Tag: 1st amendment

Green Card-Holding Palestinian Trump’s Deporting Gets Even Worse News as Justice Finds Him

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student detained by immigration authorities over the weekend, appears to have violated explicit federal immigration laws.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Khalil, a permanent resident with a green card, on Saturday.

The agents originally told Khalil his student visa was being revoked, according to The Associated Press, which quoted Khalil’s attorney, Amy Greer.

Greer told the AP she spoke on the phone with the agents during the arrest and said her client had a green card. The agent then told her the green card was being revoked instead, Greer said, according to the AP.

On Sunday, in a post on the social media platform X, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the federal government will be “revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said Khalil was arrested “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism” because he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” according to the AP.

On Monday, however, a federal judge in New York blocked Khalil’s deportation. Judge Jesse M. Furman said that Khalil must remain in the United States “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction” as the court considers his case, according to NBC News.

A hearing for the case is scheduled in federal court for Wednesday.

Other protesters have assembled in New York City to demand the release of Khalil.

Keep reading

The Take It Down Act: A Censorship Weapon Disguised As Protection

President Trump has thrown his support behind the Take It Down Act, a bill designed to combat the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI-generated deepfakes. The legislation has gained momentum, particularly with First Lady Melania Trump backing the effort, and Trump himself endorsing it during his March 4 address to Congress.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

“The Senate just 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 this comment was likely tongue-in-cheek, it highlights an important question: how will this law be enforced, and who will benefit the most from it?

A Necessary Law with Potential Pitfalls

The rise of AI-generated explicit content and the increasing problem of revenge porn are serious concerns. Victims of NCII have long struggled to get harmful content removed, often facing bureaucratic roadblocks while the damage continues to spread. The Take It Down Act aims to give individuals more power to protect themselves online.

However, as with many internet regulations, the challenge is in the details. Laws designed to curb harmful content often run the risk of being too broad, potentially leading to overreach. Critics warn that, without clear safeguards, the legislation could be used beyond its intended purpose.

Keep reading

Why Is the Left Conflating Religious Liberty and ‘Christian Nationalism’?

With the recent inauguration of President Donald Trump, many within the religious liberty movement are now breathing a sigh of relief that robust religious liberty protections for all believers seems to be a priority of the new administration.

In recent decades, many of the fights for one of the most fundamental American freedoms have involved litigation to ensure robust religious exercise protections under the First Amendment or legislative fights to enact religious liberty protections via statute (such as Religious Freedom Restoration Acts). While it is true that many of the religious liberty advocates are Christians (which makes sense—about two-thirds of Americans identify as Christians), the fight for religious liberty is clearly a fight for religious exercise of all religions against the coercive power of the state. From George Washington’s 1790 Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport to the Mahmoud v. Taylor case currently pending before the Supreme Court, the religious liberty movement in America has consistently involved and defended the rights of diverse religions. 

In recent years, critics of the Trump administration in particular and the religious liberty movement in general have curiously claimed that the whole religious liberty movement has been misused as a vehicle to install “Christian Nationalism” in America. The claim is strange because, as we will explain, all the major religious liberty initiatives in America—including our work at the Napa Legal Institute—are even-handedly advocating for religious exercise rights that apply equally to all non-Christian religions as well as to Christians.

Napa Legal’s Faith and Freedom Index strives to be an objective, even-handed analysis of religious liberty at the state level, analyzing whether state laws allow faith-based nonprofit organizations of every creed to be given the freedom to operate without unnecessary government interference.

Keep reading

It Didn’t Take Long for Free Speech to Prevail in Mississippi

Last week, we brought you the story of a city council in Mississippi that was so thin-skinned that it couldn’t handle a critical editorial in the local paper. The City of Clarksdale took the Clarksdale Press Register to court over an op-ed in which the editors questioned why the city lobbied the state government for a “sin tax” without notifying the citizens or local media.

“The editorial highlighted how the mayor has touted his ‘open’ and ‘transparent’ governance, yet he and the city council didn’t notify the press about its intentions despite promising to ‘give appropriate notice thereof to the media,’” I wrote last week. “The editors admitted that they support the tax, yet they questioned why the city left everyone in the dark about the lobbying efforts.”

