Tag: 1st amendment

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

White House Security Adviser’s “Information Czar” Idea Triggers Free Speech Concerns

Amid escalating assertions over foreign influence in US elections, the White House is exploring a controversial proposal that some warn could threaten free speech and open debate. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan recently confirmed that the administration has been “grappling with and thinking about” the potential creation of an “information czar,” sparking concern over the government’s expanding role in controlling narratives under the guise of national security.

Speaking at the National War College, Sullivan responded to a question about the potential for a centralized figure to oversee and counter foreign disinformation efforts by suggesting that while the idea has been under consideration, it could raise issues in a free society. “Questions around information operations, around public diplomacy, around the voice that America uses to speak to the world, bleed over into questions of propaganda or politics,” he said, implicitly acknowledging that such a role could have far-reaching consequences on public discourse.

The proposal for an “information czar” raises immediate concerns over whether any centralized control over information could be used to restrict speech and stifle dissenting opinions. Sullivan recognized this risk, questioning whether such a role should be linked to the White House itself or to a more removed agency in order to “insulate this from the twos and fros of politics.” Still, the idea of government officials controlling “information resiliency” remains contentious, especially when directed at speech in the US rather than strictly addressing threats abroad.

In defending the proposal, Sullivan argued that foreign election interference, particularly by Russia and other state actors, poses a national security issue and “an attack on our country” that needs a robust response. However, critics argue that efforts to counter disinformation could easily expand into broader content censorship efforts, a slippery slope that could ultimately see the government interfering with free speech in the name of “resilience.”

Keep reading

Montana’s Porn Age Verification Law Is Headed to Court

It seems that a puritanical wave is sweeping the country as state governments increasingly try to make it more difficult to access pornography from within their borders. A lawsuit is challenging one of those laws, and this week, a federal judge allowed it to continue.

Montana is one of multiple states in recent years to pass a law requiring pornographic websites to verify users’ ages. Under Senate Bill 544, any website that “knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors” must “perform reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of individuals attempting to access the material,” so long as the site in question “contains a substantial portion of the material.”

The statute defines “material harmful to minors” as, essentially, the depiction of any sexual acts, covering everything from straightforward pornography all the way up to and including “bestiality.” It further notes that “reasonable age verification methods” can take the form of “a digitized identification card” or some other system that either checks a user’s “government-issued identification” or otherwise “relies on public or private transactional data.”

While perhaps well-intended, the law is a civil liberties nightmare: First of all, as a general rule, pornography is free speech protected by the First Amendment. And as Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote in the April 2024 issue of Reason, the sort of age verification law that some states now favor “creates a record, permanently attaching real identities to online activity that many people would prefer stay private,” and “even the best verification methods would leave people vulnerable to hackers and snoops.”

The law also stipulates that it applies when the material in question constitutes “more than 33 1/3% of total material on a website,” meaning a site could be forced to enact an onerous age-verification scheme even if well over half of its hosted content does not meet the state’s definition of disallowed material. One imagines that porn sites could simply load up their servers with enough inoffensive content to stay on the right side of that ratio, but instead, sites like Pornhub have simply blocked access in Montana, as they have in many other states that have passed these laws.

In May 2024, a group of organizations and individuals led by the Free Speech Coalition filed a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the law. Per the lawsuit, S.B. 544 “operates as a presumptively-unconstitutional prior restraint on speech” since it requires “the use of some particularized approval method as a condition to providing protected expression.”

Keep reading

These Texas Inmates Wrote a Book. Then the Prison System Banned It.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has banned yet another book in its prisons. Except this time, it was written by inmates themselves.

TEXAS LETTERS, an ongoing anthology of letters written by inmates detailing their experiences with solitary confinement, will no longer be accessible to those in custody. The publisher and editor, Damascus James, says he received a letter from the TDCJ in July apprising him of the decision.

James describes the project on his website as a work that “explores the loss of sanity, humanness, and, oftentimes, hope through the personal writings” of inmates who have spent months, years, and sometimes even decades in solitary confinement. Much of the collection features portrayals of violence from correction officers and grueling accounts of the living conditions within solitary confinement cells. 

Studies on the long-term effects of solitary confinement attest to the brutal nature described in many of the letters. Half of all suicides in prisons and jails occur in solitary confinement, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open, a medical journal. Even just experiencing solitary confinement at any time during incarceration increased the chances of dying within the first year of release by 24 percent.

The banning of TEXAS LETTERS was not a surprise for James. Not only does the Texas prison authority have a reputation for book banning but also for trying to evade the term solitary confinement altogether by instead using alternative phrases.

“They’ve euphemized torture, calling it ‘administrative segregation’ and ‘restrictive housing’ for years in an effort to conceal the harsh realities of torturous isolation for thousands of people,” James tells Reason. The ban “was clearly an attempt to silence the voices of those who have suffered the torture of solitary confinement.” 

More than 10,000 books are currently banned from Texas prisons. TEXAS LETTERS vol. 1 and vol. 2 join a long list of prohibited material, which includes the Pulitzer Prize–winning The Color Purple, Freakonomics, and even Where’s Waldo? Santa Spectacular. Notable omissions include books such as Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as well as two books by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. 

Keep reading

‘It’s the First Amendment, Stupid’: Federal Judge Slams Florida for Threatening TV Stations

Floridians this fall will vote on a constitutional “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion.” So authorities decided to interfere with free speech in an attempt to thwart voters from limiting the government’s right to interfere in reproductive decisions. The state threatened TV stations with criminal penalties for running an ad supporting the abortion initiative (known as Amendment 4).

A federal judge isn’t impressed. “To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid,” wrote U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker in an October 17 opinion.

Walker temporarily enjoined Florida from attempting to censor the ad, granting the temporary restraining order request sought by Floridians Protecting Freedom, the group sponsoring Amendment 4.

“Importantly, this is a temporary restraining order, which is not generally appealable,” noted legal writer Chris Gender, author of the Law Dork newsletter, on BlueSky. “The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for Oct.. 29, and the state could appeal from that.”

Florida has been pulling out all the stops to try and stop Amendment 4 from passing. The state has been using taxpayer money to run ads in opposition to the amendment while trying to prohibit people from seeing an ad in support of it.

The ad in question is “political speech—speech at the core of the First Amendment,” notes Judge Walker. “And just this year, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors. The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is ‘false.'”

This is the rub of the state’s argument against Floridians Protecting Freedom’s ad. It features a woman called Caroline who was diagnosed with brain cancer while pregnant with her second child. “The doctors knew that if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom,” she says. “Florida has now banned abortion, even in cases like mine,” she ads.

Keep reading

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