Tag: 1st amendment

Anti-boycott laws run afoul of the free press

The First Amendment is under attack. The formidable frontal assault came quietly, stealthily into state legislatures across the nation. The attackers wielded pens proving mightier than swords and signed laws that punish the refusal to sign a pledge of allegiance — not the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States; rather, a pledge of deference to a foreign government and a promise not to boycott the nation that government represents.

What’s more American than a boycott, Alan Leveritt pondered when he spoke with Editor & Publisher during a vodcast with E&P Publisher Mike Blinder back in December 2021. Leveritt had penned a Nov. 22, 2021, op-ed for The New York Times about a legal case he’s been waging against an obscure Arkansas state law that suppresses free speech and requires people and businesses who contract with the state to sign away their rights to “boycott,” a subjective term.

Leveritt cited the Boston Tea Party and the centuries-old tradition of boycotts, using rhetoric and the power of the purse strings to influence people, companies and even government.

Leveritt comes from a family of Arkansas farmers. “We’re just white-trash farmers. I mean, that’s where we come from,” he explains in the new documentary film, “Boycott,” by Director Julia Bacha and the team at Just Vision, an award-winning production company.

Leveritt carries on that farming tradition today; in the film, he’s seen tending gardens and gathering eggs. But his day job — one that he’s held for nearly 50 years — is serving as publisher of the Arkansas Times, a free, local news source he co-founded in his 20s. Since the beginning, the venture has been entirely advertising-supported, and a significant amount of it comes from state agencies, including the state university system.

“I was raised conservative, and I started moving to the left over the years. As a recovering conservative, I want to be left alone, you know? Do your job. You get your business on merit, and you get paid for it, and you don’t pass some political litmus test. This is America,” he says in the film.

Keep reading

Missouri State U. shuts down Bias Response Team amid First Amendment lawsuit

Missouri State University has accelerated the process of shutting down its Bias Response Team amid a lawsuit brought by Defending Education, a national grassroots organization that fights left-wing indoctrination in classrooms.

The complaint, filed April 21, claims campus leaders abused students’ constitutional rights and chilled free speech by allowing the team to monitor and investigate alleged acts of bias.

“Missouri State University and its officials have enacted a far-reaching policy that is designed to deter, discourage, and otherwise prevent students from expressing disfavored views about the political and social issues of the day,” violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the complaint stated.

In response, the university argues it is now shutting down the 10-year-old Bias Response Team.

Missouri State University spokeswoman Andrea Mostyn said officials made the decision to begin disbanding its Bias Response Team last month, before any litigation was issued. It was originally planned for July, but “has now accelerated that timeline.”

However, she added, the “university stands behind the work of the Bias Response Team.”

“The team’s purpose was limited, and its work was conducted in accordance with the university’s obligations under the First Amendment and other applicable law,” she said in an email to The College Fix. 

“The team historically reviewed isolated, anonymous reports of bias on campus, such as graffiti containing swastikas or racial epithets,” but rarely met since it was limited in scope and infrequent, with its most recent meeting being last September, she said.

In February 2025, the Bias Response Team page, which is now inactive, stated that it “serves to advocate for both individuals and groups impacted by acts of bias” by students they deem “perpetrators.”

Defending Education mentioned three students at MSU who want to engage in open debate and dialogue, “but they credibly fear that the expression of their deeply held views will be considered ‘biased,’ ‘offensive,’ ‘discriminatory,’ or the like.” 

Some of these views include being pro-life, pro-family, and anti-illegal immigration.

Moreover, the lawsuit noted that students have been previously reported for bias “for writing a satirical article about ‘safe spaces,’ tweeting ‘#BlackLivesMatter,’ chalking ‘Build the Wall’ on a sidewalk, and expressing support for Donald Trump.”

Defending Education declined to comment to The College Fix on the pending litigation.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ranks Missouri State University 123 out of 257 schools in the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, giving it an F speech climate grade. In one poll, almost half of student respondents stated they have to self-censor on campus at least once or twice a month.

A 2020 investigation by The College Fix into some of the bias complaints filed at MSU found that in one instance, police were called to respond to a drawing of a penis.

Keep reading

California Can’t Define ‘Hate Speech’ But May Mandate Workplace Training Anyway

“Hate speech” is notoriously hard to define and is usually a subjective characterization of harsh words. Though the term is thrown around by people describing comments they don’t like, it generally refers to expression that might not be nice but is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as state speech protections. But that’s not going to stop California lawmakers from trying to hector people into refraining from voicing nasty sentiments.

Existing California law requires employers with five or more employees to provide at least two hours of training regarding sexual harassment to all supervisors, and at least one hour of training to all other employees, repeated every two years. Assembly Bill 1803, introduced by Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal (D–Long Beach) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D–Los Angeles) and co-authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D–Moreno Valley), “would additionally require that the above-described training and education include, as a component of the training and education, anti-hate speech training.”

