Tag: free speech

Court Rules New York County Denied Free Speech Rights to Pro-Life Advocates

A federal court has ruled that Westchester County, New York, violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life sidewalk counselors, marking a significant victory for free speech in a legal challenge brought by Thomas More Society attorneys. The decision in Hulinsky v. County of Westchester found the County liable for enacting an unconstitutional provision in its 2022 “Reproductive Health Care Facilities Access Act,” or Chapter 425, which restricted peaceful pro-life advocacy near abortion facilities.

The decision awards plaintiffs Oksana Hulinsky and Regina Molinelli nominal damages for the chilling of their life-saving sidewalk counseling for over two-and-half years as a result of the unconstitutional law, even though the County attempted to avoid liability by repealing the offending provision earlier this year.

This ruling builds on a March 14 decision that rejected the County’s attempt to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against part of Chapter 425 prohibiting so-called “interference” with abortion access “by deceptive means or otherwise”—a sweeping and unprecedented restriction adopted as part of the County’s furor over the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.The Court rightly held the provision “criminalized large swaths of protected speech” on pain of jail, fines, and civil liability, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.

Keep reading

The Israeli flag just became the only national flag illegal to burn in the United States. Yeah. I’m dead serious.

The Flag America Protects

This week in Washington, D.C., a federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor N. McFadden declared that the Israeli flag — with the Star of David at its center — is not a political symbol at all, but a racial one.

He ruled that tearing it, grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest, is not free expression but racial discrimination.

Think about that. In the United States, you can burn the American flag — the Supreme Court has said so for decades. But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The one national flag protected in American law today isn’t our own. It’s Israel’s.

You can burn the flags of all 50 states. You can torch the American flag all you want. You can burn the flags of the UK or France or Brazil or China.

But not Israel.

Keep reading

President Trump’s War on “Woke AI” Is a Civil Liberties Nightmare

The White House’s recently-unveiled “AI Action Plan” wages war on so-called “woke AI”—including large language models (LLMs) that provide information inconsistent with the administration’s views on climate change, gender, and other issues. It also targets measures designed to mitigate the generation of racial and gender biased content and even hate speech. The reproduction of this bias is a pernicious problem that AI developers have struggled to solve for over a decade.

A new executive order called “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” released alongside the AI Action Plan, seeks to strong-arm AI companies into modifying their models to conform with the Trump Administration’s ideological agenda.

The executive order requires AI companies that receive federal contracts to prove that their LLMs are free from purported “ideological biases” like “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” This heavy-handed censorship will not make models more accurate or “trustworthy,” as the Trump Administration claims, but is a blatant attempt to censor the development of LLMs and restrict them as a tool of expression and information access. While the First Amendment permits the government to choose to purchase only services that reflect government viewpoints, the government may not use that power to influence what services and information are available to the public. Lucrative government contracts can push commercial companies to implement features (or biases) that they wouldn’t otherwise, and those often roll down to the user. Doing so would impact the 60 percent of Americans who get information from LLMs, and it would force developers to roll back efforts to reduce biases—making the models much less accurate, and far more likely to cause harm, especially in the hands of the government. 

Keep reading

Mocking Elected Officials Is a Sign of a Healthy Democracy

There’s little question that President Donald Trump and his MAGA devotees can dish it out. Few things epitomize this populist movement more than its irreverence toward established institutions and its willingness to obliterate traditional standards of civility as it targets political enemies (and erstwhile friends during some internecine squabble). Trump’s social-media posts and statements are filled with invective and merciless mocking.

Trump’s schoolyard taunts rarely are sophisticated, as they frequently zero in on personal appearance. “He’s got the smallest neck I’ve ever seen. And the biggest head. We call him watermelon head. How can that big fat face stand on a neck that looked like this finger?” Trump said about Sen. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.). OK, I laughed when he called him “Adam Schifty Schiff,” but that’s only because it was so childishly stupid. That’s its appeal, I suppose.

