Tag: 1st amendment

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

Trump’s Vision of Broadcast Regulation Is a Threat to Conservatives

“When 97 percent of the stories are bad,” President Donald Trump declared on Friday, “it’s no longer free speech.” When TV networks “take a great story” and “make it bad,” he added, “I think that’s really illegal.”

Trump was wrong on both points. And in groping toward a justification for the regulatory threats that preceded Jimmy Kimmel’s expulsion from his late-night slot on ABC, Trump embraced a principle that historically was bad for conservatives—one they are apt to regret reviving.

“You have a network and you have evening shows, and all they do is hit Trump,” the president complained. “They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”

Trump made similar noises during his first administration, saying “network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.” But Ajit Pai, the Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), rejected that suggestion in no uncertain terms.

“I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said. “The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment, and under the law the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

The difference this time around is that the FCC’s current chairman, Brendan Carr, clearly has no such constitutional compunctions. When Carr said broadcasters could face “fines or license revocation” if they continued to air Kimmel’s talk show, he preposterously invoked the FCC’s policy regarding “broadcast news distortion.”

That policy applies to a “broadcast news report” that was “deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners” about “a significant event.” Whatever you think of Kimmel’s intent when he erroneously suggested that the man accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk was part of the MAGA movement, a comedian’s monologue is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “broadcast news report.”

Carr and Trump also alluded to broadcasters’ vague duty to operate in “the public interest.” Because broadcasters are “getting free airwaves from the United States government,” Trump thinks, they have a legal obligation to be fair and balanced.

That notion is reminiscent of the FCC’s defunct Fairness Doctrine, which required that broadcasters present contrasting views when they covered controversial issues. The FCC repudiated that policy during the Reagan administration, precisely because it impinged on First Amendment rights.

The Kennedy administration, for example, had deployed the Fairness Doctrine against the president’s political opponents. “Our massive strategy,” former Assistant Secretary of Commerce William Ruder acknowledged a decade later, “was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

Nixing the Fairness Doctrine allowed an efflorescence of political speech on talk radio, enabling the rise of influential conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. Exhuming and extending that policy, as Carr and Trump seem to favor, would be short-sighted as well as constitutionally dubious.

Keep reading

Google Admits Biden White House Pressured Content Removal, Promises to Restore Banned YouTube Accounts

After years of denying bias, Google now concedes that it gave in to pressure from the Biden White House to remove content that did not breach its own rules.

The admission comes alongside a promise to restore access to YouTube accounts permanently removed for political speech related to COVID-19 and elections, topics where government officials had applied behind-the-scenes pressure to control the narrative.

This move follows sustained scrutiny from the House Judiciary Committee, which Reclaim The Net covered extensively, led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), who issued a subpoena and spearheaded an investigation that revealed the extent of government influence on content moderation decisions at Google.

In a letter from its legal representative, Google confirmed that it faced pressure from the federal government to suppress lawful speech.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Google revealed that it had been contacted multiple times by top federal officials regarding content on its platforms, even when that content did not break any rules.

The company stated that “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies.”

Keep reading

America’s Free Speech Culture Is Under Attack From Within

The First Amendment is alive and well, which is a reassuring note about the basic legal protections for free speech. Unfortunately, it’s not enough. The world is full of countries with written protections for liberty that are frequently honored in the breach because people and politicians don’t really believe in them (cough, Canada, cough). The true foundation for free speech in the U.S. has always been a culture that supports unfettered expression, of which the First Amendment is just an extension.

Assassin’s Veto, and the Cheers That Followed

But less than two weeks after Charlie Kirk was murdered because an assassin apparently didn’t like what he had to say, it’s obvious that free speech culture is besieged. That murder is celebrated in some quarters, the U.S. attorney general threatened to crack down on “hate speech,” and the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) leaned on ABC to fire a comic who got mouthy about Kirk. That’s after years of cancel culture meant to muzzle ideas and behind the scenes government efforts to suppress dissent. The First Amendment still stands, but too many Americans seem to regret its existence.

