Tag: free speech

Court blocks California law on children’s online safety

A federal judge said California cannot enforce a state law meant to shield children from online content that could harm them mentally or physically.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled on Thursday that the trade group NetChoice deserved a preliminary injunction because it was likely to show the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act violated its members’ free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

NetChoice said the law would turn its 39 members including Amazon.com (AMZN.O), Google (GOOGL.O), Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms (META.O), Netflix (NFLX.O) and Elon Musk’s X into state-deputized censors, and “censor the internet under the guise of privacy.”

The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which defended the law, did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for comment.

Ambika Kumar, a lawyer for NetChoice, called the law “a breathtaking act of unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, content-based censorship. We are pleased to see it enjoined.”

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2022, California’s law required businesses to create reports addressing whether their online platforms could harm children, and take steps before launch to reduce the risks.

It also required businesses to estimate ages of child users and configure privacy settings for them, or provide high settings for everyone. Civil fines could reach $2,500 per child for negligence and $7,500 per child for intentional violations.

Keep reading

Georgia Antidoxing Bill Could Criminalize Everyday Criticism

Will publishing someone’s name or workplace online soon be illegal in Georgia? Last week, the state Senate overwhelmingly voted to pass an antidoxing bill that would punish a wide range of common online speech by up to a year in jail. While the bill aims to protect individuals from having sensitive information—like their Social Security numbers or addresses—published without their consent, it goes far beyond such private information.

The bill is a “law against criticism of any kind,” Andrew Fleishman, a criminal defense attorney who testified against the bill, told Reason. “It means that if I act with reckless disregard for the possibility that it might cause you mental anguish or economic harm of $500 or more, I am criminally liable, up to a year in jail. And that’s for using not just your name, not your Social Security number, not your address, but anything that could lead someone to that.”

The bill passed on March 6 in a 52–1 vote. The bill defines doxing as a crime that occurs when a “person intentionally posts another person’s personally identifying information without their consent and does so with reckless disregard for whether the information would be reasonably likely to be used by another party to cause the person whose information is posted to be placed in reasonable fear of stalking, serious bodily injury or death to oneself or a close relation, or to suffer a significant economic injury or mental anguish as a result therefrom.”

According to the bill, prohibited personal information includes anything from posting a person’s name, birthday, workplace, “religious practices of affiliation,” and “life activities” to their biometric data or a “sexually intimate or explicit visual depiction.” As a result, the bill is incredibly overbroad in terms of what speech it prohibits. 

“So if I said ‘Emma Camp is a crappy journalist,’ yes, that makes me liable under law. But if I just said ‘there’s a lady at Reason I don’t like,’ that could also do. That’s crazy,” said Fleischman. “This is a law that has a million bad applications and maybe one good one.”

Fleishman isn’t the only one concerned that the bill violates the First Amendment.

Keep reading

When Dissent Becomes a Crime: The War on Political Speech Begins

“Once the principle is established that the government can arrest and jail protesters… officials will use it to silence opposition broadly.”
~ Heather Cox Richardson, historian

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

There’s always a boomerang effect.

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again – rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

Arresting political activists engaged in lawful, nonviolent protest activities is merely the shot across the bow.

The chilling of political speech and suppression of dissident voices are usually among the first signs that you’re in the midst of a hostile takeover by forces that are not friendly to freedom.

This is how it begins.

Consider that Khalil Mahmoud, an anti-war protester and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested on a Saturday night by ICE agents who appeared ignorant of his status as a legal U.S. resident and his rights thereof. That these very same ICE agents also threatened to arrest Mahmoud’s eight-months-pregnant wife, an American citizen, is also telling.

This does not seem to be a regime that respects the rights of the people.

Indeed, these ICE agents, who were “just following orders” from on high, showed no concern that the orders they had been given were trumped up, politically motivated and unconstitutional.

If this is indeed the first of many arrests to come, what’s next? Or more to the point, who’s next?

We are all at risk.

Keep reading

Yes, The Trump Administration Has The Power To Deport Mahmoud Khalil

Federal authorities arrested Mahmoud Khalil, one of the leaders of the pro-Hamas coalition at Columbia University, last weekend on the charge that he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” and posed a threat to national security and foreign policy.

