Tag: 1st amendment

Court Says ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Can Be Censored By School

A federal court ruling has allowed a school to censor “Let’s Go Brandon,” preventing students from wearing the popular social media meme on shirts.

But a constitutional expert warns that it’s a “dangerous precedent” that will move the nation established on the basis of free speech the wrong direction.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, has testified before Congress on constitutional issues, and even represented members in court.

He cited the case of “D.A.” in Michigan, a student ordered to remove his sweater with the phrase on it.

That decision was from Judge Paul Maloney.

“Maloney rejects the free speech claim and rules that school officials can punish a student for wearing a ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ T-shirt. I believe that he is wrong and that the case sets a dangerous precedent,” Turley wrote.

Keep reading

‘Totalitarian and Unconstitutional’: Tim Walz Ban on Christian Teachers Set to Hit Schools in Just Months

Gov. Tim Walz’s ban on faithful Christians from teaching in Minnesota’s public is set to hit the state’s schools in just months.

It also bans adherent Jews and Muslims.

And a report at the Federalist warns that he is “poised to make similar bigoted, totalitarian and unconstitutional policies” for the entire nation, “should he be elected vice president.”

The report from the publication’s executive editor, Joy Pullmann, explains the state has new teacher licensing rules that will take effect in July 2025, and they will “ban practicing Christians, Jews, and Muslims from teaching in public schools.”

It’s because under the plans of the leftist governor, the state will demand that teacher license applicants “affirm transgenderism and race Marxism.”

No license? No job for anyone to teach in the state’s public schools. Or private schools if they require that certification.

Keep reading

North Carolina Threatened To Prosecute Her for Taking a ‘Ballot Selfie.’ Now, She’s Suing.

There’s a pretty good chance you’ve taken a “ballot selfie”—a picture of or with your completed ballot. Around one in 10 Americans say they have, and pictures of filled-in ballots are common on social media during election season. However, taking a picture of your ballot is a crime in 14 states, leading to possible fines and jail time.

A North Carolina woman is challenging her state’s ban on ballot selfies, arguing that she has a First Amendment right to take a picture of her own ballot—and to post it online. 

“Ballot selfie bans turn innocent Americans into criminals for nothing more than showing their excitement about how they voted, or even just showing that they voted,” said Jeff Zeman, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the First Amendment group that filed the suit. “That’s core political speech protected by the First Amendment.”

According to the lawsuit, North Carolina resident Susan Hogarth took a photo this March with her completed primary ballot. She posted the photo to X, with the caption: “Laws against #ballotselfie are bullshit.”

Just a week after the primary election, Hogarth received a letter from the North Carolina State Board of Elections threatening prosecution for her post, demanding that she take down the post or face legal action. As of the filing of the suit, Hogarth’s post had received less than 3,000 views—hardly a viral post. Hogarth has refused to take down the post and says that she will continue to take ballot selfies.

“Between March 2016 and March 2024, the State Board investigated at least 50 reports of voters photographing completed ballots from primary and general elections,” reads FIRE’s suit. “During election cycles from November 2018 through March 2024, officials from at least eight different North Carolina county boards sent reports of voters photographing completed ballots to the State Board.”

The lawsuit argues that these investigations—and the multiple North Carolina laws justifying them—obviously violate the First Amendment.

Keep reading

After CrowdStrike Computer Catastrophe, Will Kamala-Microsoft Alliance Inflict Blue Screen of Death on Free Speech?


It is a testament to how utterly extraordinary the past couple weeks have been that the Microsoft-CrowdStrike computer catastrophe was not even the second most important story in the news cycle. On Friday, July 19th, the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike implemented a botched update that crashed Microsoft devices on which it was installed, ultimately inflicting the dreaded “blue screen of death” on over 8.5 million devices worldwide. Banks, businesses, hospitals, and airlines were hit particularly hard, and to this day, some of these institutions are having difficulty restoring functionality to their systems.

Video compilations such as the one below offer arresting images to give the reader a sense of just how globally catastrophic the Microsoft-CrowdStrike crash really was. It was a bit like what people imagined the Y2K scare would have been in the year 2000.

