Tag: 1st amendment

House passes “Take it Down Act,” sending revenge porn bill backed by Melania Trump to president’s desk

The House passed a bipartisan bill Monday that makes it a federal crime to post real and fake sexually explicit imagery online of a person without their consent, sending the legislation that was backed by first lady Melania Trump to the president’s desk. 

The bill, known as the “Take It Down Act,” cleared the lower chamber in a 409-2 vote. The two “no” votes came from Republicans. The Senate unanimously passed the measure in February. 

The legislation requires social media companies and other websites to remove images and videos, including deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence, within 48 hours after a victim’s request. 

“If you’re a victim of revenge porn or AI-generated explicit imagery, your life changes forever,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, said at a March 3 roundtable promoting the bill. 

Cruz, who introduced the bill, recalled the experience of a teenage victim, Elliston Berry, whose classmate used an app to create explicit images of her and then sent them to her classmates. Berry’s mother had tried unsuccessfully to get Snapchat to remove the images for months before she contacted Cruz’s office for help. 

“It should not take a sitting senator or sitting member of Congress picking up the phone to get a picture down or video down,” Cruz said. 

The first lady, who rarely appears in public, attended the March discussion at the U.S. Capitol to advocate for the bill’s passage in the House. 

“It’s heartbreaking to witness young teens, especially girls, grappling with the overwhelming challenges posed by malicious online content like deep fakes,” she said. “This toxic environment can be severely damaging.” 

The first lady applauded Congress after its passage and said the bipartisan vote made a “powerful statement that we stand united in protecting the dignity, privacy, and safety of our children.” 

“I am thankful to the Members of Congress — both in the House and Senate — who voted to protect the well-being of our youth,” she said in a statement. 

According to the FBI, in recent years there have been an alarming number of cases where victims have been extorted that have ended in suicide. Lawmakers said they hope the bill will save lives by providing recourse for victims. 

Keep reading

The Net Neutrality Hydra: Twice Decapitated, Still Standing

We still use the internet under net neutrality regulations (aka Obamanet), despite its repeal by the Trump administration in 2017 and an unsuccessful attempt to reimpose them on the federal level by the Biden administration.

The issue persists because regulations equivalent to net neutrality were enacted as state laws by nearly all Democrat-controlled states, effectively imposing it as a nationwide mandate. For example, California passed a harsh net neutrality law, SB-822, in 2018 while the FCC repeal of Obamanet was still enjoined and litigated. This California legislation was challenged by industry groups in 2018, who were joined by the Department of Justice in 2020. This was a half-hearted effort. The plaintiffs brought only claims and arguments based on federal preemption. The court did not grant an injunction, and the litigation continued into the Biden administration, when plaintiffs dropped their case.

Plaintiffs elected not to bring constitutional claims, despite net neutrality laws and regulations breaching at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the famous Section 230. The industry groups were likely intimidated, and the DOJ was in shambles.

Contrary to the massive propaganda, net neutrality regulations and laws do not regulate broadband internet service providers. These laws regulate how citizens access and use the internet from their homes. It is achieved by defining all the ways customers want to obtain content and services over the internet as “broadband internet access,” then prohibiting all services that allow customers to exercise their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The target of the regulations is the citizenry, not industry.

Keep reading

Missouri 13-Year-Old Suspended for Making a Rifle Out of Dr. Pepper Cans

A 13-year-old Missouri middle school student was suspended for sharing a photo of his weekend art project on his private Snapchat account. The student, W.G., and his mother Riley Grunden are now suing the school district, principal, and superintendent for violating W.G.’s constitutionally protected First Amendment right to creative expression and for labeling him a “cyberbully” on his permanent record. 

While at home after school on September 14, 2024, W.G. took a photo on his personal electronic device of Dr. Pepper cans assembled into the shape of a rifle to mimic a social media trend of “can art,” according to the lawsuit filed by Goldwater Institute’s American Freedom Network. He then posted the photo on his personal Snapchat story to share with his friends. The post was accompanied by a trending audio file, titled “Ak47,” which includes a voiceover saying, “This is the famous AK47, with over 50 million manufactured in ten countries, the AK47 is the most popular assault rifle in the world.” 

