Tag: 1st amendment

Texas Locked a Foreign Company’s Domain Over Missing Digital ID Checks

In Travis County, Texas, a judge has frozen motherless.com, the .com domain of a foreign pornography operator, taking it down worldwide until it posts a $9.14 million bond and builds an age verification digital ID system to the state’s own specification.

Kick Online Entertainment is a foreign corporation, and the order admits so, which is the reason the writ went somewhere else. A state court cannot summon a company overseas, but it can order the American firm that keeps the registry of every .com name, and that registry is what makes a domain resolve at all.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The case turns on HB 1181, Texas’s age-verification law for adult sites. That firm is Verisign, a nonparty to it, and Judge Maya Guerra Gamble signed the writ of attachment on June 4, 2026, filed four days later in State of Texas v Kick Online Entertainment.

The order directs Verisign to place motherless.com on “a registry lock, hold, or similar status until replevied by Defendant,” the legal term for the operator posting a bond to get its domain back.

The domain is frozen rather than taken, though the difference means little here. What Verisign actually applied on was serverHold plus server-level prohibitions on deleting, transferring and updating the name. A hold pulls motherless.com out of the .com zone file, so it resolves for nobody.

Kick must post a bond of $9,140,000, and that bond is “conditioned on Defendant’s implementation of age verification that conforms with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies code chapter 129B,” together with an affirmation that it will satisfy the civil penalties entered against it on September 30, 2024. A company outside the state’s reach is being made to both pay and obey a Texas statute before its property comes back. This is specific performance of a state law, pulled from a foreign operator by holding an asset hostage at the registry.

Among the court’s stated reasons the writ is “appropriate and justified” is the finding that “Defendant is not a resident of this state and is a foreign corporation,” which turns the state’s inability to reach a company into a ground for taking its property.

The order then pre-authorizes more of the same, closing with the line that “as many writs as the State deems necessary shall issue,” so the count of future seizures is set by the attorney general and not by a judge weighing each one. And Texas was excused from the security these writs normally demand, because the order says “the State of Texas is not required to post a bond prior to the issuance of the Writ of Attachment.”

The party taking the asset posts nothing. The party losing it posts $9.14 million.

Keep reading

Rep. Nancy Mace Goes Nuclear — Says Every Muslim in Public Office Is a “Trojan Horse” and Threat to the Republic: ‘I Don’t Want to be Blown Up by a Suicide Bomber’

South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace is refusing to play the politically correct game.

In a blistering series of posts this weekend, the outspoken Republican declared that every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a direct threat to national security and the republic itself.

Mace wrote: “Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic. We refuse to be silent.”

Enter radical leftist Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who immediately raced to the defense of the very ideology that has produced endless bloodshed on American soil. Jayapal screeched: “This is absolutely disgusting and dangerous. Republicans must denounce this blatant Islamophobia. To Muslim communities across America: I will always stand with you.”

Mace wasn’t having it. She hit back with a video of an Imam in Alabama, openly calling for Muslims to sacrifice their lives through jihad in order to establish “the religion of Allah” right here in the United States.

Mace posted: “Watch this Imam, in Alabama of all places, say ‘…Muslims must be ready to sacrifice their lives through jihad in order to establish ‘the religion of Allah’ in the United States…’ Islam must be confronted and Islam must be removed from civil society in the US.”

Keep reading

Judge Halts $800-a-Day Fines Against Investigative Journalist Catherine Herridge for Refusing to Betray Confidential Sources in China-Tied Case

Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge secured a major, though temporary, victory for press freedom after a federal judge clarified that she will not have to keep paying an $800-per-day contempt fine while her legal team asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her First Amendment case.

The court also denied plaintiff Yanping Chen’s request to increase the daily fine to a staggering $5,000 and ordered that the money Herridge has already paid be returned, Herridge announced Friday in a statement on X.

The district court has clarified that I don’t have to pay the $800 daily contempt fine for refusing to disclose my confidential sources while our team asks the Supreme Court to hear our First Amendment case.

The court also denied the plaintiff, Yanping Chen’s request to raise the daily contempt fines to 5K. The court ordered reimbursement for the fines I have already paid.

This case is much bigger than one journalist, one story, or one news outlet. The outcome will impact every newsroom in this country and the ability of reporters to protect their sources and do investigative reporting that seeks accountability.

