Tag: 1st amendment

SCOTUS Revives Lawsuit Against Missouri Cop Who Jailed a Man ‘for Being an Asshole’

On a Saturday night in May 2021, Mason Murphy was walking on the shoulder of a rural road in Sunrise Beach, a small Missouri town, when he was accosted by a local police officer, Michael Schmitt, who asked him to identify himself. Since Murphy was minding his own business and was not, as far as he knew, doing anything illegal, he did not think he should have to comply with that request. Murphy’s objection resulted in a nine-minute argument with Schmitt, who ultimately handcuffed Murphy and took him to jail, where he was detained for two hours.

Why? Schmitt had trouble answering that question. “I didn’t want him walking down my highway,” he told another officer at the jail. Schmitt also suggested that Murphy was being held “for being an asshole” and that he would stay in jail “until he decides to play nice.” Even after consulting with a senior officer and a local prosecutor, Schmitt could not come up with a valid reason to arrest Murphy, who was released without being charged.

Five months later, Murphy sued Schmitt for violating his First Amendment rights by arresting him in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. A federal judge dismissed Murphy’s claim, and last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld that decision. But this week the U.S. Supreme Court revived Murphy’s lawsuit, remanding the case for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, a June 2024 decision that made it easier for victims of retaliatory arrests to make a case for compensation.

“This decision is a huge step forward, not just for Mason Murphy, but for all Americans who have been retaliated against by government officials for their speech,” said Marie Miller, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which filed Murphy’s Supreme Court petition. “Our work is building lasting precedent, making it easier for people to hold officials accountable when their rights are violated. We will continue fighting until all Americans are protected against government retaliation.”

Although Schmitt evidently did not realize it at the time, Murphy had broken the law: He had violated Section 300.405.2 of Missouri’s statutes, which says: “Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.” Murphy was walking on the right side of the road when Schmitt approached him—a fact to which the officer alluded during the initial encounter, most of which was recorded by Schmitt’s body camera.

Keep reading

The Biden Regime Has Just Issued a Very Suspicious Directive Permitting Military Intervention in US Domestic Affairs

The Department of Homeland Security has flagged individuals questioning COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, and election integrity as potential domestic terrorism threats.

Is a coup being set in place?

A new Department of Defense directive 5240.01 issued September 27, 2024, just prior to the November presidential election allows the US military to use lethal force against American citizens in assisting police authorities in domestic disturbances.

A report on this development lists these civil liberties concerns:

Right to protest: There are fears that expanded authority could suppress legitimate protests.

Privacy rights: Increased military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering could infringe on privacy.

Due process: The military’s role in law enforcement could bypass standard due process protections.

Freedom of speech: The broad definition of “national security threats” could target individuals for their political beliefs.

Civilian control: The expanded military role could erode civilian oversight of the military.

Here are some Constitutional concerns:

Challenging the Posse Comitatus Act: This Act traditionally limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The new DoD directive, by permitting the use of lethal force through military assistance in civilian law enforcement, may push the boundaries of these limitations.

Potential First Amendment Concerns: Natural health advocates and others exercising their First Amendment rights, such as questioning the government’s response to COVID-19 or the integrity of elections, have been labeled as potential domestic extremists and/or terrorists by some agencies. This directive could expand those classifications into scenarios involving lethal force interventions, potentially chilling free speech under the guise of national security.

Fourth Amendment Considerations: This directive also allows intelligence sharing between military and law enforcement under emergency conditions, raising questions about the right to privacy and the potential for expanded surveillance.

Due Process Implications (Fifth Amendment): The possibility of military use of lethal force in domestic scenarios introduces concerns about how due process protections might be maintained before potentially life-altering decisions are made.

Why these ominous changes one month before the election? Is something in the works? Why is there no reporting and no debate on this change in policy?

