Tag: free speech

“Content Agnostic”: EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies In Bizarre Letter To Congress

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive.

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe.

What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech.

In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.”

That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation).

Keep reading

Federal Agents Arrest Tufts Student as Part of Crackdown on Pro-Palestine Speech

On Tuesday, ICE agents arrested a PhD student at Tufts University, a private university in Massachusetts, an arrest that appears to be part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestine speech.

Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen in the US on an F-1 student visa, was arrested outside of her apartment and is now in federal custody. Her lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai, said she has not been able to contact her.

“We are unaware of her whereabouts and have not been able to contact her. No charges have been filed against Rumeysa to date that we are aware of. We hope Rumeysa will be released immediately,” Khanbabai said.

Khanbabi said that “based on patterns we are seeing across the country, her exercising her free speech rights appear to have played a role in her detention,” referring to the targeting of foreign students who are critical of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Ozturk has been targeted by the Canary Mission, a pro-Israel group that doxxes students and professors who are critical of Israel. The Canary Mission’s page on Ozturk lists only one example of her “anti-Israel activism,” the co-authoring of an op-ed that called for Tufts University to divest from Israel and “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide.”

Keep reading

Perilous Times for Personal Liberty

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a socialist.|
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
~ Rev. Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)

The history of human freedom is long, tortuous and not gratifying. It consists essentially in governments trampling the laws enacted to restrain them. It is the profound clash of natural personal freedom and the commands of the state backed by force. The constitutions of totalitarian countries are papered over with restraints on the state, but the restraints are toothless. The state does what it wants. It doesn’t take rights seriously.

In liberal democracies – with the separation of powers, and checks and balances – the state is theoretically restrained. Yet often, there, too, the restraints are paper tigers. There, too, HERE, too, the state does not take rights seriously.

Thomas Jefferson argued that in the long march of history, personal liberty shrinks and state power grows. He famously believed that only a revolution can bring about a proper reset.

All of this history and theory came into sharp focus in the past two weeks when the feds arrested a Syrian graduate student in his student housing at Columbia University in New York City and shipped him to an immigration jail in Louisiana. He is married to a native-born American, they are expecting a child in April, and he is a permanent resident alien.

Last week, the federal government arrested a Lebanese physician at Logan Airport in Boston. She is a professor of medicine at Brown University, and she, too, is a permanent resident alien.

The student was charged with immigration violations. The physician was summarily deported to Paris and then to her native Lebanon.

The charging documents filed against the student allege no crime or personal misbehavior, point to no statutory violations, and offer no evidence of the student’s danger to persons or property or the government. The papers claim that Secretary of State Marco Rubio believes that this student’s presence on the Columbia campus – given his outspoken support for a Palestinian state, the existence of which has been the public policy of the U.S. for generations – is a material impediment to the execution of American foreign policy.

There are no charging papers filed against the physician, but the government leaked that when federal agents seized her mobile phone, they determined that she had been at the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah, the recently murdered head of Hezbollah. She was there along with more than one million others. When asked about this, according to the government leakers, she stated that she followed Nasrallah’s religious teachings but not his political ones.

While the physician was confined at Logan, her attorneys obtained an order from a federal judge prohibiting her deportation until a hearing could be held before him. The government ignored the order.

These two arrests implicate numerous constitutionally guaranteed rights, which are generally taken for granted here.

The first is the freedom of speech. We know from the writings of James Madison – who authored the Bill of Rights – that the Founders regarded the freedom of speech as a personal individual natural right. It is also, of course, expressly protected from government interference and reprisal in the First Amendment. The courts have ruled that it protects all persons – no matter their immigration status – who may think as they wish, say what they think, publish what they say, worship or not and associate with whomever they choose.

If the government can punish the speech it or its friends and benefactors hate and fear, then the First Amendment is useless and democracy is a sham.

Also implicated in these arrests is freedom of religion and assembly. Just as the student can make any public political statement he wishes – no matter how offensive or provocative it may be to his immediate or a distant audience – the physician can attend any funeral she wishes, can associate with any mourners of her choosing, can embrace any religion and can follow any preacher.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of speech, religion and assembly. Without government fidelity to it, America is no longer a democracy but rather some form of conformist secular theocracy that rejects the basic values protected by the Constitution – and changes with every election.

Also implicated by these arrests is due process, guaranteed to all persons by the Fifth Amendment. At its rudimentary base, due process requires a fair hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government may interfere with life, liberty or property – and at which the government must prove personal fault.

Keep reading

Australian Politician Admits ‘Free Speech’ is Incompatible With a ‘Multicultural’ Society

Australian politician Chris Minns inadvertently said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that the existence of true “free speech” is incompatible with a multicultural society.

The Premier of New South Wales tacitly admitted that in order to uphold the myth that ‘diversity is our greatest strength’, the freedom to say it isn’t must be censored.

“I recognize and I fully said from the beginning, we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States, and the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community and have people live in peace,” said Minns.

The politician made the comments in the context of new hate speech laws in Australia that were rushed through off the back of a hysterical moral panic based on a completely fraudulent narrative.

The new legislation was introduced in response to a supposed terror attack plot on a childcare center near a synagogue on the outskirts of Sydney.

However, it subsequently emerged that the attack was actually a “criminal con job,” according to police, and that wasn’t politically or racially motivated at all.