In justifying the murder of Kirk to his roommate/lover, alleged assassin Tyler Robinson wrote, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

We’ll be a while parsing the details of Robinson’s motives, but they seem founded in Kirk’s views about gay and transgender people. The irony is that Kirk, whatever his views, was willing to debate anything. Last week, liberal pundit Van Jones, who sparred online with Kirk, revealed that the conservative activist invited Jones on his show to discuss their differences. Kirk was killed before Jones could respond, though he added, “Please don’t give up on open debate and dialogue. Charlie didn’t. I won’t.”

Jones might not have won many friends had he responded in the affirmative. As Rhian Lubin reported for The Independent, “everyone from teachers, university staffers and media personalities, to firefighters, a U.S. Secret Service agent and a Marine is now finding themselves in hot water for reveling in the killing.”

“Hearing that Charlie Kirk got shot and died really brightened up my day,” commented John Colgan, who was both a public school teacher and a city councilmember in Cornelius, Oregon.

Keep reading

“Hate Speech” Isn’t Real and Pam Bondi Is an Enemy of Freedom

Following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many critics of Kirk posted content on social media in which they said rude things about Kirk—and even about his family members—while expressing delight about Kirk’s death.  Not surprisingly, many of Kirk’s supporters—and many other ordinary people—found these comments offensive and reprehensible. 

Perhaps as part of an effort to exploit the situation to improve her own political fortunes, US Attorney General Pam Bondi then declared that she, a government prosecutor, will “go after” those who engage in what she called “hate speech.” 

“Hate speech,” however, does not exist. At all. That’s a phrase the Left invented to define speech the Left doesn’t like as outside the legal protections of Bill of Rights. Put another way, the concept of “hate speech” was invented to justify state-enforced censorship of speech. That Bondi buys into this nonsense is made clear by Bondi’s pledge to “go after” people who are guilty of this hate-speech “crime” that Bondi apparently imagines in her head.  

These comments, coming from a sitting Attorney General, are extremely problematic, to say the least. The very fact that Bondi unironically uses the term “hate speech” illustrates how deeply immersed she is in the culture of coercion and despotism that permeates the Washington ruling class. Any politician who promotes the concept of “hate speech” should be considered an enemy of our most fundamental natural rights, and his or her political career deserves to be ended permanently. 

There Is No Such Thing as Hate Speech

Bondi’s dangerous comments on so-called hate speech came as part of her Monday appearance on the Katie Miller podcast. When asked by the host if colleges and universities are somehow complicit in Kirk’s murder, Bondi agreed and stated:

on a broader level, the anti-Semitism—what’s been happening at college campuses around this country— it’s disgusting, it’s despicable and we’ve been fighting that, we’ve been fighting these universities left and right and that’s not going to stop.  There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society …. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

Keep reading

The FCC’s Involvement in Canceling Jimmy Kimmel Was ‘Unbelievably Dangerous,’ Ted Cruz Says

Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) is happy that ABC decided to indefinitely suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show. But like Fox News political analyst Brit Hume, Cruz is not happy about the role that Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), played in that decision. By threatening TV stations that carried Jimmy Kimmel Live! with fines and license revocation, Cruz warned in his podcast on Friday, Carr set a dangerous precedent that could invite similar treatment of conservative speech under a future administration.

“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said,” Cruz declared, referring to the September 15 monologue in which the late-night comedian erroneously suggested that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah five days earlier, was part of the MAGA movement. “I am thrilled that he was fired. But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”

In an interview with right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday, Carr warned that there are “actions we can take on licensed broadcasters” that dared to air Kimmel’s show, including “fines or license revocations.” He added that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Either “these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel,” he said, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Hours later, Nexstar, which owns 32 ABC affiliate stations, announced that it would preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! “for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight’s show.” Sinclair, which owns 38 ABC affiliates, likewise said it would “indefinitely preempt” Jimmy Kimmel Live! beginning that night. ABC, which produces the programming aired by those affiliates and owns eight of the network’s stations, fell in line the same night, saying it would “indefinitely” suspend the show.

