Tag: free speech

SCOTUS To Decide If Free Speech Applies To Biology-Affirming Therapists And Their Clients

n Oct. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar. This is the latest in a seemingly unending series of cases from Colorado that my colleagues at Alliance Defending Freedom have argued. The cases stem from the state’s apparent aversion to the First Amendment.

Not content with their failed attempts to coerce speech from artists like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop or Lorie Smith of 303 Creative, and not deterred by clear rebukes from the Supreme Court in those cases, the state of Colorado has set its sights on professional counselors.

The law in question bans specific, voluntary counseling conversations, silences the viewpoint disfavored by the government, and leaves struggling youth and their parents with only one government-approved option. Colorado’s law bans counselors like Kaley Chiles from helping minors realign their thoughts and feelings with their biological sex — even when that is the young person’s goal for counseling.

Counseling that affirms so-called “gender transition” is fine by Colorado. Counseling that affirms biological reality is fined by Colorado, up to $5,000 per offense, and could include the loss of licensure.

This is not just an esoteric debate for law school faculty lounges; children’s health and well-being are at stake. Colorado’s defense of this blatant viewpoint discrimination and government censorship hinges on the contention, without a hint of irony, that the state is regulating conduct, not speech. How do Kaley Chiles and her clients engage in the “conduct” of talk therapy without it being speech? Perhaps a high-stakes game of charades? The notion would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious.

If government places an authoritarian thumb on the scale, allowing only one viewpoint, invading the vulnerable space between counselor and client, and dictating one outcome, the victims are children and their families. If the Supreme Court does not protect the speech of counselors like Kaley Chiles and her clients, children in Colorado and more than 20 other states with similar censorship laws will be trapped on a one-way journey to the perils of “gender transition.”

The eventual destination is one of irreversible physical damage, potential sterilization, and a lifetime of being a patient. Our nation’s struggling youth deserve compassionate counseling directed by their goals with assistance from loving parents and professionals, not a government-sponsored pathway to chemicals and surgeries that can leave permanent mental and physical scars.

Adding rhetorical insult to injury is the fact that under Colorado’s law, counseling clients to align their feelings with their biology is deemed “conversion therapy,” while counseling a client to transition from his or her sex to the opposite sex is “gender affirming care.” The assault on common sense and the English language may pale in comparison to the harm suffered by Chiles and her clients, but the First Amendment protects speech because words matter, truth matters, and any attempt by government to silence citizens matters.

Keep reading

Witnesses Testify on CISA, GEC, and Tech Firms Coordinated Effort to Silence Dissent Online

A contentious Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Tuesday laid bare deep divisions over the role of the federal government in influencing what Americans are allowed to say online.

While Republican lawmakers and witnesses presented extensive evidence of federal agencies pressuring tech platforms to silence the dissent of the public, Democrats largely sidestepped those concerns and instead zeroed in on a controversy involving late-night host Jimmy Kimmel where ABC owner Disney temporarily took him off air over comments related to the assassination of political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk.

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) opened the hearing with a warning about what he described as a “vast censorship enterprise” operating under the Biden administration.

He called for the passage of two bills aimed at curbing such activity: the Collude Act, which would revoke Section 230 protections from tech firms that censor speech at the request of government officials or affiliated organizations, and the Censorship Accountability Act, which would allow citizens to sue federal employees who violate First Amendment rights by coordinating with private companies to suppress lawful expression.

“Congress must act to dismantle this unconstitutional alliance between Big Tech and Big Government that has deprived Americans of their most fundamental right,” Schmitt stated.

The hearing, titled “Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” featured testimony from several individuals who said they had been targeted as a result of government-backed efforts to influence speech online.

Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, testified that his outlet was hit by a coordinated censorship campaign involving both US agencies and foreign-linked organizations.

Keep reading

FREEDOM WINS: Irish Government Informs European Union That It Will Not Introduce Globalist ‘Hate Speech’ Laws

‘Free speech’ – no ‘hate speech’.

As Margaret Flavin reported on TGP last June, Ireland is holding the line for freedom against the European Union goons who wish to insert harmful legislation on every nation in the old continent.

The EU Court of Justice has warned Ireland that it has until August to comply with the ‘hate speech’ laws (a.k.a. censure).