Since that time, politicians and pundits, particularly on the left, have tried to lionize this anti-West terror-supporting radical as some kind of liberal icon and have questioned whether the government has the right to deport someone of his ilk. For the record, of course it does.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) codified at 8 U.S. Code § 1182 applies to all aliens, meaning “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” This term includes both visa holders and green card holders like Khalil. 

The INA contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. The relevant subsection contains nine grounds related to terrorism, the majority of which are not controversial at all: members of terrorist organizations, people engaging in terrorism, etc. 

The current debate concerns § 212(a)(3)(b)(i)(vii), which allows for the deportation of any alien who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” Some have claimed that deporting someone for these reasons violates the First Amendment. That is incorrect.

The premise of the question rests on the assumption that an alien (even a legal alien) has First Amendment rights that are exactly the same in every situation as the rights of a U.S. national or citizen. That is not the case. As the Supreme Court has made clear, sometimes the government may impose distinctions and conditions.

See, for example, Citizens United v. FEC (2010):

The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems. … [T]he constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ that are normally accorded to members of our society. (Emphasis added.)

The question then becomes, how might speech rights be applied differently to foreigners? For example, could such a condition involve not advocating for certain groups that the government, for good reason, considers dangerous and a threat to national security? 

Keep reading

State Department To Use AI To Revoke Visas of Students Who ‘Appear Pro-Hamas’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is launching an AI-driven effort to revoke the visas of foreigners in the US who “appear pro-Hamas” in a crackdown targeting pro-Palestine protests on college campuses, Axios reported on Thursday.

The report said the effort will involve AI-assisted reviews of social media accounts of tens of thousands of foreign students in the US on visas that will look for “evidence of alleged terrorist sympathies expressed after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.”

The language in the report suggests that any foreign students who attend pro-Palestine demonstrations or express sympathy for Palestinians online could be swept up in the crackdown since opponents of the Israeli siege on Gaza or US military support for Israel are often labeled “pro-Hamas.”

Civil liberty groups have strongly criticized President Trump’s promises to deport foreign students who attend pro-Palestine protests since the speech of foreigners inside the US is supposed to be protected under the First Amendment.

“If we open the door to expelling foreign students who peacefully express ideas out of step with the current administration about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we should expect it to swing wider to encompass other viewpoints too,” Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said in an op-ed for MSNBC in January.

“Today it may be alleged ‘Hamas sympathizers’ facing threats of deportation for their political expression. Who could it be in four years? In eight?” McLaughlin added.

Keep reading

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Orders Arrest of US Citizen for Political Speech

Brazil’s pro-censorship Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has issued an arrest warrant for Flavia Cordeiro Magalhaes, a US citizen of Brazilian origin, who has lived in Florida for over 20 years.

According to her legal representative, what Moraes is attempting to do here is lock up a US citizen for political speech expressed on US soil – meaning that the warrant in effect “raises questions about US sovereignty.”

Moraes appears to have first ordered Magalhaes’ X account blocked in Brazil because of a post from 2022, which she made while in the US.

According to Magalhaes, she was unaware of the block at the time, since she was not notified by the Brazilian court. But because she continued posting on X, this eventually led to an order to place her in pre-trial detention, under the pretext that she was allegedly in contempt of court.

That is supposed to have occurred when she traveled to Brazil in December 2023 and was told her Brazilian passport was “under restriction” – but even though she entered and left the country legally, using her US passport, Moraes decided to treat this as the use of “a false document” – and issue the pre-trial detention order in February of last year.

All this, despite Brazil’s federal police documents stating that Magalhaes traveled to and from Brazil legally.

Keep reading

It Didn’t Take Long for Free Speech to Prevail in Mississippi

Last week, we brought you the story of a city council in Mississippi that was so thin-skinned that it couldn’t handle a critical editorial in the local paper. The City of Clarksdale took the Clarksdale Press Register to court over an op-ed in which the editors questioned why the city lobbied the state government for a “sin tax” without notifying the citizens or local media.

“The editorial highlighted how the mayor has touted his ‘open’ and ‘transparent’ governance, yet he and the city council didn’t notify the press about its intentions despite promising to ‘give appropriate notice thereof to the media,’” I wrote last week. “The editors admitted that they support the tax, yet they questioned why the city left everyone in the dark about the lobbying efforts.”

