not welcome in downtown Troy.

The church followed the law, applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and faced nothing short of a hostile inquisition.

City officials opened the floodgates to anti-Christian bigotry during the permit hearing. Opponents called Christ Church “a hate group,” accused it of “grotesque” beliefs, and claimed it would “destroy another Idaho town.”

The council then cited these comments — rooted in religious animus — as part of their decision to deny the church the right to worship.

Under Troy’s zoning code, churches are treated as second-class citizens, requiring a special conditional use permit to operate in the very same downtown district where art galleries, community centers, libraries, and even fraternal organizations are allowed to operate without any permit at all.

Keep reading

Mesa High School student barred from wearing military stole at graduation

A graduation controversy is unfolding at Arizona’s largest school district, Mesa Public Schools. School leaders won’t allow a senior at Mesa High School who is enlisted in the National Guard to wear a military stole at graduation on Thursday.

Daniela Rascon-Rivas earned the stole when she enlisted in the Arizona National Guard. “It would show my classmates that I am enlisted in the Army and that I am fighting for them, keeping our country safe from foreign and domestic enemies,” she says.

Rascon-Rivas says a Mesa High School administrator brought her down to the office last week to explain the district policy against wearing the stole at graduation. “I was disheartened. I was disappointed,” she says. “I felt betrayed.”

Mesa High sent Arizona’s Family a statement, reading in part, “Mesa High absolutely encourages families to bring their student’s stoles for photos and celebrations after the event.”

“I see no point in wearing it afterward,” Rascon-Rivas says. “The point of me wearing these stoles and cords is so that my classmates can see what I have accomplished and the accolades I have collected.”

Her father is also expressing disappointment. “When I got notice that she cannot wear the stole, that broke my heart,” says Jose Rascon.

Rascon-Rivas started a petition that’s gotten the attention of school board member Rachel Walden. “You get that one shot where you go up and grab your diploma and you do the handshake for the photo,” Walden says. “If she has her National Guard stole on, that’s going to make the night more meaningful for her. I think there’s no reason she shouldn’t be able to do that.”

Walden thinks the superintendent should step in and order the school administration to allow the military stoles on Thursday. “If they have to pull rank, then that’s what needs to be done,” she says. “Then we can address it permanently going forward by writing it into policy, if my colleagues on the board agree with that, we can pass a vote to update our policy.”

Keep reading

Trump Signs Take It Down Act

President Donald Trump has now signed into law the Take It Down Act, a measure designed to address the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including increasingly prevalent AI-generated deepfakes.

While the legislation is being celebrated by both major parties as a victory for online safety, particularly for children and victims of abuse, it has also raised concerns about the potential for overreach, selective enforcement, and the erosion of free speech under the guise of digital protection, particularly because of the broad wording of the bill.

The law’s most prominent advocate within the administration has been First Lady Melania Trump, who campaigned heavily for its passage and made rare public appearances to promote it. During the Rose Garden signing ceremony, President Trump invited her to add her signature beneath his, an unusual but symbolic gesture that underscored her role in pushing the legislation forward.

“This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused,” Mrs Trump said. In her remarks, she repeated her criticism of AI and social media, calling them “the digital candy for the next generation,” and warned that these technologies “can be weaponized, shaped beliefs, and sadly affect emotions and even be deadly.”

President Trump, for his part, appeared to dismiss constitutional concerns. “People talked about all sorts of First Amendment, Second Amendment. They talked about any amendment they could make up, and we got it through because of some very brave people,” he said.

Earlier in the year, during his March 4 address to Congress, Trump had signaled his intent to sign the bill. “The Senate passed the Take It Down Act…Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”

While made in jest, the remark pointed to an unresolved issue: how this law will be enforced, and who will benefit most from it.

There is no denying the harm caused by NCII. Victims often struggle to remove intimate images, whether real or AI-generated, while the content continues to spread. The Take It Down Act requires websites to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a complaint. But, just like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), platforms have little way of determining if a complaint is legitimate or being used as a censorship mechanism.

That timeline is designed to offer swift recourse to victims. However, the law’s broad wording leaves its applications open to interpretation.

The bill defines a violation as involving an “identifiable individual” engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” without offering a clear or narrow definition of what that conduct entails. This vagueness creates a gray area that could easily be used to suppress satire, parody, or even critical political speech.

Keep reading

JD Vance Warns EU Censorship and Fines Threaten US Free Speech and First Amendment Values

Vice President JD Vance sounded the alarm this week over the growing international push to restrict speech, warning that aggressive censorship trends in Europe could soon clash with American constitutional principles.

Speaking with Glenn Beck, Vance stressed that transatlantic influence runs deep, and the speech policies being advanced in Europe aren’t confined to their borders.

“The kind of social media censorship that we’ve seen in Western Europe, it will and in some ways, it already has made its way to the United States. That was the story of the Biden administration silencing people on social media,” Vance said.

He argued that the US must take a firm stance in defense of First Amendment ideals and not allow foreign pressures to shape domestic policies, particularly in the digital space. “So we’re going to be very protective of American interests when it comes to things like social media regulation. We want to promote free speech. We don’t want our European friends telling social media companies that they have to silence Christians or silence conservatives, and I think there is going to be that friction over the next ten years.”

While emphasizing that diplomatic ties remain intact, Vance acknowledged that serious ideological divisions are emerging. “It’s not that we are not friends, but there’re gonna have some disagreements you didn’t see 10 years ago.”

Vance’s concerns were prompted by a question from Beck regarding troubling developments in countries like Canada and within the EU. The digital censorship framework in Europe has gone well beyond theory, with major tech companies already feeling the brunt of regulatory threats. Firms like X, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok have faced mounting pressure to fall in line with EU speech codes or suffer severe financial consequences.

The EU has been leveraging the weight of its Digital Services Act (DSA) to pressure American tech companies into stricter content moderation, effectively threatening massive financial penalties if platforms fail to comply with the bloc’s speech regulations.

Keep reading