Tag: 1st amendment

New York Imposes Law Forcing Social Media to Justify Speech Policies to State Authorities

Social media companies operating in New York are now under fresh legal obligations as the state enforces the so-called “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” a new compelled speech law that forces platforms with annual revenues exceeding $100 million to hand over detailed reports on how they handle various forms of speech, including speech that is legally protected under the First Amendment.

The legislation went into effect on October 1 and has already triggered a constitutional showdown in court.

The law, officially Senate Bill S895B, demands biannual disclosures to the state Attorney General’s office.

These reports must outline how platforms define terms such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” “harassment,” “disinformation,” and “extremism.”

Companies are also required to explain what moderation practices they apply to those categories and to provide specifics about actions taken against users and content.

Platforms that fail to comply face penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, per day. Injunctive action can also be taken against non-compliant entities.

Attorney General Letitia James declared that the law is about transparency and oversight.

“With violence and polarization on the rise, social media companies must ensure that their platforms don’t fuel hateful rhetoric and disinformation,” she said in a public statement, reinforcing her view that private companies should be accountable to the state for how they manage user expression.

“The Stop Hiding Hate Act requires social media companies to share their content moderation policies publicly and with my office to ensure that these companies are more transparent about how they are addressing harmful content on their platforms.”

Governor Kathy Hochul voiced similar sentiments, saying the legislation “builds on our efforts to improve safety online and marks an important step to increase transparency and accountability.”

Keep reading

Ron Paul On ‘The Real’ Jan. 6th Coup

In my first column after the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, I criticized those who called the protest a “coup,” pointing out that, “Some of the same politicians and bureaucrats denouncing the ridiculous farce at the Capitol as if it were the equivalent of 9/11 have been involved for decades in planning and executing real coups overseas. In their real coups, many thousands of civilians have died.”

The media at the time played up the violence committed by a relative few at the protest to stoke a national outcry and demands for “justice.” More than 1,500 Americans were charged over the incident and nearly 500 were imprisoned, including outrageous prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like entering the Capitol building through doors opened by the police, and filming the event.

While most Democrats and Republicans in Congress harshly denounced the January 6th “insurrectionists,” a few Members displayed the appropriate skepticism over accepted government narratives. Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, was relentless in his search for answers to a simple but critically important question: How many of the “insurrectionists” were actually undercover FBI agents and other law enforcement officers and what role might they have played in inciting the violence.

Massie grilled then-Attorney General Merrick Garland several times, but Garland would not budge. He refused to say whether there had been any undercover federal agents in the crowd, though of course he must have known.

Last week we learned a little more of the truth. With the release of the FBI’s long lost “after action” report, we now know that more than 250 undercover agents were in the crowd. According to the report, they were given roles including crowd control that they were not suited for. Some agents cited in the report complained of political biases in the Bureau against conservatives. What other tasks might have been given to a “politicized” FBI undercover team?

In addition to the undercover agents, there were more than two dozen paid informants in the Jan. 6th crowd. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the subcommittee investigating the matter, asks an important question: “With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?”

Were they paid to inform, or to instigate? That is a good question. We do know that the event was used by the incoming Biden Administration to demonize and persecute the political opposition. There is no telling how many Americans would have liked to use their First Amendment guarantee of free speech to criticize the Biden Administration but were silenced by fear of persecution, or worse. It’s easy to conclude, seeing so many arrested and handed long sentences for non-violent “crimes,” that it’s better to keep quiet. At the time, the US was still in the grip of Covid tyranny, where speaking out against “the Science” could get you “cancelled” or worse. This was another way to silence people who were not “going along with the program.”

In the end, January 6th, 2021, was a coup of sorts. It was a coup against the First Amendment. The lesson for all of us is that if we do not regularly but peacefully exercise our First Amendment guarantees we will definitely lose them, regardless of who is in power.

