Tag: 1st amendment

Girl Kept from Church, Bible, and Christian Friends by Portland Judge Awaits Appeals Court Ruling

Despite her love of Christianity, a young Maine girl has been prevented since 2024 from going to church, attending religious holidays, being “exposed” to the Bible or other scriptural literature, and even having Christian friends — all because of a judge’s order in a parental rights case.

The draconian restrictions have been in place for some 18 months as Emily Bickford and her daughter Ava, 13, wait for a decision on an appeal to the state’s Supreme Court eight months ago after Portland District Judge Jennifer Nofsinger issued the shocking ruling in late 2024 as part of a dispute between the girl’s parents.

Not only has the ruling impacted the lifestyle and pursuit of happiness by both mother and daughter, on its face it appears incompatible with the founding principles of the United States.

The right to worship granted by the First Amendment is not in the grip of any judge to grant or abolish, the Portland mother told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview this week.

“That is not theirs to take away,” Bickford said. “It’s in our Declaration of Independence. Our forefathers knew we had inalienable rights given by God. God gave us the freedom to worship him, and there’s no government that can take that away from us.”

Keep reading

Washington Legal Settlement Protects Christian Foster Parents

The widespread cultural divide among Americans was evident in a recent First Amendment case in Washington. A Christian foster family from the Evergreen State said their speech and religious liberties were violated by state policies demanding they employ gender pronouns and affirm the sexual orientation of their foster charges. The resulting settlement seeks to protect religious liberties while also supporting the self-identification of gender, orientation, etc., by minors in need of an affirming home.

Brave Foster Plaintiffs

Shane and Jennifer DeGross are devout Christians who served as licensed foster parents in Washington from 2013 to 2022, caring for four children. The onslaught of trans ideology and a world in which toddlers allegedly proclaim their “true” gender yielded regulations in Washington and many other states that required foster parents to agree that they would “affirm” a child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression (called “SOGIE”), regardless of whether a particular child actually articulated any such desires. That is, the laws are imposed “just in case” a child decides to transition or declare themself gay, bi, trans, etc.

The DeGrosses told the truth to state employees: They could not agree to such restrictions because they believe that “a person’s biological sex is an immutable characteristic” and that “as image bearers of God, a person should live consistent with their God-given sex rather than contrary to God’s design.” The state of Washington then denied them a license, later issuing a limited license, which the couple still found hostile to their faith.

The DeGrosses brought suit in federal court with the assistance of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), alleging the state had violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and expression. The state sought to dismiss the complaint, alleging the plaintiffs had no legitimate cause of action. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the court stated:

“….Policy § 1520 restricts certain speech by prospective parents on the topic of SOGIE, while requiring speech that aligns with the state’s perspective…. In essence, the Department has forced the DeGrosses to choose between forfeiting their freedom of speech to obtain an unrestricted license, or upholding their beliefs surrounding SOGIE, and receiving a less-favorable license subject to certain restrictions. The DeGrosses have carried their burden to show that the Department’s enforcement of Policy § 1520 plausibly constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.”

Freedom of Religion Endures

The US Constitution is designed to prevent government intrusion into citizens’ subjective beliefs, particularly regarding religious or political views. State foster care services place agencies in the midst of the culture war created by novel theories about mutable gender, infinite pronouns, and endless prideful celebration of sexual behaviors. Some parents may wish to encourage such thinking and behaviors in very young children; some (including conservative Christians) are inclined otherwise. In seeking to split this proverbial baby in half for foster parenting, the court noted: “The situation would be no different if the state had restricted parental speech favoring more ‘progressive’ views of sexuality and gender identify, while compelling speech along the lines of [the DeGrosses’] more traditional understanding.” [citation omitted.]