The following day, W.G.’s mother received a phone call from W.G.’s school principal, who informed her that another parent had reported the Snapchat post and that W.G. would be subject to a search before entering the school premises the next day. The day after the search, Grunden met with the principal, superintendent, and school resource officer, where she and W.G. were told that, even though the superintendent had found “no credible evidence of any danger,” the Snapchat post had “brought fear to other students” and could be interpreted as a “terrorist threat.” As a result, W.G. would receive three days of out-of-school suspension for cyberbullying. Before this incident, W.G. had no history of bullying or cyberbullying. Now, Grunden is suing on behalf of her son’s free expression rights. 

Although adolescent social media and internet use is one of today’s hot topics, the Supreme Court has made it clear that schools do not have the right to punish students for constitutionally protected speech that has no connection to school safety. 

The Court’s 2021 Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. opinion reiterated schools’ limited ability to regulate off-campus speech only when speech materially disrupts the educational environment, and hedged against the temptation to censor all off-campus speech. Rather, the Court warned that “courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.” Additionally, in the 2023 Counterman v. Colorado opinion, the Court established that speech could only be punished as a “true threat” if the speaker anticipated that the expression would be perceived as threatening. 

Keep reading

Resolution wants Indiana House of Representatives to ‘submit’ to Jesus Christ

A resolution put forth by an Indiana legislator this week asks the state’s House of Representatives to “humbly submit its ways to the Lord, Jesus Christ.”

Written by Republican Rep. Joanna King and co-authored by 20 others, House Resolution 53 – “recognizing the importance of repentance” – invokes the Founding Fathers and their supposed reliance on “almighty God” when establishing the eventual U.S. government. It then calls for the House to “individually and corporately” uphold “biblical principles.”

King submitted the resolution on Tuesday, when it was referred to the committee on courts and criminal code. As of Thursday, it hadn’t been scheduled for a hearing.

No Evansville-area lawmakers signed on as co-authors. The 21 listed included 20 Republicans and one Democrat.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically bars legislators from passing any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Indiana’s own constitution follows suit.

“No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship,” Article 1, Section 4 reads in part.

In this case it’s not a law, but a resolution, which wouldn’t carry the same weight. Resolutions are largely symbolic and don’t alter existing code.

Kylie Glatfelter, a spokeswoman for King, said she’d pass on questions from the Courier & Press. As of Thursday morning, she hadn’t responded.

Keep reading

New Kansas antisemitism definition raises concerns over ability to criticize Israel 

A new Kansas law adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism — a definition that has been criticized for conflating criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism. 

The legislature passed and Gov. Laura Kelly signed the bill that declares antisemitism, as defined by IRHA, is “against the public policy of this state, including, but not limited to, the purposes of public educational institutions and law enforcement agencies in this state.”

David Soffer with the Combat Antisemitism Movement said that a clause in the definition prevents conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism. 

“It does differentiate the fact that criticism of Israel is perfectly OK, as long as it is held to the same standard that you would criticize another country,” Soffer said. “We know that there are criticisms of Israel’s own government amongst its people because it is a democracy, no different than here in the United States.” 

The definition reads that “manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Jack Goldstein with the Jewish Voice for Peace of Kansas City said the clause is vague. 

One example of antisemitism the IHRA provides is “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

“We’ve seen the definition be leveraged to silence voices that are dissenting against Israel for reasons that would be fair to critique other countries,” Goldstein said. “For example, their aggression in the Middle East.” 

Goldstein is referencing the Israel-Hamas war that sparked campus protests last May, which notably led to the detainment of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil.

President Donald Trump recently adopted the IHRA’s definition in an executive order, which has been used to strip funding from Columbia University over claims that the school failed to address antisemitism.  

Keep reading

Judge Rules School Can Ban ‘XX’ Protests Over Males in Girls’ Sports

The Bow School District was acting within its authority to kick two soccer dads out of a girls game for wearing pink “XX” wristbands as a silent protest against biological males playing on girls’ teams, a federal judge ruled Monday.

But one of the dads, Anthony Foote, told NHJournal he plans to keep fighting for what he sees as the rights of women and girls.

