Tag: free speech

10 convicted of cyberbullying France’s First Lady Brigitte Macron

A Paris court on Jan 5 found 10 people guilty of the cyberharassment of France’s First Lady, Mrs Brigitte Macron, for spreading false claims that she is a transgender woman who was born male.

Mrs Macron and her husband, French President Emmanuel Macron, have long faced such falsehoods, including allegations that she was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux – the actual name of her older brother.

The couple’s 24-year age gap has also drawn criticism and barbs, which they largely ignored for years, but have recently begun challenging in court.

The ruling on Jan 5 marks a victory for the Macrons as they pursue a separate high-profile US defamation lawsuit against right-wing influencer and podcaster Candace Owens, who has also claimed Mrs Macron was born male.

The eight men and two women were found guilty of making malicious comments about Mrs Macron’s gender and sexuality, even equating her age difference with her husband to “paedophilia”.

They received a range of sentences. One received a six-month jail sentence without suspension. Others received suspended jail terms of up to eight months.

Keep reading

Jack Smith Says Trump Did NOT Have First Amendment Right to Say 2020 Election Was Fraudulent in Newly-Released Deposition

House Judiciary Republicans on Wednesday released a transcript and video of Jack Smith’s closed-door testimony to Congress.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith appeared on Capitol Hill last month for a closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Republican lawmakers called Jack Smith to testify over his “partisan and politically motivated” Trump prosecutions.

Jack Smith was appointed as Special Counsel in 2022 by Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 bid for the White House.

In June 2023, Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami for lawfully storing presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate, which was protected by Secret Service agents.

In a separate case in Washington DC, Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Jack Smith defended his inquisition in an opening statement to congressional investigators.

“The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts,” Jack Smith said.

During his deposition, Jack Smith said his prosecutors framed the case against Trump as a fraud case rather than a First Amendment issue.

“Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment, so in my mind it was important to make that clear in the indictment…” Jack Smith said as he boasted about the case ‘prevailing’ in the district court with corrupt Obama-appointed Judge Chutkan.

Two of Jack Smith’s charges against President Trump in the DC case were ultimately torpedoed by the US Supreme Court after it issued a ruling on the obstruction statute – 1512(c)(2).

Keep reading

‘We are the free world now’ — Europe declares war on free speech in the US

“We are the free world now.” Those words from Raphael Glucksmann, a French socialist member of the European Parliament, captured the pearl-clutching outrage of Europeans after the Trump administration did what no prior administration has ever done — stand up to Europe to defend the freedom of speech.

This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred five figures closely associated with European censorship efforts from traveling to the U.S. This includes Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy.

In a post on X, Rubio declared that the U.S. “will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship” and will target “leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States.”

Breton achieved infamy as one of the architects of the massive EU censorship system, which is now being globalized. Armed with the notorious Digital Service Act, Breton and others threatened American companies and officials that they would have to yield to European standards of free speech. After Breton learned that Musk was planning to interview Trump before the last presidential election, he even warned the X owner that he would be “monitored” and potentially subject to EU fines.

Socialist Glucksmann is now irate at “this scandalous sanction against Thierry Breton.”

“We are Europeans,” he declared. “We must defend our laws, our principles, our interests.” In other words, this is a war over whether Europe or the U.S. Constitution will dictate the scope of free speech for American companies and citizens.

Keep reading

Texas Meme Case Crumbles as Satire Beats the State

A felony case tied to a satirical political meme has fallen apart in North Texas, with prosecutors formally declining to pursue charges against Granbury journalist and Navy veteran Kolton Glen Krottinger.

His attorney says the arrest and prosecution are now the basis for an upcoming federal civil rights lawsuit.

On December 22, 2025, Ellis County District Attorney Lindy T. Beaty, acting as a special prosecutor after the Hood County district attorney recused himself, issued a written rejection of the online impersonation charge that led to Krottinger’s arrest last fall.

We obtained a copy of the rejection for you here.

After reviewing the evidence, Beaty concluded the case could not proceed and directed that the charge be dismissed, Krottinger released, and all bond conditions terminated.

The charge arose from a Facebook post shared during a contentious Granbury Independent School District board election.

Krottinger runs a local political commentary page called “Hood County Sheepdogs,” which publishes interviews, criticism of local officials, and political satire.

The page clearly identifies its content as satirical.

Keep reading

Soviet Europe? Trump BANS Euro Officials From U.S. in Free-speech War

My, how the worm has turned. It was in 2009 that talk-show giant Michael Savage, along with others, was banned from Britain for exercising speech. Now, 16 years later, certain European officials are being banned from the United States for banning people for exercising speech. It’s just the latest in an unprecedented development: a war over liberty between an increasingly authoritarian Europe and a U.S. that under Donald Trump’s administration is championing Americanism.

