Tag: free speech

Newsom Vetoes Digital Censorship Law

California Governor Gavin Newsom managed to get something right. He just vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to sue social-media companies on the subjective and dubious basis of “hate speech.”

Newsom vetoed SB 771 on Monday, the last day he had to act. The legislature sent him the bill on September 22. If Newsom wouldn’t have rejected it, it would have become law anyway.

The governor called the bill “premature” in a short statement attempting to explain his decision. He said:

“I likewise share the author’s concern about the growth of discriminatory threats, violence, and coercive harassment online. I am concerned, however, that this bill is premature. Our first step should be to determine if, and to what extent, existing civil rights laws are sufficient to address violations perpetrated through algorithms.”

The Bill

The bill would have allowed people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant was a minor, the fine could’ve doubled.

However, critics suspected the proposal’s main goal was to coerce social-media companies into implementing censorious algorithms like the ones they did during the height of the Covid era. It was designed to pre-censor, to create an digital environment where certain views were forbidden.

The proposal included subjective and vague justifications for litigation. As we pointed out in a previous report, it included the feeling of “intimidation” as grounds for suing. In the United Kingdom, officers have justified arresting people for over social-media posts that caused others “anxiety.” It’s not hard to see that’s what SB 771 could’ve opened up.

Opposition and Support

The bill had strong opposition, including from NetChoice, the tech trade group made up of Google, Meta, and Snap. Elon Musk’s X and Parler also opposed it. Among the arguments they made was that SB 771 would have violated First Amendment protections.

Right-leaning pundits also bashed the proposal for its totalitarian potential. Tucker Carlson framed it as an attempt by California’s ruling class to quash online criticism of the policies that have destroyed the most populous and beautiful state in the Union. The proposal designated a protected class that would have censored those who spoke out against illegal immigration, the deviancy of the LGBTQ mob, and critics of Islam or Israel.  

On the other hand, George Soros’ Center for Countering Digital Hate was sold on the bill, the propagandists in the mainstream media did their best to frame it as nothing more than digital companion to already existing civil-rights protection law, and more than a dozen Jewish organizations supported it as well, according to reports.

Newsom’s Motivation

Newsom made a rare and good decision here. But it’s unlikely his intentions were well-motivated. After all, he did just sign a bill to create a reparations-administration agency.  

A common suspicion is that Newsom was hardly concerned about free speech and likely more worried about having to embark on future political campaigns without financial support from the tech gurus who’ve dumped millions into his previous campaigns, including executives from Google and Meta.

Whatever his motivation, the bottom line is that this is good news for Californians and anyone who believes that the digital world should be open to all ideas, not just those approved by the elites. As we pointed out in a previous report on this bill, social media, despite its many faults and foibles, has “democratized” the flow of information and loosened the elites’ long-held grip on the narrative. This is a major reason there have been so many efforts to restrict online speech. If you want to see what the goal for the United States is, just look at various parts of Europe. The European Union is bullying member states to muzzle their citizens and creating laws to target American tech companies that provide the platforms to exchange ideas that threaten the international oligarch class.

Keep reading

UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law

If you’re going to cross an ocean to tell Americans what speech they can and can’t allow, the least you can do is not trip over your own jurisdictional nonsense on the way in.

Ofcom, the UK’s media regulator, which has lately decided to try and become an international speech cop, managed to do exactly that.

But when the regulator began sending enforcement letters to small US platforms under its sweeping online censorship law, the Online Safety Act, it probably didn’t expect to trigger a constitutional ambush.

But that’s exactly what it got.

Preston Byrne, one of attorneys representing 4chan, Kiwi Farms, and two other American companies, said Ofcom had been sending “frankly asinine letters under English law.”

His clients, he explained, “are entirely American. All of their operations are American. All of their infrastructure is American, and they have no connection to the UK whatsoever.”

Despite this, Ofcom threatened the companies with “a £20,000 fine plus £100 daily penalties for 60 days thereafter.”

