Tag: free speech

Colorado college drops charges against student journalists, but speech restrictions remain uncertain

The Community College of Aurora closed its conduct case against student journalists this month, finding them “not responsible” due to unclear rules, after restricting the reporters from interviewing and publishing without prior approval and charging them for continuing those activities.

The student newspaper, FoxTalk, is led by CCA student Andrew Green, who told The College Fix via email that the decision, “is a big step forward.” 

He added that he still doesn’t “know whether the restrictions on interviews, reporting and publishing have actually been lifted.”

“I want the earlier warning reconsidered, and a clear answer about whether we are free to interview students, report and publish. I would much rather spend my time building the newsroom than fighting the college,” he said.

He added that he believes the school and newspaper can have a “good relationship” moving forward, “while FoxTalk still does independent journalism.” 

Green also said he is “working with the Student Press Law Center’s New Voices team to explore legislation around protections for college student journalists in Colorado,” he said. 

“Even if FoxTalk and CCA resolve everything, I would like the next student journalist to have clearer rules than I did,” Green told The Fix. 

A free speech group called the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression continues to press the college. 

Program Manager for FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative Marie McMullan said the group is “assessing next steps” and that “until the ban on publication and student disciplinary measures are rescinded, our concerns remain.”

She also said that this “kind of blanket ban on student journalism can’t remain in place, and we continue pushing CCA to change its course.” 

FIRE had sent a demand letter this month to CCA Vice President Reyna Anaya, calling on the school to “drop the charges against any student who chooses not to comply with such unconstitutional demands, and forego further censorial practices.” 

The group alleges that CCA’s directives violated the First Amendment through prior restraint, prior review, compelled speech, and restrictions on associational freedom.

Reached for comment, CCA Executive Director of Communications and Special Initiatives Courtney Butler told The College Fix that the school is still reviewing the matter and is unable to provide additional comment.

FoxTalk was registered under the college on March 13th. In April, Green asked CCA administrators “to confirm whether FoxTalk could seek comment from CCA faculty and staff in their personal capacities without going through Butler’s office,” according to FIRE’s demand letter. 

Dean of Student Success Julie LaRock then informed Green that the newspaper would need to “receive staff approval before identifying themselves as FoxTalk staff, accessing non-public spaces, beginning work on each month’s stories, and publishing any content whatsoever.”

LaRock further advised Green to hold off on additional work until structural coordination with the administration and faculty was established.

On June 3, Green questioned the order to stop FoxTalk from publishing, saying the group still planned to cover the June 30 primary election, including a debate at the University of Denver. 

After an administrator said FoxTalk only had to follow regular student-organization rules, Green assumed they could publish again and wrote to confirm. The administrator replied that the ban was still in place until FoxTalk’s structure was fixed, and also criticized the activities of three members.

On July 14, Green was charged with interviewing students, posting on the FoxTalk website, contacting employees, and ignoring earlier orders. On July 23 he was charged again for not following a college official’s directives. 

McMullan told The Fix that CCA’s rationale for restricting the students is not very common compared to what the group has seen in the past. However, several other schools have similarly tried to restrict student journalists. 

“Repeatedly … universities and colleges subjecting student journalists to investigations, hearings, and punishments for basic newsgathering and publishing, or attempting to wholesale stop students from publishing,” she said.

Morgan State University, for example, implemented a policy that restricts student journalists’ ability to gather news directly, requiring media inquiries to go through the Office of Public Relations and Strategic Communications, The College Fix previously reported. 

McMullan previously told The Fix this policy is a “blatantly” illegal “gag order.”

Keep reading

Paxton “Child Safety” Plan Puts Legal Speech at Criminal Risk

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is currently running for the US Senate, and pushing online digital ID age verification checks in the name of “online safety,” has announced a data center plan that, among other things, vows to “protect children” by making data center companies criminally liable if the centers they operate “empower AI chatbots that undermine children’s safety.”

Paxton is effectively promising to author legislation that would introduce a novel form of liability, aimed at data centers – the physical and hardware part of the internet’s infrastructure – for the content that is generated by software running on their servers.

This is a clear departure from the principle, enshrined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that internet infrastructure is not liable for third-party, user-generated content.

