Colorado college drops charges against student journalists, but speech restrictions remain uncertain

The Community College of Aurora closed its conduct case against student journalists this month, finding them “not responsible” due to unclear rules, after restricting the reporters from interviewing and publishing without prior approval and charging them for continuing those activities.

The student newspaper, FoxTalk, is led by CCA student Andrew Green, who told The College Fix via email that the decision, “is a big step forward.” 

He added that he still doesn’t “know whether the restrictions on interviews, reporting and publishing have actually been lifted.”

“I want the earlier warning reconsidered, and a clear answer about whether we are free to interview students, report and publish. I would much rather spend my time building the newsroom than fighting the college,” he said.

He added that he believes the school and newspaper can have a “good relationship” moving forward, “while FoxTalk still does independent journalism.” 

Green also said he is “working with the Student Press Law Center’s New Voices team to explore legislation around protections for college student journalists in Colorado,” he said. 

“Even if FoxTalk and CCA resolve everything, I would like the next student journalist to have clearer rules than I did,” Green told The Fix. 

A free speech group called the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression continues to press the college. 

Program Manager for FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative Marie McMullan said the group is “assessing next steps” and that “until the ban on publication and student disciplinary measures are rescinded, our concerns remain.”

She also said that this “kind of blanket ban on student journalism can’t remain in place, and we continue pushing CCA to change its course.” 

FIRE had sent a demand letter this month to CCA Vice President Reyna Anaya, calling on the school to “drop the charges against any student who chooses not to comply with such unconstitutional demands, and forego further censorial practices.” 

The group alleges that CCA’s directives violated the First Amendment through prior restraint, prior review, compelled speech, and restrictions on associational freedom.

Reached for comment, CCA Executive Director of Communications and Special Initiatives Courtney Butler told The College Fix that the school is still reviewing the matter and is unable to provide additional comment.

FoxTalk was registered under the college on March 13th. In April, Green asked CCA administrators “to confirm whether FoxTalk could seek comment from CCA faculty and staff in their personal capacities without going through Butler’s office,” according to FIRE’s demand letter. 

Dean of Student Success Julie LaRock then informed Green that the newspaper would need to “receive staff approval before identifying themselves as FoxTalk staff, accessing non-public spaces, beginning work on each month’s stories, and publishing any content whatsoever.”

LaRock further advised Green to hold off on additional work until structural coordination with the administration and faculty was established.

On June 3, Green questioned the order to stop FoxTalk from publishing, saying the group still planned to cover the June 30 primary election, including a debate at the University of Denver. 

After an administrator said FoxTalk only had to follow regular student-organization rules, Green assumed they could publish again and wrote to confirm. The administrator replied that the ban was still in place until FoxTalk’s structure was fixed, and also criticized the activities of three members.

On July 14, Green was charged with interviewing students, posting on the FoxTalk website, contacting employees, and ignoring earlier orders. On July 23 he was charged again for not following a college official’s directives. 

McMullan told The Fix that CCA’s rationale for restricting the students is not very common compared to what the group has seen in the past. However, several other schools have similarly tried to restrict student journalists. 

“Repeatedly … universities and colleges subjecting student journalists to investigations, hearings, and punishments for basic newsgathering and publishing, or attempting to wholesale stop students from publishing,” she said.

Morgan State University, for example, implemented a policy that restricts student journalists’ ability to gather news directly, requiring media inquiries to go through the Office of Public Relations and Strategic Communications, The College Fix previously reported. 

McMullan previously told The Fix this policy is a “blatantly” illegal “gag order.”

Keep reading

Federal Appellate Court Rules In Favor Of AI Child Porn

While proponents of artificial intelligence (”AI”) paint an idyllic picture of how the groundbreaking technology is poised to eliminate the ills plaguing society, their unbridled optimism continues to be met with skepticism by their opponents. From fears over the economic repercussions of the rapid loss of jobs that advancements in AI may not be able to outpace to the technology’s applications as the framework for the apparatus of a panopticon surveillance state, concerns over the impact of AI mar the utopian vision its advocates have with an even more dystopian outlook of the future it will usher in. A look inside of the Pandora’s Box being opened by AI was glimpsed following a decision by a federal appeals court ruling in favor of protecting AI-generated child pornography.