At issue, too, isn’t merely certain European countries closing their borders to a few Americans. Nor is the problem just that European Union (EU) nations suppress their own citizens’ tongues via tendentious “hate speech”-law application. It’s also that, reflecting China’s efforts to censor the U.S.’s movies, the EU’s online restrictions could suppress Americans’ online expression. This is because Big Tech companies often apply EU-compliant changes worldwide.

Not Your Father’s Europe

Interestingly, shortly before this story broke I published the article “Should We Be Defending Left-wing Europe From Right-wing Russia?” In it, I explained how Western Europe is becoming a sort of woke, morally weak USSR. Others are noticing this as well, too. As Tampa Free Press writes, reporting on the current story:

A simmering diplomatic feud between Washington and Brussels over online speech regulations boiled over on Wednesday after the Trump administration barred five prominent European figures from entering the United States. The State Department accused the group — which includes a former top EU official and several NGO leaders — of leading efforts to censor American viewpoints.

The move marks a significant escalation in the administration’s campaign against what it views as “extraterritorial censorship” by foreign entities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the restrictions on Tuesday, citing a policy unveiled in May that targets foreign nationals believed to be coercing U.S. technology companies into suppressing protected speech. Rubio framed the decision as a necessary defense of American sovereignty against ideological pressure from abroad.

“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints,” Rubio stated.

The banned individuals are:

  • Thierry Breton — ex-EU commissioner for internal markets. He helped devise the EU’s “Digital Services Act” (DSA), which censors social media. He also publicly warned social-media platforms about content.
  • Imran Ahmed — CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a misnamed propaganda outfit.
  • Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg — co-founders and leaders of German organization HateAid, another misnamed propaganda outfit.
  • Clare Melford — CEO of the misnamed Global Disinformation Index, a U.K.-based nonprofit that rates media sites, unfairly. It seeks to alienate advertisers from, among others, Truth-oriented outlets. For instance, all of its 10 “riskiest” U.S. sites are conservative/libertarian.

Keep reading

Irony Alert: Google Suddenly Champions Free Speech As UK Crushes Online Expression

In a stunning reversal, Google has slammed the UK for threatening to stifle free speech through its aggressive online regulations. This from the company infamous for its own censorship crusades against conservative voices and inconvenient truths. If even Google is raising the alarm, you know the situation in Britain has hit rock bottom.

The move signals a broader culture shift in Big Tech, where woke agendas are crumbling under pressure from free speech advocates. It’s no coincidence this comes after Elon Musk turned Twitter into X, a platform where ideas flow without the heavy hand of ideological gatekeepers.

Google, which has demonetized, shadow-banned, and outright censored content that doesn’t align with leftist narratives, now positions itself as a defender of open discourse, accusing Britain of threatening to stifle free speech in an escalation of US opposition to online safety rules.

Keep reading

Bipartisan Bill Seeks to Repeal Section 230, Endangering Online Free Speech

A proposal in the US Senate titled the Sunset Section 230 Act seeks to dismantle one of the core protections that has shaped the modern internet.

Put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham with bipartisan backing from Senators Dick Durbin, Josh Hawley, Amy Klobuchar, and Richard Blumenthal, the bill would repeal Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, a provision that has, for nearly thirty years, shielded online platforms from liability for the actions of their users.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Under the plan, Section 230 would be fully repealed two years after the bill’s passage.

This short transition period would force websites, social platforms, and hosting services to rethink how they handle public interaction.

The current statute stops courts from holding online platforms legally responsible as the publishers of material shared by their users.

Its protection has been instrumental in allowing everything from local discussion boards to global platforms such as YouTube and Wikipedia to operate without being sued over every user comment or upload.

The legislation’s text removes Section 230 entirely and makes “conforming amendments” across multiple federal laws.

“I am extremely pleased that there is such wide and deep bipartisan support for repealing Section 230, which protects social media companies from being sued by the people whose lives they destroy.

Giant social media platforms are unregulated, immune from lawsuits, and are making billions of dollars in advertising revenue off some of the most unsavory content and criminal activity imaginable,” said Senator Graham.

“It is past time to allow those who have been harmed by these behemoths to have their day in court.”

Keep reading

This Tennessee Man Spent 37 Days in Jail for Sharing an Anti-Trump Meme. He Says the Cops Should Pay for That.

In the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s murder on September 10, his admirers were offended by online messages that denigrated him, condemned his views, and in some cases even celebrated his death. The people outraged by that commentary evidently included Nick Weems, sheriff of Perry County, Tennessee, who used the powers of his office to strike back at Kirk’s detractors.