And, while Paxton’s plan speaks of chatbots that “undermine children’s safety” – a broad and vague term that can easily be abused to censor speech – the actual target could be any chatbot, and any speech.

And the liability would be criminal.

Paxton is quoted as saying in a post on X: “My Texas First Data Center Plan will protect our grid, our communities, and our children while ensuring America beats Communist China in the AI race,” he wrote.

Keep reading

Oxford Union Debate Stunt Exposes The Real Limit Of Free Speech In Britain

In the heart of the Oxford Union, a supposed bastion of open debate, a single brown paper envelope triggered pure panic.

Commentator Laurence Fox stood to argue that the West is right to be suspicious of Islam. He held up the envelope and indicated it contained a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad. The chamber erupted in frantic attempts to stop him opening it. Rules were suddenly invoked. Relevance was questioned. Respect was demanded.

The Muslim president of the Union interjected that her very presence should have been enough to persuade Fox that Muslims believe in free speech.

“My wife asked me not to show this for fear of repercussions for my family,” Fox said. “But I told her that if I did not, I would have submitted to Islam.” He continued that the West should resist Islam “in the strongest terms on free-speech grounds alone.”

Fox opened the envelope and revealed a cartoon of Rees-Mogg. Laughter and applause followed. The fear that had gripped the room evaporated the instant it became clear the image did not depict Muhammad.

In that moment the argument was settled more effectively than any speech could manage.

The debate took place under the motion “This House believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam.” Speaking for the motion were actor and free-speech campaigner Laurence Fox, Tommy Robinson, and writer Jonathan Sacerdoti. Against them stood Oxford Union president Arwa Elrayess, a 20-year-old Muslim of Palestinian heritage from Gaza, Rees-Mogg, and others. Outside, left-wing protesters tried to block entry. Inside, the atmosphere was already charged.

Fox made free speech the centrepiece of his case. He cited polling showing that 78 percent of British Muslims believe no publication should print pictures of Muhammad, rising higher among some groups. He noted that Britain had long abandoned its own blasphemy laws. Then he produced the envelope.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, speaking against the motion, reached for procedure, recalling that as a former Union librarian he believed props were against the rules. Others in the audience scrambled for any technicality that might prevent the image from appearing. The chair eventually ruled that props were permitted.

Keep reading

Good News! Record Low Number of Schools are Restricting Free Speech

While no doubt there remains room for improvement Campus Reform is reporting that  “A new study from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has found that the number of schools maintaining restrictive policies on student expression has hit an all-time low.”

This is good news for those of us that still believe in free speech and for conservative organizations who wish to express their views.

“The organization’s annual Spotlight on Speech Codes report found that the number of overall schools with a “red light” rating fell to 13.2 percent, while just 9.8 percent of public schools earned the designation.”

This is surprising yet good news for the country and shows what having a President who believes in free speech can do.

These numbers while still not perfect are a far cry from the days the “group’s first study published in 2006, 68.6 percent of schools earned red light ratings.”

The original number was pathetic if unsurprising but the new numbers are shocking!

“Conversely, schools with a “green light” rating have policies that “do not seriously threaten protected expression.” This year’s report found that a total of 76 schools earned such a rating, the second time that they have outnumbered ones with a red light rating.”

Keep reading

“Why I’m Writing This Anonymously And What That Says About Free Speech In Britain”

Ann Widdecombe’s murder has reopened a question that surfaces from time to time: should politicians with ‘unfashionable’ views get extra protection? The investigation continues, so I won’t comment on that, but the fact that the question is even being asked in response to a 78 year-old woman being killed in her own home tells you something regardless of how the investigation concludes. We have been here before. Jo Cox in 2016. David Amess in 2021. A pattern is forming, whatever the final facts of this particular case turn out to be.

The debate this triggers is usually framed narrowly: what security do MPs need? I want to push it wider: what if politicians are not actually the group most exposed? They have protection officers, party machinery and a public profile that makes an attack on them a national story. I have none of that. Neither does anyone else who simply has an opinion and a job to protect.

I recently listened to Professor David Betz of King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, who argued that Britain may be entering a period of increasing internal conflict in which political violence becomes more likely.

Whether or not one accepts his analysis, it’s difficult to ignore the growing sense that our public discourse has become more hostile and less forgiving.