Under existing EU rules on combating racism and xenophobia, the European Commission believes Ireland is allegedly uncompliant with laws ‘criminalizing race-based violence and hatred’.

August, of course, has come and gone, so today, on the Daíl (Irish Parliament), in a session scheduled for questions to the Minister of Justice Jim O’Callaghan, the issue was debated.

Breaking!

The Irish government has informed the EU they will not comply with a demand to force hate speech laws on the public.

Hugely significant moment for free speech. pic.twitter.com/hbgN4RrxNH

— MichaeloKeeffe (@Mick_O_Keeffe) October 9, 2025

“MP: ‘Is it your intention to reintroduce the hate speech legislation that was a dramatic failure in the last government and proposed by the previous Minister for Justice?’

Justice Minister: ‘The answer is no. But can I just give you an overview as to why the answer is no? I’m fairly satisfied that Ireland has transposed the European Council framework decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia in a manner appropriate and tailored to the domestic system of law in Ireland.’

Justice Minister: ‘I want to assure Members of the House that Ireland’s position has been communicated to the European Commission and our position is that the framework decision is fully transposed in Irish legislation in a manner that is appropriate and tailored to Ireland’s domestic system of criminal law and procedure.’

Justice Minister: ‘And is in line of course with Article 40.6 of the Constitution which expressly respects and protects the rights to freedom of expression and people to express their views freely.”

This confirmation comes a few days after the Donald J. Trump administration asking the Irish Government ‘to urge the European Union to allow member states to address hate speech as each sees fit’.

Keep reading

California “Hate Speech” Bill Would Crush Dissent

If enacted and it somehow clears legal challenges, California Senate Bill 771 will be the first online censorship law of its kind in America. It would also likely pave a path for other states run by people with no tolerance for dissent.    

On September 22, the California Legislature sent SB 771 to Governor Gavin Newsom. He has until October 13 to sign it. If he doesn’t veto or sign the proposal, it becomes law anyway.

Mainstream media outlets claim that SB 771 “targets social media platforms for the role they could play in aiding and abetting in hate crimes by pushing content that could lead to a hate crime.”

The bill allows people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant is a minor, the fine could double.

Tucker Carlson’s analysis of the bill is more accurate than the mainstream media’s. Carlson:

That’s a censorship law.… The state of California, under Gavin Newsom, is about to — we think — censor the opinions of Americans, not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they continue to do what they want to do in secret.

Coerced Censorship

The bill uses broad terms that make it easy to justify censorship. It reads:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

Merriam Webster defines “intimidated” as “to make timid or fearful.” Synonyms include “bully” and “frighten.” Fear and intimidation are subjective emotions that have significantly increased among America’s younger and more unstable generations. People are swimming in pools of victimhood and mental illness today. We constantly hear about a spike in anxiety. What happens when we create laws that allow litigation on the basis of largely subjective emotions?

But the more likely primary intent here is to coerce social-media companies into pre-censoring. The senior vice president of social-media company Parler, Elise Pierotti, said of the bill:

SB 771 isn’t about protecting civil rights, it’s California’s brazen attempt to export its one-party censorship regime to every corner of the internet. This bill hands Sacramento the power to bully platforms into preemptively scrubbing dissent on everything from border security to parental rights. We’ve seen Big Tech abuse vague “hate speech” rules to throttle conservatives for years, including shutting down our platform in 2021; now, lawmakers want to make it mandatory with teeth-shattering fines. This must be stopped before it buries the First Amendment.

Shoshana Weissmann, director of digital media at the R Street Institute, also suspects this is the drafter’s main agenda. She told the Daily Caller that “rather than risk liability for showing users content one could argue (even if it doesn’t actually) violate a law, platforms will over-moderate and remove posts in order to stay out of court.”

Keep reading

Under Trump, Criticism Is Now Criminal

After the killing of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump (9/10/25) escalated his war on free speech, calling for criminalizing criticism of himself:

It’s a long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.

This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.

To spell it out: “Demonizing”—which is to say, criticizing—people with whom you disagree is “directly responsible” for Kirk’s death. Note that this is about criticizing people that you disagree with—”you” presumably being one of “those on the radical left”—as Trump has built a wildly lucrative political career out of demonizing those he disagrees with, and he’s not about to stop now. It’s the “wonderful Americans” like Kirk whom you aren’t supposed to criticize.