In the court filing, the city clerk admitted that she forgot to notify the media of the city’s efforts, which turned out to be a violation of state law. Nevertheless, Judge Crystal Wise Martin issued an order demanding that the paper take the editorial off its website — without a hearing that would give the paper a chance to tell its side of the story.

“For over a hundred years, the Press Register has served the people of Clarksdale by speaking the truth and printing the facts,” said Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, the Press Register’s publisher. “We didn’t earn the community’s trust by backing down to politicians, and we didn’t plan on starting now.”

The order set off a First Amendment firestorm, and the paper enlisted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) to help defend itself against this unconstitutional onslaught. By the end of last week, FIRE had agreed to help the Press Register work to lift the judge’s order.

“The implications of this case go beyond one Mississippi town censoring its paper of record,” said FIRE attorney David Rubin. “If the government can get a court order silencing mere questions about its decisions, the First Amendment rights of all Americans are in jeopardy.”

Keep reading

Status Panic on the Campus

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is “fighting back against efforts to intimidate professors into silence,” which—for many of us whose memories of college lecture halls are not uniformly pleasant—is yet another ACLU cause we might not support. The issues here, however, are of more momentous social and political consequence than our initial reaction might suggest.

The ACLU’s efforts—they’re raising funds to support them—are a response to lawsuits brought against students and faculty at Columbia University and elsewhere for their opposition to the war in Gaza. 

The issues are complicated, but the ACLU says it is fighting against attempts to “weaponize our legal system to punish and silence constitutionally protected speech.” Such lawsuits “have become a common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism—including from whistleblowers, journalists and political protestors… not necessarily to win in court, but to entangle people in expensive litigation, using the prospect of mounting legal fees and a potentially ruinous financial penalty to chill speech. In other words, to bully people into silence.” 

The plaintiffs in the Columbia case say statements by faculty supporting student protestors “somehow injured them by causing Columbia University to move classes online, restrict campus access, and cancel commencement.” Three defendants in the case are Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Jamaal Bowman—members of the notorious Capitol Hill “Squad”—which might be about all most conservatives will want to know before making up their minds.

Personally, I have no dog in this fight. Both sides—all sides—seem intent on dragging their opponents into court, a strategy that seems unlikely to improve matters. This conclusion that the atmosphere on campuses will only get more poisonous, tentative as it is, was reinforced the other day in a casual conversation with a college professor friend at a public university more than 300 miles from Columbia. 

This professor and I have a mutual friend who was hoping to land a job at the university, and I asked what he might do to help make that happen. 

“I have no influence here,” the professor said. “I’m just a content provider.”

Keep reading

British Offer Up Own Citizen to Radical Islamists for Execution After He Burned Quran

At the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, the German defense chancellor chided Vice President J.D. Vance for expressing concern regarding the respect for free speech in Europe.

“If I understand him correctly he compares the condition of Europe with what prevails in some authoritarian regimes,” Boris Pistorius said during his remarks after Vance’s address.

“This is not acceptable. This is not the Europe where I live,” he added.

Never mind the fact that Germany not only banned two of its top political parties from the Munich Security Conference and is trying to ban one of them, period. That can always be pinned on Germany’s, ahem, history in regard to certain sociopolitical matters during the last century.

However, if this truly isn’t “the Europe where I live,” Pistorius need only look to one of the countries Vance criticized — the United Kingdom — which recently offered up one of its citizens to the whims of radical Islamists for the grave crime of desecrating a Quran.

Now, before we begin, let’s just get this out front. The man, who we will not name, is not engaging in activity we’d condone. He doesn’t appear to be in compos mentis in the video that was taken of him committing the act, and his record seems to bear that out.

However, consider what happened and the steps Britain took, and ask yourself if this is the kind of society that values freedom of speech or expression — or, rather, whether it is willing to suicidally give its dissenters over to its most violent, extremist element.

So, the facts, such as they are: The Manchester man, 47 years old, has pleaded guilty in court to a charge of “racially or religiously aggravated intentional harassment or alarm,” which is punishable under the Public Order Act of 1986.

