Tag: free speech

Fauci is Put On Notice, Told To Preserve Records For Major Free Speech Lawsuit

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) non-profit has sent a letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci and several medical and other US officials, as well as to Google, making sure they are formally notified of their obligations to preserve communications records.

The records in question are relevant to a major First Amendment case alleging collusion between the government and tech companies, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which is currently in the US Supreme Court.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The NCLA letter specified that the request pertains to all documents and electronically stored information, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

Those named in the letter are former chief medical adviser to President Biden Dr. Anthony Fauci, his colleague from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (that Fauci headed during the pandemic) Dr. David Morens, Adam Kirschner of the US State Department, and Google General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado, among others.

The letter recalled that Fauci is a defendant in the landmark First Amendment case, alleging that he and other government officials named in Murthy v. Missouri – including the president himself – engaged in unconstitutional censorship of social media around Covid issues such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccines.

NCLA has joined the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri and is now in that capacity requesting that Fauci, Morens, and others preserve all documents, including drafts and copies, and paper files maintained by their staff that are relevant to the case.

Keep reading

New York’s “SAFE” Digital ID Act For Kids Threatens Online Free Speech and Privacy

Legislators in the state of New York are pushing two new bills to regulate the internet, specifically as it pertains to the way minors use social media – Assembly Bill A8148A and Senate Bill S7694A.

If it succeeds, the law would be the first of its kind in the US, and likely represent a blueprint for other states.

But both acts, dubbed Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids, have drawn criticism for bringing up constitutional issues tied to First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, Governor Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers are said to be close on agreeing on the text of the bills, which are presented as designed to prohibit tech platforms from providing addictive feeds to minors (replacing them with content shown in chronological order), and monetizing their data, among other things.

But how would these platforms ascertain if somebody’s a minor? By requiring that their parents go through the digital ID age verification before they can provide consent on behalf of their children to use a particular social network in a particular way.

And this is where the legislative intent goes against the First Amendment, critics say, as having all online activity tied to a government-issued ID chills free speech and opens data privacy issues.

Somewhat ironically, given their open disregard of the First Amendment in other scenarios, those critics include some of the biggest tech companies.

Constitution and freedom of expression aside – their bottom lines would suffer if the bills pass, and so they find themselves as (no doubt, for both parties) uneasy bedfellows with those who consistently campaign against age verification, manipulated feeds, and data harvesting.

Keep reading

Fauci Blames Free Speech for Pandemic Challenges in Contentious Testimony

Anthony Fauci, formerly the head of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to President Biden from 2021 to 2022, has testified before the US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

The hindsight doesn’t seem to have played any role in Fauci’s thinking about the way the situation was handled – if anything, his statements make for an (unwelcome) reminder of the fiery pro-censorship and rhetoric witnessed in the heyday of the pandemic.

The Subcommittee is also looking into the claims of Fauci’s role in the funding of research in China’s Wuhan lab.

Fauci complained to the Subcommittee that First Amendment-guaranteed free speech protections had made it more difficult to do his job during the pandemic. He complained about scientists getting threats when they “push back” against what he considers misinformation and disinformation (and that, according to Fauci, includes those criticizing him on social media).

“Demonization” is how the former chief White House medical advisor put it. The implication was that freedom of expression related to Covid (even such as it was, and remains – namely, riddled with censorship on major social media) stood in the way of better protecting his person and scientists who held similar views as him.

Fauci’s testimony targeted anything from vaccine skeptics to podcasters, “unhinged memes,” and “conspiracy theorists” (this wording came in a committee member’s question) – with perhaps the most astounding claim being that those who chose not to get the Covid jab are “probably” responsible for 200,000 to 300,000 deaths from the virus in the US.

Talk about unhinged. Fauci on Monday also defended the vaccines that people were censored for being skeptical of, saying that their effect in preventing transmission was “not 100 percent” – at least, according to him, not with the early versions.

Keep reading

Sandy Hook families ask judge to liquidate Alex Jones’ media company after InfoWars host claimed he was being shut down by the Feds

The families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have asked a judge to liquidate Alex Jones’ media company, which includes his show InfoWars.

The conspiracy theorist, 50, had asked the judge to allow him to reorganize his business as the Sandy Hook families seek to collect on $1.5 billion in lawsuit verdicts against him.

Lawyers for the families filed an emergency motion Sunday in Bankruptcy Court in Houston, saying the company, Free Speech Systems, has ‘no prospect’ of getting a reorganization plan approved by the court and has ‘failed to demonstrate any hope of beginning to satisfy’ their legal claims, which relate to Jones calling the 2012 school shooting a hoax.

A hearing in Free Speech Systems’ bankruptcy case was scheduled for Monday related to a dispute over the company’s finances.

It comes after Jones went on his web and radio show over the weekend saying there was a conspiracy against him and he expected Infowars to be shut down in a month or two because of the families’ bankruptcy court filings. 

Keep reading

Canadian measure would remove free speech protection for quoting Bible, sacred texts

Legislation introduced in Canada’s Parliament would eliminate the use of “belief in a religious text” as a defense against hate crime charges.

Repealing the exemption in Canada’s criminal code could criminalize sermons and messages using the Bible or other religious texts as the basis for critiquing other religions or addressing issues such as transgender rights, critics warn.

Yves-Francois Blanchet, leader of the minority Bloc Quebecois party, submitted the “private member’s bill” — defined as a measure not sponsored by a Cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary — in November and again last month. The measure received an initial reading in the lower chamber, but no action has followed.

Mr. Blanchet said when he introduced the bill that its purpose is to allow authorities to prosecute antisemitic speech. The measure is needed to “refrain from giving inappropriate and undue privileges to people within a society who use them to disturb the peace and harmony, especially if those privileges enable people to sow hatred or wish death upon others based on a belief in some divine power,” he told Parliament.

