Tag: free speech

Most Important First Amendment Case You’ve Never Heard Of: Biden Regime Tries to Toss a Young Man in Jail for 10 Years for Anti-Hillary Memes

Douglass Mackey is alleged to be one of the many anonymous Twitter users who made the 2016 election so different, so memorable, and so important.

Like other anonymous internet memesmiths (anons), Mackey had no external reason that anyone should care what he said. He held no office. He had no byline at an elite publication. He had no vast pool of wealth that conferred legitimacy, deserved or undeserved, on what he had to say.

Mackey’s notability, like that of Bronze Age Pervert or Libs of TikTok, came exclusively from what he had to say, and that people found it funny and compelling. Over the summer and fall of 2016, Mackey allegedly went by the nom-de-tweet Ricky Vaughn (after Charlie Sheen’s character in Major League) and collected tens of thousands of followers who found him funny and compelling. Mackey was not single-handedly responsible for getting Donald Trump elected. But the work he allegedly did along with dozens of others is what made Trump’s victory possible. An MIT analysis estimated that Ricky Vaughn was a bigger influence on the 2016 election than NBC News.

But for the regime, the specter of anonymous individuals making the system tremble was too much. And so, for more than two years, the regime has been battling to send Mackey to prison.

You might not know much about Mackey’s case. It’s far less notorious than the January 6 prosecutions, or the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. But in terms of how much the speech matters for American liberty, it is as important as either of those — perhaps more so. 

In January 2021, shortly after the January 6 incident inaugurated a national anti-MAGA crackdown, the Department of Justice charged Mackey with “conspiring … to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.”

Mackey’s offense? Illegal memes.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrat Introduces Bill to ‘Remove Hate Speech From Public Places’

A Virginia Democrat has introduced a bill to “remove hate speech from public places.”

Del. Suhas Subramanyam introduced the bill in response to “antisemitic incidents” in the state.

If passed, the bill will require the government to remove any graffiti that is deemed to be hateful on the taxpayer’s dime, including on private property, if the owner fails to do so themselves.

“It’s been bad enough that we had to endure these incidents of racist and antisemitic graffiti, but it’s made worse when no one takes responsibility for the clean up and they remain in the public’s eye,” Subramanyam told WUSA9. “This bill would address that. Hate has no place in Virginia, and our diversity and unity is what makes us strong.”

Keep reading

MIT Goes Against the Grain, Releases a Stunning Statement Endorsing Free Speech

Surprise — the Massachusetts Institute of Technology endorses students’ liberty to engage in offensive speech…officially.

In contrast to castigations of “hate speech” and the increasingly common notion that “hate speech isn’t free speech,” MIT is siding with the Constitution.

On December 21st, the Cambridge private land-grant research university released a Free Expression Statement.

From the document:

Free expression is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of a diverse and inclusive community. We cannot have a truly free community of expression if some perspectives can be heard and others cannot. Learning from a diversity of viewpoints, and from the deliberation, debate, and dissent that accompany them, are essential ingredients of academic excellence.

Free expression promotes creativity by affirming the ability to exchange ideas without constraints. It not only facilitates individual autonomy and self-fulfillment, it provides for participation in collective decision-making and is essential to the search for truth and justice. … Academic freedom promotes scholarly rigor and the testing of ideas by protecting research, publication, and teaching from interference.

That principle means on-campus guests can’t be relegated to a single perspective:

A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views. Debate and deliberation of controversial ideas are hallmarks of the Institute’s educational and research missions and are essential to the pursuit of truth, knowledge, equity, and justice.

The school makes clear things such as “direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment” won’t be protected. Furthermore, it expects “a collegial and respectful learning and working environment.”

Keep reading

Twitter Files Reveal Politicians, Officials Evading the Constitution’s Restrictions

In recent years, social media firms, financial institutions, and hosting platforms have denied services to disfavored customers, sometimes for political reasons. The response from many quarters (myself included) has been that people have free association rights and can generally do business as they please.

