Tag: 1st amendment

Under Trump, Criticism Is Now Criminal

After the killing of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump (9/10/25) escalated his war on free speech, calling for criminalizing criticism of himself:

It’s a long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.

This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.

To spell it out: “Demonizing”—which is to say, criticizing—people with whom you disagree is “directly responsible” for Kirk’s death. Note that this is about criticizing people that you disagree with—”you” presumably being one of “those on the radical left”—as Trump has built a wildly lucrative political career out of demonizing those he disagrees with, and he’s not about to stop now. It’s the “wonderful Americans” like Kirk whom you aren’t supposed to criticize.

Keep reading

What Democrats Will Support In Order To Oppose Donald Trump

The list is staggering, really. And one need not go back to January to compile a collection of the most anti-democratic behavior and positions possible, all to save muh democracy. I can fill out this column with stuff just since Friday. 

In June of this year, The United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Mahmoud V. Taylor, in favor of parents objecting to sexually explicit LGBT material being used in school on religious exemption grounds. The case overturned the decision against both the rights of parents and the 1st Amendment’s freedom to practice religion by a district court judge nominated early in Joe Biden’s term. That judge’s name? Deborah Boardman. 

One might think that a leftist trial court judge getting spanked by the Supreme Court that hard would be the biggest black mark on her record. Wrong. On Friday, Judge Boardman ruled in the sentencing phase of the would-be assassin of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Nicholas Roske. 

Roske, in case you don’t recall, left his home in Simi Valley, California after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe V. Wade and returned the abortion issue where it belonged – to each state’s citizenry to decide. This was too much for Roske, who flew across the country and eventually arrived outside Justice Kavanuagh’s Maryland home with a Glock-17 with ammunition, zip ties, a tactical knife, pepper spray, a hammer, a screwdriver, a nail punch, a crowbar, duct tape, a pistol light, and padded boots for stealth. This was not a spontaneous murder he was plotting. 

Roske was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Federal sentencing guidelines for a crime like this vary between 324-405 months. The Department of Justice asked for 30 years, or 360 months, right in the middle of the sentencing guidelines. Boardman came back with 8 years, or 96 months. Why? Because sometime recently, Nicholas decided he was now trans and wants to be called Sophie. Boardman essentially threw all legal jurisprudence out the window and came up with this for justification.

Keep reading

Supreme Court to Decide If Colorado Ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Violates Free Speech

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on Oct. 7 a free speech case involving a Colorado law that bans therapists from providing so-called conversion therapy to minors experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.

A therapist challenging the law argues that it violates her First Amendment rights. On the other side of the debate, Colorado contends that it has the right to regulate mental health treatments for minors that it deems harmful and ineffective. It is among more than 20 states with such bans.

Colorado’s Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor law, passed in 2019, prohibits licensed therapists from trying to “change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Therapists who violate the law could be stripped of their licenses and face fines of up to $5,000.

Colorado has stated that its regulation was enacted in response to “overwhelming” scientific evidence that conversion therapy for minors is unsafe and not effective in the long term.

A practitioner of such therapy told The Epoch Times that the therapist’s work focuses on mending psychological wounds and is not coercive or harmful.

Opponents of conversion therapy, including the American Medical Association, point to practices such as electric shock and negative feedback methods such as smelling salts or chemically induced nausea to create a psychological aversion to the unwanted behaviors or attractions.

However, according to licensed counselor Christopher Doyle of the Institute for Healthy Families, modern therapists avoid these methods and instead favor exploring clients’ attitudes on sexuality, trauma, self-perception, and relationships.

Keep reading

Whoops—Ohio Accidentally Excludes Most Major Porn Platforms From Anti-Porn Law

Remember when people used to say “Epic FAIL”? I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to describe Ohio’s new age verification law, which took effect on September 30.

A variation on a mandate that’s been sweeping U.S. statehouses, this law requires online platforms offering “material harmful to juveniles”—by which authorities mean porn—to check photo IDs or use “transactional data” (such as mortgage, education, and employment records) to verify that all visitors are adults.

But lawmakers have written the law in such a way that it excludes most major porn publishing platforms.