One of Trump’s ugliest insults—dating to his first election—was when he mocked a disabled reporter by imitating his hand motions. The Wall Street Journal published a piece called, “The Art of the Insult.” We know this is how Trump operates. You can find hundreds of examples with a Google search or on his Truth Social account. Even the official White House account does this—when it’s not portraying Trump as a Kim Jong Un-style superhero.

It’s so very funny. Whenever anyone calls them out on this, Trump defenders act as if they are just so above it all. “Don’t you know the president is just trolling?” “Get a sense of humor.” “You must be suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).” Yadda, yadda. In full disclosure, I greatly value humor and have mocked my share of politicians over the years. But I find bullying taunts to be crass and the sign of those displaying low human capital.

Keep reading

DIGITAL ID: The Shocking Plan to Kill Free Speech Forever

The U.S. is on the verge of launching a dystopian online surveillance machine—and disturbingly, Republicans are helping make it law.

The SCREEN Act and KOSA claim to protect kids, but they’re Trojan horses. If passed, every American adult would be forced to verify their ID to access the internet—just like in Australia, where “age checks” morphed into speech policing. In the UK, digital ID is already required for jobs, housing, and healthcare.

This is how they silence dissent: by tying your identity to everything you read, say, or buy online.

The trap is nearly shut. Once it locks in, online freedom vanishes forever.

Will Americans wake up before it’s too late? Watch Maria Zeee expose the full blueprint—and how little time we have left.

Keep reading

UK Government Emails Reveal Push to Pressure Tech Platforms to Remove Lawful Speech on Immigration and Policing

A series of internal emails from the UK government has revealed an aggressive push to monitor and suppress online posts deemed “concerning,” sparking alarm over creeping censorship under the banner of combating misinformation and community unrest.

The documents, shared by US Rep. Jim Jordan, paint a picture of state officials flagging lawful speech, pressuring tech companies to remove content, and targeting what they described as “concerning narratives about the police and a ‘two-tier’ system.”

One of the most widely circulated videos under scrutiny featured a street celebration in Manchester where participants waved Pakistani flags. Captioned “It looks like Islamabad but it’s Manchester,” the video, posted by Radio Genoa on X, amassed over 14 million views.

Government emails described this kind of footage as misleading or dangerous, with one note labeling it an example of content that is “shared out of context in order to incite fear of the Muslim community.”

Another email, dated August 3, 2024, acknowledged “significant volumes of anti-immigrant content” online and pointed to “concerning narratives about the police and a ‘two-tier’ system that we are seeing across the online environment.”

The correspondence shows government officials not only monitoring speech but actively collaborating with platforms to address posts, even ones not violating the law or even the platform’s terms of service.

Officials were asking for direct intervention. One message requested clarity from platforms about “what content you are seeing across your platform; and b) any measures you have taken in response.” A follow-up email urged platforms to act quickly, stating, “We’d be grateful if you could come back to us on those two points as soon as you are able to.”

In one particularly troubling exchange dated August 4, government officials flagged a video showing someone scrolling through a freedom of information request that referred to asylum seekers as “undocumented fighting age males.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Urged to Halt Mississippi’s Online Digital ID Law Over Free Speech and Privacy Concerns

NetChoice has filed an emergency application with the US Supreme Court to halt the enforcement of Mississippi’s online age verification digital ID law, House Bill 1126, after the Fifth Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction without explanation. The group is urging the Court to reinstate the district court’s ruling and protect First Amendment rights, which it argues are under immediate threat.

The Mississippi law compels every person, regardless of age, to verify their identity before creating accounts on social media platforms, and requires minors to obtain explicit parental consent.

NetChoice argues that this framework “unconstitutionally imposes content-based parental-consent, age-verification, and monitoring-and-censorship requirements for vague categories of speech on social media websites.”

The emergency filing warns of far-reaching consequences, asserting that “the Act will prevent access to that expression for some users entirely—including those unwilling or unable to verify their age and minors who cannot secure parental consent.”

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

Adults would also be subject to this regime, required to share private information in order to access constitutionally protected online spaces.

According to the brief, “the Act would require adults and minors to provide personally identifying information to access all manner of fully protected speech.”