What kind of sense can we make of this? And who is at fault? Given that the botched update in question was implemented by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, a great deal of responsibility would seem to lie there. Readers might be familiar with Russiagate-stained CrowdStrike, as it was the cybersecurity firm the DNC hired to investigate the alleged “hack” of its servers leading to the exposure of highly incriminating and embarrassing emails during the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The recent CrowdStrike-Microsoft outage raises additional troubling questions in light of this history, which others have explored.

For now, we would like to turn the spotlight on Microsoft. As a simple matter of security, Microsoft holds a fair share of the blame for Friday’s catastrophe. Microsoft enables Crowdstrike’s software to exist within the most sensitive layer of its devices, and one would think a tech behemoth such as Microsoft would have stop-gaps and redundancies in place to prevent such global outages from occurring in their systems. A more troubling and important aspect the Crowd-Strike-Microsoft collapse draws attention to, however, is the utter ubiquitousness of Microsoft’s systems globally. A 2021 study revealed that Microsoft’s systems have achieved a whopping 85 percent of market share in public sector software, with an especially acute concentration in the Pentagon.

Elon Musk bemoaned the effect of the Microsoft-Crowdstrike crash on the global automotive supply chain and took to X to express his displeasure with Microsoft in characteristically suggestive and memetic fashion.

Keep reading

Louisiana’s New Law Sparks First Amendment Showdown

Under Louisiana’s new, recently enacted law (HB 173), journalists and other citizens are limited in their right to film the police.

Anyone who finds themselves within 25 feet of an on-duty officer doing that – after being warned to stop or retreat – could face misdemeanor charges.

Now a group of Louisiana-based media companies is challenging the new legislation by suing the state – Attorney General Liz Murrill and two other officials – on First Amendment grounds, seeking an injunction.

The plaintiffs behind the Deep South Today v. Murrill case, brought before the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, go into the importance of the media being able to cover police activity to ensure public scrutiny and avoid miscarriage of justice.

HB 173, the filing continues, “has grave implications for the ability of reporters and news organizations, including plaintiffs, to exercise their First Amendment rights.”

Although the lawsuit does not specifically mention the consequence the law could have on speech online, given that a majority of videos showing police at work get posted on the internet, the restrictions imposed by the act could also have indirect implications for that form of freedom of expression.

According to the plaintiffs, the law is unconstitutional and enables the police to prevent both journalists and the public from being close enough to document their work.

At the same time, officers are allowed to stop those filming them from approaching, either providing a reason or not, and that includes public gatherings, arrests, and reporting from the scene of an accident.

Keep reading

Texas school bans all-black clothing because colour ‘associated with depression’

A school in Texas has changed its dress code to forbid “black tops with black bottoms” citing concerns about mental health and criminality.

The principal of Charles Middle School in El Paso, Nick DeSantis, wrote in a letter to parents that an all-dark ensemble can be “associated with depression and mental health issues and/or criminality.”

The school is “eliminating a look that has taken over on campus with students wearing black tops with black bottoms, which has become more associated with depression and mental health issues and/or criminality than with happy and healthy kids ready to learn,” read the letter, obtained by KVIA.

“I understand that it is a concern, but keep in mind that students’ safety is our number one priority, and so anytime there are concerns that are brought forward about student safety, it’s important for us to take those seriously,” Sarah Venegas, executive principal of the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD), told the outlet.

She explained the school allowed black pants last year but going forward, students will only be allowed to wear khaki pants and blue jeans.

“Wearing your uniform is a part of the school rules, at every campus,” she added. “If they’re in uniform violations it can be a disciplinary infraction but that is up to every administrator.”

Keep reading

Tim Walz Was Dead Wrong About Misinformation and Free Speech

Now that Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has become Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, it is ostensibly time for the media to scrutinize his record and past statements. (Emphasis on ostensibly.)

To say the mainstream coverage of Walz has been fawning thus far would be quite an understatement; The New York Times described him as “a one-man rejoinder to the idea that the Democrats are the party of the cultural and coastal elite.” The Atlantic‘s Charlie Warzel merrily aided media efforts to portray Walz as a lovable, folksy paternal figure, writing that “dad is on the ballot.” CNN proclaimed the Harris-Walz team as “an antidote to Trump’s American carnage.”

“Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want to make America joyful again,” wrote CNN’s Stephen Collinson.

The task of scrutinizing Walz will clearly fall to other interested parties. (See Reason‘s Eric Boehm on his overall record, and this piece by me on his COVID-19 policies.)

Conservatives on social media did manage to dig up an old clip of Walz making an alarming and false claim: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

Walz is wrong, of course: The First Amendment, which vigorously protects Americans’ free speech rights, does not distinguish between good information and misinformation. Moreover, so-called hate speech—an arbitrary category, as different people find different sorts of speech to be hateful—is quite obviously protected.

But that clip of Walz is only eight seconds long, and I am wary of taking people out of context. So I looked for the rest of the clip, which is available here.

Keep reading

Nassau County Criminalizes Masks To Counter Far-Left Mask-Wearing Activists 

Nassau County Republicans passed the “Mask Transparency Act” on Monday, making it a misdemeanor for anyone 16 and older to wear a face mask in public spaces except for health and religious reasons. This move aims to curb criminals or violent protesters who exploit mask-wearing to conceal their identities. 

Nassau County Legislator Mazi Pilip proposed the Mask Transparency Act after one of her constituents was attacked by a mask-wearing protester.

“Having them covering their faces, thinking they can do whatever they want. This is absolutely unacceptable,” Pilip told NBC New York.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman shared a similar view… 

“Unless someone has a medical condition or a religious imperative, people should not be allowed to cover their face in a manner that hides their identity when in public.” 

Violators of the bill could be slapped with a fine of up to $1,000 and even jail time. The bill had unanimous support from all 12 Republican legislators in Nassau County. 

Keep reading

How America Gave Up Press Freedom and Nobody Noticed

Did you notice that we’ve lost the press freedom that is essential in our democracy? If you’re like many people, probably not.

Do you believe that a free press is a Constitutional guarantee? Most people likely think it is indeed guaranteed. Actually, it is not.

Here’s the real story as I see it:

“Freedom of the press is an implicit and essential right of the people. It is not just freedom of speech for journalists. If a democracy is going to work, citizens have got to make informed political choices. The media are the people’s primary means for keeping informed. Many believe that press freedom exists if the media are free of governmental control and that pluralism prevails. That view misses the main point. A good share of the media has got to be free to serve the people.”

Those were my opening comments when the World Association of Newspapers invited me deliver the Keynote Address at the Press Freedom Forum of its 2006 World Congress.

Separately, a published report from the US Agency for International Development tells us of another vital point. It is that the press “serves a ‘checking function’ by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.” Often this is called being a “watchdog.”

Now, here in 2024, much of our news coverage is devoid of those fundamental principles. Tune in to CNN or MSNBC and you’ll hear people serving their audiences with bias and persuasion, forthrightly favoring their preferred political candidates. Switch to Fox News and you’ll hear the same thing, but with an opposite political twist.

These biased or dishonest news services are not violating any law. They are free to do what they’re doing. But in those cases voters are not being served consistently honest, unbiased information on which to base reasonable choices of leaders or to detect failures in existing leadership. Real news seeks to report, not persuade.

Network news has bias too. But it is not as consistent as cable news, and not as intense. Nonetheless it is still not a consistently reliable source for honest news.

As to a constitutionally guaranteed free press? Many believe we have that guarantee. For example, a free speech center at an American university states flatly, “Freedom of the press is a Constitutional guarantee contained in the First Amendment, which in turn is part of the Bill of Rights.” That might be a good fundraising line for the university. But it’s not true.

Keep reading

Newsom Threatens Laws Against Deepfakes After Kamala Harris Parody Video Goes Viral

In a clash between Gov. Gavin Newsom and tech magnate Elon Musk, the California governor promoted his intention to endorse a law targeting what he calls the misuse of AI in political advertising.

This decision escalates the ongoing dispute between the two influential figures. Newsom criticized a parody video shared by Musk, which seemed to showcase a campaign ad for Vice President Kamala Harris with a synthetic voiceover, by posting, “Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.”

Musk retorted sharply on social media, emphasizing the legality of parody in the United States.

Keep reading