“What was our offense? Supporting girls’ sports and defending biological reality?” Foote said. “This ruling is a slap in the face to every parent who believes schools should be a place of fairness, not political indoctrination. The judge openly admitted that Pride flags are allowed because they promote ‘inclusion,’ but wristbands defending women’s sports are banned because they might ‘offend’ someone. That’s viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple — and it’s unconstitutional.”

United States District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe ruled against Foote, Kyle Fellers, Eldon Rash, and Nicole Foote in a 45-page order denying their preliminary injunction against SAU 67. The parents are being represented by the Institute for Free Speech, a legal nonprofit that promotes parents’ rights. Del Kolde, the senior attorney, said he is still considering his next steps in this case.

“We strongly disagree with the Court’s opinion issued today denying our request for a preliminary injunction. This was adult speech in a limited public forum, which enjoys greater First Amendment protection than student speech in the classroom. Bow School District officials were obviously discriminating based on viewpoint because they perceived the XX wristbands to be ‘trans-exclusionary.’ We are still evaluating our options for next steps,” Kolde said.

The crux of McAuliffe’s ruling is that while Fellers, Foote, and the others acted within their First Amendment rights to protest, venues like school athletic events are considered “limited public forums” and school officials acted within their legal authority to restrict what the parents said and did.

“The question then becomes whether the School District can manage its athletic events and its athletic fields and facilities — that is, its limited public forum — in a manner that protects its students from adult speech that can reasonably be seen to target a specific student participating in the event (as well as other similar gender-identifying students) by invited adult spectators, when that speech demeans, harasses, intimidates, and bullies. The answer is straightforward: Of course it can. Indeed, school authorities are obligated to do so,” McAuliffe wrote.

Keep reading

After Self-Immolations at Red Onion Prison, Virginia Prisoners Allege Crackdown

Besides an overhead light, Sidney Bowman says he hasn’t had electricity in his cell at Virginia’s Red Onion State Prison for roughly three months. 

Last month, Bowman told a federal court that prison employees cut the electricity to his cell after he refused to sign what staff call a “Safety Agreement for Inmates.” The document offers incentives to prisoners—such as movies, group recreation, free commissary bags, and a fish fry—provided they don’t harm themselves. However, if they repeatedly hurt themselves, they may lose “access to television, recreation time, or other amenities.” The Appeal obtained a copy of the agreement through a public records request. 

Bowman’s statement is part of an ongoing class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia that alleges that the state’s Step-Down program—which purports to help prisoners earn their way to a general population assignment—traps people in solitary confinement for months or years on end.

The legal team has asked the federal court to restore plaintiffs’ electricity and to prohibit staff from retaliating against people who refuse to sign the agreement or participate in the lawsuit. The Virginia Department of Corrections declined to answer The Appeal’s questions.

Last year, at least six people at Red Onion self-immolated in what incarcerated journalist Kevin ‘Rashid’ Johnson called “desperate attempts” to escape the prison’s inhumane conditions. But rather than offer them help, emails obtained by The Appeal show prison officials discussed how best to punish them. Then, in January, prison staff began distributing the Safety Agreement to people in Red Onion’s Step-Down program.

If someone refused to sign, staff cut the electricity to their cell’s outlet. The ACLU says this prevented prisoners from charging their tablets, watching television, or listening to the radio. Bowman told the court that he accesses religious programming through his television and tablet because he cannot leave his cell for services. He says his tablet is his primary tool to communicate with his family. 

Red Onion’s assistant warden confirmed in a court statement that there have been nine self-burnings—eight last year and one in January. The assistant warden said no one had burned themselves with a power outlet since the prison distributed the agreement on Jan. 20. 

“Security leadership and mental health leadership collaborated on potential solutions, and we ultimately decided that if an inmate agreed not to use the cell’s power outlet to bum himself, the power outlet in that inmate’s cell could remain active,” he said in his statement. “Inmates who refused to agree not to bum themselves would be placed in a cell where the power outlet had been deactivated.”

The warden said prisoners can use kiosks during recreation to charge their tablets and message family members. He said the prison has also set up TVs outside the cells to view religious services. 

