Tag: free speech

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

Popular South Korean Pastor Sits Behind Bars for Speaking Out – Radical Left in South Korea Is Using Democrat Party Tactics to Crush the Opposition

A Pastor Sits Behind Bars for Speaking Out

In a shocking development, South Korean authorities have dismissed a legality review request filed by Pastor Hyunbo Son, keeping him behind bars on allegations of “election law violations.”

On September 24, the Busan District Court rejected Pastor Son’s request for release, citing “flight risk.” Pastor Son’s alleged offense was posting a video of a conversation with a candidate on social media, expressing support for one candidate while criticizing another during an election period.

In South Korea, election law violations are almost always punished with fines.

Detention is nearly unheard of. Yet Pastor Son — who led the “Save Korea” movement and organized mass rallies against the impeachment of President Yoon — is now imprisoned as if he were a dangerous criminal.

Political Persecution Disguised as Law

Observers note that the case goes far beyond technical election law issues. Pastor Son is not an ordinary church leader; he is a conservative Christian figure who mobilized thousands against the left-wing government’s political purge of President Yoon. His imprisonment is widely seen as an attempt to weaken conservative unity and intimidate the Christian community.

Keep reading

US Cancer Patient Calls UK Police Visit a “Bullying Tactic” to Force Self-Censorship

A US citizen undergoing cancer treatment in Britain says she was left feeling like a criminal after being confronted at her home by police over a social media post.

Deborah Anderson, who has lived in the UK for years and is a member of the Free Speech Union, believes the encounter was not about enforcing the law but about silencing dissent through intimidation.

As we reported, Anderson was visited by Thames Valley Police after someone filed a complaint about a Facebook post they found offensive.

The officer who turned up at her door, she said, made it clear the incident wasn’t criminal and no arrest would be made. Yet, she was encouraged to apologize for the post, despite the fact that even the officer couldn’t recall what the alleged offense was when questioned months later.

“I’ve never been arrested in my life. I live a very quiet life,” Anderson said, in an interview with Harry Cole. “I think it’s a bullying tactic to just get us to go, oh, gee, I’m an old woman. I’m no harm to anybody.”

The incident comes during an uptick in so-called “offense policing” in the UK, where complaints over online expression have increasingly led to home visits from law enforcement.

One high-profile case involved the arrest of writer Graham Linehan at Heathrow Airport after he expressed views on transgender issues online.

Anderson’s account points to deeper concerns about vague and selectively enforced speech standards.

The officer, she said, arrived unannounced early one morning and spoke to her about “malicious communication.” Initially thinking it was a delivery, she was shocked to be confronted by police over something she posted online, though no one would later be able to tell her exactly what the complaint was about.

Keep reading

Charlie Kirk Versus Tyler Robinson: The Shooting Was Over the Battle for Free Speech

When he was shot, Charlie Kirk was answering questions at a TPUSA campus event, engaging in the very essence of what conservatives believe in – debate. He welcomed dissent and even gave priority for those who disagreed with him to “come to the front of the line”.

“Prove me wrong” was the message emboldened twice on the tent above Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, signaling that an open exchange of ideas was encouraged.

For Kirk, the marketplace of ideas was central to his understanding of democracy, where disagreements could be hashed out through conversation, persuasion, and ultimately, elections.

One of the defining traits of the modern left is its emotional inability to tolerate disagreement. Rather than engaging in debate, many leftists respond with outrage, dismissal, and personal or even physical attacks when confronted with opposing viewpoints.

For leftists, political differences are not seen as part of a democratic conversation but as threats to identity or morality, making dialogue itself unbearable.

This is why conservatives so often encounter friends or relatives who walk out of a room, hang up the phone, or sever relationships when faced with views that challenge their own.

Their reaction is not intellectual but emotional, rooted in a belief that opposition to their views is inherently “hate” and therefore intolerable.

Assassin Tyler Robinson’s behavior reflects the disturbing alternative leftist view. In a text exchange with transitioning boyfriend Lance Twigg, Robinson admitted to killing Kirk and justified it by first writing, “I had enough of his hatred”.

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

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

Hillary Clinton on Kimmel, Kirk: ‘Very Clear Example of Using the Power of the State to Suppress Speech’

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday weighed in on the fallout surrounding Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, addressing both the late-night host’s removal and the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk during an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.

When asked if Kimmel’s suspension amounted to state censorship, Clinton replied: “Well, I think this is a very clear example of using the power of the state to suppress speech. It is a direct government action to try to intimidate employers, organizations, corporations, much of which we’ve already seen, to remove an opponent, even though it’s a comic.”

Clinton continued:

Look, I had no idea when I was in public life and listening to the jokes that were made about me and the attacks that were, you know, coming from people like Jimmy Kimmel and others that I could have called up the head of the FCC and said, take them off the air. I don’t like what they’re saying. I mean, of course, this was a particularly sensitive time because of the terrible crime that was committed, the murder of Mr. Kirk.

But you know, you defend free speech in terrible times, and you defend free speech that is used against holding people in power accountable through satire, humor, barbed attacks, you defend it even when it is offensive, and they have unfortunately taken the view that we believe in free speech, as long as we’re making the speech and your speech agrees with us, otherwise, we’re against free speech.

Clinton later amplified the remarks on X, posting: “In America, we defend free speech in terrible times. We defend free speech even when it’s offensive. We defend free speech.” She restricted comments on that post as well as one she made one week after Kirk’s assassination congratulating American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten on her book Why Fascists Fear Teachers.

Weingarten’s excerpts, published in Rolling Stone days after Kirk’s assassination, accused conservatives of being “fascists” and “Nazis,” likened book bans to Nazi Germany in 1933, and warned that Trump and Elon Musk were acting as “shadow governing partners.” The release drew attention because Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect charged with Kirk’s murder, inscribed “Hey fascist! Catch!” on bullet casings, according to authorities.

Teachers across several states were investigated or fired after posting celebratory or hostile messages about Kirk’s assassination, with examples including posts such as “America became greater” and “1 Nazi down.” A new website, charliesmurderers.com, reported receiving thousands of submissions documenting celebrations of Kirk’s death. 

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) said such rhetoric reflects a dangerous climate created by years of partisan demonization. “And now, Charlie Kirk has been murdered,” Hunt told Breitbart News. “This is not rhetoric. These are lived realities.” He asserted that Democrats and their allies “have vilified, censored, and targeted conservatives at every turn for over a decade,” adding that political violence against conservatives is now “normalized by silence, excuse-making, or even tacit encouragement from the left.”

Clinton herself previously described Republicans as her “enemies” during a 2015 Democrat debate. Asked which adversary she was most proud of making in her political career, Clinton responded, “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.”

The dispute surrounding Kimmel began after he mocked Trump’s mourning of Kirk’s assassination, joking it was “like how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” and suggested Robinson may have been part of the “MAGA gang.” Authorities later identified Robinson as the suspect, describing him as left-leaning and in a relationship with a male who identifies as female and who “hates conservatives and Christians.” Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed those details, and investigators stated Robinson admitted responsibility in a message to the partner.

Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr cautioned ABC and Disney that broadcasters risk their licenses if they mislead the public, saying Nexstar Media Group did “the right thing” by suspending Kimmel. Sinclair Broadcasting also halted broadcasts of Jimmy Kimmel Live and announced a special tribute to Kirk would air in its place. ABC affiliates cited the need to uphold community values and maintain constructive dialogue. Carr noted that networks could “do this the easy way or the hard way,” signaling further review of their obligations under federal law.

Keep reading