Tag: 1st amendment

Trump Calls for Jailing Flag Burners

In reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress on Wednesday, raucous anti-Israel protests erupted across Washington, D.C. Protesters vandalized statues outside D.C.’s Union Station with phrases like “Hamas is comin” and “long live the resistance.” At one point, protesters replaced the American flag with a Palestinian flag and then burned the American flag.

In response to the flag burning, former President Donald Trump told Fox and Friends on Wednesday that he believed those who burn or damage the American flag should face jail time. Trump also brushed off those who would point out that flag desecration is First Amendment-protected speech.

“You should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag,” said Trump. “Now, people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that.”

“We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence,” Trump continued. “When they’re allowed to stomp on the flag and put lighter fluid on the flag and set it afire, when you’re allowed to do that—you get a one-year jail sentence, and you’ll never see it again.”

This isn’t the first time Trump has called for imprisoning flag burners. 

“We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag you go to jail for one year,” Trump said during a 2020 rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. “We oughta do it. We talk about freedom of speech…but that’s desecration,” he added.

However, Trump is simply wrong. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning is protected speech. While you can still face property destruction-related charges for burning someone else’s flag (as occurred Wednesday), burning a flag you own is protected political expression.

Keep reading

Anti-Deepfake Porn Bill Unanimously Passes the Senate

The anti-Deepfake porn bill, otherwise known as the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act, passed the U.S. Senate unanimously on Thursday with 100 votes.

Introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) while being sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) from the U.S. House, the bill would essentially allow victims of Deepfake porn to “sue anyone who knowingly creates, receives, or distributes non-consensual, sexually explicit content made with artificial intelligence,” per Gizmodo. Victims will have a 10-year statute of limitations.

“The bill is one of the first to address the damages caused by AI, which is currently a self-regulated industry,” the outlet noted. “It doesn’t allow for criminal prosecution, but hopefully, it’s a first step towards more federal oversight.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she pushed the bill after falling victim to Deepfake porn online, which become a significant problem in recent years.

Keep reading

Man Who Was Arrested for Flipping Off Cop Settles for $175,000

A man who was arrested and charged for flipping off a Vermont State Police (VSP) officer settled his case last month for $175,000.

“Far too often, police abuse their authority to retaliate against and suppress speech they personally find offensive or insulting,” Lia Ernst, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Vermont, tells Reason about the case. “This settlement demonstrates that violating these rights does not come without a cost.”

Through the settlement, Gregory Bombard will receive $100,000 in damages. The ACLU of Vermont and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which both represented Bombard in his suit, will receive the remaining $75,000.

All told, Bombard spent “about a year fighting the criminal charges and more than three years seeking declaratory relief,” a spokesperson for FIRE tells Reason.

Jay Riggen, the officer who arrested Bombard, “retired from VSP effective May 31, 2024,” a spokesperson for the Vermont State Police tells Reason. “We have no additional comment on this case.”

In February 2018, Bombard was stopped by Vermont State Trooper Riggen, who believed Bombard had given him the finger while driving—an allegation Bombard denies. However, after Riggen walked away from the car, Bombard flipped Riggen off and swore at the officer in frustration for having been pulled over.

In response, Riggen pulled Bombard over again and arrested him for disorderly conduct. “The first one may have been an error,” said Riggen during the arrest, referring to the reason for the initial stop, but “the second one certainly was not.”

Keep reading

California teachers were right to severely punish girl, 7, for writing these words under Black Lives Matter drawing she gave to friend, judge rules

A California judge has ruled that teachers were right to punish a seven-year-old girl over a Black Lives Matter drawing because ‘she’s too young to have First Amendment rights.’

The first grader was banned from recess and drawing pictures at Viejo Elementary in Orange County after she added the words ‘any life’ below Black Lives Matter on a picture she drew and and gave to a black friend.

The picture showed the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ with four round shapes in various different tones of brown, beige and yellow, which was intended to ‘represent her friends’ who were ‘racially-mixed’. 

The girl’s family filed a lawsuit last year against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming her First Amendment Rights were violated during the 2021 incident.

But US Central District Court Judge David Card ruled that ‘Students have the right to be free from speech that denigrates their race while at school’. Card added that the drawing was not protected by the First Amendment because of the age of the girl, named B.B. in the suit, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Judge Card wrote: ‘An elementary school … is not a marketplace of ideas… Thus, the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation.’

Moreover, Judge Card wrote, ‘a parent might second-guess (the principal’s) conclusion, but his decision to discipline B.B. belongs to him, not the federal courts.’

