Tag: free speech

Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Tennessee Man Over Facebook Meme

Last month, Tennessee authorities arrested a man for posting a Facebook meme, a clear violation of his First Amendment rights, and held him on a $2 million bond. This week, prosecutors dropped the case, but that doesn’t negate the weeks he spent in jail on a bogus charge.

As Reason previously reported, police arrested 61-year-old Larry Bushart for posting a meme on Facebook. In a thread about the murder of Charlie Kirk, Bushart posted a meme with a picture of President Donald Trump and the quote “We have to get over it,” which Trump said after a January 2024 shooting at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa.

Sheriff Nick Weems of nearby Perry County said Bushart intentionally posted the meme to make people think he was referring to Perry County High School. “Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community,” Weems told The Tennesseean.

On September 21, deputies arrested Bushart at his house and booked him on a charge of Threats of Mass Violence on School Property and Activities, a felony that carries at least a year in prison. In body camera footage posted online by Liliana Segura of The Intercept, Bushart is incredulous when presented with the charge. “I don’t think I committed a crime,” he tells the officer, jokingly admitting that “I may have been an asshole.”

“That’s not illegal,” the officer replies as he leads Bushart into a cell.

Unfortunately, it was no laughing matter: A judge imposed a $2 million bond. Getting out on bail would require Bushart to come up with at least $210,000. According to the Perry County Circuit Court website, Bushart had a hearing scheduled for October 9, where he could file a motion for a reduced bond, but a court clerk told Reason that the hearing was “reset” for December 4. As a result, Bushart sat in jail for weeks.

Right away, it should have been clear how flimsy the case was. But the sheriff doubled down.

As Segura reported at The Intercept, Weems personally responded to people on Facebook suggesting Bushart was arrested because authorities misread a picture that briefly referenced a prior news event on the other side of the country. “We were very much aware of the meme being from an Iowa shooting,” Weems wrote. But it “created mass hysteria to parents and teachers…that led the normal person to conclude that he was talking about our Perry County High School.”

“Yet there were no public signs of this hysteria,” Segura notes. “Nor was there much evidence of an investigation—or any efforts to warn county schools.”

Keep reading

Leftists Are Pushing for Global Speech Censorship

The Democratic Party, and the global Left in general, spent the last five years crying about “mis/disinformation” and the need for more oversight of social media platforms and the Internet in general. It is anathema to the people who think they are our moral and intellectual superiors that we might say, write, or think things with which they disagree.

In moves that would make George Orwell turn over in his grave, the Biden administration tried to force the “Disinformation Governance Board” on America. Turns out that board was born after a 2022 speech given by former President Barack Obama at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center — a speech that pushed for broad censorship of the Internet.

Michael Shellenberger is now sounding the alarm that global censorship is coming unless we stop it.

The entire post is long, but we’ll highlight the most salient (and alarming) points:

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets.

And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.

On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.”

Keep reading

Global Cybercrime Treaty Draws Criticism from Rights Groups and Tech Companies Over Surveillance Fears

Sixty-five countries, including the United States and Canada, have signed a United Nations treaty on cybercrime that threatens privacy, online research, and free expression.

The agreement, known as the UN Convention against Cybercrime, was signed in Hanoi and will take effect once 40 member states have ratified it.

Each country must complete its own ratification process. In the United States, a two-thirds Senate vote is required for approval.

The UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the treaty as an essential step in combating cybercrime, saying that “cyberspace has become fertile ground for criminals…every day, sophisticated scams defraud families, steal livelihoods, and drain billions of dollars from our economies.”

He called the Convention “a powerful, legally binding instrument to strengthen our collective defenses against cybercrime” and insisted it “cannot be used for any forms of surveillance or others that could be linked to violations of human rights.”

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which directed negotiations, has argued that the treaty includes protections for human rights and legitimate research.

But organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) disagree.

Before the signing, both groups urged governments not to endorse the treaty, warning that its vague definitions could allow governments to monitor citizens, prosecute security researchers, and suppress political speech.

Technology companies have also raised concerns. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord, whose members include Meta and Microsoft, described the treaty as a “surveillance treaty” that could promote government data sharing and criminalize ethical hacking.

Keep reading

German Authorities Search Conservative Commentator’s Home After Online Post

A police raid targeting retired media professor and conservative commentator Norbert Bolz has ignited discussion in Germany about how far the state is going in policing speech online.

Officers entered Bolz’s Berlin home on Thursday morning and questioned him about a social media post from early 2024 that included the phrase “Deutschland erwache!” a slogan once used by the Nazi Party.