Byrne responded to Ofcom’s pressure by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit was designed not only to challenge Ofcom’s jurisdiction but to force a contradiction into the open.

Byrne said the purpose of the lawsuit was threefold. One, to show the global censors that the resistance in the United States is now prepared to fight back, and they don’t have freedom of action.

Two, to assert hims client’s claims and defenses in a US court, and make the argument in front of a US federal judge.

And the third one was to provoke Ofcom into “doing something stupid, which is exactly what they did.”

After the case was filed, Ofcom sent what Byrne called “a 40-page letter of tremendous length, which is deeply unserious.”

Ofcom’s written response delivered exactly what Byrne says was needed: an explicit admission that Ofcom doesn’t “think US law applies on US soil and that they’re going to use [the argument of] sovereign immunity.”

This was more than a legal contradiction; it was a political one that directly undercuts the British government’s public assurances.

“This rather undermines the British government’s assertions that it’s made time and again, including to the President, to his face, that the British government is not using its sovereign power to censor American citizens,” Byrne said.

In its official notice to 4chan, Ofcom made an extraordinary admission which, in trying to assert its authority, effectively undercut its entire legal position.

The regulator wrote: “We also note 4chan’s claim that it is protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the First Amendment binds only the US government and not overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not affect Ofcom’s powers to enforce the Act in this case.”

This reveals the fundamental flaw in Ofcom’s claim to authority over American companies.

By asserting that the First Amendment “binds only the US government,” Ofcom admits it stands entirely outside the US constitutional order, yet it simultaneously claims the right to enforce UK speech law against US entities operating solely on US soil.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways: it cannot disclaim the reach of US law while insisting that British law somehow extends across the Atlantic.

If the First Amendment has no force on Ofcom’s actions in the United States, then neither does the UK’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act, which has no legal effect beyond the UK.

Keep reading

Ireland Rejects EU Hate-speech Dictate

The deadline to bow down to the European Union’s “hate speech” dictate has passed, and Ireland remains defiant. Last week, the country’s minister for justice, Jim O’Callaghan, said the government would not “reintroduce hate speech legislation previously rejected by parliament,” even though the EU continues to pressure them to do so.

“I’m fairly satisfied Ireland has transposed the European Council framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia in a manner appropriate and tailored to domestic law,” O’Callaghan said, according to reports.

In June, the EU told Ireland it had a two months left to comply with its censorship dictate or risk being dragged into international court. Ireland is accused of violating laws outlined in the EU’s 2008 EU Framework Decision, which requires member states to criminalize “hate speech” based on race, color, religion, descent, or ethnicity, as well as on Holocaust denial. Supposedly, the law is intended to prevent the incitement of violence.

But, as we recently reported, the idea of “hate speech” is a ploy for brainwashing people into believing that thoughts by themselves can be crimes.

Irish officials believe they already have sufficient laws to address the EU’s concerns without intruding on free speech. The “Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989” punishes those who incite hatred based on characteristics such as race, religion, or nationality. According to the Irish Courts Service, five convictions have been recorded under the act since 2017.

But EU officials say that the legislation is not good enough.

Keep reading

‘What happens on campus doesn’t stay on campus,’ professor says at free speech event

“What happens on campus doesn’t stay on campus. For better or for worse,” Princeton University Professor Robert George said during a recent talk about how free speech ideas in higher education have filtered into the broader culture. 

George, a well-known conservative, spoke Friday at the event “Faithful Free Speech: From Campus to the Hill,” hosted by the American Enterprise Institute and Faith and Law, a non-partisan organization that serves congressional staff, integrating faith and policy. AEI is a think tank based in Washington, D.C. that defends human dignity and prioritizes the values of the nation’s founding. 

Pete Peterson, dean of Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy, spoke with George about the founders’ intention behind the First Amendment in connecting religion and speech.

George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton, quoted the Declaration of Independence, which says human beings’ rights are “endowed” by God. 