But what if these outfits are private-ish, enacting policy on behalf of politicians to spare them pushback or allow for end-runs around constitutional protections? They do so out of ideological agreement, fear of government retaliation, or a mix of both. That messy scenario is what the Twitter Files reveal of the relationship between the social media giant and federal officials. It’s a glimpse of a bigger problem.

“The United States government pressured Twitter to elevate certain content and suppress other content about COVID-19 and the pandemic,” wrote David Zweig of The Free Press, who joined Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Free Press founder Bari Weiss in revealing Twitter’s collaboration with the state at the request of new owner Elon Musk. “Internal emails that I viewed at Twitter showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations directly pressed Twitter executives to moderate the platform’s content according to their wishes.”

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security also leaned on the platform to suppress what officials considered election-related “misinformation.” The files revealed internal disputes over what crossed the line, with decisions based on judgment calls. The employment of former feds and what The Dispatch‘s David French terms “an ideological monoculture” ensured that such decisions generally deferred to authority, especially after the Biden administration took office.

But Twitter isn’t a special case. In 2021, President Joe Biden accused Facebook of “killing people” by allowing discussion of government-disfavored ideas about COVID-19 response. “White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki singled out a dozen specific anti-vaccine Facebook accounts and called on the platform to ban them,” Reason‘s Robby Soave noted at the time.

Keep reading

Dem Senator Claims “Hate” is Not Protected by First Amendment, Later Admits He’s Wrong

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin suggested that “hate” is “not protected under the First Amendment” during a hearing, but later had to clarify that he was wrong.

The Maryland lawmaker made the comments while speaking with US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Deborah Lipstadt and American Jewish Committee Director of International Jewish Affairs Rabbi Andrew Baker.

“If you espouse hate, if you espouse violence, you’re not protected under the First Amendment,” Cardin falsely claimed.

“I think we can be more aggressive in the way that we handle that type of use of the internet,” he added, suggesting such content should be censored by Big Tech and the state.

It goes without saying that the term “hate” is completely arbitrary and has been weaponized by the left to chill scrutiny of everything from children being exposed to drag queens to legitimate criticism of public figures.

That’s why “hate” and even “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment.

Cardin was subsequently forced to correct himself on Twitter, writing, “Hate speech is protected under the #FirstAmendment, unless it incites violence.”

Keep reading

How did free speech become a right-wing value?

Canadian Conservative politician Andrew Scheer picked up on this strange phenomenon back in April, saying that that the corporate media framing free speech as a “right wing value” was just plain weird. As though to drive home the point, Twitch’s Zachary Ryan called Musk a right-winger on Monday. And over the weekend, entrepreneur Samir Tabar had a question for a whiny Robert Reich:

Stop using Musk as your punching bag. Twitter was full of people who had opinions before Musk was around. What you label as ‘misinformation” are just views you don’t like. Deal with it. Since when is free speech a right wing value?

— Samir Tabar (@SamirTabar) December 11, 2022

Answer: since, well, now.

The evolution of this trend is not new. It was less than three years ago that the American Civil Liberties Union — which for decades was committed to an absolutist vision of free speech — signaled that it was no longer interested in defending the speech of those who don’t share the organization’s values.

Former ACLU head Ira Glasser has been vocal in opposing this shift not just at his old place of employment but among the left at large. As Spiked reported back in February 2020 (emphasis added), “This idea, Glasser laments, is alien to a lot of young people today, who see the ‘First Amendment as an antagonist to social justice’. Indeed, on US campuses ‘progressives’ constantly agitate for right-wing speakers, from Charles Murray to Ben Shapiro, to be banned or forcibly shut them down. ‘Hate speech is not free speech’ is a common refrain.”

That last sentence is key.

The ACLU, which in 1978 famously defended arguably the worst hate speech there is — Nazi speech — is now following the left-wing trend of labeling things it doesn’t like, and even Musk’s dedication to free speech, as promoting hate speech.

Keep reading

The Porn Industry Is Worried That a Republican Senator Wants to Ban Porn

Some members of the adult industry are worried that a prorposed federal bill that’s going after content that aims to “arouse, titillate, or gratify” sexual desires has the potential to outlaw porn nationwide.

