Tag: free speech

The GRANITE ACT: Wyoming Bill Targets Foreign Censors With $10M Penalties

The first cannon shot in a new kind of free speech war came not from Washington or Silicon Valley, but from Cheyenne. Wyoming Representative Daniel Singh last week filed the Wyoming GRANITE Act.

The “Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act,” passed, would make Wyoming the first state to let American citizens sue foreign governments that try to police what they say online.

The bill traces back to a blog post by attorney Preston Byrne, the same lawyer representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms in their battles against censorship-driven British regulators.

Byrne’s idea was simple: if the UK’s Ofcom or Brazil’s Alexandre de Moraes wanted to fine or threaten Americans over online speech, the US should hit back hard.

Exactly one month after that idea appeared on his blog, it’s now inked into Wyoming legislative paperwork.

Byrne said:

“This bill has a long way to go until it becomes a law, it’s got to make it through legislative services, then to Committee, and then get introduced on the floor for a vote, but the important thing is, the journey of this concept, the idea of a foreign censorship shield law which also creates a civil cause of action against foreign censors, into law has begun.”

That “journey” may be the kind of slow procedural trudge that usually kills most ideas in committee, but the intent here is anything but mild, and, with the growing threat of censorship demands from the UK, Brazil, Europe, and Australia, there is a lot of momentum here to fight back.

“For the first time, state legislators are moving to implement rules that will allow U.S. citizens to strike back, hard, against foreign countries that want to interfere with Americans’ civil rights online,” Byrne continued.

The Act would let American citizens and companies sue foreign governments or their agents for trying to censor them, and, crucially, it strips away the usual escape hatch of sovereign immunity.

In its legal filing responding to the 4chan and KiwiFarms lawsuit, Ofcom insisted it has “sovereign immunity” and told the court there were “substantial grounds” for throwing out the case on that basis.

The regulator’s lawyers framed Ofcom as a protected arm of the British state, immune from civil claims even when its decisions target a platform based entirely inside the United States.

Ofcom treats the idea of “sovereign immunity” as something substantial but the First Amendment as something that does not exist at all.

Keep reading

Professor sues Millsaps College after being fired for ‘racist fascist country’ email

A former Millsaps College professor is suing the institution, alleging his termination for describing America as a “racist fascist country” in an email to students was censorship. 

Professor James Bowley’s complaint, filed in September, alleges that the small Mississippi college breached his tenure and its founding tradition connecting faith to free speech. Bowley taught politics and religion at the college for more than 20 years.

“Millsaps fired a tenured professor because he expressed a political opinion in an email to three like-minded students in a political seminar,” the complaint claims.

However, college spokesperson Joey Lee told The College Fix that the institution is “confident” about defending its actions in the case.

“Millsaps College is dedicated to academic excellence and open inquiry. We are also committed to providing a safe and supportive campus for all,” Lee said in a recent email.

“Due to the pending litigation, we will not go into any further details at this time, but we look forward to the opportunity to tell the whole story,” Lee said. “We believe the facts will speak clearly, and we are confident in our position and in the legal process ahead.”

The college placed Bowley on administrative leave in November 2024. Almost a year later, in September, Bowley was terminated, according to the complaint. Initial reports said Bowley was fired in January, but Lee told The Fix that he was still on administrative leave at the time.

The controversy stems from an email Bowley sent to three students after the 2024 presidential election. Bowley wrote that he was canceling his “Abortion and Religion” class to “mourn and process this racist and fascist country.”

According to the complaint, Bowley’s decision was “rooted in compassion for the emotional distress that he knew his students were going through” due to the election of Donald Trump.

The lawsuit also argues that he was justified in sending the statement because the campus culture was tense after a Millsaps student threatened Kamala Harris voters in a YikYak post. 

Bowley claims that the college violated his tenure when it fired him. “The faculty member’s expression of unpopular political views is not ‘cause for dismissal,’” the lawsuit states. 

The complaint also highlights the Methodist background of the institution.