Keep reading

Supreme Court to Decide If Colorado Ban on ‘Conversion Therapy’ Violates Free Speech

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on Oct. 7 a free speech case involving a Colorado law that bans therapists from providing so-called conversion therapy to minors experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.

A therapist challenging the law argues that it violates her First Amendment rights. On the other side of the debate, Colorado contends that it has the right to regulate mental health treatments for minors that it deems harmful and ineffective. It is among more than 20 states with such bans.

Colorado’s Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor law, passed in 2019, prohibits licensed therapists from trying to “change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Therapists who violate the law could be stripped of their licenses and face fines of up to $5,000.

Colorado has stated that its regulation was enacted in response to “overwhelming” scientific evidence that conversion therapy for minors is unsafe and not effective in the long term.

A practitioner of such therapy told The Epoch Times that the therapist’s work focuses on mending psychological wounds and is not coercive or harmful.

Opponents of conversion therapy, including the American Medical Association, point to practices such as electric shock and negative feedback methods such as smelling salts or chemically induced nausea to create a psychological aversion to the unwanted behaviors or attractions.

However, according to licensed counselor Christopher Doyle of the Institute for Healthy Families, modern therapists avoid these methods and instead favor exploring clients’ attitudes on sexuality, trauma, self-perception, and relationships.

Keep reading

Mexico Bill Proposes Prison for AI Memes Mocking Public Figures

Mexico’s Congress is once again at the center of a free speech storm.

This time, Deputy Armando Corona Arvizu from the ruling Morena party is proposing to make it a crime to create or share AI-generated memes or digital images that make fun of someone without their consent.

His initiative, filed in the Chamber of Deputies, sets out prison terms of three to six years and fines for anyone who “create, manipulate, transform, reproduce or disseminate images, videos, audios or digital representations” made with artificial intelligence for the purpose of “ridiculing, harassing, impersonating or damaging” a person’s “reputation or dignity.”

Read the bill here.

The punishment would increase by half if the person targeted is a public official, minor, or person with a disability, or if the content spreads widely online or causes personal, psychological, or professional harm.

The bill presents itself as protection against digital abuse but is, as always, a new attempt at censorship.

The initiative would insert Articles 211 Bis 8 and 211 Bis 9 into the Federal Penal Code, written in vague and sweeping terms that could cover almost any form of online expression.

It makes no distinction between a malicious deepfake and a harmless meme.

By criminalizing content intended to “ridicule,” the bill allows courts or public figures to decide what counts as ridicule. That opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.

There are no explicit protections for parody, satire, or public-interest criticism, all of which are essential to a free society.

Keep reading

California’s Vague ‘Hate Speech’ Bill Would Force Big Tech To Censor Mainstream Conservative Views

alifornia lawmakers are once again leading the charge — not toward progress, but toward repression. Their latest move, Senate Bill 771 (SB-771), is being packaged as a bold stand against “hate” on social media. In reality, it’s a direct assault on the free expression and constitutionally protected speech of ministries, minority groups, and faith-based organizations.

The bill would force Big Tech to remove content that could be interpreted as “harassment” or “intimidation” based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and more — or face financially devastating lawsuits.

If Gov. Gavin Newsom signs this bill into law as expected, it will become one of the most dangerous speech-restricting laws in the country. Cloaked in the language of civil rights, SB-771 is built to punish dissent from progressive orthodoxy.

The target is anyone who dares to speak publicly about values or perspectives that conflict with the state’s ever-expanding list of protected identities. In practice, this means community groups sharing discussions on traditional family structures, cultural views on gender roles, or advocacy for certain social issues may find themselves silenced — not by law enforcement, but by tech giants eager to avoid legal risk.

The bills says:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

 3273.73. (a) A social media platform that violates Section 51.7, 51.9, 52, or 52.1 through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in a violation of any of those sections, or is a joint tortfeasor in a violation of any of those sections, shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable to a prevailing plaintiff for a civil penalty for each violation sufficient to deter future violations but not to exceed the following:

(1) For an intentional, knowing, or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to one million dollars

(2) For a reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to five hundred thousand dollars.