Yet, critical evidence remains hidden from the public and under seal by the District Court.

At a time when many corporate media outlets choose to settle or pressure journalists to surrender their notes, I want to acknowledge that Fox News has continued to stand behind me and fully support the First Amendment and investigative journalism by paying my attorney’s fees.

I remain committed to safeguarding the principles of investigative journalism and a free press.

Keep reading

Christian Parents Sue Oregon After State Brands Them “Child Abusers” for Refusing to “Affirm” Daughter’s Transgender Identity

A Christian mother and her husband are fighting back after Oregon officials effectively branded them child abusers because they refused to “affirm” their teenage daughter’s transgender identity.

Nicole and David Calaway filed a federal lawsuit on July 15 against their daughter’s former therapist and multiple Oregon Department of Human Services officials, accusing them of violating the couple’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

“It has destroyed our lives,” Nicole told The Daily Signal.

According to the lawsuit, Child Protective Services removed Nicole’s then-15-year-old daughter, identified as K.A., from the Calaways’ home on July 18, 2024.

The seizure occurred one day after Nicole and her daughter reportedly terminated the services of therapist Jennifer Forster. Court documents allege that Forster then contacted the child-abuse hotline after being encouraged by ODHS caseworker Rachel Woods.

Forster allegedly told authorities that Nicole had appeared “aggressive and angry” and intended to leave her daughter without mental-health support.

The Calaways contend those statements were false and created a “fabricated appearance of urgency” that Oregon officials used to remove K.A. from their home.

Keep reading

Total Fraud: Adam Schiff Demands AI Political Parodies Be Banned, Forgets He Lied About Trump and Called It Parody in 2019

A politician who’s built his career on lies is suddenly worried about truth in advertising?

California Sen. Adam Schiff, a man with a documented record of deception, has introduced two bills aimed at regulating political speech in election campaigns — including one that would add prohibitions on content generated by artificial intelligence to a law that already prohibits campaigns from impersonating their opponents.

Maybe Schiff has forgotten his own past when it comes to impersonations — and the lies behind his attacks on President Donald Trump.

In a career of lowlights that would make a masochist blush, Schiff achieved one of his most notorious moments during the 2019 hearings that led up to Trump’s first impeachment, when the then-California congressman fabricated quotes from a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelenskyy.

Schiff then defended playing fast and loose with the truth by claiming he was engaging in “parody.”

Well, reasonable people can disagree about whether Schiff was engaging in political “parody” or sinking to the belly-crawling tactics of a lying coward to further the cause of assassinating Trump’s character.  (The vote here is “belly crawling,” just for the record. Schiff’s record is so crooked even his mortgage reeks of fraud.)

But there’s no question that Schiff’s motivation for filing the bill comes from the campaigns that led up to California’s primary elections in June.

Keep reading

xAI Challenges Minnesota’s Broad “Nudification” Law as a First Amendment Violation

On May 1st, President Donald Trump posted an AI-generated picture of himself to Truth Social. He is floating in the reflecting pool on the National Mall on a gold inner tube, shirtless, giving a thumbs up. J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio and Doug Burgum are in the water beside him, also shirtless. A woman in a checked bikini reclines at one edge of the picture. The joke was about the money being spent repairing the pool.

From August 1st, making that picture in Minnesota could expose the company whose software produced it to a civil penalty of $500,000. Make ten of them and the exposure is $5 million. The people depicted could sue separately for triple damages, punitive damages and legal fees.

That image appears on page 19 of a complaint xAI filed on 27 July in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, asking a federal judge to stop the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, from enforcing House File 1606. The law is the first of its kind in the United States. It targets the software, not the people who make deepfakes or the people who spread them.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here. 

Minnesota has a problem it is trying to solve but statute the legislature actually wrote reaches an enormous amount of ordinary, protected speech.

What HF 1606 does

The operative text is now Minn. Stat. § 325E.91. It says that a person who owns or controls a website, application, software, program or other service must not “allow a user to access, download, or use” that service “to nudify an image or video,” and must not nudify an image on a user’s behalf. A separate subdivision bans advertising or promoting such a service.

The violation belongs to the owner. The conduct belongs to the user. The person who makes the image, the person who posts it to a group chat, the person who emails it to the subject’s employer: subdivision 2 touches none of them. The statute’s entire enforcement weight lands on whoever built the tool.