“In other words, the role of government is to secure rights that government did not create,” George said. “Those rights don’t come from the hands of kings or presidents or parliaments or Congresses or Supreme Courts. They come from no merely human power.”

The government’s job is to secure these rights by making sure “people do not become predators against each other, that people don’t violate each other’s rights,” he said. 

Recalling a quote from James Madison, George said, “Only a well-instructed people can be permanently free people. And the way we gain instruction is not simply by going to school. That’s important. It’s very important. But that’s not the only way.”

George continued, “We gain instruction by engaging with each other, by trading reasons and arguments, by doing business with each other in the proper currency of intellectual discourse.”

He urged Americans to pay attention to what is happening on college campuses because “what happens on campus really is vital to what happens in the broader society.”

He gave the example of how “hate speech” is now widely considered to be an exception to the First Amendment, an idea that began on college campuses. 

George said his students at Princeton are high achievers, valedictorians and top-level SAT scorers. But when he teaches Constitutional law and asks what types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, they often mention “hate speech.”

“There is no such category which in our Constitutional jurisprudence constitutes an exception, and for very good reasons,” he said. 

Keep reading

Unhinged Oklahoma State University Professor Placed on Leave After Threatening and Reprimanding Student Who Spoke at Event Honoring Charlie Kirk

An Oklahoma State University student says he was reprimanded and threatened by a university staffer simply for wearing a Turning Point USA “47” hat while speaking in honor of Charlie Kirk.

Joshua Wilson, a junior and Senate University Chairman at OSU, says the confrontation came out of nowhere during a routine one-on-one meeting with a student government coordinator, News9 reported.

What started as a heartfelt tribute to Kirk, who was assassinated by a radical leftist, quickly devolved into a chilling lecture on “triggered” family members and veiled warnings about his future at the university.

Wilson said the hat, a white ball cap emblazoned with a gold “47” (for Donald Trump as the 47th President) and the Turning Point USA logo, wasn’t intended as a political statement.

He and a friend decided to speak briefly at a student government meeting to honor Charlie Kirk, who had visited the campus earlier this year as part of his Turning Point USA Campus Tour.

“Me and my friends were so distraught, but the first kind of thought that came to our mind was, ‘What do other students kind of think right now?” Wilson told News9. “If we’re this pained by it, if we’re worried about what may happen to us also, what are other students worried about?”

Donning their TPUSA hats, they stepped up to remind their peers that open dialogue, not censorship, is the bedrock of America.

“We thought, OK, we have our turning point hats, let’s go to student government and show our constituents they don’t have to be afraid to have a conversation and to speak about what they believe in, and that’s what we did,” Wilson said.

“It wasn’t something that was partisan. It wasn’t something that we were supporting Trump, you know, but it was a hat that symbolized that conversation is what built this country, what should maintain it.”

During the meeting, Wilson said his message was met with applause and support. No one, including the staff member who would later reprimand him, voiced any objections at the time.

“For me personally, it has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever, it’s just something I got at an event that meant a lot to me,” Wilson said.

“In that meeting, I hope that with the student government where I was giving my speech, I hope it was expressed that was not the issue, not partisan politics, but just the issue or the crux of the idea of why I brought the hat to campus was that students shouldn’t feel afraid, and we can go forward.”

A week later, Wilson said he was summoned to a private meeting by the staffer who had been present at his speech. He described feeling threatened and cornered.

During the meeting, which Wilson recorded and obtained by News9, the staffer admitted she was offended by his attire, saying:

“I have family who don’t look like you who are triggered by those hats and by that side.”

Wilson said he calmly explained that his hat was not about partisan politics, but about honoring free speech and the First Amendment. The staffer allegedly replied that if he “questioned that belief,” his year “might not be easy.”

Keep reading

Telegram’s Durov: We’re “Running Out Of Time To Save The Free Internet”

Messaging app Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov warns that a “dark, dystopian world” is approaching, with governments worldwide rolling back privacy protections.

“I’m turning 41, but I don’t feel like celebrating. Our generation is running out of time to save the free internet built for us by our fathers,” said Durov in an X post on Thursday.