It quotes Methodist founder John Wesley: “The Methodists alone do not insist on your holding this or that opinion; but they think and let think . … Now, I do not know any other religious society, either ancient or modern, wherein such liberty of conscience is now allowed, or has been allowed, since the age of the apostles.”

The complaint argues that the college’s Methodist background is a foundation for academic freedom: “The requirement that all Methodist colleges respect academic freedom remains enshrined in policies set by the Church, stating that all ‘colleges and universities are to ensure that academic freedom is protected for all members of the academic community and a learning environment is fostered that allows for a free exchange of ideas.’”  

It also connects open inquiry and freedom of speech and expression: “Challenge and discomfort are essential at Millsaps.”

Keep reading

The Algorithm Accountability Act’s Threat to Free Speech

A new push in Congress is taking shape under the banner of “algorithmic accountability,” but its real effect would be to expand the government’s reach into online speech.

Senators John Curtis (R-UT) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) have introduced the Algorithm Accountability Act, a bill that would rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to remove liability protections from large, for-profit social media platforms whose recommendation systems are said to cause “harm.”

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The proposal applies to any platform with more than a million users that relies on algorithms to sort or recommend content.

These companies would be required to meet a “duty of care” to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death.

If a user or family member claims an algorithm contributed to such harm, the platform could be sued, losing the legal shield that has protected online speech for nearly three decades.

Although the bill’s authors describe it as a safety measure, the structure of the law would inevitably pressure platforms to suppress or downrank lawful content that might later be portrayed as dangerous.

Most major social networks already rely heavily on automated recommendation systems to organize and personalize information. Exposing them to lawsuits for what those systems display invites broad, quiet censorship under the guise of caution.

Keep reading

Free speech documentary cancelled by London cinema

A London cinema has banned a documentary about free speech because it does not “align with our values and mission”.

Think Before You Post was due to play at Rich Mix in east London on November 25, followed by a Q&A session with contributors, before its producers were informed that the venue had decided against hosting the event.

Tom Slater, the editor of Spiked magazine, the libertarian publication behind the film, said he was sadly not surprised by the decision.

He said: “The event could only be considered controversial by those who think free speech is controversial. The cultural sector is overrun with woke scolds who wouldn’t know what free speech is if it bit them on the Birkenstocks.

“I suppose we should be happy to have been proven right. But vindication is cold comfort when it comes at the cost of a great evening of screening the film and discussing it with our contributors, friends and supporters.”

Rich Mix told Slater that it had revoked his booking on Monday in an email seen by The Times.

The email said: “Since confirming your booking, it has come to light that the content and speakers featured do not align with our values and mission here at Rich Mix. Our founding objectives are to support marginalised communities (primarily communities facing racial inequity), promote intercultural understanding, eliminate racial discrimination and foster equality of opportunity through arts and culture.”

Keep reading

UK Blocks Lucy Connolly, Jailed for Social Media Post, From Speaking in US on Free Speech Crackdown

Lucy Connolly, the British woman jailed in 2024 over a social media post, says senior government officials have blocked her from traveling to the United States to speak about online expression and state censorship.

The invitation came from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who had arranged for her to testify on Britain’s handling of speech-related prosecutions.

Connolly was released from prison in August 2025. She remains under strict supervision until March 2026 as part of the country’s highest-level public protection scheme. The ban on travel, she says, was not issued by probation officers but was directed by government officials.

“They did go straight to the top. They bypassed probation and went, you know, to the government and yeah it came back as a ‘absolutely not,’” Connolly told GB News.

She said the original plan to travel involved direct outreach to Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s office.

“I don’t know the ins and outs of what was said and what happened. I just know that I got an answer back of “it’s a hard no.”

Connolly had been asked to speak in the US about the UK’s use of criminal charges for controversial online speech.

Authorities blocked the trip under MAPPA, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements framework, a system typically reserved for individuals considered violent or sexually dangerous.

Connolly is currently held under MAPPA Level 3, the most intensive level, which places her under oversight from not only probation officers but also police, government press handlers, and other agencies.

Under the terms, she must request approval for any public appearance and is monitored in her daily life.