On August 25th, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled thatthe First Amendment protects an individual’s right to privately possess images and videos of child sexual abuse created using AI, so long as the child sex abuse material (”CSAM”) does not depict a real child and remains in the privacy of the possessor’s home. The federal appellate court issued the unanimous ruling from a panel of three U.S. circuit judges: Judge John Z. Lee, Judge Doris L. Pryor, and Judge Joshua P. Kolar. The case came to the court in the matter of U.S. v. Anderegg, a title that now stands poised to challenge longstanding Supreme Court precedent governing how the law addresses CSAM.

The pivotal case centers on Steven Anderegg, 42, of Holmen, Wisconsin. Anderegg was arrested in May 2024 on suspicion of mass production of AI-generated CSAM. Prosecutors alleged that he used an AI image generator called Stable Diffusion to create over 13,000 images depicting child sex abuse by entering prompts into the platform, including thousands of realistic images of prepubescent minors. In a press release announcing his arrest, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed Anderegg described how he created the AI CSAM through the text-to-image generative AI model in a chat with a 15-year-old boy on the social media platform Instagram. The DOJ press release chronicled how Anderegg not only described how he generated the images to the minor, but that he sent the boy several AI-generated images of minors displaying their genitals. Following their exchange, Instagram reported Anderegg’s account to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (”NCMEC”) through its CyberTipline. The NCMEC followed suit by alerting federal authorities.

On May 15th, 2024, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin returned an indictment against Anderegg, charging him with producing, distributing, and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transferring obscene materials to a minor under the age of 16. Under those charges, Anderegg faces a maximum penalty of 70 years in prison and a mandatory minimum of five years.

Ahead of his trial originally scheduled to begin on February 18th, 2025, Anderegg’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the four counts brought against him on September 23rd, 2024. His defense counsel cited a myriad of federal cases in support of their argument that the statutes Anderegg was charged under were unconstitutional because the AI CSAM he created, possessed, and shared did not depict any actual children, thus the charges violated his rights under the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Paxton “Child Safety” Plan Puts Legal Speech at Criminal Risk

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is currently running for the US Senate, and pushing online digital ID age verification checks in the name of “online safety,” has announced a data center plan that, among other things, vows to “protect children” by making data center companies criminally liable if the centers they operate “empower AI chatbots that undermine children’s safety.”

Paxton is effectively promising to author legislation that would introduce a novel form of liability, aimed at data centers – the physical and hardware part of the internet’s infrastructure – for the content that is generated by software running on their servers.

This is a clear departure from the principle, enshrined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that internet infrastructure is not liable for third-party, user-generated content.

And, while Paxton’s plan speaks of chatbots that “undermine children’s safety” – a broad and vague term that can easily be abused to censor speech – the actual target could be any chatbot, and any speech.

And the liability would be criminal.

Paxton is quoted as saying in a post on X: “My Texas First Data Center Plan will protect our grid, our communities, and our children while ensuring America beats Communist China in the AI race,” he wrote.

Keep reading

IT’S OFFICIAL: California Governor Gavin Newsom Signs “Stop Nick Shirley Act” into Law – Journalists Can Now Be FINED and JAILED for Uncovering Democrat Fraud

The formerly great state of California took a giant step toward becoming a complete leftist dictatorship with a new law that completely destroys the 1st Amendment.

As The New York Post reported, Governor Gavin Newsom officially signed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” into law on Saturday. This comes just days after a leftist operative interrupted an interview the independent journalist was conducting at the State Capitol and launched a disgusting and bizarre personal attack against him.

The legislation, which officially takes effect on October 1, 2027, passed the Senate on Tuesday and cleared the state Assembly on Wednesday.

The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” was introduced by Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, who is married to California’s far-left Attorney General, Rob Bonta. AB 2624 claims to expand California’s “Safe at Home” confidentiality program to safeguard “immigration support service providers” from harassment.

But in reality, this is a disgusting Democrat power grab designed to silence brave conservative citizen journalists like Shirley who expose the rampant fraud bleeding American taxpayers dry in government-funded immigrant service centers.

For example, Shirley has exposed over $110 million in alleged Somali-run daycare fraud in Minnesota — empty “learning centers” billing taxpayers while no children were present.

He then followed up with a shocking exposé on California daycare and hospice fraud schemes. This included ghost operations in Los Angeles tied to massive looting of Medi-Cal and Medicare.

Keep reading

Major First Amendment Victory: D.C. Circuit Overturns Verdict Against James O’Keefe, Rules Undercover Journalism Is Protected Speech

In a major First Amendment and investigative-reporting win, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has overturned a jury verdict and damages award against James O’Keefe and undercover journalist Allison Maass stemming from a Project Veritas investigation into Democracy Partners.