As Reason‘s Joe Lancaster reported in October, Weems arranged the arrest of a Kirk critic, Henderson County resident Larry Bushart, on a flagrantly frivolous criminal charge. Because Bushart was unable to cover the staggering $2 million bond demanded for his release (which would have required him to “pay a bondsman at least $210,000,” Lancaster noted), he spent 37 days in jail before the district attorney for Perry County dropped the charge against him after the case drew widespread criticism.

Bushart’s arrest for constitutionally protected speech violated the First Amendment, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argues in a federal lawsuit against Perry County, Weems, and Jason Morrow, an investigator in the sheriff’s office. The complaint, which was filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, says the defendants also violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting Bushart without probable cause. And because they pursued a malicious prosecution, FIRE argues, they should be liable for punitive as well as compensatory damages.

“I spent over three decades in law enforcement, and have the utmost respect for the law,” says Bushart, whose career included 19 years at the Jackson Police Department, five years at the Haywood County Sheriff’s Office, and nine years at the Tennessee Department of Correction. “But I also know my rights, and I was arrested for nothing more than refusing to be bullied into censorship.”

Weems was irked by Bushart’s response to a candlelight vigil for Kirk that was scheduled for the evening of September 20 on the lawn of the Perry County Courthouse—an event that the sheriff himself had promoted on Facebook. That day, Bushart saw a post about the vigil on the “What’s Happening, Perry County?” Facebook page. Commenting on that message, Bushart shared eight anti-Kirk memes, including one highlighting a comment that Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate, made the day after the January 2024 mass shooting at Perry High School in Iowa.

Keep reading

Australian PM vows hate speech crackdown after Bondi Beach attack

PM Albanese announces strict measures against hate, extremism, and antisemitism after mass shooting at Bondi Beach Jewish festival

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised a sweeping crackdown on hate, division and radicalisation on Thursday after a mass shooting killed 15 people at a Jewish festival on Bondi Beach.

“Australians are shocked and angry. I am angry. It is clear we need to do more to combat this evil scourge, much more,” Albanese told a news conference.

The prime minister outlined a suite of measures to target extremist preachers, impose stiffer punishments, and refuse or cancel visas for people who spread “hate and division”.

As he spoke, mourners gathered for the funeral of a 10-year-old girl among those gunned down while celebrating Hanukkah on Sunday at Sydney’s iconic beach.

Critics in the Jewish Australian community and beyond have assailed the prime minister for not doing more to protect them from rising antisemitism.

New “aggravated hate speech” laws will punish preachers and leaders stoking hatred and violence, Albanese said.

He vowed harsher penalties, too.

Australia would develop a regime for listing organisations with leaders who engage in hate speech, he said.

“Serious vilification” based on race or advocating racial supremacy is to become a federal offence.

The government will also boost the home affairs minister’s powers to cancel or reject visas for people who spread “hate and division”, he said.

Albanese said a task force is being set up with a 12-month mission to ensure the education system “properly responds” to antisemitism.

“Every Jewish Australian has the right to be proud of who they are and what they believe,” he said.

“And every Jewish Australian has the right to feel safe, valued and respected for the contribution that they make to our great nation.”

Keep reading

Faith on Trial in Canada as Parliament Moves to Rewrite the Rules of Speech

A Canadian parliamentary committee has set in motion a change that could recast the balance between expression and state control over “hate speech.”

Members of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee voted on December 9 to delete a longstanding clause in the Criminal Code that shields religious discussion made in good faith from prosecution.

The decision forms part of the government’s Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9), legislation that introduces new offences tied to “hate” and the public display of certain symbols.

The focus is on Section 319(3)(b), which currently ensures that “no person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

That safeguard would vanish if the Bloc Québécois amendment approved this month survives the remaining stages of debate.

Liberal MPs backed the Bloc’s proposal, which Bloc MP Rhéal Éloi Fortin introduced after his party leader, Yves-François Blanchet, made its passage a precondition for Bloc support of the bill.

Fortin argued that the religious exemption could permit “someone could commit actions or say things that would otherwise be forbidden under the Criminal Code.”

The amendment was adopted during a marathon session that came only after the committee chair, Liberal MP James Maloney, abruptly ended an earlier meeting and canceled the next one to allow MPs time to “regroup.”

On December 9, the committee returned for an eight-hour clause-by-clause review, with government members determined to complete key sections of the bill before the winter recess.

The broader legislation targets intimidation around religious institutions and bans the display of defined “hate” and “terrorism” symbols.

Yet most debate now centers on whether the change to Section 319(3)(b) opens the door to criminal proceedings against clergy or believers discussing moral or scriptural teachings.

As reported by The Catholic Register, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser alleged that the measure poses no threat to religious freedom. “The amendment that the Bloc is proposing will … in no way, shape or form prevents a religious leader from reading their religious texts,” Fraser said. “It will not criminalize faith.”

Keep reading