Tag: 1st amendment

Rep. MTG Says House Bill to Criminalize EU and UN-Backed Boycotts of Israel with $1 Million Fines and 20-Year Sentences Has Been PULLED

The U.S. House of Representatives has reportedly pulled H.R. 867, the IGO Anti-Boycott Act, following fierce opposition from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and former Rep. Matt Gaetz.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), aimed to expand the 2018 Anti-Boycott Act to include international governmental organizations (IGOs) like the United Nations and European Union, targeting efforts to boycott U.S. allies, particularly Israel.

The Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 is a U.S. federal law that prohibits U.S. individuals and companies from participating in or supporting foreign-led boycotts against countries that are friendly to the United States, unless such boycotts are sanctioned by U.S. law.

This legislation is particularly aimed at countering boycotts initiated by foreign entities, such as the Arab League’s boycott of Israel.

The Arab League’s boycott of Israel—originally initiated in 1945—still exists on paper, but only a few member countries continue to actively enforce it in a comprehensive way.

  • Iraq
  • Kuwait
  • Lebanon
  • Libya
  • Qatar
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Syria
  • Yemen

Violations can result in civil penalties up to $300,000 or twice the value of the transaction, whichever is greater, and criminal penalties up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years.

In recent years, several companies have faced penalties for antiboycott violations:

  • Quantum Corporation was fined $151,875 for 45 alleged violations involving requests from a distributor in the United Arab Emirates to refrain from importing Israeli-origin goods.
  • Wabtec Corporation was hit with a $153,175 fine for 43 violations after failing to report requests from a Qatari customer to participate in a foreign boycott by avoiding Israeli-origin goods.
  • Pratt & Whitney was penalized $48,750 for 13 violations tied to similar unreported requests from a Qatari customer urging the company to refrain from importing products from Israel.

The new bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and several others, will expand the 2018 law’s scope to include international governmental organizations (IGOs) such as the United Nations and its affiliates.

Keep reading

Maine Lawmaker Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Speech Ban

A Maine legislator has turned to the US Supreme Court after being effectively stripped of her ability to represent her constituents over a controversial social media post. Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, who serves District 90, submitted an emergency request to the high court this week, seeking to overturn a disciplinary action imposed by her fellow lawmakers that has barred her from voting or speaking on the House floor since February.

The dispute stems from a Facebook post Libby made criticizing the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a statewide girls’ pole vault competition.

The post included a mention of a Maine student and questioned the fairness of allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports categories, a stance that ignited outrage among Democratic legislators. In response, the House voted to censure Libby and conditioned her return to full legislative participation on an apology she had refused to give.

Rather than comply, Libby launched a legal fight to restore her role, arguing the punishment amounted to unconstitutional retaliation. After lower courts refused to intervene, she is now asking the Supreme Court to address what she sees as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a denial of her constituents’ right to representation.

We obtained a copy of the application for you here.

“For over 60 days my constituents have had no say in any actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives,” she wrote in a post on X. “Every vote taken on the floor of the legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silenced and disenfranchised.”

Libby emphasized that the case raises serious concerns about the limits of legislative authority when it comes to penalizing elected officials for their speech.

Keep reading

Police investigate after white mother used racist slur at Minnesota park

Video taken at a Minnesota public park this week shows a white woman apparently admitting she used a racist slur against a Black youth she accused of taking an item that belongs to her child.

The man who recorded the video, Sharmake Omar, 30, said in an interview Friday that the 5-year-old child was called the N-word by the woman Monday.

“The Rochester Police Department is aware of the video that was posted on social media and has received multiple calls related to it,” it said Friday. “We are gathering information and actively looking into the matter.”

Omar said that when he saw the woman berating the child of Somali heritage, a background he shares, he intervened and she turned her apparent anger on him, using the slur repeatedly, which was captured on the video.

In the video, verified by NBC News, the woman, apparently carrying her child away, answered, “Yeah” when asked if she called the youth the slur.

“He took my son’s stuff,” she said.

Keep reading

Religion Is Not The Only Thing That Should Be Separated From The State

The Act of Supremacy of 1534 declared that King Henry VIII (and his successors) was “the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England” and not the pope of Rome. The Treason Act of 1534 made it an act of treason, under punishment of death, to deny the Act of Supremacy. During the reign of Queen Mary, the daughter of Henry VIII, the Act of Supremacy was repealed, but was enacted by the English Parliament again in 1559 after Henry’s other daughter Elizabeth became the queen. The British monarch is to this very day still the head of the Church of England or Anglican Church, which is the established church in England. This is one of the main differences between the United States and Great Britain. Although the United States has a National Cathedral where some state funerals are held (most recently for Jimmy Carter), it is actually an Episcopal church (part of the worldwide Anglican Communion), not owned or controlled by the federal government. The “separation of church and state” is a hallmark of the American system of government.

The First Amendment

The Constitution was drafted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and took effect in 1789. It established the United States as a federal system of government where the states, through the Constitution, granted a limited number of powers to a central government. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was ratified by the states in 1791 in response to criticisms of the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists that the Constitution contained no explicit protection of speech, assembly, religion, or the right to bear arms.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It was President Thomas Jefferson who, in an 1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, equated the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the “separation of church and state”:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

That the “separation of church and state” applied to just the federal government is evident by the fact that some of the states still maintained established churches at the time the Constitution was adopted. The phrase was resurrected by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947). But as Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center has observed: “The federal government’s use of the First Amendment to prohibit religious displays in local parks, to force the removal of the Ten Commandments from public schools, or to ban prayers in public assemblies would horrify the founding generation.” Massachusetts was the last of the original states to fully disestablish its churches in 1833. The idea of the “separation of church and state” is now enshrined in all state constitutions.

But religion is not the only thing that should be separated from the state. Unfortunately, the very people who talk the loudest about the separation of church and state never call for the separation of anything else from the state.

Keep reading

Free Speech Under Direct Attack in Texas: House Passes RINO Dade Phelan’s Orwellian Bill to CRIMINALIZE Political Memes Without a Government-Approved Disclaimer

The Republican-led Texas House has officially caved to the radical Left’s war on free speech—and shockingly, it’s being spearheaded by none other than the state’s own scandal-plagued former House Speaker Dade Phelan.

On Tuesday, House Bill 366 passed with bipartisan support, making it a potential crime in the state of Texas to share or distribute AI-generated and “altered media”—including political memes—without a government-approved disclaimer on political ads.

According to the bill:

“A person may not, with the intent to influence an election, knowingly cause to be published, distributed, or broadcast political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder’s or candidate’s appearance, speech, or conduct that did not occur in reality, including an image, audio recording, or video recording that has been altered using generative artificial intelligence technology, unless the political advertising includes a disclosure from the person or another person on whose behalf the political advertising is published, distributed, or broadcast indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality.”

Let that sink in: Texas Republicans — yes, Republicans — are now trying to police memes.

The bill makes it a Class A misdemeanor for candidates, officeholders, or political committees to knowingly distribute political ads that use manipulated images, audio, or video—especially if created with generative AI—without an explicit disclosure that the content did not occur in reality. The law applies to any group spending over $100 on such materials and seeks to curb misleading media that could influence elections.

Under the bill, the Texas Ethics Commission will define the specific formatting for these required disclosures. However, media platforms and service providers like internet hosts, broadcasters, and billboard owners are exempt from liability.

If signed into law, the legislation will take effect on September 1, 2025.

Keep reading

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