Tag: free speech

British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment

Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation’s founding document. It’s a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one.

These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora’s Box.

I’d be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It’s a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation.

For a sense of where we might be without it, I’d recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities.

As Tablet magazine reported, “74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading ‘Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'” Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound.

This isn’t as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government’s critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that’s thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone’s freedoms.

Keep reading

ADL Regional Director Calls for Government-Regulated Online Censorship

The Anti-Defamation League’s David Goldenberg is demanding a broad overhaul of how speech is governed on the internet, calling for both government intervention and intensified corporate censorship. In a recent appearance, Goldenberg, who heads the ADL’s Midwest operations, expressed frustration over what he sees as declining efforts by tech firms to suppress online content he deems hateful.

Citing Meta’s rollback of its fact-checking team in the United States, he argued that platforms must be forced to take action. “You have a platform like Meta that just gutted its entire fact-checking department…And so what we need to do is we need to apply pressure in a real significant way on tech platforms that they have a responsibility, that they have an absolute responsibility to check and remove hateful speech that is inciteful.”

Goldenberg advocated not just for voluntary moderation, but for legislative and regulatory measures, both at the federal and state level, that would compel platforms to act as speech enforcers. He pointed to efforts in states like California as examples of where local governments are already testing such models.

His concern centers around what he perceives as an ecosystem of radicalization made easily accessible by today’s digital infrastructure. He warned that extremist ideologies no longer require obscure forums or dark web communities to spread. “It used to be you had to fight going into the deep dark web… Now… it’s easier and easier to be exposed in the mainstream,” he said.

Framing the online environment as a catalyst for violence, Goldenberg argued that free access to controversial viewpoints must be curtailed. He called for social media companies to take a stronger stance by excluding users whose views fall outside accepted boundaries, adding that regulation should enforce this responsibility.

He zeroed in on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a critical piece of legislation that shields platforms from legal liability over user-posted content. “Congress needs to amend Section 230, which provides immunity to tech platforms right now for what happens,” Goldenberg said. He dismissed comparisons between modern platforms and telecommunications companies, referencing past remarks by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about how phone providers were not liable for threats made over calls. Goldenberg’s view was blunt: “These tech platforms are not guaranteed under the Constitution. They’re just not.”

From his perspective, private companies should be free to “kick people off, to de-platform,” and if they fail to do so voluntarily, they must be pressured or regulated into compliance. He described accountability as a mechanism for shaping behavior, stating, “Accountability is a tool that can be incredibly effective in changing behavior.”

Keep reading

Rubio Announces Visa Restrictions on Foreign Nationals Involved in Censoring Americans

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 28 new visa restrictions against foreign nationals involved in censoring the speech of U.S. citizens.

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio announced in a post on social media platform X.

“Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life—a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”

Rubio said foreign nationals involved in suppressing the rights of Americans shouldn’t be allowed to visit the United States.

“Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over,” he said.

Keep reading

Trump Sent A ‘Free Speech Squad’ To The UK To Investigate Erosion Of Rights

President Trump has dispatched a cadre of State Department officials to the UK to monitor and investigate the growing attacks on freedom of speech by the British government.

The Telegraph reports that “A five-person team from the US State Department spent days in the country,” and among a host of other issues they looked into a crack down on pro-life activists voicing, or in many cases silently expressing opposition to abortion clinics.

The report notes that Trump’s free speech squad, specifically from the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), “met with five activists who had been arrested for silently protesting outside abortion clinics across Britain.”

The visit demonstrates that Trump is acutely aware of the threat to freedom that is growing in the UK and is willing to intervene in British affairs as required.

The activists, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Rose Docherty, Adam Smith-Connor, Livia Tossici-Bolt and Father Sean Gough, a Catholic priest, were all arrested for standing outside abortion clinics on public roads and silently praying.

Keep reading

Inside the Brussels Showdown Over Europe’s Speech Police

On a mild Brussels morning, inside the halls of the European Parliament, a group of politicians, legal scholars, and policy skeptics gathered to talk about a piece of legislation most Europeans haven’t read, but which may soon be quietly reshaping how they speak, share, and think online.

Yesterday’s event, hosted by MEPs Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, with support from ADF International, focused on the increasingly controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), a law initially sold as a digital shield against misinformation and tech giant abuse, but which critics now say has evolved into something more aggressive.

The conference title “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression” tells you everything you need to know about the mood in the room.

