Tag: free speech

Elon Musk’s X Commits to Crackdown on ‘Hate Speech’ in UK Watchdog Agreement

Elon Musk’s social media platform X has reached an agreement with Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, to significantly accelerate the censorship of what England considers “hate speech” and antisemitic content from the platform.

The Telegraph reports that Elon Musk’s X has entered into a formal arrangement with Ofcom, the UK’s online safety regulator, pledging to take swifter action against illegal “hate speech” including racism and antisemitism. The agreement represents a notable shift for the platform, which has faced sustained criticism over its content moderation policies since Musk’s acquisition in 2022.

Under the terms of the commitment announced today, X will now aim to review posts containing hate speech and potential terrorist content within 24 hours of identification. The company has established a minimum performance target of checking and removing at least 85 percent of hateful and antisemitic posts within a 48-hour timeframe. Additionally, X has pledged to take more aggressive action in blocking accounts operated by organizations proscribed under British law.

Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom’s online safety director, characterized the agreement as progress while acknowledging significant work remains. “We have evidence that terrorist content and illegal hate speech is persisting on some of the largest social media sites,” Griffiths said. “We are challenging them to tackle the problem and expect them to take firm action.”

Griffiths emphasized the particular urgency of the agreement in light of recent hate-motivated crimes targeting the Jewish community in Britain.

The agreement comes after a period of tension between X and the regulatory authority. Musk’s company previously clashed with Ofcom over the Online Safety Act, Britain’s primary legislation governing technology companies’ responsibilities. Last summer, X accused the regulator of employing a “heavy-handed approach” and claimed Ofcom was “seriously infringing” on free speech protections.

Ofcom is also conducting a separate investigation into X concerning a wave of non-consensual deepfake images of women and children that spread across the platform in January.

Keep reading

Ireland Convicts 78-Year-Old Preacher For Preaching Near Abortion Clinic

Ireland is finally safe.

Clive Johnston has been convicted and can no longer menace the public.

Johnson, 78, is a retired pastor who committed the heinous offense of preaching near the Causeway Hospital in Coleraine.

That was considered within the “safe access zone” under Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act.

The Act prohibits “influencing,” “preventing or impeding access,” or “causing harassment, alarm or distress” to a protected person within 100 meters (about 328 feet) of facilities where abortions are performed.

So Johnson was found guilty of “influencing” inside the protected zone and fined 450 pounds (about $614).

Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service told Fox News Digital, “The defendant was found guilty and convicted by the court of doing an act in a safe access zone with the intent of or being reckless as to whether it had the effect of influencing a protected person attending the premises; and failing to comply with a direction to leave a safe access zone.”

The language of the law is absurdly vague and abusively broad. What constitutes an “influence” is undefined and could include any religious, political, or social exchange. Would it include encouragements to have abortions?

It is equally perverse to treat praying or preaching the same as blocking or impeding access to a clinic. Finally, a hospital engages in a wide array of activities that raise religious or political issues that can be the subject of free speech.

We previously saw several cases in the United Kingdom where people were arrested for silently praying near abortion clinics.

For its part, Ireland has been a leader in censorship and the criminalization of speech. As the leader of the Irish Green Party proclaimed, “We are restricting freedom for the public good.”

By the way, his offense was reading John 3:16, including “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

What could perish in Ireland and the United Kingdom is free expression as speech regulators target bad influences under time, place, and manner laws.

Keep reading

King’s Speech 2026: Britain’s Monarchy Reads a Doomed Agenda as Starmer Clings to Power

For many years, it was called the Queen’s Speech and delivered year after year by Queen Elizabeth II. Now it’s the King’s Speech — the traditional State Opening of Parliament where King Charles reads out the government’s planned laws. The Prime Minister’s team writes the whole thing, so it’s really their agenda, not the King’s personal views. Think of it like a presidential address to Congress, but with all the robes, crowns, and centuries of tradition.