Card added that ‘Undoubtedly, B.B.’s intentions were innocent… B.B. testified that she gifted the Drawing to M.C. to make her feel comfortable after her class learned about Martin Luther King Jr.’

B.B. was punished by her school after her friend, known as M.C. in the suit, took the picture home, where a parent saw it and found it offensive, emailing the school and demanding they take action.

This prompted principal Jesus Becerra to tell B.B. the drawing was inappropriate and racist. He then punished B.B. by making her publicly apologize on the playground to her classmates and teachers. B.B. was also banned from recess and from drawing pictures for two weeks.

Keep reading

Tennessee Woman’s ‘Fuck Em’ Both 2024′ Sign Is Protected Speech, Rules District Court

A federal judge has ruled a Tennessee woman can’t be fined for saying what we’re all thinking, even if it’s in the form of a yard sign.

This past week, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ruled that the town of Lakeland, Tennessee, violated resident Julie Pereira’s First Amendment rights when it fined her for placing a “Fuck Em’ [sic] Both 2024″ sign in her yard.

According to her First Amendment lawsuit filed last month, Pereira’s sign “simply and cogently” expressed her own opinion that neither major party candidate was an acceptable choice for president. A Lakeland code enforcement official disagreed, slapping Pereira with daily fines of $50 for violating the city’s prohibition on “obscene” signs.

The city only stopped fining Pereira after she covered the u on her sign with tape. By that point, she’d wracked up $688 in fines and other fees because of her sign.

But, unwilling to either pay those fees or dilute the “potency” of her message, Pereira sued the city of Lakeland for violating her First Amendment rights.

“In the interest of protecting not only my rights, but all citizens in the state of Tennessee this case has been taken to the next level because of its constitutional impacts,” she wrote on Facebook, per the New York Post‘s reporting.

In a brief, three-page ruling, the U.S. district court agreed with Pereira. The court barred the city from taking any further enforcement action over her sign and instructed the city to reimburse Pereira for the fines she’d paid, plus $31,000 in attorneys fees, and $1 in nominal damages for having her constitutional rights violated.

Keep reading

SATANISTS to volunteer in Florida schools following signing of new law that allows religious personnel to be employed in public schools

Public schools in Florida might soon be swarmed with members of the Satanic Temple as Gov. Ron DeSantis has put the call out for more school counselors following the signing of a state law allowing religious chaplains into public schools amid staffing shortages.

House Bill 931, which came into effect this July, permits outside organizations to provide “additional counseling and support to students.” DeSantis has made it clear that the law is intended as a means to legally reintroduce Christian values into public education.

However, the bill has left the implementation of chaplaincy programs to individual school districts and only requires schools to list a volunteer’s religion “if any.” (Related: Satanic temple in Texas files lawsuit demanding “religious right” to sacrifice babies through abortion.)

The Satanic Temple sees this as an opportunity to challenge the unconstitutional favoritism toward Christianity. Satanic Temple co-founder and spokesperson Lucien Greaves argued that if Christian chaplains are granted access to students, then so should their members, to maintain the separation of church and state.

“You have theocrats pushing further and further, signing unconstitutional bills into law, and they realize there’s no consequence,” Greaves said. “They’re giving everybody the impression that these types of things are legal, this is just the environment we’re living in. And in that way, they’re really numbing people to when these things actually do take effect, or when they are upheld by a corrupt judge who’s just playing partisan politics.”

Keep reading

Rapper B.G. Ordered To Turn Over New Song Lyrics to the Feds

Last week, a federal judge ruled that B.G., a rapper known for the hit 1999 song “Bling Bling,” must give the government copies of the lyrics to any new songs as a condition of his supervised release. While prosecutors can generally place a wide range of otherwise illegal restrictions on released prisoners’ conduct, critics argue this restriction is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

In 2012, B.G., whose real name is Christopher Dorsey, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for illegal gun possession and obstruction charges. After serving 11 years, Dorsey was released in February. In May, prosecutors filed a motion alleging that Dorsey had violated the terms of his bond by publishing songs “where he once again glorifies murder, drug dealing, and threatens those who cooperate with the police.” 

“Mr. Dorsey’s conduct directly contradicts the goals of supervised release—rehabilitation and becoming a responsible, law-abiding member of our community,” prosecutors write. “There is no way that any reasonable person can view these new videos…with an understanding of Mr. Dorsey’s past, and conclude that Mr. Dorsey was taking his rehabilitation seriously.” 

Prosecutors requested that Dorsey be prohibited from “promoting and glorifying future gun violence/murder and obstructive conduct in his songs and during his concerts.” Last Friday, New Orleans federal judge Susie Morgan denied this request, writing that the condition might be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Dorsey’s speech.