Keep reading

UT-Battelle to pay $2.8 million in COVID-19 vaccine requirement settlement

UT-Battelle agreed to pay more than $2.8 million to employees after a lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine requirements, said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

UT-Battelle is the managing contractor of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. During its investigation, EEOC said it found reasonable cause to believe that UT-Battelle had discriminated against ORNL employees by denying them religious accommodations from the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, EEOC said.

“I am grateful for the field’s hard work in this investigation, and UT-Battelle’s commitment to voluntarily rectifying its alleged Title VII violations by compensating its employees and agreeing to injunctive relief is commendable,” said EEOC Acting Chair Lucas. “While COVID-19 vaccine mandates were a novelty, our long-standing civil rights laws remain unchanged — absent an undue hardship, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation to its employees for their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Per the agreement, UT-Battelle will provide back pay and compensatory damages to those affected and train its human resources personnel on religious accommodation requests.

“UT-Battelle has always respected the religious beliefs and practices of its employees,” said Stephen Streiffer, president and CEO of UT-Battelle. “The COVID-19 pandemic required extraordinary measures to protect staff members’ health and safety while they worked together to keep the lab open. During unprecedented times, their dedication allowed us to continue fulfilling our national missions, including the production of medical isotopes to fight cancer and support national security. We appreciate the assistance of the EEOC in resolving these disputes, which allows us to move forward fully focused on our work for the nation.”

Keep reading

Forcing baker to make same-sex wedding cake recreates printing press censorship: scholars to SCOTUS

hirty-five years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia led a Supreme Court majority to gut the free exercise of religion under the rubric of “neutral” and “generally applicable” law, a decision that most members of the current court “have called into doubt” even as lower courts employ the 1990 Smith precedent “to permit government oppression.”

So say a former federal appellate judge, the allegedly fifth-most cited legal scholar of all time and a dozen other First Amendment and antidiscrimination law scholars, who together urge SCOTUS to “emphatically cast aside” Smith in accepting a case whose central question it has repeatedly decided.

They are joined by 16 states and several religious denominations and advocacy groups in supporting Tastries baker Cathy Miller’s SCOTUS petition to hear her eight-year legal saga, after the California Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court ruling that overturned a trial ruling in Miller’s favor for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The Golden State “has repeatedly compared Cathy’s religious beliefs about marriage to racism,” her lawyers at religious liberty law firm Becket said. California made the same comparison when female inmates sued to block its law incarcerating males with them.

The California appeals court distinguished its ruling from SCOTUS precedents in favor of Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop and Lorie Smith’s 303 Creative, against Colorado’s compelled creation of cakes and websites for same-sex weddings respectively, by claiming the cake Miller refused to make “conveyed no particularized message about the nature of marriage.”

Miller’s petition asks SCOTUS to resolve whether “compelled participation in a ceremony” is banned only when third parties view that participation as “endorsement,” if Miller must show “unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct” to prove a law is not generally applicable, and if 1990’s Smith should remain at all.

Keep reading

Muslim Rights Groups: US Army Grooming Standards May Infringe on Religious Freedom

Muslim rights groups are concerned that new US Army grooming standards will exclude Muslims and Sikhs from serving. There are only about 10,000 – 20,000 US service members who identify as Muslim, and Sikhs appear to number only in the low double digits.

An ancillary effect of the policy is that it reinforces the elimination of accommodations for transgender soldiers, requiring them to dress and meet the standards of their birth gender.

The Army announced updated appearance, grooming, and uniform standards following a force-wide review, emphasizing professionalism and discipline as reflections of Army values. Key changes include clarified rules on hairstyles, cosmetics, fingernails, jewelry, uniforms, insignia, and body composition assessments. Developed with input from leaders across the Army, the policy is intended to realign standards with warfighting priorities and eliminate ambiguity.

The Army also reinforced its facial hair policy in July 2025 through Army Directive 2025-13, requiring soldiers to remain clean-shaven in uniform or while on duty in civilian clothes, with only temporary medical exemptions and permanent religious accommodations.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on the Pentagon to protect the religious rights of military personnel after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a new “no beards” policy. Hegseth told military leaders, “no more beards… we’re going to cut our hair, shave our beards and adhere to standards.” CAIR urged the Department of Defense to clarify that religious accommodations will remain in place for Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and others.