If expressing political disagreement increasingly carries the risk of intimidation or worse, the answer cannot simply be to provide more security for an ever-expanding list of public figures.

That treats the symptom rather than the disease.

The view from nowhere and a nobody in particular

I consider myself an ordinary person.

Thirty-plus years ago I would have considered myself slightly Left-leaning. I liked to think of myself as one of the good guys.

But somewhere in the last three decades the Overton window slid sideways, and views I’ve quietly held throughout – that mass immigration, legal and illegal, hasn’t obviously benefited the culture I grew up in, that free speech should mean everyone’s speech, including the people I disagree with – are now filed under ‘Right-wing’.

I don’t think I’m unusual. Look at the Brexit vote, which for many people was as much about sovereignty and control over immigration as it was about Brussels. Look at any poll on migration levels. There is a large, ordinary, non-extreme constituency that holds views broadly like mine. And a good number of them, I suspect, keep quiet for the same reason I’m staying anonymous here: weighing up whether speaking out is worth the risk. Silence can easily be mistaken for consensus, and I suspect that’s exactly what’s happening here.

Which raises a question I’ve had to sit with while writing this: am I a coward? Publishing anonymously, after all, is a way of having the argument without paying for it. But I don’t think cowardice is really what’s on display here. A coward stays silent. What I’m doing is closer to something else entirely: deciding that saying this at all matters more than saying it under my own name, while still not being willing to bet my livelihood on it. If that’s cowardice, then I suspect it’s shared by a very large, very quiet number of people who hold perfectly mainstream opinions and have simply done the same calculations that I have. That, in itself, might be the more troubling finding than anything else in this piece.

Fear arrives before the crackdown

This is the part I think gets missed in the security debate. We talk about authoritarianism as something that happens to you: a knock on the door, a lost job, a police caution for a tweet. But before any of that, there’s the version that happens inside your own head. You draft the post and delete it. You bite your tongue at the dinner table. You calculate what a client, a neighbour, or a local WhatsApp group might do with an honest opinion, and you decide it isn’t worth finding out.

That calculation isn’t paranoid. The variables feeding it are laid out in article after article in the Daily Sceptic. Prevent’s own material cites “cultural nationalism”, defined as the belief that Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by specific ethnic and cultural groups, as a sub-category of extreme Right-wing ideology. Two-tier policing is underpinned by the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Anti-Racism Commitment, which states that policing should not be “colour blind”, a principle many officers and members of the public have read as licence to treat people differently according to race. It is perhaps no coincidence that public trust in these institutions has been falling sharply. Gallup found that Britons’ confidence in the courts dropped 12 points in a single year to 57%, while confidence in local police fell 11 points to 64%, the largest year-on-year declines on record for either measure. When the referee looks like it’s picking sides, people stop trusting the game.

Campaigners have logged tens of thousands of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ a year, the great majority of them originating from something someone posted online. And after events like the Southport riots, an entire category of people were branded ‘far-Right thugs’ as a matter of editorial habit. None of this needs to end in a prosecution for it to work. Its function is to make you flinch before you speak, not after. And it’s working: a YouGov poll found that 57% of Britons admit to sometimes holding back their views for fear of a negative reaction, and research published earlier this year found the same pattern setting in even among teenagers, with around one in five saying they hide their political opinions at school to avoid being ‘cancelled’. Self-censorship of this kind isn’t a fringe habit. It’s now closer to a majority experience.

Nothing dramatic has happened to me. Nobody has knocked on my door. I have not been arrested, cautioned or sacked. I have simply chosen, before any of that could happen, to leave my name off this piece. That is precisely the point. Fear doesn’t need to become reality to change behaviour. The anticipation of it is enough.

That’s the self-censorship no one puts a number on, and I think it’s doing more to shrink public debate than any single policy or piece of legislation. Its success isn’t measured by how many people it punishes, but by how many quietly change their behaviour hoping never to be punished at all.

Keep reading

Meet the Woke Judge Who Sentenced Minnesota Mother Shiloh Hendrix for Speech ‘Crimes’ and Learn About Her Sordid Judicial History

The far-left judge at the center of the alarming verdict in the Shiloh Hendrix case is going viral, and much has come about her judicial past. And it is not pretty.