Keep reading

The FCC Wants Warning Labels for Shows With ‘Transgender’ Content

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new content ratings for TV shows that depict or discuss gender identity. Doing so would be well outside the FCC’s legal authority, and some free speech organizations warn that such a request could constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

At the direction of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasters developed content ratings for TV shows, patterned after the ones for movies. The TV ratings span TV-Y (appropriate for all children) to TV-MA (mature audiences only), plus more specific content labels for suggestive dialogue, bad language, sexual content, and violence. They also established the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board (TVOMB) to administer the new ratings.

The government now suggests those warnings are no longer sufficient.

“Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents,” per a public notice the FCC filed in April. “Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”

As a result, it continued, “We seek comment here on any changes that can or should be made to the current ratings system to ensure that it is responsive to the issues that parents confront today.”

There are several problems with the memo—starting with the fact that the FCC lacks the authority to create or require new content labels.

The 1996 law did call for the government to create a “television rating code” and an “advisory committee,” unless the private sector “established voluntary rules” to do so within a year of the law’s passage. As the FCC acknowledged in its April memo, “Industry representatives chose to set up their own voluntary system, and the Commission in 1998 found that industry’s approach met the relevant statutory criteria.”

Even setting that aside for the moment, the memo’s phrasing also suggests any “transgender [or] gender non-binary” content is potentially inappropriate for children—after all, why else would it matter if parents were sufficiently warned about it?

This broad scope has First Amendment implications. “If what the Commission is in substance proposing is that any program featuring or discussing transgender and gender non-binary persons be flagged with a content warning, that is the stigmatization and marginalization of an entire segment of the population through the machinery of the ratings system, and it is the kind of viewpoint targeting forbidden by the First Amendment,” according to comments filed to the FCC by The Future of Free Speech, a nonpartisan think at Vanderbilt University.

Keep reading

Three Debates Americans Have Had For 250 Years

George Washington rode west from Philadelphia in command of 13,000 troops on a mission that would test his leadership unlike any previous campaign.

These men were not soldiers in the Continental Army. They were citizen militiamen—forerunners of the National Guard—called up from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. And Washington was no longer simply a general. He was president of the United States.

The year was 1794, and Washington had made one of the most fateful decisions of his presidency: to use armed force against fellow Americans.

Congress, desperate for revenue to pay war debts, had enacted a tax on whiskey. Grain farmers in Western Pennsylvania saw the tax as immoral and unjust.

Protestors attacked revenue agents, destroyed the property of tax-paying farmers, and fired shots that killed a local militiaman.

Growing bolder, they fashioned banners on “liberty poles” with slogans like “Equal Taxation and no Excise” and “Liberty or Death.”

For two years, Washington searched for a peaceful resolution. But when 5,000 rebels gathered outside Pittsburgh, vowing to take the city, he knew the time for action had come.

In the end, the Whiskey Rebellion was anticlimactic, resulting in no further violence.

Yet more than 200 years later, Americans still strenuously disagree on basic questions of government.

When is a president justified in mobilizing the National Guard? At what point does a protest become an insurrection? What counts as free speech?

Some fundamental issues were settled at the nation’s founding, a panel of scholars told The Epoch Times. But more were left unsettled. And Americans continue to debate those same issues today.

Keep reading

Hawaii To Pay Up After Trying to Criminalize Political Memes

Hawaii has agreed to pay $118,237.47 in attorney’s fees and costs to The Babylon Bee and local activist Dawn O’Brien, closing the books on a failed attempt to make some political satire a criminal act.

The state chose not to appeal a January ruling that struck down its so-called deepfake law, Act 191, as facially unconstitutional. It tried to ban speech. It lost. Now, taxpayers are covering the bill.

The settlement comes with an unusual wrinkle. Hawaii can’t actually pay yet. The agreement is contingent on the state legislature appropriating the funds during its next session, which runs from January to May 2027. If the legislature doesn’t approve the money by September 1, 2027, the Bee and O’Brien retain the right to file a formal motion for attorney’s fees, meaning the case would reopen and the final number could climb.

