Tag: 1st amendment

Here are a few of the new laws taking effect in the US in 2025

At the end of last year, The Epoch Times highlighted the more notable new laws that will take effect in US states in 2025.  The outlet noted several new laws are set to take effect in 2025, impacting various aspects of life in the United States, including digital content creation, kids’ social media use and more.

Most of these laws are not unique to the US and throughout the West people are familiar with the underlying agenda that has given rise to such laws.   Judging by these laws alone, it is hard not to feel that the West is experiencing or being forced into a crisis of moral decline, with some places more in crisis than others.

Abortion

In New York, a constitutional amendment enshrining abortion as a right will become enforceable on 1 January 2025, although its full implications are still unclear as state law already protects abortion through foetal viability and in cases involving a risk to the mother’s health or life.

The amendment to the New York constitution also bars discrimination based on characteristics such as national origin, gender identity and gender expression.  Opponents argue that the amendment could lead to the expansion of other constitutional rights such as transgender surgeries for minors, male participation on female sports teams and voting rights for non-citizens.

Seven other states have passed amendments to expand or protect abortion access, with most either already in effect or facing legal disputes.

REAL ID Enforcement

The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards. The Department of Homeland Security has delayed the enforcement of REAL ID multiple times due to the covid-19 pandemic. The enforcement date for REAL ID compliance is 7 May 2025.

From that date, all US adults will be required to present REAL ID-compliant identification to fly domestically and access certain federal facilities.  All REAL ID-compliant cards will have a star symbol on the upper portion of the card, with US passports also being an acceptable form of ID.

Digital Replication and AI

California will enforce two laws protecting the voices and likenesses of actors and performers from digital replication through artificial intelligence, requiring professionally negotiated contracts and banning the commercial use of digital replicas of deceased performers without their estate’s consent.

Similar laws will also be enforced in Illinois, which has banned the distribution of AI-generated audio or visual replicas of a person without their consent and expanded the definition of “child pornography” to include digitally manipulated or created depictions.

Children’s Social Media Use

In Florida, a new law will prohibit children ages 13 and under from joining social media platforms starting on 1 January 2025, and require parental consent for those aged 14 and 15 to create social media accounts, with civil penalties and liabilities imposed on non-compliant platforms.

California has introduced a law requiring parents or guardians of children who perform in monetised online videos to set aside a percentage of the minor’s gross earnings in a trust for their benefit.

Another California law, expanding the Coogan Law, will require employers of child influencers to set aside 15 per cent of their gross earnings in a trust, providing additional protections for child actors and influencers.

Ten Commandments in Louisiana Classrooms

In Louisiana, a law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in all public classrooms is set to take effect on 1 January 2025, despite a federal judge finding the law “facially unconstitutional” and temporarily blocking its enforcement.

Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill is appealing the injunction, arguing that it only applies to the five school boards named in the lawsuit and plans to work with the remaining schools to ensure compliance.

Keep reading

Civil Service Commission Rules Boston Mayor Wu’s Administration Lacked “Just Cause” for Wrongful Termination of Police Officer Over January 6 Tweets

In a major victory for free speech and a stinging defeat for political retribution, the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission overturned the termination of Joseph Abasciano, a former Boston Police Department (BPD) officer accused of misconduct related to tweets he posted on January 6, 2021, while attending the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C.

The unanimous decision allows Abasciano to retire medically, with his federal lawsuit against the city still pending.

Officer Abasciano, a former U.S. Marine with commendations for his service in Iraq and over a decade of distinguished work in Boston’s toughest neighborhoods, found himself under scrutiny not for his actions but for his conservative political views.

Abasciano’s case arose from a series of tweets on his anonymous account, @mailboxjoe, that neither identified him as a BPD officer, where he described attendees as “patriots” and referred to the Vice President as a “traitor.”

“I sent out some anonymous tweets while traveling home. Apparently, I was not so anonymous. It appears my conservative activism and attempts to expose (Democrat) union corruption exposed me and my anonymous Twitter account,” Abasciano told The Gateway Pundit.

He was terminated in 2023 following a second investigation into anonymous tweets he posted while returning home from the January 6 rally.

Notably, the Commission highlighted that Abasciano did not participate in any violent activities during the Capitol riot. Internal investigations initially cleared him of misconduct.

Keep reading

US Report Reveals Push to Weaponize AI for Censorship

For a while now, emerging AI has been treated by the Biden-Harris administration, but also the EU, the UK, Canada, the UN, etc., as a scourge that powers dangerous forms of “disinformation” – and should be dealt with accordingly.

According to those governments/entities, the only “positive use” for AI as far as social media and online discourse go, would be to power more effective censorship (“moderation”).