“Nudify” is defined as altering or generating an image so that it depicts “an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual,” where the result is realistic enough that a reasonable person would believe the body part belongs to that person.

The whole statute turns on what counts as an intimate part. And here the legislature made a choice that will probably decide the case.

The definition that swallowed the law

For “intimate part,” HF 1606 borrows a definition from Minn. Stat. § 609.341, subdivision 5, part of Minnesota’s criminal sexual conduct code. That statute defines intimate parts to include “the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.”

That definition was written to determine when unwanted touching becomes criminal sexual contact. There it makes obvious sense: grabbing someone’s thigh or breast without consent is an assault regardless of what they were wearing. Transplanted into a statute about images, the same list produces something else entirely. Inner thighs are visible in shorts. Buttocks are visible in swimwear. Men’s “breasts” are visible any time a man takes his shirt off. The definition is also open-ended since the statute says the term “includes” those areas rather than limiting it to them.

The shirtless reflecting pool image is covered. So is an image a user made of a former and current governor from opposite sides of the political spectrum in a sumo match, which xAI reproduces on page 20 of its filing; both individuals’ breasts and inner thighs have been “depicted” where they were not before. So is a viral picture of Trump, Xi Jinping, Elon Musk and Tim Cook eating skewers on a Chinese street in vests and shorts.

The legislature knew about the alternative. As introduced in February 2025, HF 1606 cross-referenced Minnesota’s existing deepfake statute, which uses a much tighter list: the genitals, pubic area, anus, or a partially or fully exposed nipple. That version names discrete anatomical features rather than whole regions of the body. Lawmakers considered it and adopted the broader one instead. A court asked to save the statute by reading it narrowly will have to explain why the legislature’s deliberate rejection of the narrow definition should be undone by judicial construction.

The second definitional term is nearly as loose. An “identifiable individual” is someone identifiable “from the image itself, by the person depicted in the image, or by another person,” or from personal information displayed alongside it. The only genuine limit in the statute is realism, which means photorealistic output is regulated and cartoons are not.

The statute is silent on consent. An adult editing a photograph of themselves triggers the same liability as a stranger targeting a classmate. The omission was deliberate. When a Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee staffer flagged during a February hearing that the prohibition “applies to consensual images,” the bill’s Senate sponsor, Erin Maye Quade, explained “that is intentional.”

Keep reading

Verdict Reached in Shiloh Hendrix Case After More Than Eight Hours of Deliberation

A Minnesota jury has delivered a split verdict in the disorderly conduct trial of Shiloh Hendrix, finding the 37-year-old mother not guilty on the count related to her words directed at the eight-year-old Somali boy who was stealing from her, but guilty on the count stemming from her comments to the man who filmed and confronted her at a Rochester playground.

The jury reached a verdict just before 10:12 p.m. local time, after over eight hours of deliberations.

The incident took place on April 28, 2025, at Roy Sutherland Playground in Soldiers Field Memorial Park.

Hendrix was at the park with her toddler when the boy reached into her diaper bag and took an applesauce pouch. She confronted the child and allegedly used a racial slur.

A Somali man named Sharmake Beyle Omar, who was not the child’s father, began recording the scene, became extremely confrontational with Hendrix as she was holding her toddler, and continued filming as he demanded and provoked her to repeat the slur.

Keep reading

Video Shows Fort Worth Cop Ticketing a Preacher for ‘Offensive’ Speech at Pride Event

A Fort Worth Police officer ticketed a preacher in late June, claiming the content of his speech was offensive. This week the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division launched an inquiry into the incident to determine if the officer violated the First Amendment.

The widely circulated video of the confrontation shows an officer and a protester during the Trinity Pride Fest on June 27. “If someone is offended by your talking, then we have a problem,” said Officer Sara Stogner.

“That’s a constitutional violation of our rights,” responds David Grisham, a street preacher and retired federal law enforcement officer. The two continue to argue when Stogner asserts, “OK, then I’ll write you the ticket, and we’ll go from there.”

“Wait, you’re going to ticket us for offensive speech?” the cameraman asks incredulously. To which the officer confidently responds, “Yes, absolutely.”

Stogner continues to claim she can ticket the two men for disorderly conduct “if someone complains that your language or what you’re saying is offensive.”  

