Tag: freedom of expression

Canadian patriot informed that he cannot display Canada flag outside Toronto City Hall

Welcome to Nathan Phillips Square, home of Toronto City Hall, which is, unsurprisingly, located in the City of Toronto, in the province of Ontario, in the Dominion of Canada.

So, you would think it would be completely acceptable to display a Canadian flag there, right?

Wrong.

Just ask Canadian patriot Scott Youmans.

Youmans visited this very site a few days ago, brandishing a Canadian flag. And incredibly, it did not go well. Which is to say, a city hall security guard informed him that the display of ANY flag, including the Maple Leaf, is verboten. (Oddly, a Ukrainian flag has been displayed on a flagpole at the south end of Nathan Phillips Square for some three years now. But never mind…)

Speaking of blatant hypocrisy and double standards, last month, the City of Toronto officially raised the flag of Palestine, even though such a nation doesn’t exist. What next? Raising the flag of Narnia?

And when it comes to bylaw enforcement at Nathan Phillips Square, this is a very selective process, isn’t it?

We specifically speak of a group of hobos known as “Afro-Indigenous Rising.” These reprobates occupied Nathan Phillips Square for almost a month in 2020 during that year’s “Summer of Love”. They pitched tents, and they urinated and defecated upon the square, breaking some 11 sections of the Trespass Act in the process. Yet, City Hall security had absolutely no problem with those unhinged lunatics. Rather, security went out of their way to call the police on independent journalists covering this disgusting occupation.

And given what happened to Scott Youmans, we have to wonder: how long will it be before ALL Canadian flags are taken down from flagpoles and put in cold storage? Consider that a Labour MP in the UK is urging Britons not to display the Union Jack because it makes some newcomers feel uneasy. We’re not making this up…

However, hope abounds: Rebel News received a response from the City of Toronto media relations department regarding the Youmans flag fiasco.

Here is what it states in part: “There is no City of Toronto bylaw that prohibits a person from holding or displaying a Canadian flag – or any flag – at Nathan Phillips Square (NPS). Flags, signs and other hand-held items are permitted, provided they do not pose a safety risk or involve equipment that requires a permit. These requirements are outlined in the NPS Code of Conduct and related bylaws.”

Keep reading

Canadian Muslims Take to Streets in Anger After Quebec Pushes Forward With Ban on Public Prayer

The Canadian province of Quebec is planning to ban all public prayer as part of an aggressive push toward secularization.

Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean-François Roberge, said the laws were designed to accelerate his push toward secularization.

The Guardian reports:

Quebec says it will intensify its crackdown on public displays of religion in a sweeping new law that critics say pushes Canadian provinces into private spaces and disproportionately affects Muslims.

Bill 9, introduced by the governing Coalition Avenir Québec on Thursday, bans prayer in public institutions, including in colleges and universities.

It also bans communal prayer on public roads and in parks, with the threat of fines of C$1,125 for groups in contravention of the prohibition. Short public events with prior approval are exempt.

CAQ has made secularism a key legislative priority, passing the controversial Bill 21 – which bans some public sector employees from wearing religious symbol – in 2019.

It plans to extend that prohibition to anyone working in daycares, colleges, universities and private schools. Full face coverings would be banned for anyone in those institutions, including students.

Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean-François Roberge, said the laws were designed to accelerate his push toward secularization.

“It’s shocking to see people blocking traffic, taking possession of the public space without a permit, without warning, and then turning our streets, our parks, our public squares into places of worship,” he explained.

He added that schools are “are not temples or churches or those kinds of places.”

Keep reading

Italy moves to follow European neighbors in banning religious garb like burqas that hide identity

Italy has long been one of Europe’s strongest defenders of religious freedom despite the influence of the Vatican.

But now, the country is poised to outlaw the use of traditional Islamic attire like burqas, a move the government says will strengthen its tradition of religious liberty by requiring all faiths to operate with “full transparency” and within the limits of Italian law.

The proposed law, which is set to be debated in Italy’s parliament before the end of this year, would ban “religiously motivated garments that obscure identity or impose non-transparent forms of [religious] affiliation,” according to a draft of the proposal published in the Italian media.

While the text does not mention Islam or any other faith by name, all indications are that it is primarily aimed at banning the use of headscarves, niqabs, jilbabs, burqas, and other attire that commonly obscure the identity of Muslim women.

The proposal is the latest in a series of steps from the Italian government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to regulate the public expression of religion. Officials insist the plan is part of an effort to modernize the Italian framework on religious practice that has not seen substantial change since the 1980s.

Supporters of the law say that a person’s visible identity – in schools, businesses, or in public – is essential for security and civic cohesion.

“This is not about limiting religious freedom, but about preventing it being used instrumentally in order to justify practices that are incompatible with the principles of our constitution and our society,” Galeazzo Bignami, a member of parliament from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, told reporters last month.

“No community in our country can claim exemptions from the laws of our Republic,” Minister of the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini said via social media.