A new report from the US House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government puts the emphasis on the push to use this technology for censorship as the explanation for the often disproportionate alarm over its role in “disinformation.”

We obtained a copy of the report for you here.

The interim report’s name spells out its authors’ views on this quite clearly: the document is called, “Censorship’s Next Frontier: The Federal Government’s Attempt to Control Artificial Intelligence to Suppress Free Speech.”

Keep reading

Justice Thomas Revives Emergency Injunction in Case to Halt Doctor Investigations Over COVID-19 Criticism

The US Supreme Court is set to once again consider a request to issue an injunction in the Stockton v. Ferguson case, that would prevent the Washington Medical Commission from investigating and sanctioning – effectively, censoring doctors because of their criticism of Covid policies.

The application was originally submitted as part of a lawsuit brought by basketball legend John Stockton, several dozen doctors affected by this censorship, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD), only to be rejected on November 20 by Justice Elena Kagan.

Two days later, the plaintiffs filed the injunction application again, addressing it at Justice Clarence Thomas, who then decided to schedule a Supreme Court private judicial conference for January 10, 2025.

We obtained a copy of the application for you here.

The justices will decide whether to approve the injunction or deny it, while another possible outcome is that oral arguments will be scheduled, with the case proceeding in that way.

The Washington Medical Commission is investigating the doctors, treating their publicly expressed opinions regarding the controversial measures as “potentially dangerous misinformation” that the state has the right to regulate (a 2018 Supreme Court ruling, however, says that this is not the case).

The doctors, meanwhile, argue that the First Amendment speech protections apply to them as well, regardless of their status as licensed medical professionals, including when their views clash with “medical orthodoxy.”

Keep reading

Mike Lee’s App Store Accountability Act Would Make Google and Apple Check IDs

Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee has introduced a bill to keep porn out of app stores. There might just be one tiny problem here: They already do.

So, what’s the point? Dig a little deeper and you’ll see that this bill is about forcing age verification on app stores and mobile devices, with a side goal of chilling sex-related speech.

Lee is framing his new bill (S. 5364) as a matter of “accountability”—a word found right in the bill’s title—and of preventing “big corporations” from “victimiz[ing] kids” with “sexual and violent content.” We can’t count on tech companies to act “moral” on their own accord, Lee posted to X.

But big corporations like Google and Apple already ban apps featuring sexual content, and these bans extend not just to kids but to everybody.

While apps can be downloaded from a plethora of sources, there are two main centralized app marketplaces: Apple’s App Store, for iPhones, and the Google Play store, for Androids. Play Store guidelines reject all apps “that contain or promote sexual content or profanity, including pornography, or any content or services intended to be sexually gratifying.” The App Store explicitly prohibits apps featuring “overtly sexual or pornographic material,” which it defines broadly to include any “explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” Apple also bans “hookup” apps and any other “apps that may include pornography or be used to facilitate prostitution.”

Lee’s bill can’t be about simply convincing Apple and Google to adopt his version of morality, since they already have.

Keep reading

D.C. Circuit Court Upholds TikTok Ban, Prioritizing ‘National Security’ Over Free Speech

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the federal government can tell a foreign-owned website that it must either sell itself to an American owner or be banned.

TikTok is one of the most popular social media sites on the planet, with more than a billion monthly active users worldwide and 170 million in the United States. Both Democrats and Republicans have long complained that the app—owned by ByteDance, a company based in China—is a potential vector for Chinese propaganda.

Much of the controversy stems from the level of control that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) demands over the private companies operating within its borders. The theory goes that Beijing could force ByteDance to turn over TikTok user data, or manipulate user algorithms to promote content favorable to the Chinese Communist Party.

Given China’s well-earned reputation as a repressive state, those could conceivably happen—though the key word there is conceivably. While many lawmakers have insisted that TikTok is an active national security threat, they have presented no evidence for this, at most claiming to have seen classified information that affirms their warnings.

During his first term, President Donald Trump threatened to ban TikTok outright unless it were purchased and operated by an American company. (Trump has reversed course since leaving office, now promising to “save” the app.) And this year President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. Singling out TikTok and ByteDance by name, the law made it functionally illegal for “a foreign adversary controlled application” to operate within the United States, or for any other entity to provide “internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating” of the app.

The law defined the term “controlled by a foreign adversary” to include not only companies owned wholly by Chinese entities but also one in which a citizen of an adversarial nation “directly or indirectly own[s] at least a 20 percent stake.” In other words, even if the overwhelming majority of a company’s shares were owned by Americans, it could be banned or forced to divest so long as the remaining shares were held by Chinese, Russian, or Iranian citizens.

In order to continue operating within the United States, the only recourse would be to sell TikTok to an American company by January 19, 2025—Joe Biden’s last full day in office.