In a press release, Lowenthal claims that “AB 1803 is about making our workplaces safer, more respectful, and more inclusive for everyone. Hate speech has no place on the job, just as sexual harassment has no place on the job. By incorporating anti hate speech training into existing sexual harassment prevention programs, we are building on a proven framework to address harmful behavior before it escalates.”

What the world really doesn’t need, it should be noted, is more state-mandated nagging about the allegedly naughty activities we shouldn’t engage in. As PBS’s Rhana Natour reported in 2018, “there’s little evidence that sexual harassment training works.” A 2016 U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission report concluded that “much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool—it’s been too focused on simply avoiding legal liability.” Research by Justine Tinkler, a sociologist at the University of Georgia, found that such training mostly reinforces traditional views of sex roles by portraying men as predators and women as victims. But training is an effective time suck.

Hate speech has the added burden of being primarily a political term used to describe expression that somebody doesn’t like. This makes it very difficult to describe in an actionable way in a country that has vigorous speech protections. California’s lawmakers have not risen to the challenge.

Keep reading

West Palm Police CONFISCATE ALL of James O’Keefe’s Firearms in Shocking Escalation

The war on the First Amendment has just turned into an all-out assault on the Second.

Legendary investigative journalist James O’Keefe announced on Thursday night that police stormed his O’Keefe Media Group office and seized EVERY SINGLE ONE of his firearms.

“The police just came to my office and confiscated all my firearms. Just happened,” O’Keefe posted on X.

This is the direct result of a Miami-Dade family court “domestic violence stalking” temporary restraining order pushed by none other than Matthew Tyrmand, a former Project Veritas board member.

Earlier this month, James was served with a restraining order while livestreaming from his West Palm Beach, Florida, headquarters on Tuesday.

“Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Department just served me with a domestic violence restraining order from Matthew Tyrmand. The former board member from Project Veritas who said he wants to murder me,” James O’Keefe said.

“Despite admitting multiple times on hidden camera wanting me dead, Matthew Tyrmand filed a restraining order against ME in Miami Dade County,” O’Keefe said.

“Saying such things as: “I would kill him [O’Keefe]. Because he is one of the most evil people I’ve ever known,” he said.

“He even shot up my book with rifle bullets through my heart on the cover. The audacity of evil has no bounds,” O’Keefe said.

It can be recalled that the Project Veritas board conducted a coup and removed founder James O’Keefe as its Chairman in February 2023.

This was after James turned Project Veritas into a multi-million-dollar company through one of the most successful undercover operations in history.

Since 2023, James has been fighting to gain control over his Project Veritas. In the meantime, James started a new business, O’Keefe Media Group, and it has quickly grown into another successful media venture.

Since 2023, James has been fighting to gain control over his Project Veritas. In the meantime, James started a new business, O’Keefe Media Group, and it has quickly grown into another successful media venture.

Then, in February, James O’Keefe honey-trapped Matthew Tyrmand at a restaurant.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Sides With Texas on 10 Commandments in Classroom, Overruling Lower Court

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms, marking a victory for upholding the nation’s Christian foundation of the law.

The 9-8 decision overrules a preliminary injunction put in place by a federal district court judge in November, who concluded that “displaying the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public-school classroom as set forth in S.B. 10 [Senate Bill 10] violates the [First Amendment’s] Establishment Clause.”

The First Amendment says in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But the Supreme Court has ruled that the Amendment’s protections apply to state law.

In the 5th Circuit’s majority opinion, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote, “To Plaintiffs, merely exposing children to religious language is enough to make the displays engines of coercive indoctrination. We disagree.”

“S.B. 10 authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’). No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin.”

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks Arkansas Social Media Law on First Amendment Grounds

A federal judge blocked Arkansas Act 900 today, one day before the law was set to take effect, handing the state its second courtroom defeat in the same fight over who gets to decide what people can see and say online.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

US District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction, freezing enforcement of a statute that would have imposed strict liability on social media platforms for a growing list of “addictive practices,” forced default settings on anyone in Arkansas the platform couldn’t verify as an adult, and required platforms to build parental dashboards tracking minors who don’t even have accounts. The ruling came in the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division.

The First Amendment problem is obvious. The government wrote a law that restricts what platforms can say, who they can say it to, and when. It restricts what minors can see and post. Then it backed those restrictions with $10,000-per-day fines and rules so vague that platforms cannot tell in advance what will trigger liability. Each of those features is a constitutional problem on its own. Act 900 combined all of them.

Keep reading

‘HELL NO!’ Public high-school remodel features Muslim prayer room and foot-washing station

A Minnesota school district has confirmed that part of a remodeled section of its high school will include a Muslim prayer room and foot-washing station, calling into question adherence to “separation of church and state” in the use of public funds.

According to AlphaNews reporter Liz Collin, the school district affirmed the development for Park Center Senior High in Osseo, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis, saying the Muslim-centered facility was “included in updated plans after hearing from user groups on student needs.”