Two-thirds of Canadians surveyed Feb. 16-18 by the polling firm Leger said they support the measure.

But Jeff King, president of the Washington-based International Christian Concern, said Thursday the proposal is “designed to silence” people whose opinions differ from prevailing thought.

“We cannot urge direct violence against somebody,” he said, “but free speech means we all have very different opinions in a democracy [and] we’re supposed to have vigorous debates.”

He said the legislation could open the door to prosecuting anybody expressing sincere beliefs based on their religion’s sacred texts.

Under the proposal, he said, “you can’t say the Bible says so-and-so, or you could be arrested to be charged, you can be fined.” Despite labels, Mr. King said, “this [measure] has nothing to do” with combating antisemitism.

Keep reading

Authorities may seize Infowars offices, equipment as early as tomorrow

“The situation with InfoWars being shut down by the government is accelerating. Although InfoWars dodged a bullet over the weekend, likely due to all the huge outpouring of public awareness, things are heating up as early as tomorrow, and there’s a very real possibility the courts may attempt to shut down the InfoWars offices (locking the doors, seizing equipment, etc.) TOMORROW (Monday, June 3rd), and force them to stay offline until an upcoming emergency hearing on June 14th, during which the court is apparently going to decide whether InfoWars assets are to be immediately liquidated, effectively terminating the InfoWars broadcast infrastructure, which has always been the goal of the cabal in power.

“You are watching America slide into blatant despotism, where the government targets and jails its political opponents (Trump), tortures and jails peaceful protesters (J6) and shuts down opposition media by force. Stay tuned in to infowars dot com for live broadcasts by Alex and crew. Pray for them all, and make this whole situation go viral so that everybody sees the full force tyranny being unleashed against independent media in America. I’m trying to reach Alex for any further information but have so far been unsuccessful. I do know for sure that Alex would call for everybody to be peaceful and don’t use this situation to escalate into any form of violence. If the government shuts down InfoWars, the backlash against the regime will be historic. This will only further increase support for Trump and an electoral revolution in November.”

Keep reading

Students Sue Indiana University Over “Bias Incident” Reporting System

Following our recent reporting about the rise of “bias incident” reporting systems on college campuses, threatening free speech, Speech First has filed a lawsuit against Indiana University and several of its officials, challenging the university’s bias incidents policy. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the policy infringes on students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Speech First, a nationwide membership organization dedicated to preserving civil rights and free speech, claims that Indiana University’s “bias incident” policy stifles open discourse and chills protected speech. The policy defines a bias incident as “any conduct, speech, or expression, motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group’s actual or perceived identities.”

According to the complaint, this broad and vague definition allows the university to police a wide range of speech, deterring students from expressing controversial or unpopular opinions. The policy’s enforcement mechanisms include tracking and logging incidents, investigating reports, and potentially referring students for disciplinary action.

Keep reading

The EU is on the Brink off Making “Hate Speech” a Serious Crime

The EU’s European Commission (EC) appears to be preparing to include “hate speech” among the list of most serious criminal offenses and regulate its investigation and prosecution across the bloc.

Whether this type of proposal is cropping up now because of the upcoming EU elections or if the initiative has legs will become obvious in time, but for now, the plans are supported by several EC commissioners.

The idea stems from the European Citizens’ Panel on Tackling Hatred in Society, one of several panels (ECPs) established to help EC President Ursula von der Leyen with her (campaign?) promise of ushering in a democracy in the EU that is “fit for the future.”

That could mean anything, and the vagueness by no means stops there: the very “hate speech,” despite the gravity of the proposals to classify it as a serious crime, is not even well defined, observers are warning.

Despite that, the recommendations contained in a report produced by the panel have been backed by EC’s Vice-President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova as well as Vice President for Democracy and Demography Dubravka Suica.

According to Jourova, the panel’s recommendations on how to deal with “hate speech” are “clear and ambitious” – although, as noted, a clear definition of that type of speech is still be lacking.

This is the wording the report went for: any speech that is “incompatible with the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect of human rights” should be considered as “hate speech.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech case against ex- New York official

The Supreme Court on Thursday backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that will make it harder for state officials to put pressure on advocacy groups.

The decision means the NRA may sue a former New York official, Maria Vullo, who pressed banks as well as insurance companies to stop associating with the NRA after a 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, according to CNN.

Keep reading

A Brutal Suppression of Speech

Denial of civil liberties, accompanied by punishment for anybody who exposes those violations, has become commonplace in contemporary America.

Yet, nothing that the nation has experienced — and that the more discerning protest — prepared us for the grotesque spectacle on display in the brutal suppression of free speech on university campuses. 

What we witness is the iron fist of autocracy employed to intimidate, to hurt, to deter those who would question — however peaceably — the right of the powers-that-be to impose their confected version of the truth on the public. Moreover, it is grounded on an arbitrary assumption of power having no basis in law or customary practice.

Two singular features of this situation focus our attention. First, there is the stunning near unanimity of agreement by all segments of society’s elites on the rightness of the ruling narrative — and on the actions they take to enforce it. 

That is to say:

1) casting the issue as the dangerous radicalization of students by nefarious forces;

2) smearing demonstrators as “anti-Semites” — despite the large numbers of Jewish participants;

3) blanking out any reference to the cause and motivations of the protest: Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians; and

4) the need to crack down hard on these seditious students — physically by rioting police, and administratively by summary expulsions and suspensions without a semblance of due process.

These assertions emanate from the mouths of elected officials, police commissioners, media personalities, pundits and — most distressing — university presidents as well as boards of regents and trustees. 

Keep reading