Virginie Joron, a French MEP, opened the event with a direct shot at what she sees as the DSA’s unspoken evolution. “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act,” she said. Her argument: a law intended to protect rights is now being used by institutions to regulate dissent on platforms like Facebook, Telegram, and X.

Many have previously tried to dismiss this as anti-Brussels paranoia. But even the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour has flagged the DSA’s “chilling implications” for open debate in Europe.

The devil, as always, lives in the definitions. Who decides what’s “disinformation”? What counts as “hate speech”? How far can governments go in flagging and removing content that someone, somewhere, considers problematic?

Paul Coleman, the Executive Director of ADF International, doesn’t seem particularly reassured by the current answers. “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago,” he told the room.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Overturns Maine’s Censure of Rep. Laurel Libby in Free Speech Ruling Over Trans Athlete Post

The US Supreme Court has stepped in to overturn the Maine legislature’s censure of Republican Representative Laurel Libby, marking a clear win for those opposing legislative punishments aimed at curbing political expression. The 7-2 ruling, issued Tuesday, instructed Maine lawmakers to rescind the sanctions they imposed on Libby over a social media post that identified a transgender high school athlete who had placed first in a girls’ pole vault event.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The Court found that Libby’s claim merited immediate relief, stating that her right to be free from censure for speech made in her official capacity was “indisputably clear.” Since February, the censure had effectively stripped Libby of her ability to participate in floor debates or vote on legislative matters unless she apologized, a condition she steadfastly rejected.

Following the ruling, Libby posted a celebratory message on X: “This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has affirmed what should NEVER have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.”

Keep reading

Conservative Surrender: Italy and Switzerland Bow to Islamic Pressure, Ban Free Speech Leader Rasmus Paludan

PAY ATTENTION, AMERICA! If you think being in a conservative-led country or a so-called ‘neutral state’ will protect your right to speak out against radical ideologies, think again.

Human rights activist and Islam critic Rasmus Paludan, a Danish-Swedish politician known for his relentless stance on free speech, has once again become the target of government censorship. This time, it happened in Italy, a country supposedly led by conservatives who claim to champion Western values.

Islam – A Subject You Dare Not Speak About

The shocking truth revealed by these incidents is that Islam has become a subject so sensitive that even non-Muslim countries impose blasphemy-like restrictions to appease violent reactions. Rather than confront the problem—an imported crisis fueled by mass Islamic immigration – these countries are instead targeting the critics. It’s safer, they think, to ban the critic rather than face the backlash. This massive problem could have been prevented and even deported, as promised by the supposedly conservative Giorgia Meloni government, which has fallen woefully short of its commitments.

Italy: Conservative-Led, But Not Safe for Islam Critics

Days ago, Rasmus Paludan was stopped at Milan Malpensa Airport and denied entry into Italy. According to Paludan, he was informed by the prefect of Varese that his presence in the country could provoke anger from others. As a result, he was banned from entering Italy for five years.

“I can’t leave the airport. The prefect has decided that since other people will be angry if I’m in Italy, it’s best if I’m not allowed into the country for five years,” Paludan told RAIR Foundation.

This decision raises troubling questions about the state of free speech and the willingness of conservative governments to bow to potential threats instead of upholding the right to criticize any ideology. Instead of deporting the violent threats, Italy finds it easier to block the critic, revealing a cowardly capitulation to potential violence rather than an enforcement of democratic principles.

Keep reading

JD Vance Warns EU Censorship and Fines Threaten US Free Speech and First Amendment Values

Vice President JD Vance sounded the alarm this week over the growing international push to restrict speech, warning that aggressive censorship trends in Europe could soon clash with American constitutional principles.

Speaking with Glenn Beck, Vance stressed that transatlantic influence runs deep, and the speech policies being advanced in Europe aren’t confined to their borders.

“The kind of social media censorship that we’ve seen in Western Europe, it will and in some ways, it already has made its way to the United States. That was the story of the Biden administration silencing people on social media,” Vance said.

He argued that the US must take a firm stance in defense of First Amendment ideals and not allow foreign pressures to shape domestic policies, particularly in the digital space. “So we’re going to be very protective of American interests when it comes to things like social media regulation. We want to promote free speech. We don’t want our European friends telling social media companies that they have to silence Christians or silence conservatives, and I think there is going to be that friction over the next ten years.”