“The entire operation wasn’t about mass destruction. It was a scam,” reports Reclaim the Net. “The alleged mastermind, reportedly a figure nestled deep within Australia’s criminal underworld, was running a spectacular bluff. The plan? Create an artificial crisis, let the media and politicians whip themselves into a frenzy, and then swoop in as the “hero” with inside information — possibly to negotiate a reduced sentence, distract police from other crimes, or simply revel in the chaos.

Keep reading

Suspended for Pro-Palestine Speech: My Statement on Yale Law School’s Embrace of AI-Generated Smears

The following statement was originally published on Helyeh Doutaghi’s account on the X platform on March 12, 2025. Last week, Doutaghi was placed on administrative leave by Yale Law School following an AI-generated article falsely accusing her of being a “terrorist” over connections to Palestine advocacy organizations.  (Reprinted from Mondoweiss.)

My name is Helyeh Doutaghi. I am a scholar of international law and geopolitical economy. My research engages with Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), postcolonial critiques of law, and the global political economy of sanctions. I have specifically examined the mechanisms and consequences of economic warfare on Iran, as well as the forms of knowledge produced in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to obscure and shield U.S. military operations from accountability. On October 1, 2023, I was appointed Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project and joined the team. I also held the position of Associate Research Scholar at Yale Law School (YLS), a non-tenured faculty role without teaching responsibilities.

On the morning of March 3rd, I was notified of an online report about me. An obscure AI-powered right-wing Zionist platform called “Jewish Onliner” published a report falsely accusing me of being a “terrorist”. Rather than defend me, the Yale Law School moved within less than 24 hours of learning about the report to place me on leave.

I was given only a few hours’ notice by the administration to attend an interrogation based on far-right AI-generated allegations against me, while enduring a flood of online harassment, death threats, and abuse by Zionist trolls, exacerbating ongoing unprecedented distress and complications both at work and at home. I endured all of this while fasting, and my request for religious accommodations during Ramadan was dismissed. Just a few hours later, YLS placed me on leave, revoked my IT access – including email – and banned me from campus. I was afforded no due process and no reasonable time to consult with my attorney.

Rather than investigate the source of these allegations first, the nation’s “top law school” accepted them at face value, and shifted the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, treating me, prima facie, as guilty until proven otherwise. Whether Yale Law School’s attorneys knowingly relied on AI-fabricated claims or simply chose willful ignorance remains unanswered.

To conduct the interrogation, Yale Law School retained David Ring from the law firm Wiggin and Dana – an attorney whose public profile includes “Israel” listed as a “service” he provides and whose portfolio boasts advising “the world’s largest aerospace and defense companies.” Twice appointed by the U.S. State Department as a Special Compliance Officer, his career is deeply embedded in the very industries that sustain genocide and war crimes in Palestine. When I raised my concerns about the potential conflict of interests posed by his participation in this process, YLS dismissed them, stating there was “no concern with his ability to conduct a fair interview.” It is reprehensible that YLS would appoint a counsel who profits from the machinery of Palestinian death to “interview” an employee about their public anti-genocide and pro-Palestine positions.

Keep reading

The Speech Police

OK, this one is for all the professional “sensitivity editors” out there, and for the US Department of Homeland Security, and President Donald Trump, and the European Union censors, and all the other self-appointed Speech Police that have been goose-stepping around dictating what everyone can and can’t say and publish and think all the time like a bunch of sanctimonious little fascists.

If you’re easily offended, you’ll probably want to skip this one.

This isn’t the column I was planning to write. I was going to write an insufferably pompous and crushingly boring column about “the state of the publishing industry” and “contemporary literature,” and all that crap, but then a number of recent events intervened and forced me to change my plan.

I was planning to publish that insufferably pompous and crushingly boring column about the publishing industry and literature, and so on, because I’ve got a couple of new books coming out soon. The first one, Fear and Loathing in the New Normal Reich, will be published by Skyhorse Publishing in April. The other one is a new edition of my dystopian novel, Zone 23, which will be published by Arcade Publishing in July.

Skyhorse Publishing, launched in 2006 by Tony Lyons, is one of the fastest-growing independent book publishers in the United States. The company has published 112 New York Times bestsellers. Arcade Publishing is an imprint of Skyhorse Publishing. Their official motto is “Something to Offend Everyone.”

As you can probably guess from the fact that they are publishing two of my books, Skyhorse Publishing and Arcade Publishing do not employ “sensitivity editors” or otherwise attempt to sanitize the writing of the authors they publish. “Sensitivity editing” is just another example of the censorship, “visibility filtering,” and other forms of speech policing that has become normalized in recent years. If you’re not familiar with “sensitivity editing,” I published a column about it in 2023 after Puffin Books—an imprint of Penguin Random House—unleashed their “sensitivity editors” on Roald Dahl’s books.

Anyway, I decided not to write that crushingly boring column about the publishing industry, the “big five” publishers that mostly decide what everyone reads, and the state of contemporary literature, and so on, because I have really had it with all the censorship, and sensitivity editing, and speech policing, and the crackdown on political dissent, and the abrogation of what remains of our democratic rights.

The Department of Homeland Security’s recent arrest and planned deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University grad-student, who the Trump administration has accused, not of any actual crime, but, rather, of “terrorist-aligned” speech, and Trump’s fascistic tweets that followed, and people’s rationalizations of this latest example of the new, nascent form of totalitarianism I have been writing and warning about, was just … well, I felt that something a little more relevant than an insufferably pompous and mind-numbingly boring column about the publishing industry and literature was in order.

Keep reading

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