“I’m a MAPPA level three. I don’t know if you know what that means, but sex offenders and terrorists get put on MAPPA level three,” she said.

“So I’m not just answerable to probation… I have to ask them permission to do everything.”

Since her release, she has been denied permission to travel internationally and must seek formal clearance for any public engagement, including, she says, observing a parliamentary debate on whether prison is an appropriate response to social media offenses.

“They use the excuse of, well, it’s because of the press interest, you’re high profile with the press,” she said.

Connolly believes the monitoring has less to do with risk and more to do with optics. Her case, she says, has become politically inconvenient.

“You’re basically chucked in the same bag as sex offenders and some of the worst people in society, all because of that tweet,” GB News reporter Ben Leo told her. She replied, “A hundred percent.”

She also described being questioned by authorities over unrelated press attention, which was flagged internally as a concern. The incident, she said, was “something and nothing,” but was treated as a serious issue “because it’s me.”

Connolly says the government’s posture on speech no longer reflects a free society.

Keep reading

EU’s Weakened “Chat Control” Bill Still Poses Major Privacy and Surveillance Risks, Academics Warn

On November 19, the European Union stands poised to vote on one of the most consequential surveillance proposals in its digital history.

The legislation, framed as a measure to protect children online, has drawn fierce criticism from a bloc of senior European academics who argue that the proposal, even in its revised form, walks a perilous line. It invites mass surveillance under a veil of voluntarism and does so with little evidence that it will improve safety.

This latest draft of the so-called “Chat Control” law has already been softened from its original form. The Council of the European Union, facing mounting public backlash, stripped out provisions for mandatory on-device scanning of encrypted communications.

But for researchers closely following the legislation, the revised proposal is anything but a retreat.

“The proposal reinstates the option to analyze content beyond images and URLs – including text and video – and to detect newly generated CSAM,” reads the open letter, signed by 18 prominent academics from institutions such as ETH Zurich, KU Leuven, and the Max Planck Institute.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

The argument, in essence, is that the Council’s latest version doesn’t eliminate the risk. It only rebrands it.

Keep reading

Britain’s Speech Gulag Exposed: 10,000 Arrested Last Year For Social Media Posts

A damning study complete with an interactive map has revealed that UK police arrested nearly 10,000 people in 2024 for “grossly offensive” social media posts—equivalent to 30 arrests every single day—while knife crime, burglary, and sexual offences go unsolved.

This Orwellian crackdown, driven by vague “communications” laws, has turned Britain into an international embarrassment, with forces devoting more manpower to policing opinions than protecting citizens.

Compiled from Freedom of Information requests to 39 police forces, the data shows 9,700 arrests in 2024 alone under the Communications Act 2003 and Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Keep reading

‘Free to express opinions’: Oregon district pays $650,000 to settle with educators who objected to trans lessons

Schools ‘can’t retaliate against speech simply because they disagree with what’s said.’

An Oregon school district has agreed to pay $650,000 to settle with two educators who were punished, then fired, for speaking out against the injurious transgender agenda the district was adopting.

The trans ideology as promoted by Joe Biden and his administration for years includes giving chemicals to children to delay puberty, then doing mutilating body surgeries on the child.

Grants Pass, Ore., educators Katie Medart and Rachel Sager had launched a grassroots movement called “I Resolve” to speak out on a school gender identity education policy, and to offer alternatives that would allow teachers to continue teaching without submitting their religious beliefs to the social agenda.

And one that would respect the rights of parents to know what their children were being given in school.

They posted a video on their own website promoting their beliefs and efforts.

Subsequently, Grants Pass School District 7 officials suspended them, then fired them.

“Educators are free to express opinions on fundamental issues of public concern—like gender identity education policy—that implicate the freedoms of teachers, parents, and students,” said Mathew Hoffman, of the ADF, which represented the teachers along with the Pacific Justice Institute.

“The Grants Pass School District is taking the right step by acknowledging that teachers don’t give up their First Amendment rights when they set foot on school property. Public schools can’t retaliate against speech simply because they disagree with what’s said.”