The panel ruled 2-1 that the First Amendment protects publishing undercover footage and that the damages improperly punished protected journalistic activity.

O’Keefe announced the decision in a video posted on his X account Friday evening, saying his faith in the future of journalism has been restored after the appellate court, including a Democrat-appointed judge, set a powerful precedent for undercover work nationwide.

Keep reading

Court: First Amendment Protects Recording Police in Public

Here’s a ruling that is at the same time a major victory and a disappointment for digital and civil rights. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has for the first time recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement activity in public.

This is the ninth US federal circuit court to do so, and as an appeals ruling it is binding in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

But the same ruling, issued on Monday, upheld the qualified immunity of the officers who made the arrest, which means the plaintiff, Keith Massimino, loses his case despite the court establishing the principle in his favor.

Massimino was arrested on October 30, 2018, for filming the outside of the Waterbury Police Department from a public sidewalk. The incident was far from an isolated one, as the man, represented by the ACLU of Connecticut, describes himself as a “First Amendment auditing hobbyist.”

During the 2018 incident, officers Matthew Benoit and Frank Laone confronted him, and Massimino gave them vague responses about his purpose, and refused to show his ID, which the officers said was a “lawful order.”

He was arrested for obstruction under a Connecticut statute (obstructing, resisting, hindering or endangering a peace officer), held for several hours, and released. The charge was dismissed in May 2021.

In August 2021, Massimino sued the two police officers with three claims: a First Amendment claim (right to record police), a Fourth Amendment claim (unlawful detention and arrest without probable cause), and a malicious prosecution claim.

But even though the Second Circuit panel recognized the First Amendment right, they upheld the district court’s decision to grant the officers qualified immunity because the right had not been “clearly established” in the Second Circuit at the time.

And although the right is now clearly established in that circuit, thanks to this ruling, that came too late to help Massimino in his case.

The ruling is a victory of sorts, as it means that going forward, police in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont may no longer expect to have qualified immunity if they arrest someone for filming them in public.

The court also rejected Massimino’s Fourth Amendment and malicious-prosecution claims, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop him and probable cause to arrest him after he refused to show his ID.

But in the opinion written by Judge Myrna Pérez, the court held that the right to record “encompasses Massimino’s recording of the exterior of a police station from a public sidewalk,” and had this to say: “When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door – but not ban speech.”

Keep reading

District attorney strips police department of prosecution power after cops arrest citizen journalists for exercising their 1st Amendment rights

The Henderson County District Attorney and County Attorney have informed the Trinidad, Texas Police Department that they will no longer accept ANY cases for prosecution solely investigated or filed by the department until further notice.

The letter, obtained by local media, effectively neuters the Trinidad PD’s ability to bring meaningful criminal cases. The Henderson County Sheriff’s Office will now handle crimes inside city limits.

Pending cases will be reviewed one by one. The prosecutors themselves requested the ongoing Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) audit of the department, FOX 4 reported.

This is the direct fallout from Trinidad’s heavy-handed war on free speech.

Trinidad, a town of fewer than 1,000 people about an hour southeast of Dallas, has struggled for years with serious water problems, discolored water, sediment, strong odors, and chemical readings far above legal limits.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality later confirmed major deficiencies, including chemicals more than 300% above federal limits and a failing distribution system.

Citizen journalist Jennifer Combs, who runs the Southern Belle Watch Facebook page, posted that she had received reports of residents being hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. She asked people to share what they were seeing so the information could be passed to state regulators.

Then-Police Chief Charles Gregory responded by having her arrested on a state jail felony charge of false alarm or report. Gregory claimed the post “creates fear, panic, or unnecessary emergency response within a community.”

Combs, a mother with a clean record, was taken from her home, handcuffed, and spent 23 hours in jail.

A Henderson County grand jury quickly no-billed the case, declining to indict her. Combs then filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas against the city and several officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and a deliberate effort to punish her reporting.

Those allegations remain pending and have not been adjudicated. The federal case is Combs v. Gregory et al.

The warrant process came under its own devastating scrutiny. Henderson County Judge R. Scott McKee later wrote that two Trinidad officers omitted material information about citizen complaints, water concerns, and the context of Combs’ statements when seeking a Facebook search warrant.