Here is the Directive: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/524001p.PDF?ver=UpTwJ66AyyBgvy7wFyTGbA%3d%3d

Here is the report: https://stateofthenation.co/?p=256688

Ever since the CIA used the Washington Post and the media to cover up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the term, “conspiracy theory,” introduced by the CIA, has been used by the presstitutes and government to demonize truth and those who speak truth, and to protect official narratives, such as “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Unless Trump cuts a deal with Democrats not to hold them accountable and also a deal with the Ruling Elite not to interfere with their control, I can see no way that either will permit Trump to be President.

Keep reading

Under Kamala Harris, Americans Can Say ‘Good-Bye’ To Their Sacred Rights To Speak Freely, Worship, Assemble, Bear Arms, and Vote

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have made a penchant for chastising “hate speech” and “misinformation” on the campaign trail this election season.  While those words might not seem like much to those less familiar with how our constitutional form of government, and specifically the First Amendment, is supposed to work, they are offensive to those of us who understand a thing or two about the Constitution – particularly, the notable omission of a so-called “hate speech” clause.

In truth, liberals like Kamala and Walz are merely playing with words (and not particularly well) doing their best to not tell people what they truly believe.  However, Kamala and Walz are so incompetent that it should be plainly obvious to any attentive listener of what they mean by “hate speech”: they abhor – and, insidiously, think should be unlawful –any criticism personally directed at them or their woke policies.  Kamala’s leftist ideology thrives in the dark; it cannot sustain under the piercing bright light of truth.  That is why the Left – and the Democratic Party – is hellbent on silencing their critics, especially Donald Trump, by any means necessary.  The old adage is that when the ballot fails, the bullet becomes the last option.  So far, the Left has managed to rig a presidential election and install a dummy president, as well as twice attempt to kill Donald Trump. And yet, despite the titanic forces of opposition against him, is as of this writing now leading in every single one of the seven key battleground states on Real Clear Politics (he only needs to win 3 or 4 to take the electoral college).

The problem with establishing artificial barriers on speech – devised not out of reason, but emotion – is that it limits the great possibilities for a nation, economically, culturally, and technologically, stymying progress and setting the country back decades, if not centuries.  “The closing of the American mind” is a real and present danger, and it is readily manifested in the policies and persona of Kamala Harris, who, in addition to being a diehard liberal, certainly lacks the mental powers to fathom the ideas that spawned the great innovations of our country’s past and are required to – in a phrase – “build back better.”  Part of this has to do with the decades-long assault on speech, which only appeases the dregs of society, who lack the reasoning faculties to contribute anything of substance.  By pandering to the lowest common denominator (which is the only advantage of regulating free speech at all in modern societies), it allows those less intellectually and naturally gifted to receive an artificial leg up, because on an otherwise level platform, they would easily be stampeded by their natural superiors.

But the downside of this, particularly over an extended period of time, is that all of society ossifies – we become paralyzed in this constant and false belief to cater to those who contribute, relatively speaking, nothing meaningful to the collective good.  In turn, those who are the most gifted – the innovators, creative geniuses, and visionary statesmen – are forced into playing along with this ridiculous charade.  The dregs of society manipulate mass opinion, and particularly Christian sentimentality, by exploiting feelings of guilt or self-righteous envy, admonishing those who do not invest everything in the dregs in the vilest of terms – racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe.  The more gullible of the productive group are duped into believing their pandering is moral or virtuous, when in fact it simply is accommodating to the malignant dictates of communists, spiritual if not actual, who should be spurned wholesale for the cancerous blight they thrust onto the rest of us

Keep reading

Democrat Congresswomen Tell Social Media Platforms to “Quickly and Decisively” Censor Hurricane “Misinformation”

Despite recent pushback for politicians encouraging social media platforms to increase censorship online, in the wake of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, a cadre of Democratic House representatives from the affected regions have appealed to major social media platforms to intensify their efforts to censor alleged “misinformation” related to the storms.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

“We write to your platforms with an urgent request on behalf of states affected by the devastation of Hurricane Helene and those currently being impacted by Hurricane Milton,” the letter states. “In the aftermath of Helene, we have witnessed a troubling surge in misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and scams that are hindering recovery efforts and exploiting vulnerable individuals and families.”