Sager and Medart have worked in the education field for many years, including at North Middle School in Grants Pass. Sager served as assistant principal, and Medart taught science there, the legal teams explained.

Their legal action charging the school violated their free speech, religious freedom and equal protection rights was settled with the district agreeing to pay $650,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.

Keep reading

Wyoming Parent Wins Free Speech Lawsuits Against Sweetwater County School Officials

It’s one thing to bake cupcakes for the school fundraiser. It’s another to find yourself explaining your Facebook posts to a judge. Yet that’s precisely where Kari Cochran, a Wyoming mother with a stubborn streak and a social media account, ended up. Twice.

For the uninitiated, Kari isn’t your run-of-the-mill parent who just grumbles in the car line. She once sat on the Sweetwater County School Board, where she learned that speaking your mind can make you the most talked-about person in the faculty lounge.

Her habit of asking uncomfortable questions about district leadership might have made her unpopular, but it also made her the kind of parent who doesn’t disappear quietly when things get messy.

Cochran’s online posts, sharp enough to make a superintendent wince, were her way of keeping the school district accountable. “Publicly accused [the] petitioner of unprofessional and unethical conduct,” one court filing complained.

In other words, she said things out loud that people in small towns usually only whisper over coffee at the diner.

Her criticism didn’t sit well with everyone. Two people connected to the district, Assistant Superintendent Nicole Bolton and Laura Libby Vinger, the wife of Superintendent Josh Libby, decided the comments had crossed into stalking. They filed civil petitions to try to stop her from speaking.

It didn’t work. Both cases were tossed out this year. Circuit Court Judge Michael Greer dismissed Bolton’s petition in August, reminding everyone that public officials are “subjected to public scrutiny.” (If you’re paid by taxpayers, you don’t get to hide from them.) A magistrate later dismissed Vinger’s case, too.

Cochran was, understandably, relieved. “Parents, students, or staff members should never feel that they should be silenced or punished for standing up for what’s right,” she said to The Center Square.

Her lawyer, Parker Jackson of the Goldwater Institute, had a less sentimental view.

If Cochran had lost, he explained, she might have been banned from attending district events or even school board meetings. “It essentially would’ve turned these school officials into roaming censors where, wherever they didn’t want Kari to be, they could show up and force her to leave,” Jackson said.

Cochran’s battle didn’t begin with Facebook posts. It began with heartbreak. Her son Joran, a graduate of Rock Springs High School, died by suicide in 2023 after being bullied.

It’s the kind of loss that rearranges your life completely. She resigned from the school board afterward, but she didn’t stop pushing for better mental health support and accountability in the district.

When she asked to see her son’s school records, the district refused. Then, as if to make her point for her, the board introduced a rule restricting what topics citizens could address during public comment. So Cochran did what most parents do when the microphone is taken away: she turned to Facebook.

Her posts gained traction. They also drew ire. The day a sheriff showed up with not one but two stalking petitions, Cochran said she felt “complete fear,” unsure what she’d done wrong.

“Complete fear” seems like an understatement for having your free speech hauled into court by the very people you’re criticizing.

The rulings didn’t erase the months of stress. Cochran said the ordeal drained her and took away time she wanted to spend with her daughter before high school began.

But her victory sends a message: criticizing your school district may make you unpopular, but it isn’t a crime.

Keep reading

Jailed in America for Free Speech

In the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, many folks who dared to express views of him and his work outside the mainstream lost their jobs, professional standing and State Department visas as they were fired or otherwise disciplined by employers or bureaucrats who concluded that anti-Kirk views could harm the employers’ businesses or were inconsistent with institutional values.

All discipline based on speech needs to be scrutinized strictly. Yet, even in states with strong public accommodations laws — laws that generally protect free speech in the workplace and in public places — at will employees can generally be disciplined for expressive activities that their bosses reasonably fear may impair the product or services they were hired to produce or deliver, or undermine the values or message of the institution with which they are affiliated.

Thus, reasonable fears of the loss of business or charitable donations due to the anti-Kirk public sentiments may lawfully result in silencing or firing those employees.

Keep reading