In the court filing, the city clerk admitted that she forgot to notify the media of the city’s efforts, which turned out to be a violation of state law. Nevertheless, Judge Crystal Wise Martin issued an order demanding that the paper take the editorial off its website — without a hearing that would give the paper a chance to tell its side of the story.

“For over a hundred years, the Press Register has served the people of Clarksdale by speaking the truth and printing the facts,” said Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, the Press Register’s publisher. “We didn’t earn the community’s trust by backing down to politicians, and we didn’t plan on starting now.”

The order set off a First Amendment firestorm, and the paper enlisted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) to help defend itself against this unconstitutional onslaught. By the end of last week, FIRE had agreed to help the Press Register work to lift the judge’s order.

“The implications of this case go beyond one Mississippi town censoring its paper of record,” said FIRE attorney David Rubin. “If the government can get a court order silencing mere questions about its decisions, the First Amendment rights of all Americans are in jeopardy.”

Keep reading

Did Facebook Conspire With the Government to Censor Speech in Violation of the First Amendment? Case Could Redefine Social Media Censorship

The Rutherford Institute is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hold Facebook accountable for conspiring with the government to censor and suppress speech and address Facebook censorship issues.

Weighing in before the U.S. Supreme Court with an amicus brief in Children’s Health Defense v. Meta, The Rutherford Institute argues that Meta Platforms should be held accountable as a government actor for violating the First Amendment by partnering with the government in order to restrict the Facebook posts, fundraising, and advertising of Children’s Health Defense (“CHD”). Although the Trump Administration has ordered federal officials to cease the government’s censorship efforts, The Rutherford Institute warned that political stances can change quickly and social media companies are likely to censor speech again at the government’s direction unless they are held accountable as government actors for violating the First Amendment rights of the people. Facebook censorship leads to the suppression of diverse ideas.

“We should all be alarmed when prominent social media voices are censored, silenced, and made to disappear from Facebook, X, YouTube, and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, extremist, or conspiratorial,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “At some point, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes ‘extremism,’ we might all be considered guilty of some thought-crime and subjected to technocensorship like Facebook censorship.”

Keep reading

ORCHESTRATED CENSORSHIP: $2.4 million in U.S. government fund to Poynter Institute raises alarms

In a shocking revelation that underscores the insidious reach of government over media and online speech, the Media Research Center (MRC) has uncovered that the Poynter Institute for Media Studies received at least 2.4 million in government funds from 2013 to 2025. The majority of this funding, totaling over 1.67 million, came from the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the Biden administration, with additional significant contributions from the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the State Department.

A historical context of concern

The Poynter Institute, home to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), has long been a focal point of controversy, particularly among conservatives and those advocating for free speech. Since its inception in 2015, the IFCN has certified and supported over 170 fact-checking organizations worldwide, a network that has often been accused of bias and censorship. The allocation of taxpayer dollars to such an entity raises serious questions about government influence over the media and the suppression of dissenting voices.

Government-funded censorship: A dangerous precedent

The funding of the Poynter Institute is not merely a case of irresponsible spending; it is a potent example of the government’s role in shaping online discourse. The IFCN, with its extensive network of fact-checkers, including Poynter’s own PolitiFact, was integral to Meta’s (formerly Facebook) fact-checking program. This program, which flagged content and reduced its visibility by up to 95%, was a powerful tool for suppressing speech—particularly conservative viewpoints.

“The critical issue here is the extent to which the government is funding organizations that have a direct hand in moderating and censoring online content,” said Tim Graham, a senior analyst at MRC. “This is a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous precedent for free speech in America.”

Keep reading

Democrat Arizona AG Kris Mayes’ Alternate Trump Electors Case on Life Support After Judge Says Charges May Have Violated First Amendment

The Arizona alternate Trump electors case brought by Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes started to crumble last year after a judge allowed the defendants to argue the charges are politically motivated.

During a hearing last year, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen said he was open to listening to the defendants’ arguments to have the indictment thrown out under Arizona’s anti-SLAPP law, which was recently expanded by the legislature to cover vindictive politically motivated charges.

On Monday, Maricopa County Judge Sam Myers said the defendants successfully argued that the charges against them appear to have violated the state’s anti-SLAPP statute.

“Myers said that Arizona Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes’ declaration when announcing the indictment that “this should never happen again” can be construed as assigning political motivation to the prosecution,” Courthouse News reported.