“Once-free countries are introducing dystopian measures,” said Durov, referencing the European Union’s Chat Control proposal, digital IDs in the UK and new rules requiring online age checks to access social media in Australia.

“What was once the promise of the free exchange of information is being turned into the ultimate tool of control.”

“Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet. The UK is imprisoning thousands for their tweets. France is criminally investigating tech leaders who defend freedom and privacy.”  

“A dark, dystopian world is approaching fast — while we’re asleep. Our generation risks going down in history as the last one that had freedoms — and allowed them to be taken away,” Pavel added.

Keep reading

Free Speech Advocates Warn EU’s Digital Services Act Enables Pan-European Censorship and Threatens Political Dissent

A controversial EU regulation is drawing fierce warnings from a global group of free speech advocates who argue it paves the way for widespread censorship in Europe and beyond.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which allows European Union authorities to fine tech companies for hosting content deemed illegal or harmful, has caused concern among 113 public figures who say the law could crush political expression and dissent under an opaque system with vague rules.

In a letter addressed to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the group accused the EU of eroding basic democratic freedoms by turning private platforms into enforcers of state-approved narratives.

The message, led by Alliance Defending Freedom International and sent to Reclaim The Net, warns that the DSA’s structure encourages governments and aligned institutions to police opinions in ways that would be unthinkable under traditional free speech protections.

“Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democratic societies. It is through the exchange of ideas — including controversial ones — that societies evolve, and public officials remain accountable,” the letter states.

The DSA, passed under the pretext of regulating disinformation and online harm, is set to undergo formal review in November.

Its enforcement mechanisms enable both state actors and private organizations to flag material they believe violates EU or national law.

However, the term “illegal content” remains loosely defined, opening the door to subjective enforcement and political targeting.

The signatories highlighted real cases that reflect a growing intolerance for dissenting views in Europe.

One example is Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing her religious views on marriage and sexuality through social media.

According to the letter, the DSA “introduces sweeping mechanisms” that not only allow but encourage cross-border enforcement of restrictive speech laws.

The group emphasized that one EU member state’s most rigid rules could effectively become binding across the entire Union, imposing a lowest-common-denominator standard for expression.

Keep reading

SCOTUS To Decide If Free Speech Applies To Biology-Affirming Therapists And Their Clients

n Oct. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar. This is the latest in a seemingly unending series of cases from Colorado that my colleagues at Alliance Defending Freedom have argued. The cases stem from the state’s apparent aversion to the First Amendment.

Not content with their failed attempts to coerce speech from artists like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop or Lorie Smith of 303 Creative, and not deterred by clear rebukes from the Supreme Court in those cases, the state of Colorado has set its sights on professional counselors.

The law in question bans specific, voluntary counseling conversations, silences the viewpoint disfavored by the government, and leaves struggling youth and their parents with only one government-approved option. Colorado’s law bans counselors like Kaley Chiles from helping minors realign their thoughts and feelings with their biological sex — even when that is the young person’s goal for counseling.

Counseling that affirms so-called “gender transition” is fine by Colorado. Counseling that affirms biological reality is fined by Colorado, up to $5,000 per offense, and could include the loss of licensure.

This is not just an esoteric debate for law school faculty lounges; children’s health and well-being are at stake. Colorado’s defense of this blatant viewpoint discrimination and government censorship hinges on the contention, without a hint of irony, that the state is regulating conduct, not speech. How do Kaley Chiles and her clients engage in the “conduct” of talk therapy without it being speech? Perhaps a high-stakes game of charades? The notion would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious.

If government places an authoritarian thumb on the scale, allowing only one viewpoint, invading the vulnerable space between counselor and client, and dictating one outcome, the victims are children and their families. If the Supreme Court does not protect the speech of counselors like Kaley Chiles and her clients, children in Colorado and more than 20 other states with similar censorship laws will be trapped on a one-way journey to the perils of “gender transition.”