While emphasizing that diplomatic ties remain intact, Vance acknowledged that serious ideological divisions are emerging. “It’s not that we are not friends, but there’re gonna have some disagreements you didn’t see 10 years ago.”

Vance’s concerns were prompted by a question from Beck regarding troubling developments in countries like Canada and within the EU. The digital censorship framework in Europe has gone well beyond theory, with major tech companies already feeling the brunt of regulatory threats. Firms like X, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok have faced mounting pressure to fall in line with EU speech codes or suffer severe financial consequences.

The EU has been leveraging the weight of its Digital Services Act (DSA) to pressure American tech companies into stricter content moderation, effectively threatening massive financial penalties if platforms fail to comply with the bloc’s speech regulations.

Keep reading

The Left Ultimately Just Wants To Throw Conservatives In Prison

Did you know that in America you can be criminally charged for using a racial slur? The First Amendment is supposed to protect our freedom of speech (even the use of racial slurs!) and in theory it should prevent such a gross violation of our civil liberties.

But apparently it happens anyway — and it happens because the revolutionary left doesn’t care about free speech. What they care about is power, and if they have enough power they will throw their ideological opponents in prison for the crime of disagreeing with them. 

Consider the case of Lauren Noble, a Yale graduate and the founder and executive director of the Buckley Institute, named for conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr. Two years ago, Noble was arrested in New Haven, Conn., for allegedly using a racial slur in an argument with a black parking attendant.

The parking attendant, 60-year-old Gerno Allen, claimed that Noble repeatedly called him the N-word during a dispute in July 2023. Allen didn’t file a complaint with the police until February 2024, and Noble was arrested that May and charged at first with disorderly conduct and then three counts of breach of the peace.

Noble maintained her innocence throughout, and the misdemeanor charges against her were dropped last month. The state prosecutor cited “insufficient evidence … inconsistencies in the witness’ statements,” and “video evidence clearly contradicting the complaining witness’ statements.” In other words, Allen made up the entire story.

It’s great that Noble is no longer facing criminal charges, but the fact that she was forced to go through two years of this appalling legal ordeal based on an accusation with no evidence to support it is outrageous.

Even more outrageous is that she was arrested and charged in the first place for allegedly uttering an offensive word. Even if Noble had called Allen the N-word, and there was video evidence of it, that’s not a crime. You’re free to use whatever racial slurs you like, even lazy ones like the N-word. Contrary to what many college students seem to think at places like Yale, there’s no such thing as “hate speech” in America. It might be offensive, but it’s not illegal — at least it’s not supposed to be. 

But this was a just-so narrative that was apparently too good for the left-leaning police and prosecutors in deep-blue New Haven to ignore: a conservative woman who runs an organization promoting intellectual diversity and freedom of speech at Yale, caught using the N-word against a working-class black man. Perfect.

As Noble herself wrote in a recent New York Post op-ed: “The interest in my case seemed to have more to do with what the Buckley Institute represents than anything I ever did, or was accused of doing. Headlines in local newspapers made much of both Buckley and conservatism generally, as left-leaning media outlets welcomed the opportunity to advance the dishonest narrative that everyone on the right is racist.”

That’s really what Noble’s case was about. Concocting a race-based “crime” out of thin air to tarnish the reputation of a conservative activist and ruin her good name.

For the left, conservatives aren’t just wrong or misguided, but evil. They should be silenced. If they can be silenced by jailing them on bogus charges stemming from a made-up story, so be it. Even better if the story exposes them as racist.

Keep reading

KOSA Reintroduced: Child “Safety” Bill Raises Alarms Over Internet Surveillance, Digital ID, and Free Speech Risks

Senators have once again put forward the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), reviving a bill that, if enacted, would radically reshape how Americans experience the internet.

Promoted as a measure to protect children, this latest version now carries the backing of Apple, a tech giant that has publicly endorsed the legislation as a meaningful step toward improving online safety.

But behind the bipartisan sales pitch and industry support lies a framework that risks expanding government control over online content and eroding user privacy through mandated age verification and surveillance infrastructure.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

KOSA is often described as a child protection bill, requiring platforms to limit exposure to content that could contribute to mental health issues such as depression or disordered eating.

What is less emphasized by its sponsors is how the bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and sue platforms over speech that’s deemed “harmful” to minors.

Though lawmakers insist the bill does not authorize the censorship of content, it effectively places government pressure on websites to sanitize what users see, or face liability. Such chilling effects rarely need explicit censorship orders to shape outcomes.

Keep reading