In addition to threatening to punish people for acts of self-harm, the agreement also requires signers to affirm that they have “access to mental health and other local resources.” The plaintiffs say compelling them to agree with or espouse statements they believe are untrue or objectionable violates their First Amendment rights. 

Keep reading

Massachusetts Couple Accused of ‘Kidnapping’ Their Own Five Children from State Custody

A Massachusetts couple is facing serious charges after allegedly kidnapping their five children, who had been placed in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF).

Isael Rivera, 31, and Ruth Encarnacion, 30, were located by Fitchburg Police in early March, after a multi-state manhunt.

The couple is accused of taking the children across state lines in an attempt to evade DCF intervention.

Authorities believe the family fled Massachusetts shortly before the state attempted to enforce child protective measures, according to WCVB 5.
Rivera, the biological father of four of the five children, was arraigned last week in Fitchburg District Court. A not-guilty plea was entered on his behalf, and he is currently being held without bail, WHDH reported.

Encarnacion, the mother of all five children, is scheduled to be arraigned this week and faces five counts of kidnapping a minor by a relative. A not-guilty plea has also been entered on her behalf.

According to law enforcement, the family went missing just as DCF prepared to remove the children from Encarnacion’s care on February 27.

Encarnacion’s sister reported her missing days later on March 3, citing a lack of contact since February 26. DCF officially reported the five children missing on March 5, triggering a state and federal search.

Court documents indicate that DCF had opened a case against the couple in February after a pediatrician flagged signs of neglect involving the youngest child, a 9-month-old.

DCF intervened shortly thereafter, but by then, the family had reportedly left Massachusetts.

According to unconfirmed reports, they told their pediatrician they were skipping vaccines for their baby.

Keep reading

Congress Takes Another Step Toward Enabling Broad Internet Censorship

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday advanced the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) , a bill that seeks to speed up the removal of certain kinds of troubling online content. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike. 

As we’ve written before, while protecting victims of these heinous privacy invasions is a legitimate goal, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy. 

This bill mandates a notice-and-takedown system that threatens free expression, user privacy, and due process, without meaningfully addressing the problem it claims to solve. The “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored. 

The legislation’s 48-hour takedown deadline means that online service providers, particularly smaller ones, will have to comply quickly to avoid legal risks. That time crunch will make it impossible for services to verify the content is in fact NCII. Instead, services will rely on automated filters—infamously blunt tools that frequently flag legal content, from fair-use commentary to news reporting.

Keep reading

‘Not a cult’: Holy war erupts as judge bans mom from taking daughter to Christian church

A mother whose constitutional rights were violated by a Maine judge hearing a custody dispute has taken the fight to the state Supreme Court.

The case involves a radical ruling from Jennifer Nofsinger, a judge who heard a custody case, who ordered that the mother was not allowed to take her 11-year-old daughter to an evangelical Christian church.

That was based on “objections” from the child’s father, who like the mother and daughter was not identified in the report from Liberty Counsel, which is working on the case.

Chairman Mat Staver said, “Calvary Chapel is not a cult. This custody order banning a mother from taking her child to a Christian church because of its biblical teachings regarding marriage and human sexuality violates the First Amendment. The custody order cannot prohibit the mother from taking her daughter to church. The implications of this order pose a serious threat to religious freedom.”

The judge granted the father, who objects to the Christian teachings of the church, “the sole right to govern the girl’s religious activities.”

The high court is being asked to reverse the “unlawful custody order” and to restore the mother’s First Amendment right to pass on her religious beliefs

The judge adopted the ideology of a leftist teacher from California who was hired by the father. That teacher, Janja Lalich, told the judge “that cults usually have a charismatic, authoritarian leader who teach about a ‘transcendent belief system’ that offers answers, and ‘promises some sort of salvation.’ She further testified that she had ‘studied’ Calvary Chapel Church and found that the church’s pastor was a ‘charismatic’ speaker, spoke ‘authoritatively’ in his messages, and that he asserted his messages were objective truth.,” Liberty Counsel reported.

That meant, Lalich claimed, the church was “cultic.”

Keep reading