Tag: free speech

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

FCC Threats Against Jimmy Kimmel Echo a Century of Speech Control

Days after the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Jimmy Kimmel joked on his show that the “MAGA gang [was] 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.” This prompted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr to threaten network broadcasting licenses, alleging that Kimmel’s show violates “public interest, convenience or necessity,” and to tell ABC that this could be resolved “the easy way or the hard way.” The following day, ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel LIVE!—a decision it reversed on Monday after public outcry. 

Many conservatives, trying to remember where they put their keys and their beefs about cancel culture, see this as the way the cookie crumbles. Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), however, believes that Carr was wrong and called this “mafioso” behavior “dangerous.” The dispute highlights a century-old tension: political control over broadcast licenses and the power to shave free speech.

Broadcast TV and radio authorizations—held by stations in the ABC network—state that private companies cannot claim ownership of the radio spectrum. Access to airwaves is a privilege, not a right. This dates to the 1927 Radio Act, proposed by then–Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover and signed by President Calvin Coolidge. Its rules were repeated virtually verbatim in the 1934 Communications Act, amended in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and constitute today’s law of the land.

The greatest problem with censorship is the ease with which subtle demands by politicians slant the news, particularly in the choice (or rejection) of controversial topics. But it is the law backing up the government’s powerful authority that makes that influence work. Fred Friendly’s fascinating book The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, describes one of the sensational cases where a permit to speak was actually cancelled. In the WXUR case, a Philadelphia station was operated by the highly opinionated Rev. Carl McIntire, a “suspended” Presbyterian minister. Although his organization raised $5,000 to support Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, McIntire was considered an antisemite by the National Council of Churches, the Urban League, and the B’nai B’rith. They objected to his “intemperate attacks on other religious denominations…and political officials.” The organizations called for McIntire’s broadcast license to be revoked (denied for renewal) by the FCC because its programs “help[ed] create a climate of fear, prejudice and distrust of democratic institutions.” 

McIntire lost WXUR in 1973—the only time such a right was extinguished under the so-called Fairness Doctrine. But legions of speakers have been cowed and hushed. As early as 1929, the left-wing stations WEVD (named for Eugene V. Debs) and WCFL (owned by the Chicago Federation of Labor) were warned about espousing their radical views. WEVD was accused in a 1929 renewal at the Federal Radio Commission of being “the mouthpiece of the Socialist Party.” WCFL was branded a “propaganda” outlet. Both enterprises read the room and backed away from their edgy politics and full-time line-ups. WCFL merged into the NBC conglomerate, while WEVD—cadging donations to stay alive—limped along by sharing most of the week’s broadcast time with commercial outlets. 

One of the great 20th century judicial liberals, D.C. Senior Court of Appeals judge David Bazelon, originally supported the FCC’s attack on McIntire’s ownership of WXUR. His First Amendment rights were compromised, under the 1943 NBC Supreme Court verdict, based on the “physical scarcity” doctrine. This posits that there are only a limited number of frequencies—a limit imposed by nature, not the government—and so the regulator has to select the best content to fill those slots. It was an uncompelling argument at the time: Resources in limited supply are sold to bidders every day without FCC (or other) administrative assignment. There are actually unlimited spectral slots, not just counting what technology might deliver (tell me the top limit on satellite radio channels or Internet radio stations), but in divvying the old AM dial into finer slices. 

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

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