Tag: 1st amendment

Texas Newspaper Virally Claims Ted Cruz Wanted To ‘Limit’ Preferred Pronouns. His Bill Doesn’t Do That.

A headline published Thursday in the San Antonio Express-News claimed that Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) had introduced a bill that would “limit using preferred names, pronouns,” noting that the senator himself uses a preferred nickname, not his legal name. The outlet tweeted a link to the article repeating the same claim, and it quickly racked up over 6 million views on X, formerly Twitter, by Friday afternoon.

“We already knew that Republicans were synonymous with hypocrisy, but this is so typical of them. How is it no one ever calls them out on it?” read one reply.

“I don’t see how this is remotely constitutional,” another commenter added.

But the bill Cruz introduced doesn’t limit individuals’ ability to respect preferred names or pronouns for transgender people. Instead, it would prohibit the government from enacting any rule forcing its employees to use preferred pronouns or names. Instead of compelling speech, the bill prevents the government from trying to compel speech from their employees.

While the article headline was eventually updated to accurately reflect the bill’s content, the original viral post remains online at time of publication.

The “Safeguarding Honest Speech Act,” introduced by Cruz and Rep. Andy Ogles (R–Tenn.) in November, states that “No Federal funds may be used for the purpose of implementing, administering, or enforcing any rule…requiring an employee or contractor of any Federal agency or Department to use—(1) another person’s preferred pronouns if they are incompatible with such person’s sex; or (2) a name other than a person’s legal name when referring to such person.”

And the bill would likely enforce already existing First Amendment protections.

Keep reading

Philadelphia lawmakers vote to ban ski masks in some public places, a move praised by police but panned by rights advocates

The Philadelphia City Council passed a bill Thursday that bans the use of ski masks in parks, schools, public transit or other city-owned buildings, a move they say will help law enforcement solve crimes but that civil rights advocates believe will criminalize people of color.

The bill, passed by a 13-2 vote, will fine offenders $250 for each offense, and up to $2,000 if a mask is worn during the commission of a crime.

Mayor Jim Kenney will sign it into law early next week, according to council member Anthony Phillips, who drafted the ordinance.

“The City of Philadelphia has been under siege with individuals who use ski masks to commit crimes. It’s caught onto not just young people, but young adults who have made this a particular thing to do,” Phillips told CNN. “The Philadelphia Police Department can’t tell who’s a criminal and not a criminal, which makes it difficult for crimes to be solved in Philadelphia.”

Sarah Peterson, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office, told CNN, “The administration will review the legislation, and in the meantime looks forward to our ongoing work with City Council on the urgent matter of ensuring public safety.”

The Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in people wearing various face coverings including ski masks, “complicated policing” because mask mandates made it easier for criminals to conceal their identities, Philadelphia Police Department Deputy Commissioner Francis Healy said during a committee hearing in November.

“There was a time not so long ago when any average police officer would see a person donning a mask before entering a convenience store or a bank and they would believe a robbery was about to occur,” Healy said. “However, the pandemic changed that mindset where people were actually more fearful of people without masks than with masks.”

Although mask mandates are no longer required, some people continue to wear ski masks with the intention of concealing their identities when committing crimes, Healy says.

“Criminals have continued using masks to avoid capture and it remains problematic, so the department fully supports the intent and rationale behind this ordinance,” Healy said.

Keep reading

Judge Halts Montana’s First Amendment-Violating TikTok Ban

A TikTok ban in Montana is likely unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

Judge Donald Molloy, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issued a temporary halt to enforcing the ban. It was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024, and would have meant $10,000 penalties per day for app stores or TikTok “each time that a user accesses TikTok, is offered the ability to access TikTok, or is offered the ability to download TikTok.”

The ruling “is a welcome victory in the face of a relentless and illiberal campaign against the First Amendment and the Internet,” said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel with TechFreedom. “Wholesale bans on speech-enabling platforms are an affront to the First Amendment, and it is deeply troubling that so many have cheered them on based on panic, fear, or a general disdain for the platform.”

Montana’s TikTok ban (SB 419) was signed into law by Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte last May, calling it a measure “to protect Montanans’ personal and private data from the Chinese Communist Party.” The move came amidst a flurry of official paranoia—and propaganda—about how the app, with its Chinese parent company, could be a threat to national security, personal privacy, and America’s youth.

TikTok creators and TikTok itself sued, arguing that the ban was unconstitutional. The two suits were since consolidated.

Keep reading

Trad Catholic Family Dragged Out of Home at Gunpoint, Locked in Van After FBI ‘Goaded’ Teen to Post Offensive Memes, Dad Says

Atraditional Catholic family was allegedly “dragged out of their home at gunpoint, handcuffed and locked in a van” earlier this year after the FBI “goaded” their 15-year-old son to post  “offensive memes” online. The teen, a volunteer firefighter and altar boy, was then hospitalized on mental health pretenses, according to his father, Jeremiah Rufini.