Act 191, signed by Governor Josh Green in July 2024, banned the distribution of “materially deceptive media” during election seasons if it risked “harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate” or “changing the voting behavior of voters.”

The only escape for satirists was to slap joke-killing disclaimers on their content, disclaimers that had to appear throughout the entirety of a video and be printed in letters as large as any other text on screen. Violations carried fines, civil lawsuits, and jail time.

The law didn’t require anyone to actually be harmed or deceived. It punished speech based on a speculative “risk” of harm, a standard so vague that the person posting had no reliable way to know whether they were complying. US District Judge Shanlyn Park found that the law “muddies the line between compliance and noncompliance by forcing speakers to base their conduct on their own risk assessment, rather than on clear, objective standards.”

She noted the law created an “inherently subjective assessment for enforcement agencies” that “could conceivably lead to discretionary and targeted enforcement that discriminates based on viewpoint.”

Hawaii argued the law was needed to protect election integrity. Park acknowledged that interest but found the state couldn’t show it had chosen the least restrictive means.

Hawaii’s own expert agreed that digital literacy education would work, objecting only that it “would require a larger investment of resources” compared to a ban. Park cited the Supreme Court: “The First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”

ADF legal counsel Mathew Hoffmann said: “Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire has come to an end, thankfully. The First Amendment doesn’t allow any state to choose what political speech is acceptable and censor speech in the name of ‘misinformation.’ That censorship is both undemocratic and unnecessary.”

Hawaii follows California, which lost a similar fight against the Bee. Minnesota’s version is still being litigated before the full 8th Circuit.

Keep reading

Texas Woman Arrested for Facebook Post About Town Water Quality

Jennifer Combs had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. On May 8, police in Trinidad, Texas, arrested her on a state jail felony charge for writing a Facebook post about the town’s water supply.

The post said residents had been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. The city says that claim was false. So they sent cops to her door.

The charge is felony false alarm or report under Texas Penal Code § 42.06, a statute designed for people who call in fake bomb threats or fabricate emergencies. Trinidad’s police chief and local officials decided it also applies to a woman who ran a community Facebook page and relayed what neighbors told her about getting sick.

Combs’ post, published on her “Southern Belle Watch” account, read in part: “We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state.”

That post got her a night in the Navarro County Justice Center. She has since filed a federal lawsuit alleging the arrest was “an act of deliberate political retaliation.”

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The water is brown. The city admits it.

Trinidad, a small city in Henderson County about an hour southeast of Dallas, has a water problem that nobody disputes.

Keep reading

Tennessee man jailed for Charlie Kirk meme wins $835,000 settlement

Larry Bushart, a 61-year-old retired police officer, was arrested in September after sharing memes on Facebook about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Tennessee officials have now agreed to pay $835,000 to settle the lawsuit filed by Bushart against Perry County, its sheriff, and the investigator who obtained the arrest warrant.

Bushart’s case drew national attention because, while many people across the U.S. reportedly lost jobs over social media posts about Kirk’s death, his was a rare case where online speech led to criminal prosecution. Authorities later dropped the felony charge against him in October.

The post that prompted Bushart’s arrest featured President Donald Trump and the words “We have to get over it,” referencing a remark made in 2024 after a school shooting at Perry High School in Iowa. AP reported that the meme was posted with the caption: “This seems relevant today…”

Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems said last year that most of Bushart’s posts were lawful free speech, but claimed residents were alarmed by the school shooting reference because there is also a Perry County High School in Tennessee. However, Weems also said he knew the meme referred to the Iowa school shooting.

“Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community,” Weems said in a statement to The Tennessean last year.

Keep reading

Rep. Chip Roy Files Bill to BAN Chinese Communists and Radical Islamists from Buying American Homes

Rep. Chip Roy has introduced new legislation to stop Chinese Communist Party members, radical Islamists, and other designated foreign adversaries from purchasing homes and real estate in the United States.

In an announcement on Tuesday, Roy declared that American property should belong to American citizens, not to geopolitical foes who seek to undermine the country from within.