Arizona prosecutors have 45 days to respond to the judge’s finding and prove the charges were to enforce the law and not violate the First Amendment rights of the defendants.

Trump 2020 election lawyer John Eastman responded to the judge’s finding: Major ruling in the Arizona electors case this a.m. The new judge just ruled that I met the prima facie case required to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute — that is, 1st Amend. rights implicated, & substantial evid. that the prosecution was to retaliate or deter those rights.

Keep reading

Trump orders review to identify, punish and deport antisemites — including students on visas

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday instructing federal agencies to identify “all civil and criminal authorities” available to combat antisemitism — including finding ways to deport anti-Jewish activists who violated laws.

The order, first reported by The Post, requires agency and department leaders to provide the White House with recommendations within 60 days and outlines plans for the Justice Department to investigate pro-Hamas graffiti and intimidation, including on college campuses.

“Jewish students have faced an unrelenting barrage of discrimination; denial of access to campus common areas and facilities, including libraries and classrooms; and intimidation, harassment, and physical threats and assault,” the order says.

“It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.”

The executive order calls for the deportation of resident aliens — including students with visas — who broke laws as part of anti-Israel protests following the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks that sparked the invasion of Gaza.

“[T]he Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security… shall include in their reports recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds and for ensuring that such reports about aliens lead, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens,” the order says.

Keep reading

Disinformation Experts Hate Trump’s Free Speech Executive Order

Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump signed a bevy of executive orders earlier this week, including one that seeks to end the federal government’s pressure campaign on social media companies.

The “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” executive order reaffirms the free speech rights of social media users and prohibits government agents from engaging in unconstitutional censorship.

“Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate,” states the order. “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

This order is, as the Abundance Institute’s Neil Chilson recognized, “good and appropriate.” Much of the censorship on social media sites that rightly irked libertarians, conservatives, and dissidents of all stripes was not enforced by the platforms of their own free will; on the contrary, they were browbeaten by various federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the White House.

It’s right and proper for Trump to tell the bureaucrats who work at these agencies: that’s enough of that. The First Amendment protects misinformation and hate speech, and the feds have no business policing these categories of speech on social media.

Keep reading

State ‘Bias Response Hotlines’ Encourage People To Snitch on Their Neighbors for ‘Hate Speech’

By the end of this year, as many as 100 million Americans could live in a state where they can be reported to a “bias response hotline” for a wide range of protected speech. While states claim that these reporting mechanisms don’t punish people for non-criminal speech acts, many also claim to attempt to stop hateful speech incidents “before they occur.”

According to a recent report in The Washington Free Beacon by reporter Aaron Sibarium, these reporting systems allow people to “snitch” on their neighbors. Connecticut allows people to report “hate speech” they “heard about but did not see.” Vermont encourages citizens to call the police over “biased but protected speech.” Philadelphia actually directs people to give the names of alleged offenders so they can be contacted.

“If it is not a crime, we sometimes contact the offending party and try to do training so that it doesn’t happen again,” Saterria Kersey, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, told Sibarium.

Oregon’s Bias Response hotline encourages citizens to report not only hate crimes, but also “non-criminal hostile expression motivated in part or whole by” someone’s protected identity. These incidents can include “hate speech,” “displaying hateful symbols or flags,” and “telling or sharing offensive ‘jokes’ about someone’s identity.”

What happens when someone calls this hotline? The Free Beacon called the hotline and reported a fictional incident—a man, identifying himself as a Muslim said that he felt “targeted” by his neighbor’s Israeli flag. 

“Within 20 minutes, a hotline operator had logged the display in a ‘state database,’ referred to it as a ‘warning sign,’ and suggested installing security cameras in case the situation ‘escalates,'” Sibarium writes. “He also informed this reporter that, ‘as a victim of a bias incident,’ he could apply for taxpayer-funded therapy through the state’s Crime Victims Compensation Program, which covers counseling costs for bias incidents as well as crimes.”

Even though nothing criminal had allegedly occurred—or even something that could be fairly described as objectively offensive—the operator nonetheless treated the report with immense gravity.

“Even if it is not very explicit, we go with whatever the victim is experiencing,” the operator said during the call. “And if your sense is that this is based on discrimination against your faith or your country of origin…that’s how I would document it.”

Keep reading