Keep reading

Rumble Sues California; Says State’s “War Against Political Speech Is Censorship”

Video streaming site Rumble has filed a lawsuit against the state of California in response to legislation forcing social media platforms to censor political speech.

Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed suit against AB 2655, aka the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

The legislation is Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to a deepfake satire video of Kamala Harris that was shared on X by Elon Musk among others.

ADF stated in a press release that the law “deputizes” Rumble to restrict its user’s free speech, while another law, AB 2839, “Protecting Democracy Against Election Disinformation and Deepfakes,” uses vague standards to punish individuals posting political content about elections.

“California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler.

“Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans,” Sechler further urged.

He added that “Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are — a threat to their existence.”

Chris Pavlovski, Chairman and CEO of Rumble, further urged that “The very thought of the government judging the content of political speech, and then deciding whether it should be permitted, censored, or eliminated altogether is about the most chilling thing you could imagine.”

“Rumble
will always celebrate freedom and support creative independence, so we’re delighted to work with ADF to help protect lawful online expression,” Pavlovski asserted.

The Democratic Party is pushing hard to enact laws that force censorship.

Keep reading

Colorado Agrees to Settlement in First Amendment Case Where Designer Was Coerced into Same-Sex Wedding Website Design

Colorado’s government has consented to a settlement requiring it to disburse more than $1.5 million in attorney fees to Lorie Smith, a graphic designer who won in a First Amendment challenge against the state’s anti-discrimination law.

This legal resolution, announced on Tuesday, follows a definitive Supreme Court verdict that Colorado’s attempt to coerce Smith into designing wedding websites for same-sex couples violated her free speech rights, in conflict with her religious beliefs.

We obtained a copy of the final judgement for you here.

The case, known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which we first covered back in 2022, was decisively settled earlier this year when a federal district court ruled that Colorado must stop mandating Smith to engage in speech that contradicts her convictions. “After enduring Colorado’s censorship for nearly seven years, I’m incredibly grateful for the work of my attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom to bring my case to victory,” Smith stated, in a press release sent to Reclaim The Net, appreciating the efforts of her legal team. She added, “As the Supreme Court said, I’m free to create art consistent with my beliefs without fear of Colorado punishing me anymore.”

Keep reading

Missouri v. Biden UPDATE: Judge Orders ‘Jurisdictional Discovery’ to Settle Govt’s Bad Faith Arguments

Experts have said that the Missouri v. Biden case is “the most important free speech case in a generation.”

The case involves the federal government wholesale deleting and deplatforming millions of Americans from social media based entirely on their truthful political statements.

Just this past week, the trial court has issued a new order in the case, after an appeal to the Supreme Court was successful for the Biden administration, which sought to undo a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the censorship regime.

Now, the trial court is ordering the two sides to conduct “jurisdictional discovery” so that it can prove one issue critical to the case moving forward: whether the Plaintiffs on the side of free speech have enough legal ‘standing’ to move forward. What this means is that the parties are now going to fight about whether the specific Plaintiffs in the case can prove that they were specifically harmed.

You can read the court order here.

Whereas previously the parties could show the massive censorship regime and show that they were deplatformed, now the parties must show the connection and demonstrate that the specific Biden speech suppression complex deplatformed these specific Plaintiffs.

Thus the court is allowing both parties to issue ‘discovery’ to primarily third parties right now, meaning demand evidence, documents, and depositions from people, organizations, and companies, in order to build the record of evidence both parties need to make their arguments.

The claims in the case cannot rest on mere speculation, the parties need to be able to get tangible evidence to back up their claims. Lawyers involved in the case say the critical issue at this juncture is: proving that the federal government targeted a specific Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s speech was harmed as a result.

Keep reading

A License to Censor? The Fierce Fight Over the GEC’s Renewal

What happens when an agency meant to protect Americans from foreign propaganda starts tiptoeing over the line into the realm of domestic censorship? Enter the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a charming creation of the US State Department that was originally tasked with combating foreign disinformation. It sounds like something out of a spy novel: shadowy entities sowing chaos through whisper campaigns and disinformation dumps. But now, the real drama lies in how this agency has extended its reach beyond foreign threats and into the murky waters of the internet’s free speech landscape.

Of course, the GEC would prefer to be seen as a benevolent referee, helping social media giants like Facebook and YouTube play the good guys in the battle against digital deception. In theory, this agency is all about countering Russian bots and Iranian trolls. But somehow, along the way, its mission stretched to a point where the average American scrolling through a feed can almost feel the government’s fingers tapping on their shoulder, cautioning them about what’s “trustworthy.” It’s no wonder people are starting to worry.

Keep reading