The man was recorded holding an Israeli flag before ripping out pages from the Quran and lighting them on fire at a memorial for the victims of the 2017 Manchester terrorist attack, according to the Manchester Evening News. He had previously advertised that he would be committing the demonstration on social media and live-streamed the affair.

“The ‘trigger’ for his actions was the death of his daughter in the Israeli conflict, which had affected his mental health, the court heard on [Feb. 3],” the Evening News reported.

A victim impact statement from Fahad Iqbal, who tried to intervene, read before the court, said this: “I was quite shocked, disgusted and offended. I’m a Muslim. I still can’t believe someone would do this. When he began to burn the Quran my heart was about to break out. This is the most emotion I have ever felt.”

Meanwhile, the defender of the man who pleaded guilty pointed out the obvious: “He’s extremely distressed at the distress he’s caused others as a result of this. He needs some further help and support.”

The defender said his daughter was killed during the conflict in Israel, which contributed to his declining mental health in recent months.

The judge wasn’t terribly sympathetic, saying she was sorry the man lost his daughter, but that “the Quran is a sacred book to Muslims and treating it as you did is going to cause extreme distress.”

“This is a tolerant country, but we just do not tolerate this behavior,” she said.

He’ll be sentenced on April 29 and is out on bail with the condition he doesn’t post on social media.

The Greater Manchester Police published the man’s name and street address — as claimed by groups that have come to his defense, like the Free Speech Union. However, the man also has 20 convictions on 47 prior offenses (that don’t include religious incitement), and police often publish that information, so it was likely readily available.

The Manchester Evening News, as if giving a helping hand to anyone who might want to take extrajudicial punishment out upon him, helpfully provided that information themselves.

And, as you might expect, the Greater Manchester Police were more concerned about the effect on Muslims than on someone who might get targeted by extremist Muslims for desecrating the Quran: “We understand the deep concern this will cause within some of our diverse communities and are aware of a live video circulating,” Assistant Chief Constable Stephanie Parker said, according to Free Speech Union.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Serious About Combatting Global Censorship

President Donald Trump is well known for his America First agenda. Some have interpreted this as an isolationist stance of retreat from the world stage. If anything, the first few weeks have shown an energetic engagement on foreign policy. America First hasn’t meant disengagement with the world. Rather, it has meant taking seriously American foundational principles and believing those are core values that other nations will look up to when demonstrated proudly.

One of those fundamental American principles is free speech, and the Trump administration is making sure that the world sees America vigorously fighting for it.

This new posture of strongly proclaiming the American value of free speech on the global stage had its biggest demonstration yet for the new administration last week. On Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance spoke at the Munich Security Conference. Rather than focusing on external global threats from Russia and China – as important and real as they are – Vance turned his attention to a major worrisome trend in Europe: the rise of aggressive censorship.

Vance lamented the “retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.” For Americans, censorship is itself an attack on democracy. As the Vice President stated, “Dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing. In fact, it is the most surefire way to destroy democracy.” Free speech is not supposed to just be an American value but a universally shared fundamental right, protected in international treaties and charters enthusiastically signed onto by European allies.

Vance highlighted one example in particular of the attack on freedom of expression, that of British Army veteran and ADF International client Adam Smith-Connor. Smith-Connor was charged in November 2022 for violating a “buffer zone” outside an abortion clinic in the UK when he had silently prayed outside of it. This past October, Smith-Connor was criminally convicted for his three minutes of silent prayer. Smith-Connor’s appeal will be heard in July.

But that is just one example of what has become increasingly systematic attempts in Europe at ever larger scales to censor and control public discourse to exclude “wrong” opinions.

Other cases abound, like that of Päivi Räsänen, the Finnish member of Parliament who has been hounded on “hate speech” criminal charges now for almost four years and investigations for even longer because she posted a picture of a Bible verse on then-Twitter.

But on a broader level, Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA) would make every European social media user subject to the censorship regime and potentially export that censorship throughout the world, including America. The DSA imposes enormous penalties on large social media companies that do not comply with orders to censor so-called “illegal content,” broadly defined as anything that is illegal under EU or national law. Notably, this can include vague and subjective terms like “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation,” which are readily weaponized against disfavored religious views, as the stories above show.

Keep reading