As The Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra MacDonald reported, a Minnesota jury on Thursday night delivered a split verdict in the disorderly conduct trial of Shiloh Hendrix.

The jury found the 37-year-old mother not guilty on the count related to her words directed at the eight-year-old Somali boy who was stealing from her, but guilty on the count stemming from her comments to the man who filmed and confronted her at a Rochester playground.

Last April, Hendrix was at the park with her toddler when the boy reached into her diaper bag and took an applesauce pouch. She confronted the child and allegedly used the N-word.

A Somali man named Sharmake Beyle Omar, who was not the child’s father, began recording the scene, became extremely confrontational with Hendrix as she was holding her toddler, and continued filming as he demanded and provoked her to repeat the slur.

Following the verdict, Judge Christa M. Daily sentenced Hendrix to a $1,000 fine, 200 hours of community service, supervised probation, and a stayed 90-day jail term.

While racism is horrible and no one should condone racial slurs, punishing someone for uncouth speech is precisely what our Founders fought against. Yet, Hendrix will pay a legal price unless the sentence is overturned.

This outrageous travesty of justice becomes even more glaring when one learns of Judge Daily’s past cases.

Back in January 2023, Daily sentenced a pervert named Thomas Lee Meyer to NO JAIL TIME even though he was convicted of four felony charges of possessing pornographic work.

The victims were reportedly 6 to 8 years old.

Back in August 2024, a 22-year-old Mississippi man named Trashun Haywood was convicted of first and second-degree assault and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Haywood had repeatedly stabbed a 26-year-old Rochester man with a pocket knife after the two men got into an argument at an apartment complex in northwest Rochester on Christmas Eve of 2021.

The victim suffered stab wounds to his neck, abdomen, and arm. The injuries were so severe that medical personnel at the St. Mary’s Hospital Emergency Department had to perform “life-saving measures.”

But Daily decided to waive 4-1/2 years of the sentence. She said she did so because Haywood eventually admitted to the stabbing and expressed remorse.

Keep reading

Verdict Reached in Shiloh Hendrix Case After More Than Eight Hours of Deliberation

A Minnesota jury has delivered a split verdict in the disorderly conduct trial of Shiloh Hendrix, finding the 37-year-old mother not guilty on the count related to her words directed at the eight-year-old Somali boy who was stealing from her, but guilty on the count stemming from her comments to the man who filmed and confronted her at a Rochester playground.

The jury reached a verdict just before 10:12 p.m. local time, after over eight hours of deliberations.

The incident took place on April 28, 2025, at Roy Sutherland Playground in Soldiers Field Memorial Park.

Hendrix was at the park with her toddler when the boy reached into her diaper bag and took an applesauce pouch. She confronted the child and allegedly used a racial slur.

A Somali man named Sharmake Beyle Omar, who was not the child’s father, began recording the scene, became extremely confrontational with Hendrix as she was holding her toddler, and continued filming as he demanded and provoked her to repeat the slur.

Keep reading

Education Secretary Spent £500,000 of Taxpayers’ Money Trying to Scrap University Free Speech Laws

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has run up a bill of more than £500,000 in taxpayers’ money attempting to block free speech protections for university academics. The High Court has ordered the Government to pay the Free Speech Union’s legal costs of £353,748 after it successfully resisted her bid to scrap the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. The Mail has the story:

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has spent more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money trying to water down laws which protect free speech in universities, it was revealed last night.

Ms Phillipson embarked on the legal battle after trying to dilute Tory legislation which put a duty on universities and student unions to actively promote, as well as protect, free speech on campuses, describing it as a “Tory hate speech charter”.

A free speech watchdog allows universities to be fined up to 2% of their income for censoring academics.

The laws came after university staff were hounded out of their jobs for expressing their opinions.

They included Professor Kathleen Stock, who resigned from Sussex University in 2021 after harassment and protests by trans activists, saying she felt pressure to “self-censor” her work.

The philosophy lecturer, who believes single-sex spaces are necessary in places such as prisons and public toilets, was accused by students of making trans people feel “unsafe”.

Ms Phillipson’s move to block the laws was successfully opposed by the Free Speech Union (FSU), run by Tory peer Toby Young.

Now the High Court has ruled that the Government should pay the FSU’s costs of £353,748, which takes the total bill to more than £500,000 when its own legal costs are included.