Collin reports a tipster told her: “This is undoubtedly for Muslim students only. I cannot understand how this can be happening in this era of no religion in schools.”

One commenter on X noted: “Ten Commandments in schools, includes command not to kill.”

Liberals: “HELL NO!! Separation of church and state!”

“The Quran that calls for jihad and killing, foot washing, no more pork at lunch, 5 calls to prayer, and prayer room with carpets!”

Liberals: “Duuuuuuh… okay?!?!?”

The perceived “need” for students relates to the surge in the number of Muslim Somali migrants settling in Minnesota in recent years, including some who have bilked taxpayers out of billions of dollars in government payments meant to support day care centers and other facilities.

Referencing the infamous “Learing Center” sign uncovered in Minnesota as part of Nick Shirley’s investigative reporting, one commenter remarked: “They should change their name to OSSEO SENIOR LEARIN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL….. at this pace we will become Somalia before 2040. The state flag is Somali already.”

Keep reading

Keith Self Pushes FAITH Act to Block ‘Sharia Tax’ on Non-Muslims

Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, introduced legislation Monday that would prohibit the imposition of religiously based financial penalties, a measure he says is aimed at preventing Sharia-inspired practices such as taxing non-Muslims.

The Freedom Against Imposed Theology Harms (FAITH) Act would establish a nationwide ban on fees, fines, penalties, or other financial burdens imposed on individuals because of their religious beliefs—or their refusal to participate in another religion’s practices.

“This legislation sends an unmistakable message,” Self said in a press release. “Religious freedom means freedom from religious coercion—financial or otherwise.”

“The FAITH Act draws a firm constitutional line: No American should ever pay a de facto religious tax or face financial penalties for their beliefs,” he added. “We must make America Sharia-free and protect the First Amendment for everyone.”

The bill would classify such conduct as a predicate offense under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, expanding prosecutors’ authority to pursue organized efforts to impose religiously based financial demands.

Self said the legislation is intended to address concerns about attempts to enforce Sharia-influenced financial practices in the United States. The bill would apply to both governmental and non-governmental actors, while preserving the right of religious and educational institutions to seek voluntary contributions from their own members for internal purposes.

Self cited the Islamic concept of jizya, a historical tax imposed on non-Muslims under Sharia-based governance, as an example of a practice he views as incompatible with U.S. constitutional principles. Although jizya is not imposed under American law, supporters of the FAITH Act argue that informal financial pressures modeled on Sharia principles pose a growing concern.

“While formal jizya is not imposed by U.S. law, we are seeing growing attempts to establish Sharia-adherent enclaves, parallel financial systems, and community coercion in parts of America—including right here in Texas,” Self said.

Keep reading

DOJ Refuses Cooperation, Warns France to Back Off Censorship Probe Targeting X Platform

The U.S. Justice Department has flatly refused to help French authorities investigate Elon Musk’s social media platform X.

In a letter sent Friday obtained by The Wall Street Journal , the DOJ’s Office of International Affairs said the French probe is an attempt to regulate a U.S. company through criminal law.

“This investigation seeks to use the criminal legal system in France to regulate a public square for the free expression of ideas and opinions in a manner contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the letter states.

The department added that France’s requests “constitute an effort to entangle the United States in a politically charged criminal proceeding aimed at wrongfully regulating through prosecution the business activities of a social media platform.”

Keep reading

California’s “Stop Nick Shirley Act” Would Penalize Journalism

California’s Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee voted 11-2 on April 7 to advance a bill that would let employees and volunteers at immigration service organizations demand the deletion of their images and personal information from the internet, backed by civil penalties starting at $4,000 and the threat of criminal charges.

AB 2624, authored by Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, is already being called the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The bill arrives just weeks after investigative video creator Nick Shirley published a 40-minute video on alleged hospice fraud in California that racked up 42 million views on X.

Other investigations have found that a single program is causing the state to lose an alleged $6 billion in fraud annually. Shirley had already reported on over $110 million in Somali daycare fraud in Minnesota in December 2025, with empty facilities billing taxpayers while kids were nowhere to be found.

His California reporting uncovered an alleged $170 million in similar fraud in daycares and hospices, with ghost operations registered to empty lots and strip malls. Sacramento’s response to this flood of documented waste and abuse was not an audit, not an investigation into the programs themselves, but a bill to make it harder to film the people running them.

Under AB 2624, anyone affiliated with an organization providing “designated immigration support services” can send a written demand prohibiting the publication of their personal information or image online.

That demand remains effective for four years, even after the person leaves the organization. If the demand is ignored, the person can go to court for an injunction or declaratory relief.

Fines run up to three times the actual damages, with a floor of $4,000, meaning the minimum penalty triples to $12,000 in cases where a takedown demand is defied. If a journalist or anyone else is accused of posting information with the intent to incite harm, they face criminal charges and fines of $10,000.

Keep reading