NetChoice compares this level of state control to a dystopian system where “stationing government-mandated clerks at every bookstore and theater to check identification before citizens can access books, movies, or even join conversations” would be the norm.

The brief continues, “This Act thus presents far different issues from pornography laws… it ‘directly targets’ a staggering amount of fully protected speech.”

Keep reading

The Biden Admin Stole Your Data to Rig Elections and Censor Speech

Jason Chaffetz has delivered a devastating exposé that should terrify every American who values his or her constitutional rights. Writing in the New York Post, the former House Oversight Committee chairman pulls back the curtain on what may be the most comprehensive assault on American democracy we’ve witnessed in our lifetime—and it’s happening with our own tax dollars.

Chaffetz revealed that the Biden administration didn’t just weaponize federal agencies against political opponents; it orchestrated an elaborate data-theft operation that would make authoritarian regimes jealous. As Chaffetz explains, “Federal entities outsourced unlawful data collection to politically sympathetic partners. Rather than directly amassing data, they procured or exchanged it from or with nonprofits and technology firms.”

This isn’t some conspiracy theory cooked up by partisan critics. This is documented reality, backed by Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional testimony that the mainstream media has conveniently ignored.

The scope of this operation is breathtaking. Chaffetz exposes how the Small Business Administration—an agency supposedly focused on helping entrepreneurs—was transformed into a partisan voter registration machine. The SBA “proactively reached out to states, especially battleground states like Arizona and Georgia, to seek recognition as voter-registration organizations, despite federal law stipulating that states must initiate this process under the National Voter Registration Act.”

When SBA Associate Administrator Jennifer Kim was pressed during a 2024 hearing about whether the agency conducted events in non-Democrat-leaning regions, she couldn’t provide a straight answer. The evidence speaks for itself: “documented evidence of partisan bias in these efforts” reveals an administration that viewed federal resources as tools for electoral manipulation.

But voter manipulation was just the beginning. The Biden administration’s data dragnet extended into financial surveillance that targeted Americans based on their political beliefs. Christian nonprofits, gun manufacturers, conservative protesters—even members of the Trump family—found their accounts terminated without justification. As Chaffetz notes, “This initiative ultimately targeted Christian nonprofits, gun manufacturers, conservative demonstrators — even Melania and Barron Trump — shutting down their accounts without justification.”

Keep reading

France waging ‘crusade’ against free speech and tech progress – Telegram boss

France has embarked on a “crusade” against free speech and progress itself, Telegram founder Pavel Durov said on Friday after Paris launched a probe against the social media platform X. The French authorities should talk to tech companies instead of prosecuting them, the entrepreneur believes.

The actions of the “French bureaucrats” will only “scare off investment and damage the country’s economic growth for decades,” the Russian-born billionaire wrote on X.

The French authorities announced a probe against the Elon Musk-owned platform on Friday for allegedly manipulating algorithms “for purposes of foreign interference.” The investigation was prompted by two complaints, one filed by a French lawmaker and the other by a government cybersecurity official, both of whom accused X of threatening French democracy. Musk has not commented on the development.

Keep reading

France opens criminal probe into X algorithms under Musk

A French prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into social platform X and its owner, Elon Musk, on accusations of “creating bias in France’s democratic debate.”

The investigation comes after Musk’s artificial intelligence (AI) company, xAi, deleted multiple posts from its chatbot Grok that included antisemitic comments. Among them, Grok called itself “MechaHitler” and insinuated that the Jewish people were controlling Hollywood.

French National Assembly member Thierry Sother and European Union Parliament member Pierre Jouvet asked Arcom, France’s digital content regulator, to look into Grok’s behavior Thursday. 

“Since the July 4th update, Grok has substantially changed behaviors leading it to comment antisemitic ideas, to praise Hitler and even to support Le Pen,” Sother said to French media Libération.

X has not immediately responded to requests for comment.

X and Musk have been on French and European radars since January when Éric Bothorel, a French parliamentarian, raised concerns over X’s use of personal data, a biased algorithm and the reduction of diversity in posts. 

He also denounced Musk’s personal interference within the platform, calling it “a true danger and a threat for our democracies,” according to Libération.  

Keep reading