The eventual destination is one of irreversible physical damage, potential sterilization, and a lifetime of being a patient. Our nation’s struggling youth deserve compassionate counseling directed by their goals with assistance from loving parents and professionals, not a government-sponsored pathway to chemicals and surgeries that can leave permanent mental and physical scars.

Adding rhetorical insult to injury is the fact that under Colorado’s law, counseling clients to align their feelings with their biology is deemed “conversion therapy,” while counseling a client to transition from his or her sex to the opposite sex is “gender affirming care.” The assault on common sense and the English language may pale in comparison to the harm suffered by Chiles and her clients, but the First Amendment protects speech because words matter, truth matters, and any attempt by government to silence citizens matters.

Keep reading

Witnesses Testify on CISA, GEC, and Tech Firms Coordinated Effort to Silence Dissent Online

A contentious Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday laid bare deep divisions over the role of the federal government in influencing what Americans are allowed to say online.

While Republican lawmakers and witnesses presented extensive evidence of federal agencies pressuring tech platforms to silence the dissent of the public, Democrats largely sidestepped those concerns and instead zeroed in on a controversy involving late-night host Jimmy Kimmel where ABC owner Disney temporarily took him off air over comments related to the assassination of political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) opened the hearing with a warning about what he described as a “vast censorship enterprise” operating under the Biden administration.

He called for the passage of two bills aimed at curbing such activity: the Collude Act, which would revoke Section 230 protections from tech firms that censor speech at the request of government officials or affiliated organizations, and the Censorship Accountability Act, which would allow citizens to sue federal employees who violate First Amendment rights by coordinating with private companies to suppress lawful expression.

“Congress must act to dismantle this unconstitutional alliance between Big Tech and Big Government that has deprived Americans of their most fundamental right,” Schmitt stated.

The hearing, titled “Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” featured testimony from several individuals who said they had been targeted as a result of government-backed efforts to influence speech online.

Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, testified that his outlet was hit by a coordinated censorship campaign involving both US agencies and foreign-linked organizations.

Keep reading

FREEDOM WINS: Irish Government Informs European Union That It Will Not Introduce Globalist ‘Hate Speech’ Laws

‘Free speech’ – no ‘hate speech’.

As Margaret Flavin reported on TGP last June, Ireland is holding the line for freedom against the European Union goons who wish to insert harmful legislation on every nation in the old continent.

The EU Court of Justice has warned Ireland that it has until August to comply with the ‘hate speech’ laws (a.k.a. censure).

Under existing EU rules on combating racism and xenophobia, the European Commission believes Ireland is allegedly uncompliant with laws ‘criminalizing race-based violence and hatred’.

August, of course, has come and gone, so today, on the Daíl (Irish Parliament), in a session scheduled for questions to the Minister of Justice Jim O’Callaghan, the issue was debated.

Breaking!

The Irish government has informed the EU they will not comply with a demand to force hate speech laws on the public.

Hugely significant moment for free speech. pic.twitter.com/hbgN4RrxNH

— MichaeloKeeffe (@Mick_O_Keeffe) October 9, 2025

“MP: ‘Is it your intention to reintroduce the hate speech legislation that was a dramatic failure in the last government and proposed by the previous Minister for Justice?’

Justice Minister: ‘The answer is no. But can I just give you an overview as to why the answer is no? I’m fairly satisfied that Ireland has transposed the European Council framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia in a manner appropriate and tailored to the domestic system of law in Ireland.’

Justice Minister: ‘I want to assure Members of the House that Ireland’s position has been communicated to the European Commission and our position is that the framework decision is fully transposed in Irish legislation in a manner that is appropriate and tailored to Ireland’s domestic system of criminal law and procedure.’

Justice Minister: ‘And is in line of course with Article 40.6 of the Constitution which expressly respects and protects the rights to freedom of expression and people to express their views freely.”

This confirmation comes a few days after the Donald J. Trump administration asking the Irish Government ‘to urge the European Union to allow member states to address hate speech as each sees fit’.

Keep reading