But that’s not how the First Amendment works, according to legal experts. “The First Amendment does not allow government officials to shut down speech simply on account of it being ‘offensive,'” said Brennan VanderVeen, program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “The government can restrict certain types of conduct or restrict noise above a certain volume level,” he continued, but citing someone because people are offended by the content of protected speech is “precisely what the First Amendment does not allow.” 

Grisham was ultimately cited for misuse of a bullhorn during a protest, a citation he argues isn’t supported by the city’s noise ordinance, reports WFAA, an ABC News affiliate. Grisham’s civil rights attorneys announced on July 3 their intent to challenge the citation, arguing Stogner failed to issue a decibel check in accordance with the city’s noise ordinance and Texas code, which presumes an unreasonable noise to be in excess of 85, and instead cited Grisham for “engaging in peaceful and protected speech.” 

In response to growing online backlash, Fort Worth Police Chief Eddie Garcia told WFAA on Monday that his department takes responsibility and is currently instituting department-wide First Amendment training. “We just trained up our command staff again with refresher courses. We’re going to be training our sergeants. We’re going to be training our officers,” said Garcia. “We are not a perfect profession,” he continued, “and officers will make mistakes from time to time.” Garcia did not mention any ways in which Stogner would be held personally accountable or liable. 

“Actively training police officers around First Amendment standards would be a positive step,” said VanderVeen, who added that “government officials being unaware of basic First Amendment standards is a persistent problem.” 

So much so, it seems, the Justice Department is also looking into the incident and has asked the Fort Worth city attorney for information to help the agency determine if an investigation is necessary, reports Fox News. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring all Americans—regardless of the content or viewpoint of their speech—are protected from unlawful restrictions on expressive activity,” wrote Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon.

The City of Fort Worth, Texas, has 30 days to provide the DOJ with further information.

The Justice Department is right to ensure Grisham’s freedom of speech has not been infringed, and doing so is consistent with the agency’s core mission to protect civil rights. But the move stands out against a backdrop of the agency’s alleged First Amendment violations since President Donald Trump took office, including subpoenaing journalists, coercing social media companies to remove immigration officer tracking apps, and attempting to unmask anonymous online critics. 

But for now, Americans can rest assured that the Justice Department can still do the right thing every once in a while.

Keep reading

Latest Case of “Palestine Exception” to Free Speech Is “Golden Gate Defendants”

Jury deliberations in the case of a group of San Francisco protesters dubbed the “Golden Gate Defendants” resulted in multiple misdemeanor convictions on July 2, 2026. The case stems from an organized action that took place April 15, 2024, in protest of the U.S.-enabled Israeli genocide in Gaza. Twenty-six people were initially arrested for blocking traffic on San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge and jailed for more than 48 hours. After a majority of the 1,144 combined charges were dropped, seven people went to trial.

In spite of being found guilty of multiple misdemeanors, the Golden Gate Defendants view the outcome as a victory. Tori Porell, senior staff attorney at Palestine Legal, who has been supporting the defendants, said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins “failed to secure convictions on the most serious charges” of felony conspiracy. Jury members were deadlocked on the felony charges that could have resulted in 15-year prison sentences.

Still, defendants and their allies have spent two years enmeshed in the stress of a long-drawn-out trial. Now, those charged and convicted await a sentencing hearing in August.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines to Stop $800 Per Day Fine For Catherine Herridge After Obama Judge Holds Her in Contempt For Refusing to Give Up Her Sources

The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to halt the $800 a day fine for former Catherine Herridge after a judge held her in contempt for refusing to give up her confidential sources.

Justice Kavanaugh dissented.

In 2024, Catherine Herridge, an Emmy-winning and nominated reporter known for her work on national security and intelligence, was held in civil contempt by an Obama-appointed federal judge for her refusal to unmask her confidential sources related to a blockbuster story on how there is an infiltration from China in US universities.

In August 2024, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Christopher Cooper, ordered Herridge to sit down for a sworn deposition regarding a confidential source she used for a 2017 story she covered on a Department of Defense-funded school that was at the center of federal investigations over Chinese military ties while she was at Fox News.

The judge ordered Herridge to turn over her source(s) in response to a lawsuit that was filed by Chinese-American scientist Yanping Chen against the FBI. Chen subpoenaed Herridge in an effort to find out who her sources were.

Herridge argued she should not be forced to disclose her source because of her First Amendment rights.

Keep reading