“The Court finds that, without question, the additional condition is not sufficiently clear and specific to serve as a guide for the Defendant’s conduct and for those entrusted with his supervision,” Morgan wrote. But despite this admission, she still placed a serious restriction on Dorsey’s speech. “To address the legitimate concerns expressed by the Government, the Court will impose a special condition that the Defendant provide the United States Probation Office with a copy of the lyrics of any song he writes, in advance of his production or promotion of such song, and that those lyrics be shared with the Government.”

While this restriction sounds outrageous, supervised release is a convoluted mess for many former prisoners. “When it was created in 1984, federal supervised release was supposed to be used sparingly to keep tabs on offenders who were public safety concerns or needed extra support to transition back into society,” Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella wrote last month. “However, it’s become used by default…and it’s sending many others back to prison for minor rule violations that might not warrant such a harsh response.”

Keep reading

Biden regime pressured Amazon to censor at least 43 books that discuss vaccine injuries and Big Pharma fraud

The House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has uncovered a book banning operation at Amazon that involves coercive, unconstitutional directives from Joe Biden’s rogue government. According to the Congressional report, Amazon was ordered by the federal government to change its algorithms to reduce visibility for books that are critical of pharmaceutical executives or vaccines.

The federal government compiled a “Do Not Promote” list that targeted at least 43 book titles, effectively limiting their reach and availability to the public. Representative Jim Jordan, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, highlighted these findings on social media, citing internal Amazon communications that link the censorship to requests from the Biden regime.

The Democrats, not the Republicans, are banning books and censoring important information

On numerous occasions, Joe Biden and his propaganda machine claimed that Republicans are fascists who are trying to ban books and take away our rights. We are constantly reminded that “MAGA Republicans are a threat to democracy!”

However, in 2021 and 2022, the Biden regime conscripted the Department of Homeland Security to target moms and dads who speak up at school board meetings about pornography in school libraries and the bodily restrictions that were forced on kids in the name of “safety.” Parents who stood up for common sense, who tried to get forced masking, pornography and perverse gender ideologies out of the schools were deemed “domestic terrorists” by Biden’s DHS.

Keep reading

Former Biden Advisor Claims “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Hinders Government Action

Even the New York Times looks like it’s treading somewhat lightly while publishing articles aimed at dismantling the very concept of the First Amendment.

An opinion piece penned by an Obama and Biden administration adviser, Tim Wu, is therefore labeled as a “guest essay.” But was it the author, or the newspaper, who decided on the title? Because it is quite scandalous.

“The First Amendment is Out of Control” – that’s the title.

Meanwhile, many believe that attacks on this speech-protecting constitutional amendment are what’s actually out of control these days.

Wu takes a somewhat innovative route to argue against free speech: he painstakingly frames it as concern that the universally mistrusted Big Tech might be abusing it, with the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding Texas and Florida laws, (ab)used as an example.

When the government colludes with mighty entities like major social platforms – the First Amendment becomes the primary recourse to defend speech now expressed in public square forums forged through the pervasiveness of the internet.

So despite Wu’s effort to make his message seem unbiased, the actual takeaways are astonishing: one is that the First Amendment is an obstacle for the government to protect citizens (for being invoked as a tool restraining censorship?)

But this means that the First Amendment, designed to protect citizens from government censorship, is doing its job.

In the same vein, contrary to the sentiment of this “essay,” the amendment is there not to protect “national security” – nor does free speech undermine that, in a democracy.

Keep reading

Anthony Blinken Reveals Government’s AI Plan To Censor Free Speech

U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken admitted last week that the State Department is preparing to use artificial intelligence to “combat disinformation,” amidst a massive government-wide AI rollout that will involved the cooperation of Big Tech and other private-sector partners.

At a speaking engagement streamed last week with the State Department’s chief data and AI officer, Matthew Graviss, Blinken gushed about the “extraordinary potential” and “extraordinary benefit” AI has on our society, and “how AI could be used to accelerate the Sustainable Development Goals which are, for the most part, stalled.”

He was referring to the United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development goals, which represent a globalist blueprint for a one-world totalitarian system. These goals include the gai-worshipping climate agenda, along with new restrictions on free speech, the freedom of movement, wealth transfers from rich to poor countries, and the digitization of humanity. Now Blinken is saying these goals could be jumpstarted by employing advanced artificial intelligence technologies.

Listen to Blinken, in the video below, openly describe how the government will use AI to clamp down on the free speech of citizens. (Fast-forward to the 3-minute mark and watch through the 7:07 mark.)

Keep reading