The bill would explicitly prohibit individuals affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, Islamist groups, or other designated adversaries from acquiring residential property.

“American homes belong to American families — not the Chinese Communist Party, foreign Islamists, or our geopolitical foes,” Roy told the Daily Caller. “While Americans struggle to afford housing, hostile regimes are buying up our land and neighborhoods.”

“This bill slams the door on foreign adversaries owning American housing and forces them to sell what they already control,” Roy added. “We’re putting America’s homes back in American hands.”

Housing affordability is a top issue for American families struggling with high prices and limited inventory, while foreign entities, especially from China, continue to snap up homes and farmland in strategic locations.

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s X Commits to Crackdown on ‘Hate Speech’ in UK Watchdog Agreement

Elon Musk’s social media platform X has reached an agreement with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to significantly accelerate the censorship of what England considers “hate speech” and antisemitic content from the platform.

The Telegraph reports that Elon Musk’s X has entered into a formal arrangement with Ofcom, the UK’s online safety regulator, pledging to take swifter action against illegal “hate speech” including racism and antisemitism. The agreement represents a notable shift for the platform, which has faced sustained criticism over its content moderation policies since Musk’s acquisition in 2022.

Under the terms of the commitment announced today, X will now aim to review posts containing hate speech and potential terrorist content within 24 hours of identification. The company has established a minimum performance target of checking and removing at least 85 percent of hateful and antisemitic posts within a 48-hour timeframe. Additionally, X has pledged to take more aggressive action in blocking accounts operated by organizations proscribed under British law.

Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom’s online safety director, characterized the agreement as progress while acknowledging significant work remains. “We have evidence that terrorist content and illegal hate speech is persisting on some of the largest social media sites,” Griffiths said. “We are challenging them to tackle the problem and expect them to take firm action.”

Griffiths emphasized the particular urgency of the agreement in light of recent hate-motivated crimes targeting the Jewish community in Britain.

The agreement comes after a period of tension between X and the regulatory authority. Musk’s company previously clashed with Ofcom over the Online Safety Act, Britain’s primary legislation governing technology companies’ responsibilities. Last summer, X accused the regulator of employing a “heavy-handed approach” and claimed Ofcom was “seriously infringing” on free speech protections.

Ofcom is also conducting a separate investigation into X concerning a wave of non-consensual deepfake images of women and children that spread across the platform in January.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in COVID ‘Misinformation’ Case, but Doctors Say They Still Won

The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear a key medical free speech case involving basketball hall-of-famer John Stockton and several doctors who alleged that the Washington Medical Commission’s (WMC) COVID-19 “misinformation” policies violated their First Amendment free speech rights.

The court declined, without comment, to review Stockton v. Brown — but only after the WMC lifted the disciplinary charges it had filed against two of the doctors in the case.

Plaintiffs included Drs. Richard Eggleston and Thomas T. Siler, who were sanctioned by the WMC for their pandemic-related speech, and Dr. Daniel Moynihan, who alleged the WMC’s threats “chilled” his speech on pandemic-related topics.

Stockton, co-host of “The Ultimate Assist Podcast,” and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) were also plaintiffs. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and WMC Executive Director Kyle S. Karinen, a lawyer, were the defendants.

In May 2024, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the First Amendment doesn’t protect physicians’ public speech because it is part of medical conduct.

In November 2024 and again in January 2025, the Supreme Court rejected emergency requests for a stay.

In September 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal but did not consider the First Amendment questions in the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Rick Jaffe, who represented the plaintiffs, called the Supreme Court’s choice not to hear the case “outrageous.”

But Jaffe said the unreported part of the story is what happened the month before, when the WMC withdrew its statement of charges against Eggleston and Siler, which he called a victory.

“Withdrawal of those charges was the main practical goal of the state litigation concerning these doctors and this federal case … once the Commission rescinded the charges, that was the win,” Jaffe said.

Keep reading