Bolz told POLITICO he acknowledged writing the post himself, which prevented police from taking his computer. After the visit, he posted a sardonic comment on X: “The friendly police officers gave me the good advice to be more careful in the future. I’ll do that and only talk about trees from now on.”

Bolz is a regular contributor to WELT, part of the Axel Springer media group, and is known for his strong defense of open discussion.

Berlin prosecutors confirmed the search took place as part of an investigation under Section 86a of Germany’s criminal code, which prohibits the “use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations.”

The disputed post was a sarcastic reaction to an article from the newspaper taz that read, “Ban of the AfD and a petition against Höcke: Germany awakens.” Bolz added his own remark: “A good translation for ‘woke’: Germany awake!”

The issue first came to authorities’ attention after it was reported by “Hessen gegen Hetze,” a portal run by the Hessian Interior Ministry’s Cyber Competence Center.

The post was forwarded to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and then to the Central Reporting Office for Criminal Content on the Internet (ZMI), which passed the case to Berlin prosecutors because Bolz resides in the capital.

The ZMI, short for Zentrale Meldestelle für strafbare Inhalte im Internet (Central Reporting Office for Criminal Content on the Internet), is a unit within Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA).

A spokesperson for the Berlin prosecutor’s office told Apollo News that “the reporting office had passed the matter on to the ZMI.

“The ZMI reported the matter to Berlin because of where they live in Berlin. The investigation was then carried out by the Berlin public prosecutor’s office and the Berlin police, as this is where the responsibility lies.”

The BKA confirmed that the case originated from a report filed by “Hessen gegen Hetze” in November 2024.

Keep reading

A D.C. Man Was Arrested for Mocking National Guard Troops with Star Wars’ ‘Imperial March.’ Now He’s Suing.

A Washington, D.C., resident who was handcuffed and detained in September for mocking National Guard soldiers by playing “The Imperial March” from Star Wars on his cellphone is suing the soldiers and police officers for their stormtrooper-like behavior.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of D.C. filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of Sam O’Hara, arguing that his detention violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights by cutting off his peaceful protest.

“The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away,” O’Hara’s lawsuit states. “But in the here and now, the First Amendment bars government officials from shutting down peaceful protests, and the Fourth Amendment (along with the District’s prohibition on false arrest) bars groundless seizures.”

After President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to D.C., O’Hara began following National Guard soldiers around playing “The Imperial March” on his cell phone as a form of protest. His lawsuit says O’Hara wanted “to encourage the public to view the deployment as a waste of tax dollars, a needless display of force, and a surreal danger.”

According to his lawsuit, on September 11, O’Hara was tailing four Ohio National Guard soldiers and doing his usual bit. 

“Less than two minutes after the protest began,” the lawsuit says, “Sgt. [Devon] Beck turned around and said, ‘Hey man, if you’re going to keep following us, we can contact Metro PD and they can come handle you if that’s what you want to do. Is that what you want to do?'”

O’Hara allegedly did not respond but continued to follow, at which point the Empire decided to strike back. 

Beck called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit claims that shortly after several MPD cars arrived. The MPD officers allegedly accused O’Hara of harassing the soldiers, and they detained and handcuffed him.

When O’Hara argued that he was engaged in protest, one of the MPD officers allegedly responded, “That’s not a protest. You better define protest. This isn’t a protest. You are not protesting.”

However, recording and mocking law enforcement are both firmly protected by the First Amendment, as long as one doesn’t interfere with their duties.

Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in 1987, in a ruling striking down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer, that “the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

To put it another way, if you act like an autocratic villain when someone compares you to an autocratic villain, you just might be an autocratic villain.

Keep reading

U.K. seeking to censor Americans again

Incredibly, the U.K. wants to enforce its draconian censorship laws in the United States.

According to Data Fidelity, an Australian tech site:

Internal communications now made public by the US House Judiciary Committee shed light on a pattern of escalating pressure by the UK’s “communications regulator,” Ofcom, aimed at pushing US-based tech platforms like Rumble and Reddit into adopting strict speech standards, even in apparent disregard for national boundaries and free speech protections.

The emails expose how Ofcom has been leaning on Rumble to align itself with the UK’s Online Safety Act, a censorship law that vastly expands the state’s oversight of online content under the guise of child protection and harm prevention.

Take to the internet or social media to criticize the LGBTQ community or Islam?

You may be paid a visit by the constabulary.