Cruz likened Carr to a mafioso. “He says, ‘We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,'” the senator noted. “And I got to say, that’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar [and] going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.'”

Keep reading

Should Elected Officials Censor Americans? Trump’s Administration Says Yes.

Last week, a gunman in Utah shot and killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk. It was a brutal and tragic event, regardless of one’s politics. And yet the fallout of Kirk’s murder has revealed a disturbing hostility toward free speech on the political right.

Republicans have long cast themselves as defenders of free speech against cancel culture and the censorial impulses of the political left. And there was merit to the argument—Reason has covered many cases of overreach.

But over the last week, MAGA Republicans have scoured social media for government employees posting about Kirk’s murder, contacting employers in an attempt to get them fired. “Kirk’s online defenders have snitch-tagged the employers of government workers over social media posts saying they don’t care about the assassination, that they didn’t like Kirk even as they condemn his assassination, and even criticizing Kirk prior to his assassination,” Reason‘s Christian Britschgi wrote this week. Even for nongovernmental employees, social media detectives apparently compiled a database with tens of thousands of people who criticized Kirk, including their names and employers.

Of course, that’s just people online. It’s not like those with government power are advocating such a thing, right?

“I would think maybe their [broadcast] license should be taken away,” President Donald Trump told reporters this week on Air Force One, about TV networks. “All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”

“When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer,” Vice President J.D. Vance said while guest-hosting Kirk’s podcast this week. “We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.”

Vance’s argument bears a striking resemblance to the comments made just a few years ago by his ideological enemies. When certain public and not-so-public figures received backlash for offensive statements, some commentators noted that this was not cancel culture, it was “consequence culture”—people merely experiencing the consequences of their actions.

It’s no surprise that Trump has no principles on free speech—from the beginning of his first term, he called the press the “enemy of the American people.” But Vance’s position marks a notable pivot from just a few months ago.

“Just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite,” Vance said in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February. “Under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square, agree or disagree.”

Now, Vance seems less keen on defending someone’s right to offer views that he personally disagrees with. Unfortunately, he’s not alone.

Keep reading

Trump proposes revoking licenses of critical American TV networks

US President Donald Trump has floated the idea of “maybe” revoking the broadcast licenses of American television networks that provide negative coverage of him.

The suggestion came a day after ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, following what it called “offensive and insensitive” comments made by the comedian about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Kimmel claimed on his program that Trump and his supporters were trying to “score political points” over Kirk’s killing and compared the president’s reaction to his death to “how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

Trump, who was returning from the UK aboard Air Force One on Thursday, told journalists that TV networks “give me only bad publicity or press.”

“I mean, they are getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” he said.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris’s Attack on Trump Adminstration’s Response to Jimmy Kimmel Blows Up in Her Face When X Users Discover a Tyrannical Old Post of Hers

Kamala Harris decided to inject herself into the political fight regarding Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and it backfired spectacularly.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the left-wing Kimmel told his late-night audience on Monday that a MAGA REPUBLICAN murdered Kirk and accused the right of trying to score political points off of it.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel claimed.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on The Benny Show on Wednesday and told host Benny Johnson that he may take action against ABC and Kimmel.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” Carr said.

“They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest,” he added. “There are calls for Kimmel to be fired. I think you could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this.”

Following Carr’s comments, Nexstar announced that all 32 of its ABC broadcast affiliates would preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” indefinitely, blasting Kimmel’s sick comments about Kirk’s murder as “offensive and insensitive.”

Harris slammed the Trump Administration on Thursday for its response to Kimmel’s firing and its supposed bullying of media organizations in general.

How rich, coming from someone who was part of a regime that regularly intimidated media organizations for expressing politically incorrect viewpoints.

“What we are witnessing is an outright abuse of power,” Harris wrote. “This administration is attacking critics and using fear as a weapon to silence anyone who would speak out.”

“Media corporations — from television networks to newspapers — are capitulating to these threats,” she added. “We cannot dare to be silent or complacent in the face of this frontal assault on free speech.”

Keep reading