The FBI’s aggressive “investigation” only resulted in a misdemeanor conviction against the boy for breach of peace, but financially devastated the family with substantial legal expenses.

The FBI targeted the boy as part of a sting operation catfishing traditionalist Catholic teenagers with “extreme political content,” Rufini explained in the family’s GiveSendGo crowdfunding site. 

The family’s difficulties began early in 2023 when Rufini’s father became too ill from chemotherapy to work at the family business or care for his 93 year-old grandmother who lives in an in-law apartment at his home.

The home-schooled 15 year-old took on the responsibility of caring for his great grandmother until his father got home from work each day.

“It was a very stressful time, compounded by several unrelated deaths in the family that happened in the same time period,” Rufini explained. The long hours alone with his grandmother led the boy, equipped with a brand new cell phone, to become ensnared in an FBI scheme targeting trad Catholics.

Keep reading

The Backpage Defendants Never Stood a Chance

Eighty-six counts of criminal activity—that’s what veteran journalist and publisher Michael Lacey faced in the federal case against him, a saga kicked off by federal agents raiding his house and shutting down a website he co-founded in 2004, Backpage. A saga that has stretched on for more than five years, through multiple judges, one mistrial, and the death of Lacey’s longtime business partner James Larkin. A case premised on a moral panic that previewed tactics threatening to all sorts of speech.

One count of international concealment money laundering—that’s the only charge of which a jury found Lacey guilty. Lacey’s offense? Moving money from a U.S. bank to a Hungarian bank in 2017.

Transferring money between bank accounts doesn’t seem like it should be a crime. Then again, neither does most of the underlying activity in this case—consensual hookups between adults; providing a platform for sex-worker speech; letting people pay for services with Bitcoin, and so on.

The Department of Justice claimed this was about “keeping women and children across America safe” from sex trafficking. But behind that bravado, the government’s actual case was clearly something less noble. A performance of protection. A publicity stunt. A massive scapegoating set against the backdrop of a moral panic. And a politicized prosecution against people who engaged in and defended the most dangerous thing to any government: free speech.

Keep reading

Democrats Ignore The First Amendment With Censorship Demand Letter To X

A group of over 25 Democratic members of Congress have raised allegations against X, once again ignoring the First Amendment and calling for online censorship.

They assert that the company is both allowing and profiting from the dissemination of false and violent content, particularly regarding the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

On Tuesday, these lawmakers, including notable figures such as Reps. Dan Goldman, Jamie Raskin, Jerry Nadler, Bennie Thompson, Katie Porter, and Adam Schiff, addressed a letter to Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X, and Elon Musk, its owner.

We obtained a copy of the pressure letter for you here.

Keep reading

New York Governor Kathy Hochul Announces Plans to Implement Pre-Crime Surveillance, Target Online “Hate”

In a press conference today, New York Governor Kathy Hochul outlined her administration’s aggressive new strategy for combating online “hate” and implementing pre-crime-esque online surveillance.

As part of this approach, New York’s Threat Assessment and Management Teams (TAM teams), which were established in August 2022 in response to the Buffalo mass shooting, will extend their efforts and start targeting speech surrounding the conflict in the Middle East, with a focus on preventing crimes before they occur. TAM teams will be given an additional $3 million investment for their implementation across New York State college campuses.

“We’re creating strategies, first time ever, to help identify hate at the source and prevent crimes before they occur,” Hochul said.

The TAM teams, primarily focused on tracking and stopping violent acts of hate, work in collaboration with mental health professionals. They establish reporting systems for red flags and provide training to identify early warning signs of radicalization. This initiative, while seemingly noble in its intent to protect New Yorkers, raises significant privacy and First Amendment concerns.

Keep reading

Backpage: The Monumental Free Speech Case the Media Ignored

After a dozen years of legal tussles, seven years in the crosshairs of ambitious prosecutors, and five-and-a-half years fighting a federal case that saw his business forcibly shuttered, his assets seized, and his longtime partner dead by suicide, alt-weekly newspaper impresario Michael Lacey was found guilty Thursday on just one of the 86 criminal charges levied against him in connection with the online advertising platform Backpage. But the government’s fanatical pursuit of Lacey and his four other Backpage co-defendants is far from over. 

Lacey, an award-winning investigative journalist, was found guilty of international concealment money laundering, which could land him in prison for up to 20 years, and not guilty of international promotional money laundering. But after a week of contentious deliberations, the jury could not come to agreement on the other 84 charges, prompting U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa to declare a second mistrial in this case. That means Lacey could face a third federal trial essentially for the crime of running a classified ads site that knowingly enabled and profited from illegal, if consensual, transactions involving sex.

