Tag: 1st amendment

United States Activates TikTok Ban Starting Sunday

The US government has confirmed that the TikTok ban will take effect this Sunday as part of a measure to protect national security from alleged espionage risks posed by ByteDance, the app’s Chinese parent company.

App stores will be required to remove the app, preventing new downloads within the country. Existing users may continue using it temporarily, but additional restrictions could be imposed soon. According to the Department of Commerce, the decision is necessary to safeguard the data of US citizens from unauthorized access by the Chinese government.

Social media platforms are buzzing with reactions. Influencers and content creators are lamenting economic losses and the limitation of their reach on a platform that has revolutionized the digital industry. Many are already migrating to alternatives like Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts to maintain their market presence.

Keep reading

Yes, Mark Zuckerberg, You Can Shout ‘Fire’ in a Crowded Theater

Mark Zuckerberg has joined a dubious list of prominent Americans—including judges, members of Congress, and even a vice presidential nominee—who believe that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. In an interview with Joe Rogan last week, the Meta CEO attempted to justify the company’s pandemic-era censorship policies by arguing that “even people who are like the most ardent First Amendment defenders” know that there is a limit to free speech. 

“At the beginning, [COVID-19 was] a legitimate public health crisis,” Zuckerberg told Rogan. “The Supreme Court has this clear precedent: It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when if there’s an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control. I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID.”

The thing is, Zuckerberg is simply wrong when it comes to how the First Amendment works.

The common misconception that it’s illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater originates with a hypothetical used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

In his opinion, Holmes wrote that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done,” adding that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Not only was this passage a pure hypothetical used to illustrate Holmes’ larger opinion that the First Amendment didn’t protect the dissemination of anti-draft pamphlets, but Schenck itself was overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

“To the contrary, if the theater is on fire, you not only may shout ‘FIRE,’ but indeed, you should do so! The constant misstatement of this famous line from a 1919 Supreme Court decision is significant, because it overlooks the critical, common-sense distinction between protected and unprotected speech,” former American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen said in 2021. “This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations. People have been using this cliché as if it had some legal meaning, while First Amendment lawyers roll their eyes”

Zuckerberg’s interview came in the wake of a January 7 announcement that Meta platforms would no longer use third-party fact-checkers to label and restrict content, as well as loosen restrictions on some subjects “that are part of mainstream discourse.” 

“After [Donald] Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy,” Zuckerberg said in a video announcing the change. “We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth. But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.”

While this change is a welcome shift from Meta’s previous content-moderation regime, that Zuckerberg is still getting this basic element of the First Amendment wrong hardly bodes well for Meta’s future as a platform friendly to free expression.

Keep reading

Small-Town America “Fights Back” In Court Against Globalists Who Flooded Their Town With Haitians

A resident of Charleroi, Pennsylvania, who was among the first to draw national attention to the massive influx of Haitian migrants into his small town, is now locked in a legal battle with a local food packaging plant that employs primarily migrants from the third world. Eyes on Charleroi first appeared when President-elect Donald Trump highlighted the town’s staggering 2,000% surge in its migrant population before the presidential elections. The resident is also planning a class-action lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of residents, demanding accountability from those responsible for the migrant invasion. 

Local media outlet Pennsylvania Record reports the lawyer of Andrew Armbruster, a resident of Charleroi, filed Pennsylvania’s new anti-SLAPP law, a measure that gives defendants, in some instances, the opportunity to evade litigation. This is regarding a defamation lawsuit filed against Armbruster by the Charleroi business Fourth Street Foods

“SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation, and anti-SLAPP laws give defendants a First Amendment argument,” Pennsylvania Record’s John O’Brien wrote.

The motion stated that Fourth Street Foods owner David Barbe filed the lawsuit against Armbruster primarily to suppress protected public expression.

“Armbruster’s rights to speak to public issues, community members, and prevailing wages without ever being accused of mentioning ‘Dave Barbe’ are an incredible encroachment on everyone in Charleroi’s right to free expression on public matters,” the motion said. 

The motion continued, “Not only are they chilled from speaking about Mr. Barbe, by this lawsuit they are chilled from mentioning the hiring practices of a local employer.”

Keep reading

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