McKee ordered the officers to appear personally for future warrant applications so that the court could question them under oath if necessary. KLTV reported that the judge said omissions can mislead a probable-cause determination just as affirmative misrepresentations can.

One day after FOX 4 aired its first report on Combs, YouTube journalist Winston Noles — known online as Otto the Watchdog — traveled to Trinidad to protest. He stood outside city hall with a profane sign condemning “bad cops” and livestreamed the encounter to his audience.

Eighteen minutes into the livestream, police arrested him for misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Keep reading

8 Examples That Demonstrate That The Islamization Of America Is Steadily Progressing

In Islam, there is no separation between mosque and state. The goal is to use the state to make everyone submit to Islam. If you want to see what this looks like, just check out almost any country in the Middle East that has a Muslim majority. They don’t believe in freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Do you want to know how many churches there are in Saudi Arabia? The answer is zero, because churches are banned in Saudi Arabia. Now this same ideology is spreading in America, and that should deeply alarm all of us.

Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America.

It used to be witchcraft, but now Islam has taken the top spot.

There are now more than 2,700 mosques in the United States.

In 1970, there were about 100.

But it isn’t just mosques that are going up everywhere.

Enormous Islamic “mini-cities” are being constructed in states such as California and Texas.

And rapidly growing Islamic populations are taking over entire sections of the states of Minnesota and Michigan.

What we have been witnessing all over Europe is now happening here.

The following are 8 examples that demonstrate that the Islamization of America is steadily progressing…

#1 Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has a really good chance of winning in November, and he has publicly stated that he has a sacred “obligation” to obey Islamic law in every area of his life until he dies…

Muslim Democrat Michigan Senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed has previously declared his sacred “obligation” to follow Islamic law in every aspect of his life until he dies and stands before Allah. He has claimed he does not want to subvert the Constitution and mandate Islamic law but that is part of his religion.

Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is having his words, vows, and religion come back to haunt him. According to The Washington Free Beacon, years ago he declared his sacred “obligation” to follow Islamic law in every aspect of his life until he dies and stands before Allah. This comes from remarks he made to the New York Times back in 2009, when he was younger and buying his first home.

#2 In the supposedly “deep red” state of Mississippi, a hijab-wearing Muslim woman has been sworn in as a municipal judge…

Assma Ali has made history. The daughter of Yemeni immigrants to the United States, Ali is now municipal judge for the City of Benoit, a small town in southwest Bolivar County in the Mississippi Delta.

Ali was sworn in as municipal judge on Aug. 5. She has spent nearly a decade serving as an attorney in Mississippi after graduating with her law degree from Mississippi Christian University (formerly Mississippi College) in 2017 and interned in both Rankin and Madison counties while attending law school.

#3 I know that this is hard to believe, but a bill in the state of Massachusetts would “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government”. Needless to say, this is very unconstitutional…

Keep reading

Disney Sues FCC for ‘Retaliatory’ Investigation of ABC

The broadcast network ABC, parent company Disney, and eight ABC affiliates filed a lawsuit today against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

ABC alleges the government is targeting the network for its speech, and it makes a convincing argument.

“Government censorship is deeply un-American,” the lawsuit begins. “That fundamental principle predates the Republic, with our Founders recognizing that ‘the freedom of the press is one of the great[est] bulwarks of liberty.'”

The filing cites NRA v. Vullo, a 2024 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the state of New York’s efforts to prevent banks and insurance companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association.

The government, wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” According to ABC’s lawsuit, “This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that. Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”

Plaintiffs typically face a difficult task proving selective or vindictive treatment by the government. But this is not a typical situation: The lawsuit catalogues dozens of times that President Donald Trump suggested broadcast networks, including ABC, should be taken off the air for displeasing him.

“ABC & NBC FAKE NEWS, two of the worst and most biased networks in history, give me 97% BAD STORIES,” he wrote last year in a characteristic Truth Social post. “IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY, HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED BY THE FCC.”

“If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows, are almost 100% Negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party,” he complained in another, “shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say, YES!”

Trump has said this for years, even though it’s not how it works: Networks create content, but the local affiliates that air it have broadcast licenses. Disney only owns eight of ABC’s hundreds of affiliates, meaning the vast majority are owned by third parties.

Just last month, Trump threatened to revoke ABC’s and NBC’s broadcast licenses for not airing one of his speeches.

But Trump is not the only example cited in the lawsuit. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has also repeatedly threatened Disney and ABC with reprisal over what largely amounts to hurting the president’s feelings.