This year’s speech, delivered on May 13, 2026, felt particularly awkward. Just six days earlier Labour had been hammered in the local elections — losing over 1,000 council seats while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK stormed ahead with more than 1,100 gains and took control of several councils. Keir Starmer is clearly fighting for his job. Dozens of Labour MPs are already calling for him to go, four ministers have resigned, and the party looks in open revolt. Yet there was the King in full ceremonial dress, reading out Starmer’s wishlist as if everything was business as usual.

The optics aren’t great. Critics are right to worry that the monarchy is getting dragged into Labour’s internal mess at a time when trust in institutions is already low. When the head of state appears to back the government’s plans just days after voters delivered a clear rejection, it raises serious questions about whether the Crown is staying truly neutral.

Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic should pay close attention to the six main priorities. Far from listening to last week’s verdict at the ballot box, Starmer’s team looks completely tone-deaf to the issues that drove so many people toward Reform UK.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in COVID ‘Misinformation’ Case, but Doctors Say They Still Won

The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear a key medical free speech case involving basketball hall-of-famer John Stockton and several doctors who alleged that the Washington Medical Commission’s (WMC) COVID-19 “misinformation” policies violated their First Amendment free speech rights.

The court declined, without comment, to review Stockton v. Brown — but only after the WMC lifted the disciplinary charges it had filed against two of the doctors in the case.

Plaintiffs included Drs. Richard Eggleston and Thomas T. Siler, who were sanctioned by the WMC for their pandemic-related speech, and Dr. Daniel Moynihan, who alleged the WMC’s threats “chilled” his speech on pandemic-related topics.

Stockton, co-host of “The Ultimate Assist Podcast,” and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) were also plaintiffs. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and WMC Executive Director Kyle S. Karinen, a lawyer, were the defendants.

In May 2024, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the First Amendment doesn’t protect physicians’ public speech because it is part of medical conduct.

In November 2024 and again in January 2025, the Supreme Court rejected emergency requests for a stay.

In September 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal but did not consider the First Amendment questions in the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Rick Jaffe, who represented the plaintiffs, called the Supreme Court’s choice not to hear the case “outrageous.”

But Jaffe said the unreported part of the story is what happened the month before, when the WMC withdrew its statement of charges against Eggleston and Siler, which he called a victory.

“Withdrawal of those charges was the main practical goal of the state litigation concerning these doctors and this federal case … once the Commission rescinded the charges, that was the win,” Jaffe said.

Keep reading

Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to free speech. This right has long differentiated the United States from other Western nations like the United Kingdom and Canada where laws against so-called “hate speech” laws exist and are enforced.

Thankfully, America is different. In our country, even alleged hate speech is protected speech to ensure democratic principles and debate.

In a 1929 dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the Constitution secured “freedom for the thought that we hate.” In 2011, Chief Justice John Roberts said in a ruling that the First Amendment serves “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

This constitutional protection has been increasingly threatened recently, particularly by pro-Israeli forces that have tried to frame any criticism of that government as “anti-Semitism” and thus hate speech punishable by law. This has included everything from arrests, to squashing campus debate to buying TikTok to an attempt to cover up human rights absuses in Gaza. President Donald Trump has even issued executive orders that use vague definitions of what constitutes “anti-Semitism” that comes with criminal penalties.

Mark Levin is an American-born Zionist radio host who is an outspoken advocate for Israel’s government, regularly calling anyone who criticizes the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and conflict in Gaza “Nazis.”

Toward this agenda, Levin recently appeared to not agree with his own country’s free speech rights. On his latest Sunday Fox News program, unironically called Life, Liberty and Levin, the neoconservative pundit explained why free speech liberties in the U.S. have gone too far.

Seemingly worried that certain speech is protected in the United States, Levin said in the wake of the Secret Service taking down a shooter at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Friday, “First time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected.”

“And you hear people say, don’t you believe in the First Amendment?” Levin said. “They don’t even know what the First Amendment believes.”