Within weeks of Labour entering office in July 2024, Ms Phillipson declared that she would revoke the planned introduction of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which had been passed in 2023.

Internal documents, disclosed during the litigation, revealed that officials had been instructed before the election to have a statutory instrument ready to pause the Act “on ‘day one’”, and that the Secretary of State did “not wish to implement the Act, at least in full”.

But in January 2025, nine days before the case was due to be heard, Ms Phillipson capitulated and told Parliament that the majority of the Act’s provisions would be enacted after all.

At that point, the FSU offered to withdraw its claim in return for a fixed costs payment of £84,000.

The Government refused, offering instead a “drop hands” settlement under which the FSU, having won in substance, would recover nothing. Since then, the costs have spiralled as expensive KCs wrangled over the details.

Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the FSU, said: “The significance of this judicial decision is that it confirms our view and the view of our lawyers that we won this case and the Education Secretary lost – costs are awarded to the winners, with the losers having to pay.”

Keep reading

Video Shows Fort Worth Cop Ticketing a Preacher for ‘Offensive’ Speech at Pride Event

A Fort Worth Police officer ticketed a preacher in late June, claiming the content of his speech was offensive. This week the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division launched an inquiry into the incident to determine if the officer violated the First Amendment.

The widely circulated video of the confrontation shows an officer and a protester during the Trinity Pride Fest on June 27. “If someone is offended by your talking, then we have a problem,” said Officer Sara Stogner.

“That’s a constitutional violation of our rights,” responds David Grisham, a street preacher and retired federal law enforcement officer. The two continue to argue when Stogner asserts, “OK, then I’ll write you the ticket, and we’ll go from there.”

“Wait, you’re going to ticket us for offensive speech?” the cameraman asks incredulously. To which the officer confidently responds, “Yes, absolutely.”

Stogner continues to claim she can ticket the two men for disorderly conduct “if someone complains that your language or what you’re saying is offensive.”  

But that’s not how the First Amendment works, according to legal experts. “The First Amendment does not allow government officials to shut down speech simply on account of it being ‘offensive,'” said Brennan VanderVeen, program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “The government can restrict certain types of conduct or restrict noise above a certain volume level,” he continued, but citing someone because people are offended by the content of protected speech is “precisely what the First Amendment does not allow.” 

Grisham was ultimately cited for misuse of a bullhorn during a protest, a citation he argues isn’t supported by the city’s noise ordinance, reports WFAA, an ABC News affiliate. Grisham’s civil rights attorneys announced on July 3 their intent to challenge the citation, arguing Stogner failed to issue a decibel check in accordance with the city’s noise ordinance and Texas code, which presumes an unreasonable noise to be in excess of 85, and instead cited Grisham for “engaging in peaceful and protected speech.” 

In response to growing online backlash, Fort Worth Police Chief Eddie Garcia told WFAA on Monday that his department takes responsibility and is currently instituting department-wide First Amendment training. “We just trained up our command staff again with refresher courses. We’re going to be training our sergeants. We’re going to be training our officers,” said Garcia. “We are not a perfect profession,” he continued, “and officers will make mistakes from time to time.” Garcia did not mention any ways in which Stogner would be held personally accountable or liable. 

“Actively training police officers around First Amendment standards would be a positive step,” said VanderVeen, who added that “government officials being unaware of basic First Amendment standards is a persistent problem.” 

So much so, it seems, the Justice Department is also looking into the incident and has asked the Fort Worth city attorney for information to help the agency determine if an investigation is necessary, reports Fox News. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring all Americans—regardless of the content or viewpoint of their speech—are protected from unlawful restrictions on expressive activity,” wrote Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon.

The City of Fort Worth, Texas, has 30 days to provide the DOJ with further information.

The Justice Department is right to ensure Grisham’s freedom of speech has not been infringed, and doing so is consistent with the agency’s core mission to protect civil rights. But the move stands out against a backdrop of the agency’s alleged First Amendment violations since President Donald Trump took office, including subpoenaing journalists, coercing social media companies to remove immigration officer tracking apps, and attempting to unmask anonymous online critics. 

But for now, Americans can rest assured that the Justice Department can still do the right thing every once in a while.