Thanks to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, the speech and conduct of website consumers is considered to be the legal responsibility of the speakers themselves, not the owners of the platform. This has been a thorn in the side of politicians and other would-be censors ever since. In 2013, Kamala Harris and 46 other state attorneys general sent a joint letter to Congress urging a rollback of Section 230; the letter started like this: “Every day, children in the United States are sold for sex. In instance after instance, state and local authorities discover that the vehicles for advertising the victims of the child sex trade to the world are online classified ad services, such as Backpage.com.”

Seven weeks before her election to the U.S. Senate, Harris, along with her Texas counterpart Ken Paxton, brought the first criminal case against Lacey, his partner Jim Larkin, and other executives at Backpage, who were paraded in a Sacramento courtroom cage wearing orange jumpsuits. That case was tossed out by a judge who pointed out: “Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech….It is for Congress, not this court, to revisit.” 

But just three days before leaving the A.G.’s office for the Senate, Harris filed yet another Backpage case, which was yet again thrown out (partially) because of Section 230. Once in Congress, Harris helped push through the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, or FOSTA, which does peel back Section 230 to make websites liable for the “facilitation” or “promotion” of prostitution by their users, even though prostitution itself is not a federal crime. 

Keep reading

Governor Kathy Hochul Says New York Has Started Conducting Special Media “Surveillance Efforts” To Monitor “Hate”

In response to escalating incidents of harassment, particularly against Jewish and Muslim communities, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul is today intensifying the state’s counterterrorism measures and is boosting the controversial practice of surveilling social media platforms, and therefore the speech of New Yorkers and other American citizens.

This measure follows ongoing tension in Israel and Gaza. Hochul revealed plans for enhancing the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force personnel and assigning an extra $2.5 million to the State Police.

“…we’re very focused on the data we’re collecting from surveillance efforts, what’s being said on social media platforms, and we have launched an effort to be able to counter some of the negativity and reach out to people,” Hochul said.

“When we see hate speech being spoken about on online platforms, our media analysis, our social media analysis unit has ramped up its monitoring of sites to catch incitement to violence, direct threats to others.

“And all this is in response to our desire, our strong commitment to ensure that not only do New Yorkers be safe, but they also feel safe.”

This isn’t the first time Hochul has stuck her nose into monitoring online speech.

A New York law aimed at regulating “hateful conduct” online was blocked by a judge. This law, signed by Governor Hochul, required social media networks to report and address hateful conduct, broadly defined as actions that vilify or incite violence based on various identity factors.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ruled that the law violated the First Amendment, emphasizing the importance of protecting even hateful speech. The court argued that the law not only restricted the speech of social media users but also compelled social media networks to adopt and endorse the state’s definition of hateful conduct.

Keep reading

He Was Strip-Searched and Jailed for Criticizing Cops. Now He’s Fighting Back in Court.

In July 2017, Louisiana woman Nanette Krentel was shot in the head and left in a burning house. More than two years passed before anyone was arrested. That person, however, wasn’t alleged to be the murderer. Rather, the sole arrest related to Krentel’s death was that of Jerry Rogers Jr. His crime: criticizing the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office (STPSO) for its slow investigation of the case, which remains unsolved.

Naturally, Rogers sued the department for violating his rights. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that his lawsuit against Sheriff Randy Smith, Chief Danny Culpeper, and Sgt. Keith Canizaro may proceed, confirming they violated clearly established law when they punished Rogers for his speech.

In 2019, the STPSO caught wind that Rogers had denounced the lead investigator, Detective Daniel Buckner, whom Rogers characterized in an email as “clueless.” To pore over his messages, the police obtained what was likely an illegal search warrant, as it listed the qualifying offense as “14:00000,” which does not exist.

Police then arrested, strip-searched, and detained Rogers. He was ultimately released on bond, and the Louisiana Department of Justice declined to prosecute the case. But the primary goal was likely retaliation by humiliation: Before Rogers was booked, the cops publicized a press release about his arrest. Canizaro testified that this was the only time he could remember the office following that order of operations. They also filed a formal complaint with Rogers’ employer, another action that Canizaro said the STPSO had never taken.

Lawyers with the district attorney’s office told police it would be unconstitutional to use Louisiana’s criminal defamation statute to arrest Rogers; the statutory language protecting public officials from criticism was rendered unconstitutional decades ago. Despite this warning from prosecutors, officers not only forged ahead with the arrest, they also sought qualified immunity when Rogers sued. This required them to attest that no reasonable officer could have known that what they were doing was unconstitutional.

The 5th Circuit rejected their argument, and its ruling buttresses the notion that victims are entitled to recourse when the government retaliates against their speech.

Keep reading