The representatives say are concerned about the proliferation of false claims and blame these reportedly false claims for the hindering of recovery efforts. The congresswomen also say that social media posts are undermining public confidence in institutions.

The call for a crackdown on misinformation was articulated in a letter addressed to seven major social media entities, including Meta, X, TikTok, Discord, YouTube, Snap, and Instagram. Authored by Representatives Deborah Ross (D-N.C.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), and Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.), the letter alleges that misinformation is having a dire impact.

Keep reading

Free Speech on Trial: RFK Jr. Battles Biden Over Alleged Social Media Censorship

The Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al. lawsuit on Tuesday heard oral arguments presented by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense (CHD), who are suing the Biden-Harris administration, alleging its collusion with Big Tech to censor what should be protected online speech.

Listen to the oral arguments here.

Anthony Fauci is named as a defendant along with Biden, and they are accused of carrying out a systematic and concerted campaign in order to “compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech,” the filing states. The companies in question are Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

The legal battle is now taking place in the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals, which is set to decide whether the case has standing to proceed – that is, whether the actions they are suing over have resulted in direct and concrete injuries that a court can redress.

Previously, as CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg recalled, a lower court ruled that Kennedy and CHD – who brought the suit along with another plaintiff, Connie Sampognaro – had legal standing (while Sampognaro did not), and the court of appeals will now accept or reject that opinion.

Another consideration before the judges is the injunction by the Louisiana court, where the case was filed in the spring of last year, and whether to uphold it. If the 5th Circuit goes with the lower court’s position, the Biden-Harris White House’s “coordination” with social platforms will have to be put on hold pending the outcome of these proceedings.

Keep reading

Senators Demand Answers on CISA’s Role in 2024 Election Oversight

US Senators Roger Marshall, Bill Hagerty, and Eric Schmitt have sent a letter to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), regarding its involvement in flagging online content.

CISA is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the three Republicans want to know how it is preparing for the November elections – given, as they spell it out in the letter, CISA’s “past mistakes that put the agency in direct conflict with the First Amendment.”

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The senators specifically want to know how CISA is organizing and working now, to avoid repeating those same mistakes – namely, monitoring, flagging, and censoring political speech.

Even more specifically – the point is to make sure that there is acknowledgment from CISA that it will not engage in the same kind of activities, this electoral cycle around.

The letter cites the House Judiciary Committee reports as the basis for the senators’ belief this type of censorship was happening back in 2020.

Keep reading

Arizona State University Caught in Free Speech Tug-of-War Over Gov-Funded “Disinformation” Battle

Arizona State University (ASU) is a public school and therefore undisputed subject to the US Constitution’s free speech rules. Yet a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demonstrates that it was prominently involved in working with, and on behalf of the US government. To affect free speech.

That would be a blatant example of what Congress is investigating and what the critics are calling Big Tech-(Big) Government collusion, given that the target of the “collaboration” the university was involved in was online “disinformation.”

The thing to remember when talking about this collusion is that the current White House had enough wits about it to never make a “beeline” reaching the end result of censorship. From what is known from the congressional probe and the Twitter Files alone, this was always instead a meandering effort that included many seemingly intermediary and/or legitimate actors.

According to James Rushmore for Racket News, in this case, ASU was the recipient of grants (and, in line with the overall “process” – the purpose of the one given in January 2024 and reported by the Washington Examiner is not clearly stated). The grant though did come from the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC).

In and of itself, not ring many alarm bells – until the reason behind it, and the activities of GEC are taken into account. Those activities, in the case of ASU’s involvement, meant working with government agencies to flag what was decided to be disinformation, but also something referred to as “falsified media.”

The obsession with “Russian disinformation” featured here as well, a hallmark of “arguments” of the political party that came to power in 2020 in the US. But also a hallmark that had been introduced into public discourse with the party’s defeat four years earlier. The claims have since, but it seems to no avail, been thoroughly debunked.