Keep reading

The House Just Voted for KOSA, a Privacy and Free Speech Disaster

The House voted Monday night to build the machinery of online identity checks into federal law, packaging the mandate inside a bundle of kids online safety bills that cleared the chamber 267-117, with 47 members not voting.

It marks the first time any version of the Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA, has escaped the lower chamber, and the version that survived carries a structure that pushes platforms to figure out who you are before you can use them.

The legislation, called the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, or KIDS Act (H.R. 7757), stitches together more than a dozen separate bills, including KOSA, the SCREEN Act, the SAFE BOTs Act, COPPA 2.0, and the SPY Kids Act, plus data broker rules and research initiatives.

House leaders rushed it to the floor under suspension of the rules, a fast-track path requiring a two-thirds majority. Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and ranking Democrat Frank Pallone, who announced their agreement a week earlier, said the bill would “hold Big Tech accountable” and described months of cross-aisle work toward what Guthrie called a “workable compromise.”

If you’ve been following our updates, you’ll know the accountability positioning hides the actual design. The bill defines “know” or “knows” to mean “to know or should have known,” and that phrase runs through sections covering platforms, AI chatbots, and gaming services.

A company that fails to spot a minor faces legal exposure, which gives every platform a reason to gather more information about everyone who shows up. The text tries to defuse this, stating that nothing in it may be construed “to require the provider of a covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality on the covered platform.”

The reassurance collapses on contact. A platform forbidden from ignoring a user’s age, yet liable the moment it “should have known” someone was a minor, has one move left. It starts checking ages, deploying age-estimation tools, demanding ID, or watching behavior closely enough to guess. The law does not order surveillance outright, it engineers the incentive and lets companies build the rest.

That is the First Amendment problem dressed as a child-safety provision. Verifying age means verifying identity, and identity checks sit between a person and ordinary protected activity, whether that is reading, watching, posting, or speaking. Adult websites would face explicit age-verification requirements under the package, which functionally means every visitor proves who they are before viewing lawful content. Anonymous and pseudonymous speech, the kind the Supreme Court has shielded for decades, gets harder to find the more platforms lean on identity to limit their liability.

The bill tightens how data brokers handle children’s information and updates the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to widen its reach.

But, to do that, it would require platforms that know a user is a minor to offer controls that limit communications, restrict geolocation sharing, cut compulsive-use features, and let users opt out of personalized recommendation systems, with default settings for minors set to what the bill calls “the most protective level of control with respect to privacy and safety.”

These are strong protections on paper and would be good if they applied evenly to all users, but they all depend on the platform identifying minors first, which loops straight back to the same question of how much data gets pulled from users, adult or not, to sort out who the children are.

The encryption language carries the same gap. The bill says platform requirements may not override encrypted communications and that companies must comply in ways that “do not compromise the integrity of strong encryption.” That could read as a shield until you notice that regulatory pressure to monitor behavior or flag certain users can hollow out encryption without ever formally banning it. Compliance routes around the protection the text claims to offer.

Getting the package across the floor cost the duty of care provision, the piece many child-safety groups and KOSA’s Senate authors consider the heart of the bill. The text now states that nothing in it may be construed to “impose a duty of care on a provider of a covered platform.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a KOSA co-author, wrote that “KOSA without a duty of care isn’t KOSA,” and said last week that the House version is “dead in the Senate.” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), the other co-author, agrees the provision was central. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, told reporters he stays open to negotiating with the House.

That stalemate is the most encouraging thing about this whole fight.

The Senate’s standalone KOSA (S.1748) keeps the duty of care, which would legally require platforms to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent broad categories of harm to minors. On the free speech axis, that is the more dangerous of the two bills, not the safer one. A duty of care over vaguely defined harms compels companies to police or re-engineer recommendation algorithms for lawful, constitutionally protected content, under threat of liability so open-ended that the rational corporate response is to over-remove anything that might draw a lawsuit.

So neither chamber holds the civil-liberties high ground. The Senate bill compels platforms to suppress protected speech, while the House bill conscripts them into identity verification, and a conference committee tasked with reconciling the two could just as easily graft the worst of each onto a single law as split the difference.

The good news for anyone who values either anonymity or free expression is that the two chambers, each representing a different type of civil liberties disaster, do not appear close to agreement.

Keep reading