Criticize the U.K.’s leaders?

You might get to visit Scotland Yard.

Criticize gay, trans, or Muslim U.K. leaders?

God help you. (Not that many people in formerly Jolly Olde England believe in the God of the Bible anymore. Which may explain the current state of affairs in Britain.)

It is utterly preposterous that any nation, let alone one as diminished yet allegedly tolerant as the U.K., would seek to enforce and impose its own anti-speech, anti-freedom agenda on a foreign land.

Talk about digital colonization and cultural imperialism!

Keep reading

Countries Call on the EU to Enforce “Values” Through Speech Rules

European governments are intensifying pressure on Brussels to tighten control over which organizations receive EU funding, using the language of “combating hate” to justify measures that could sharply restrict free expression.

France, Austria, and the Netherlands have jointly circulated a paper calling on the European Commission to withdraw financial support from any group that does not conform to “European values.”

The document, seen by Politico, urges member states to “redouble their efforts to combat racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim hatred” and to ensure “no support is given to entities hostile to European values, in particular through funding.”

Behind the rhetoric of tolerance, the plan lays out a system that ties access to EU money directly to ideological loyalty.

Under the proposal, beneficiaries of programs such as Erasmus+ and CERV (Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values) would be required to sign pledges confirming that they “respect and promote EU rights and values.”

The Commission would also be instructed to apply existing budget rules that allow for excluding groups accused of “inciting hatred.”

The initiative arrives just ahead of a European Council meeting in Brussels, where leaders are set to discuss a range of topics, including Ukraine, migration, defense, and Europe’s digital and environmental goals.

A draft of the Council’s conclusions adds another layer by insisting that “EU values apply equally in the digital sphere,” with the “protection of minors” highlighted as a key aim.

What looks like a defense of European ideals increasingly resembles an effort to police opinions.

By expanding the concept of hate speech both online and offline, the document could allow EU institutions to label controversial or dissenting views as violations of European values. This would effectively hand Brussels the power to determine which voices are acceptable in public debate.

Keep reading

Newsom Vetoes Digital Censorship Law

California Governor Gavin Newsom managed to get something right. He just vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to sue social-media companies on the subjective and dubious basis of “hate speech.”

Newsom vetoed SB 771 on Monday, the last day he had to act. The legislature sent him the bill on September 22. If Newsom wouldn’t have rejected it, it would have become law anyway.

The governor called the bill “premature” in a short statement attempting to explain his decision. He said:

“I likewise share the author’s concern about the growth of discriminatory threats, violence, and coercive harassment online. I am concerned, however, that this bill is premature. Our first step should be to determine if, and to what extent, existing civil rights laws are sufficient to address violations perpetrated through algorithms.”

The Bill

The bill would have allowed people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant was a minor, the fine could’ve doubled.

However, critics suspected the proposal’s main goal was to coerce social-media companies into implementing censorious algorithms like the ones they did during the height of the Covid era. It was designed to pre-censor, to create an digital environment where certain views were forbidden.

The proposal included subjective and vague justifications for litigation. As we pointed out in a previous report, it included the feeling of “intimidation” as grounds for suing. In the United Kingdom, officers have justified arresting people for over social-media posts that caused others “anxiety.” It’s not hard to see that’s what SB 771 could’ve opened up.

Opposition and Support

The bill had strong opposition, including from NetChoice, the tech trade group made up of Google, Meta, and Snap. Elon Musk’s X and Parler also opposed it. Among the arguments they made was that SB 771 would have violated First Amendment protections.

Right-leaning pundits also bashed the proposal for its totalitarian potential. Tucker Carlson framed it as an attempt by California’s ruling class to quash online criticism of the policies that have destroyed the most populous and beautiful state in the Union. The proposal designated a protected class that would have censored those who spoke out against illegal immigration, the deviancy of the LGBTQ mob, and critics of Islam or Israel.  

On the other hand, George Soros’ Center for Countering Digital Hate was sold on the bill, the propagandists in the mainstream media did their best to frame it as nothing more than digital companion to already existing civil-rights protection law, and more than a dozen Jewish organizations supported it as well, according to reports.

Newsom’s Motivation

Newsom made a rare and good decision here. But it’s unlikely his intentions were well-motivated. After all, he did just sign a bill to create a reparations-administration agency.  

A common suspicion is that Newsom was hardly concerned about free speech and likely more worried about having to embark on future political campaigns without financial support from the tech gurus who’ve dumped millions into his previous campaigns, including executives from Google and Meta.