This week, Republican Sen. Mike Lee, from Utah, introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which seeks to “establish a national definition of obscenity that would apply to obscene content that is transmitted via interstate or foreign communications,” according to a statement from Lee’s office. 

Technically, a federal standard that defines obscenity already exists. Under the decades-old Miller Test, content is obscene if it hits certain conditions, including that the content in question depicts sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way.” At the moment, producing and distributing sexual content is legal in the U.S. 

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for workers in the adult industry, and its members are watching Lee’s bill closely because they believe it represents yet another attempt by conservatives to censor speech and expression about sex. 

Lee “introduced a bill that would remove porn’s First Amendment protections and effectively prohibit distribution of adult material in the US,” Free Speech Coalition (FSC) tweeted. “FSC is monitoring the bill, and will continue to do so in the new Congress.”

Keep reading

Phoenix Allows NFL to Determine What Residents Can Display on Their Property During Super Bowl

The Arizona-based Goldwater Institute (GI) has called out the city of Phoenix for imposing free speech restrictions on residents in a “Special Promotional and Civic Event Area” (Clean Zone) leading up to and through the 2023 Super Bowl.

“By delegating unfettered censorship power to private entities, the city of Phoenix has launched a blatant attack on its own citizens’ free speech rights under both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. It’s simple: Phoenicians shouldn’t need to ask the NFL for permission to communicate with the public on their own private property,” said GI Staff Attorney John Thorpe in a statement emailed to The Arizona Sun Times.

The Sun Times reached out to the city of Phoenix for additional comments but did not hear back.

Thorpe sent a letter Tuesday to the city regarding this issue. He explained that under Resolution 22073, passed by the city, all temporary signage in the Clean Zone “not authorized by the NFL or the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee” (ASBHC) are restricted. According to Thorpe, these restrictions cover nearly all of downtown Phoenix and will be in effect until February 19th, 2023.

The city of Phoenix states that the final day to get any temporary sign applications approved is December 15th.

This ordinance has allegedly caused trouble for one Phoenician business and property owner, Bramley Paulin. The GI represents Paulin in this situation and shared that he reached out to potential partners about leasing and advertising but was rejected because of the city’s restrictions.

Aside from the aforementioned free speech violations, Thorpe argued that the city is also improperly delegating its government power. As established in Industrial Commission v C D Pipeline, the government “may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom [it] has no supervision or control.” Therefore, the city violates this by giving private entities, the NFL and ASBHC, regulation over private citizens’ free speech. Additionally, the city’s ordinance may violate the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Gift Clause.

Keep reading

Vast Majority Of Colleges Have At Least One Policy That Violates Free Speech, Watchdog Finds

An overwhelming majority of colleges in the United States have at least one speech code that violates students’ free speech rights, according to watchdog group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

FIRE’s 2023 “Spotlight on Speech Codes,” obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, and released Tuesday morning, examined different speech codes and their impact on students’ free speech rights. Of the 486 schools sampled by FIRE, 94 universities enforce a speech policy that “clearly and substantially” restricts speech, 324 enforce “vague regulations” on speech and a mere 60 schools do not enforce serious restrictions on student speech.

Eight schools received a “warning label” which indicates that a private school “holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech,” according to the report.

Keep reading

Ketanji Brown Jackson Suggests Christmas Classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arguments Over Free Speech Case

She’s the smartest person on the Supreme Court, according to Joe Biden.

The US Supreme Court on Monday listened to arguments in a case about a Colorado web designer who doesn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.

The conservative justices argued the web designer has freedom of speech to choose which websites she designs.

“Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that a businessperson’s objection would not be based on the status of the same-sex couple, but instead, the message the businessperson did not want to send. The question isn’t the “who” Gorsuch said, but the “what.”” CNN reported.

Enter Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson…

Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t know what a woman is but she’s apparently a movie critic?

And a racist.

KBJ used the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” to argue the First Amendment case.

“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”

”This business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940’s and 1950’s Santa scenes, they do it in sepia tone and they are customizing each one,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

Unbelievable!

Keep reading