Historically, the rule in the US Army for about 100 years has been that the Army allows religious freedom and will accommodate as much as it can. However, the priority is always the mission, followed by the men, or in Army terms, “mission, men.” While attempts would be made to accommodate religious practices, if a practice prevents a soldier from carrying out duties, then that individual cannot serve.

For example, Jewish soldiers were allowed to wear a yarmulke under their helmet because it did not interfere with equipment. But a beard, even for religious reasons, was not permitted because a protective mask would no longer seal. Similarly, a Sikh turban could not be worn with a combat uniform because it interfered with the helmet and other equipment

From 1948 to 1984, Sikh men were permitted to serve in the US military while wearing beards and turbans. That changed in 1984, when Gen. John A. Wickham Jr., then Chief of Staff of the Army, eliminated the exception for Sikhs and others who wore “conspicuous” items of faith, citing health and safety concerns. The official reasoning was that turbans and uncut hair interfered with helmets and equipment, while beards prevented protective masks from sealing properly.

Keep reading

Trump’s Executive Order Against ‘Political Violence’ Is an Un-American Attack on Free Speech

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that purports to address the recent spate of political violence. But the order is remarkably one-sided, taking the apparent position that only leftists can be violent, and it treats speech clearly protected by the First Amendment as evidence of criminal behavior.

“Heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased in recent years,” according to the order, titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” It cites multiple recent events as examples—including the murder of Charlie Kirk, the foiled 2022 assassination plot against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and last week’s shooting at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.

“This political violence,” it continues, “is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.”

Notably, the order only lists violence against conservatives or targets favored by conservatives; it does not mention the June shooting of two Democratic Minnesota lawmakers, one of whom died. It also elides the fact that in the shooting of an ICE facility, the only victims were migrants in custody.

The order also uses padded statistics, citing “a more than 1,000 percent increase in attacks” on ICE officers “since January 21, 2025, compared to the same period last year.” But that represents a starting point of very few alleged assaults last year, and the increase seems largely to be a result of minor scuffles taking place during ICE enforcement actions.

Perhaps most troubling of all, though, the executive order lists First Amendment-protected speech as evidence of criminality that requires federal intervention.

“These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as ‘fascist’ to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution,” the order claims. “This ‘anti-fascist’ lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

Keep reading

California’s Ministry of Truth: SB 771 is Gov. Newsom’s and Democrat’s Plan to Ban Speech They Hate

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature claim they want to regulate social media over hate speech. Senate Bill 771 by Sen. Henry Stern (D-Los Angeles) claims this is about “Personal rights: liability: social media platforms.”

SB 771 is an “anti free speech” bill, comes entirely from California Democrats, and is designed to silence opposing opinions. The bill is not about moderating hate speech; it’s about banning speech Democrats hate. 

This isn’t California Democrats’ first rodeo. In 2018, Democrat California lawmakers pushed legislation to create jack-boot agents of government through a “Fake News Advisory Council” – an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” for the news they don’t like, I reported. “After having my Capitol Press Credential revoked in 2015 and only reissued after an Open Records Act request of 10-years of press credential applications, and viable threats of a First Amendment lawsuit, it appears Democrats in the California Legislature still don’t believe in making no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

That obviously stands today, 10 years later.

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!

In April 2022, the Biden administration announced it had created the Disinformation Governance Board – its own Ministry of Truth – a part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Americans from all walks of life were horrified. Fortunately for the potential enemies of the state, the board’s executive director and disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz had already beclowned herself in videos that went viral, demonstrating her stunning bias and partisanship. Within three weeks the Biden Disinformation Governance Board was shut down, and many Americans heaved a sigh of relief.

But not California Democrats.

Keep reading

Free Speech and Its Discontents

The modern concept of the freedom of speech did not dawn until the Warren Court in the 1960s. In two cases, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no such thing as hate speech and the government may not do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.