Whatever his motivation, the bottom line is that this is good news for Californians and anyone who believes that the digital world should be open to all ideas, not just those approved by the elites. As we pointed out in a previous report on this bill, social media, despite its many faults and foibles, has “democratized” the flow of information and loosened the elites’ long-held grip on the narrative. This is a major reason there have been so many efforts to restrict online speech. If you want to see what the goal for the United States is, just look at various parts of Europe. The European Union is bullying member states to muzzle their citizens and creating laws to target American tech companies that provide the platforms to exchange ideas that threaten the international oligarch class.

Keep reading

UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law

If you’re going to cross an ocean to tell Americans what speech they can and can’t allow, the least you can do is not trip over your own jurisdictional nonsense on the way in.

Ofcom, the UK’s media regulator, which has lately decided to try and become an international speech cop, managed to do exactly that.

But when the regulator began sending enforcement letters to small US platforms under its sweeping online censorship law, the Online Safety Act, it probably didn’t expect to trigger a constitutional ambush.

But that’s exactly what it got.

Preston Byrne, one of attorneys representing 4chan, Kiwi Farms, and two other American companies, said Ofcom had been sending “frankly asinine letters under English law.”

His clients, he explained, “are entirely American. All of their operations are American. All of their infrastructure is American, and they have no connection to the UK whatsoever.”

Despite this, Ofcom threatened the companies with “a £20,000 fine plus £100 daily penalties for 60 days thereafter.”

Byrne responded to Ofcom’s pressure by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit was designed not only to challenge Ofcom’s jurisdiction but to force a contradiction into the open.

Byrne said the purpose of the lawsuit was threefold. One, to show the global censors that the resistance in the United States is now prepared to fight back, and they don’t have freedom of action.

Two, to assert hims client’s claims and defenses in a US court, and make the argument in front of a US federal judge.

And the third one was to provoke Ofcom into “doing something stupid, which is exactly what they did.”

After the case was filed, Ofcom sent what Byrne called “a 40-page letter of tremendous length, which is deeply unserious.”

Ofcom’s written response delivered exactly what Byrne says was needed: an explicit admission that Ofcom doesn’t “think US law applies on US soil and that they’re going to use [the argument of] sovereign immunity.”

This was more than a legal contradiction; it was a political one that directly undercuts the British government’s public assurances.

“This rather undermines the British government’s assertions that it’s made time and again, including to the President, to his face, that the British government is not using its sovereign power to censor American citizens,” Byrne said.

In its official notice to 4chan, Ofcom made an extraordinary admission which, in trying to assert its authority, effectively undercut its entire legal position.

The regulator wrote: “We also note 4chan’s claim that it is protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the First Amendment binds only the US government and not overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not affect Ofcom’s powers to enforce the Act in this case.”

This reveals the fundamental flaw in Ofcom’s claim to authority over American companies.

By asserting that the First Amendment “binds only the US government,” Ofcom admits it stands entirely outside the US constitutional order, yet it simultaneously claims the right to enforce UK speech law against US entities operating solely on US soil.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways: it cannot disclaim the reach of US law while insisting that British law somehow extends across the Atlantic.

If the First Amendment has no force on Ofcom’s actions in the United States, then neither does the UK’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act, which has no legal effect beyond the UK.

Keep reading

Ireland Rejects EU Hate-speech Dictate

The deadline to bow down to the European Union’s “hate speech” dictate has passed, and Ireland remains defiant. Last week, the country’s minister for justice, Jim O’Callaghan, said the government would not “reintroduce hate speech legislation previously rejected by parliament,” even though the EU continues to pressure them to do so.

“I’m fairly satisfied 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 domestic law,” O’Callaghan said, according to reports.

In June, the EU told Ireland it had a two months left to comply with its censorship dictate or risk being dragged into international court. Ireland is accused of violating laws outlined in the EU’s 2008 EU Framework Decision, which requires member states to criminalize “hate speech” based on race, color, religion, descent, or ethnicity, as well as on Holocaust denial. Supposedly, the law is intended to prevent the incitement of violence.

But, as we recently reported, the idea of “hate speech” is a ploy for brainwashing people into believing that thoughts by themselves can be crimes.

Irish officials believe they already have sufficient laws to address the EU’s concerns without intruding on free speech. The “Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989” punishes those who incite hatred based on characteristics such as race, religion, or nationality. According to the Irish Courts Service, five convictions have been recorded under the act since 2017.

But EU officials say that the legislation is not good enough.

Keep reading