“This is why you don’t rush [age verification] bills into an omnibus,” commented the Free Speech Coalition’s Mike Stabile on Bluesky.

Ohio Republican lawmakers introduced a standalone age verification bill back in February, but it languished in a House committee. A similar bill introduced in 2024 also failed to advance out of committee.

The version that wound up passing this year did so as part of the state’s omnibus budget legislation (House Bill 96). This massive measure—more than 3,000 pages—includes a provision that any organization that “disseminates, provides, exhibits, or presents any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles on the internet” must verify that anyone attempting to view that material is at least 18 years old.

The bill also states that such organizations must “utilize a geofence system maintained and monitored by a licensed location-based technology provider to dynamically monitor the geolocation of persons.”

Existing Ohio law defines material harmful to juveniles as “any material or performance describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse” that “appeals to the prurient interest of juveniles in sex,” is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for juveniles,” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value for juveniles.”

Under the new law, online distributors of “material harmful to juveniles” that don’t comply with the age check requirement could face civil actions initiated by Ohio’s attorney general.

Supporters of the law portrayed it as a way to stop young Ohioans from being able to access online porn entirely. But the biggest purveyors of online porn—including Pornhub and similar platforms, which allow users to upload as well as view content—seem to be exempt from the law.

Among the organizations exempted from age verification requirements are providers of “an interactive computer service,” which is defined by Ohio lawmakers as having the same meaning as it does under federal law.

The federal law that defines “interactive computer service”—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—says it “means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.”

That’s a bit of a mouthful, but we have decades of jurisprudence parsing that definition. And it basically means any platform where third parties can create accounts and can generate content, from social media sites to dating apps, message boards, classified ads, search engines, comment sections, and much more.

Platforms like Pornhub unambiguously fall within this category.

In fact, Pornhub is not blocking Ohio users as it has in most other states with age verification laws for online porn, because its parent company, Aylo, does not believe the law applies to it.

“As a provider of an ‘interactive computer service’ as defined under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it is our understanding that we are not subject to the obligations under section 1349.10 of the Ohio Revised Code regarding mandated age verification for the ‘interactive computer services’ we provide, such as Pornhub,” Aylo told Mashable.

Keep reading

Muslims accused of vandalizing church in Texas argue First Amendment right, so far jurors disagree

Three Muslims charged in connection with vandalizing a church in Euless, Texas, last year argue doing so was their First Amendment right.

So far, jurors have disagreed, convicting one man, Raunaq Alam, of vandalism but not of a hate crime.

Alam was one of three charged in connection to the vandalization of a nondenominational church, Uncommon Church in Euless, in Tarrant County in March 2024. They are accused of spray-painting “expletive Israel” and affixing pro-Palestinian/Hamas stickers on the exterior of the church building, among other actions recorded on a church security camera.

District Attorney Phil Sorrells initially charged them with felony criminal mischief. The charges were later increased to a third-degree felony hate crime, which carries a sentence of two to 10 years in prison. It was increased to a hate crime because the perpetrators targeted a church because of religion, the prosecution argued. 

Judge Brian Bolton issued a sentence of five years probation. Alam was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and $1,700 in restitution to the church. His probation terms include serving 180 days in jail, conducting 180 hours of community service, undergoing regular drug and alcohol testing, wearing a GPS monitor and issuing an apology to the church.

Alam was next indicted on a charge of committing perjury, and he faces a drug possession charge. His attorney argues her client is being targeted.

Co-defendant Afsheen Khan was also charged with felony criminal mischief, and her trial is set to start soon. A third defendant, Julia Venzor, agreed to testify against Alam and Khan as part of a plea deal. She pleaded guilty in exchange for the deal and also received five years of probation, WFAA News reported.

The vandalism occurred after the church put up an Israeli flag to express solidarity with Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack, Uncommon Church’s pastor, Brad Carignan, testified in court.

The case has been considered part of a pattern in Texas in which Christians, churches, Jews, synagogues and pro-Israel Americans have been targeted with unprovoked violence by Muslims.

In January 2022, a Pakistani Islamist held hostage Jewish parishioners at a Colleyville synagogue.

Keep reading

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