In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court ruled that all innocuous speech — even that of a KKK leader publicly condemning Blacks and Jews — is protected and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. The court had already ruled six years earlier in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that public officials’ threats to punish publishers unless they silenced their authors were prohibited by the values underlying the First Amendment.

At the core of both of these cases and their progeny is the First Amendment principle that the government — once this meant only Congress; today it means all government — may not evaluate or act upon the content of speech; it may only neutrally regulate time, place and manner. Thus, the use of a bullhorn on a public street in a residential neighborhood to advance a political cause at 3 a.m. may be prohibited because it unreasonably disturbs sleep, not because the government hates or fears the message.

Keep reading

Free Speech Reparations? Lawmaker introduces bill making feds personally liable for quashing speech

Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., said Wednesday that she is introducing legislation that would allow Americans to file a lawsuit against employees of the federal government for violating their First Amendment rights. 

“I have introduced the First Amendment Accountability Act,” Hageman said on the “Just the News, No Noise” TV show.

The legislation would allow federal employees who violate citizens’ freedom of religion, press, assembly or speech to be held personally liable for damages, an injunction or attorneys’ fees. 

“A Federal employee who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,” H.R. 162 reads. 

The catch: Immunity for responsible government actors

Currently, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act says that every person who, under color of government, subjects any citizen of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.

Thus, a deprivation of First Amendment rights — an enumerated right in the Constitution — is often redressed through civil suits. One notable example is Tinker v. DesMoines, where school officials punished students for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. Supreme Court Justice Fortas famously said in the 1969 case that “students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate. Students had the right to freedom of expression of their views, even controversial views, as long as it remained peaceful.”

But there’s a catch: the doctrine of “qualified immunity” generally protects state and local officials, including law enforcement officers, from individual liability. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to §1983 claims. 

So, while the DesMoines School District could be held liable, the individual school administrators who issued the unconstitutional orders got off without facing personal liability.

Keep reading

Make ‘Protesters’ Paid By Foreign Groups Register Like Foreign Agents

hen most people hear the word “mercenary,” they conjure up images of shady men protecting corrupt regimes. Today, however, another mercenary prowls our streets: the paid protester.

A crucial element of the democratic process is free speech, debate, and yes, civil protests about public policy. But we should be concerned about interference by mercenaries funded by hostile foreign governments and nationals to manipulate public opinion, create costly public disturbances, and unduly influence government officials and institutions.

These American mercenaries are employed to shout slogans and disrupt political events, government operations, academia, and institutions. For instance, Code Pink, financed by backers in China, has disrupted many public events over the years, including a March 2025 Congressional hearing.

No one questions the right of Americans to speak freely, to petition the government for redress of grievances, and to protest peacefully. And no one questions the right for citizens to be paid to speak, lobby, or protest by other citizens or advocacy organizations that represent every viewpoint imaginable.

But foreign nationals and foreign governments have no such right to participate, surreptitiously or overtly, in our democratic process. When enabled by nefarious foreign forces, these mercenaries pose a danger to American civil society and our republic. This is a national security issue that imperils the functioning of our entire political and electoral system.

There are credible reports of the terrorist group Hamas funding protests that have caused immeasurable damage to students, college campuses, and the educational environment. In June, Congress sought an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into Chinese-financed protests — think the ANSWER Coalition, financed by a billionaire who lives in Shanghai, participating in recent anti-ICE riots in Los Angles.

Funding by foreign adversaries is intended to cause dissension in our civil and political society, not to inform rational discussion or debate by American citizens.

The government can address this threat without violating the constitutional rights of citizens. Their right to speak and assemble should be protected, while preventing nefarious actors from being paid by foreign actors and enemies.

We already do this in elections. Under federal law, foreign nationals — except for permanent resident aliens — are prohibited from making any contribution or donation in “connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” Foreign nationals can’t give money to candidates or to political parties, nor can they engage in independent expenditures.

Keep reading