In September 2025, when Jimmy Kimmel suggested in his late-night show’s monologue that slain conservative activist was killed by a member of “the MAGA gang,” FCC Chair Brendan Carr called on ABC’s affiliates to “step up” and reject the network’s programming; otherwise, “we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he warned. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Numerous affiliates preempted Kimmel’s show, and ABC suspended production until the following week.

This year, Carr threatened ABC’s daytime chat show The View for not following the federal “equal time” rule that says when a candidate for public office appears on a broadcast network, their opponents must be offered equal time. The FCC had exempted shows like The View from the rule for decades before Carr reversed course.

Carr also opened an investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies; while Disney had already rolled back its DEI programs, “significant concerns remain,” Carr claimed.

ABC’s lawsuit calls the investigation “pretextual.” Indeed, it formed the basis of an action earlier this year, when the FCC called in the broadcast licenses of all eight Disney-owned ABC affiliates for “early renewal,” years before any of them were set to expire. Notably, though, it came just days after Kimmel made another intemperate comment at Trump’s expense.

“Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC,” Trump wrote on Truth Social the day before the FCC announced it was calling in the licenses.

ABC’s lawsuit seeks relief from the review, which it characterizes as completely unprecedented. The FCC “had not called for a renewal application ahead of schedule in more than half a century,” the filing claims. “Nor had it ever demanded simultaneous early renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned by a single broadcast network.”

Carr apparently agrees: “It’s probably been 50, 60 years or longer since the FCC has used this tool,” he told the Financial Times. “If you didn’t take us seriously, now you should.”

And last month, Carr suggested that ABC’s decision not to air Trump’s speech would factor into the FCC’s review.

ABC’s lawsuit says the network faces “irreparable harm” from the government, but it also suggests dire potential consequences for the entire broadcast industry. “If the Administration gets its way, the message to every media company will be unmistakable: tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government,” it warns. “In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free.”

“The current FCC has repeatedly used its power over broadcast speech to jawbone, punish, and threaten censorship of its political opponents,” David Inserra, a fellow for free speech and technology at the Cato Institute, said in an emailed statement. “Today’s lawsuit by ABC Disney against the FCC directly challenges the broad and abusive powers that Congress and prior court decisions gave the FCC. No government agency should ever be empowered to restrict free expression based on what it thinks is fair, equal, or in the best interest of the public. In a world where the American people and press can speak through print, broadcast, cable, satellite, internet, and other forms of media, there is no justification for the FCC to continue to wield such significant power over broadcast speech.”

“Disney is entirely justified in asking a court to stop the FCC’s attempt to coerce its broadcast stations’ programming through an unlawful campaign of regulatory scrutiny,” added Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “The lawsuit makes clear that this campaign has already chilled ABC’s speech. The First Amendment prohibits the government from using regulatory threats to chill speech that the government doesn’t like, which is exactly what the FCC is doing here.”

Keep reading

Battle Over Ten Commandments Arrives At Supreme Court

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 17 to review a federal appeals court decision that upheld a Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cleared the way in April for the Texas law to take effect.

The state law known as Senate Bill 10, or SB 10, requires that public elementary and secondary schools conspicuously display in classrooms an easily readable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments with no additional commentary.

The Fifth Circuit’s 9–8 ruling in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District raised questions about freedom of religion and how the Supreme Court had ruled on these issues in the past. If the justices agree to hear the case, their potentially landmark ruling could change the legal landscape for how governments deal with religion.

The Fifth Circuit said that the law complied with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Texas law “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment,” because it does not tell houses of worship what to believe, how to worship, or whom to employ, the appeals court said. It does not punish people who reject the Ten Commandments, impose taxes to support the clergy, or require churches to carry out civic functions, the court said.

“These are the kinds of things ‘establishments of religion’ did at the founding. [The Texas law] does none of them,” it said.

The Fifth Circuit also held that a 1980 precedent, Stone v. Graham, which struck down a nearly identical classroom display law, is no longer binding.

The circuit court ruling upholding the Texas statute came after a federal district court preliminarily blocked it, finding the law likely violates both the Constitution’s establishment clause, which forbids the government from favoring one religion over another, and the free exercise clause, which prohibits the government from infringing on worship and other activities. The district judge also found the displays would coerce students and interfere with parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

The challenge in the district court was brought by a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families. The families argue in the petition that the Texas law violates the Constitution by forcing religion on students, and that the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent.

Keep reading