Keep reading

Canada House of Commons Tracks Online Posts About MPs

The House of Commons in Canada is keeping a database of what Canadians say about their elected representatives online and officials are sorting those comments by category, including the tone and identity-based content of social media posts about MPs.

That admission came from Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Mellon at a parliamentary committee, where he described the operation as a “very robust records management system.”

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the system catalogues incidents involving MPs and allows staff to sort and analyze posts, including those deemed “misogynistic” or otherwise “abusive.”

Mellon told MPs the database tracks “every single incident” and can break complaints down by category, including gender-based harassment.

What the records contain, why they are kept, and who has access to them, none of that was explained. Mellon offered few details. A spokesperson for the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms said files may include both criminal and non-criminal complaints, but declined to disclose specifics, citing security reasons.

So the Commons is logging non-criminal speech about politicians. Citizens posting opinions about their representatives are being filed away in a government system, sorted by category, and held for purposes the government will not describe. The line between a threat and a sharp comment is being drawn by people who answer to the institution being commented on.

The testimony came as MPs pushed for the system to track speech in more granular ways.

Keep reading

The Comey Indictment & Free Speech

In 200-plus years of interpreting the free speech clause of the First Amendment, the courts have narrowed and expanded its scope. The Supreme Court employed a particularly narrow approach during much of the last century, through two world wars and then the Red Scare in the 1950s. 

Thankfully, in the 1960s, the Warren Court began a remarkable and thus far unimpeded march toward compelling the government to tolerate open, wide, caustic and even threatening speech.

When crafting the First Amendment with its iconic speech clause — “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” — James Madison insisted that the word “the” precede the word “freedom” so as to make clear the understanding of the drafters and ratifiers that the freedom of speech existed before the government did. This presumption — that speech is pre-political — has a theoretical and a practical application.

Madison’s theoretical application, shared by Thomas Jefferson and articulated by him in the Declaration of Independence — that our rights are endowed within us by our Creator — is that free speech is inherent in our human nature. Hence, it is a natural right that all persons have irrespective of the place or time of their births — or the government’s wishes. 

The practical application is that free speech is vital to popular government. If people fear expressing opinions that might antagonize the government, they will hesitate to speak freely; and then debate over matters of public importance will be minimized rather than be a part of robust deliberative processes out of which many ideas are sifted and challenged.

When the government threatens to punish speech, the threat harms not only the person charged, but it also chills the expressive rights of others. It gives others pause before articulating an opinion that might offend those in power. In recent years, the federal courts have criticized chilling by the government, deferring instead to the open marketplace of ideas.

Speech should rise or fall — be influential or ignored — based on its ability to be accepted in the marketplace of ideas, not on whether it pleases the government.

Until now.

Keep reading

Founding Felons: Jefferson Would Be on a Watch List Today — You Might Be Next

Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head.

We are being asked — no, told — to believe that the greatest threat to America today is not government overreach, endless war, corruption, surveillance, or the steady erosion of constitutional rights.

No, the real threat, it seems, is speech.

Dangerous speech. Hateful speech. Critical speech. Speech that dares to challenge power.

In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president — especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist — is not just wrong, but responsible for violence.

The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration.

Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism — but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.

When White House officials suggest that calling a president a fascist may constitute libel or slander, they are not merely defending reputations — they are laying the groundwork for criminalizing dissent.

This is how it begins.

This is how republics become regimes.

First, criticism is labeled dangerous. Then it is labeled harmful. Then it is labeled illegal. And before long, it is gone.

Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech — especially when the justification is “safety.” Because every time the government claims it must limit freedom to protect the public, what it is really doing is expanding its own power.

The irony is almost too glaring to ignore.

By the standards now being floated by those in power, America’s founders themselves would be considered extremists.

Seditionists. Radicals. Domestic threats.

Keep reading

Judge Halts Colorado AI Law After First Amendment Challenge

A federal judge has frozen enforcement of Colorado’s first-in-the-nation AI law, the statute that would have required developers to police their own models for “algorithmic discrimination” and to inform the state of “foreseeable risks” before the rules took effect on June 30.