This language may appear just, but its sweeping terms — “intimidation,” “coercion,” even “aiding” — are dangerously vague. In the hands of ideologically motivated actors, they can be weaponized to silence constitutionally protected discourse under the guise of enforcing civil rights.

That’s the chilling brilliance of SB-771: it outsources censorship to the private sector under threat of state-enforced financial ruin. The law doesn’t need to directly ban speech — it just makes the cost of hosting it too high for Big Tech to tolerate. This will especially impact small ministries, minority-led organizations, and faith-based nonprofits with limited legal or technical resources. For them, one flagged post — perhaps a cultural reference taken out of context — could mean being shadow-banned or deplatformed altogether.

Keep reading

Tunisian Man Sentenced to Death for Facebook Posts Critical of President Kais Saied

A Tunisian court has handed down a death sentence to a man accused of posting critical remarks about President Kais Saied on Facebook, a decision that has sent shockwaves through the country’s already tense political climate.

Lawyer Oussama Bouthalja confirmed that 56-year-old day laborer Saber Chouchane was convicted over social media posts that mocked and denounced the president.

“The judge in the Nabeul court sentenced the man to death over Facebook posts. It is a shocking and unprecedented ruling,” Bouthalja said, describing the decision as both extraordinary and alarming.

Chouchane, who has little formal education, was arrested last year after running a Facebook page titled “Kaïs le misérable” (“Kaïs the Miserable”), a name openly deriding President Saied.

Reuters reported his online activity included satirical cartoons, posts urging protests, and messages that prosecutors described as attempts to “overthrow the state.”

Authorities accused him of spreading “false news” and “insulting the president,” charges that rights advocates argue are being used to silence dissent.

An appeal has been filed, according to Bouthalja, but Tunisia’s justice ministry has not commented on the case.

Although courts in Tunisia sometimes issue death sentences, no executions have been carried out for over 30 years.

Family members expressed disbelief and anguish following the ruling. “We can’t believe it,” said Jamal Chouchane, Saber’s brother. “We are a family suffering from poverty, and now oppression and injustice have been added to poverty.”

The verdict ignited a wave of outrage online, as Tunisians flooded social media with messages of disbelief and defiance.

Many see the ruling as a blatant attempt to intimidate government opponents and restrict free expression even further.

Opposition figures have been jailed on a range of charges, while rights organizations, including the Tunisian League for Human Rights and the CRLDHT, warn that the justice system is being weaponized to punish dissent.

The absence of transparency surrounding Chouchane’s posts has also drawn attention. Authorities have not released screenshots or transcripts, a move many view as an attempt to suppress the very content that challenged the government.

For Tunisians who once celebrated the country’s post-revolution commitment to free speech, this is a chilling new chapter.

Keep reading

North Bay man sentenced to jail for Holocaust denial, hate speech

In a historic legal decision, a North Bay man has been sentenced to nine months in jail after being found guilty of promoting hatred and denying the Holocaust through dozens of disturbing social media posts and videos promoting hate and violence against the Jewish community.

It marks the first-ever conviction in a Canadian court for Holocaust denial, according to Crown prosecutors.

The conviction was a result of a seven-month-long investigation into a hate crime by the North Bay Police Service’s Criminal Investigation Section.

Kenneth Paulin, 51, was sentenced to nine months in jail and two years of probation on Sept. 18 for the wilful promotion of hate against Jewish people and the wilful promotion of antisemitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust, according to a release from the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies (FSWC).

The organization shares lessons of the Holocaust, and advocates for human rights and battling antisemitism and hate.

Paulin was arrested and charged on Friday, June 20, following the investigation into his antisemitic online content.

“His posts vilified the Jewish community, promoted blood libels and conspiracy theories, incited hate and violence against Jews, and repeatedly mocked and denied the Holocaust,” says the release.

Paulin’s posts included claims that Jews are “demons,” “the greatest mass murderers in human history,” “to blame for every American who falls,” and responsible for “almost 100%” of the world’s problems.

He also expressed support for a “Worldwide ‘Jew Hunt'” and declared that “antisemitism is the only thing that can save the world,” among countless other hateful posts and videos.

Most disturbingly, he minimized and denied the Holocaust, including in a video he titled “Their victim card gets permanently denied as the hollow-cost-Hoax is exposed” and by sharing a post that read, “Six million didn’t happen, but it should’ve.”

Keep reading