Keep reading

Colorado’s Supreme Court dismisses suit against baker who wouldn’t make cake for transgender woman

Colorado’s Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed on procedural grounds a lawsuit against a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a transgender woman. Justices declined to weigh in on the free speech issues that brought the case national attention.

Baker Jack Phillips was sued by attorney Autumn Scardina in 2017 after his Denver-area bakery refused to make a pink cake with blue frosting to celebrate her gender transition.

Justices said in the 6-3 majority opinion that Scardina had not exhausted her options to seek redress through another court before filing her lawsuit.

“We express no view on the merits of these claims,” Justice Melissa Hart wrote for the majority.

Phillips’ attorney, Jake Warner with the Arizona-based firm Alliance for Defending Freedom, had argued before the high court that the baker’s actions were protected free speech and that whatever Scardina said she was going to do with the cake mattered for his rights.

Warner said Tuesday that his client had been pursued and mocked for years by those who disagreed with him.

“Enough is enough,“ Warner said. ”Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone.”

Scardina’s attorney, John McHugh, expressed disappointment and said he was evaluating if there were any remaining legal options.

Keep reading

The Big Tech Think Tank Campaigning to Censor Satire

The Brookings Institution, seems to believe it has solved the problem faced by those who would like to censor memes. The problem is that memes are a form of satire, and censoring them while claiming to be a democracy is a difficult task.

But now, senior Brookings Institution fellow Nicol Turner Lee and Isabella Panico Hernandez, a project assistant, have revealed their thinking: AI memes should be treated as election disinformation “manifested” through satire.

One could use a similar form of mental gymnastics to say that this kind of argument represents a call for censorship manifested through supposed concern about disinformation.

The Brookings, meanwhile, is not just any foot soldier in the “war on memes”: it is a powerful think tank funded by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, but also massive financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase (via its philanthropic foundation) and that of Mastercard, Impact Fund.

Brookings speaks about memes, particularly those AI-generated (adding some AI panic into the mix can only help the cause), as an extremely dangerous phenomenon hidden behind humor, and perceived as humor by pretty much everyone.

But the think tank, and others going after memes, present themselves as smarter and able to understand the true nature of this clearly humorous and often satirical imagery, which they say only “seem harmless” and “appear innocuous.”

Instead, the authors of the article say memes can influence how voters perceive candidates and other election-related information, “could potentially lead to violence” – and are “globally perceived” as being capable to “fuel extremist behavior” – which is in contrast to the US, supposedly because of the lack of appropriate regulation.

And so, less than a month before the presidential election, these according to the authors insidious messages use humor merely as a vehicle to spread dangerous influence, but are not properly tackled in the US.

Keep reading

Jack Smith Trump Filing Argues That Free Speech Is Criminal

Illegal DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith wants Twitter jail to be physical. His new election-interfering filing against Donald Trump essentially argues that Trump’s free speech should be considered criminal.

Challenging the integrity of election results is almost as old as the United States itself, and Democrats have most certainly been claiming that elections are fraudulent or illegitimate since Andrew Jackson. Remember when Hillary Clinton and her supporters claimed that the 2016 election was a fraud? Jack Smith apparently does not, because his new filing against Trump argues that Trump’s speech, including his tweets, about election integrity and election fraud is reason to prosecute and convict the former president.

The First Amendment protects Americans’ free speech when criticizing the government and criticizing elections. In America, you have always been allowed to claim that you thought elections were fraudulent, whether that is true or not. It’s a First Amendment right. Smith wants to criminalize that constitutionally protected free speech when the Democrats’ most formidable opponent uttered it. But if you think it will stop with Trump, think again. The Democrat party has become the anti-free speech party, the party of the censorship industrial complex.

The Biden-Harris administration and the Harris-Walz ticket want to silence Americans as much as Smith wants to silence Trump. Didn’t John Kerry just describe the First Amendment as a “block,” and didn’t Tim Walz just endorse and defend censorship during the vice presidential debate?

Keep reading