Judge Cyrus Y. Chung signed off on a joint request from xAI and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on April 27, putting the law on ice while state lawmakers draft a replacement.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The order was filed in xAI v. Weiser. The state agreed not to enforce SB 24-205 against xAI, or to issue rules under it, until at least 14 days after the court rules on a forthcoming preliminary injunction motion.

The June 16 scheduling conference was cancelled. The deadlines in the case are suspended.

This is a significant retreat as Colorado spent two years insisting the law was a model for the country. It was the only state AI statute named in President Trump’s AI executive order last year. Now the state is asking a court to stop the clock while its own governor’s policy group drafts a bill to repeal and replace it.

The law itself is the reason the climbdown looks the way it does. SB 24-205 told developers of “high-risk” AI systems they had to take “reasonable care” to prevent algorithmic discrimination, with one carveout that has done more work in the lawsuit than any other clause: the law exempts discrimination intended to “increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.”

The state forbids one kind of discrimination by an algorithm. It permits, and arguably requires, another. The developer is left to figure out which is which, with the attorney general’s office deciding after the fact.

xAI sued on April 9, calling the statute a First Amendment problem dressed up as consumer protection. The company’s complaint is more blunt than most filings of this kind. “SB24-205 is decidedly not an anti-discrimination law,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “It is instead an effort to embed the State’s preferred views into the very fabric of AI systems.”

The argument is that Colorado isn’t regulating outputs neutrally. It’s choosing which viewpoints an AI model is allowed to produce, then enforcing the choice through “onerous policy, assessment, and disclosure requirements,” in the words of the Justice Department’s filing.

The DOJ moved to intervene on xAI’s side, the first time the federal government has joined a constitutional challenge to a state AI regulation.

Keep reading

Censorship in Disguise? Congress Introduces Antisemitism Resolution

Two congressmen introduced a resolution this week that appears to include pressure on tech companies to censor people.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) have co-sponsored a resolution “condemning antisemitic rhetoric from prominent online personalities.” At four pages long, it urges “social media platforms and public leaders to denounce and address” antisemitism.

The resolution blames online platforms for the recent rise in anti-Jewish bigotry. It claims antisemitic incidents have “significantly increased, including a 344 percent increase over the past 5 years, and [an] 893 percent increase over the past 10 years.” And the reason is because online platforms have served as “a major vector for the spread of such hatred.”

Piker and Owens

Two influencers are targeted in the resolution, Hasan Piker and Candace Owens, both of whom have intensely criticized the Israeli government’s military operation in Gaza. “Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on October 7th, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers.”

“Hatred is hatred, period,” Gottheimer said. “We must stand up and speak out. I get that speaking up is not easy, but our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path. That’s what principled leadership is all about.”

Piker denied being an antisemite. “They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, according to reports. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of bigotry including antisemitism and will continue to do so in spite [of] this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”

Owens has called the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza a genocide. So has another popular podcaster, Tucker Carlson. The Israeli human-rights groups B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel agree. As do millions of people around the world. And, if polls are to be believed, most American Jews believe Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, with about four in 10 saying it’s guilty of genocide.

Israel and Gaza

Reports say 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza, most of them civilians, thousands of them children. Most of the Gaza Strip has been carpet bombed, leaving a majority of people homeless. A few months back, U.S. President Donald Trump admitted people were starving in Gaza. Understandably, people have spoken out against that.

Israel has justified its severe response as a proper way to address the October 7 massacre during which Hamas brutally killed 1,200 Israelis. While it goes widely unreported, it should not be overlooked that Israeli defense officials reportedly ignored several warnings from within its own defense apparatus of what was coming. Nevertheless, this has all inflamed tremendous criticism toward the Israeli government. In some cases, it has ginned up genuine anti-Jewish bigotry.

Keep reading