Other European countries including France, Belgium, and Austria have issued nationwide restrictions on traditional Islamic garb. And in Italy, local temporary bans on some kinds of Islamic face coverings have appeared on the municipal level, usually on grounds of public order or security. But the new proposal would be the first to be imposed nationally.

Muslim leaders responded with alarm, and some have vowed to appeal the measure if it is enacted.

“This law tells Muslim women they cannot appear in public as themselves,” said Yassine Lafram, head of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy. “It sends a message that we are a problem to be managed rather than citizens with the same rights as other citizens.”

It is unclear whether the proposal will stand up to legal challenges if it becomes a law. Article 19 of the Italian Constitution guarantees the right to “profess one’s faith in any form, individually or collectively.” Critics say that the focus on “transparency” is too vague to merit an exception to that standard.

Keep reading

Student at Oklahoma State University Reprimanded For Wearing TPUSA Hat

According to Campus Reform, “A student says he was reprimanded by a staff member after paying tribute to Charlie Kirk at an Oklahoma State University Student Government Association meeting.”

The student making the allegations is OSU junior John Wilson.

Wilson, the president of the OSU debate society, spoke at the meeting on Sept.10th after Kirk’s murder and delivered a speech honoring Charlie.  He is also a member of the student government association.

In his memorial speech, Wilson said Charlie was a father, a husband, a devout Christian, and a shining light for so many,” and that his assassination was “horrendous and vile, just as political violence of any kind is.”

Wilson, like Charlie, called for peaceful dialogue.

The coordinator of the SGA program was not happy about this despite the peaceful words.

According to a recording obtained by the Oklahoma Council of Public, the coordinator confronted Wilson.

She stated, “As a person who doesn’t look like you and has not had the same lived experience as you, I have family who don’t look like you who are triggered — and I will be very candid with you — who are triggered by those hats and by that side.”

In addition, she told Wilson he should, “ask others who don’t look like you and have open conversations with anyone that has a different lived experience.”

Wilson rightfully responded, “Idea and conversation is what built this country, and it’s what should maintain it. And that’s what the hat was there for.”

Wilson also said that her “identity-related arguments were moot because he has Native American ancestry.”

Wilson further claimed that the SGA coordinator stated, “It cannot just be, ‘yes, but’ – cannot be every response that you give me. Otherwise, this year is going to be difficult for you.”

These allegations are extremely serious. A patriotic college student should not be forced to defend his political beliefs or clothes, nor should he be forced to defend his memorializing of Charlie Kirk.

We will see if the school disciplines the coordinator or apologizes to Wilson.

Keep reading

Hood County Sheriff Arrests Man for Social Media Posts

The Hood County Sheriff’s Office arrested Kolton Krottinger, a Navy veteran and local Granbury activist, for a social media post.

According to a criminal complaint, Krottinger had posted on social media under the guise of someone else. Residents have suggested that the October 2 post—showing another local activist appearing to support then-Granbury school board candidate Monica Brown—is the one in question.

Hood County Constable John Shirley said he thought the post was a joke, and that the individual the post impersonated would never have supported Brown “because she very openly, loudly, and publicly hates her.”

Krottinger was charged on November 5 with “online impersonation” in the third degree. His lawyer, Rob Christian, said he had been arrested for “posting a meme.” In his 25 years as a district attorney and criminal defense attorney, Christian told the Dallas Express he had “never seen anyone get arrested for engaging in political speech.”

Nate Criswell, former Hood County GOP chair, believes the arrest is politically motivated. “This charge is based on a satirical post where he humorously photoshopped a political rival’s image, making it appear as though she supported Monica Brown for school board,” he wrote in a petition he started for law enforcement to drop the charges. “Importantly, no actual account was created, making the charge baseless and unfair. Additionally, other elements of the statute were not met.”

Constable Shirley, who serves criminal and civil papers in the county’s 2nd precinct, agreed that something about the arrest seems wrong. “This kind of stuff really smells of authoritarianism.”

Texas Scorecard obtained a copy of the conditions of Krottinger’s $10,000 bond. He cannot access social media, nor can he have any contact with the other activist. Criswell said social media is where Kolton makes his livelihood and called the social media ban “egregious.”

Brandon Hall, who represents Granbury and others in District 11 on the State Board of Education, expressed alarm.

Keep reading

‘All they did was wear wristbands!’ Judges question school district’s ban on ‘XX’ at girls’ games

Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island risk becoming hotbeds of censorship by school districts if the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals construes perceived offense as harassment. School districts risk massive liability for harassment if it does not.

Lawyers for censored parents and New Hampshire’s Bow School District laid out alternate visions of legal calamity to a three-judge panel of the Boston-based court at a hearing Wednesday on the constitutionality of Bow banning “XX” wristbands, a silent form of advocacy for female-only sports, from school athletic events.

Parents and a grandparent sued the district more than a year ago, after it threatened to arrest them at a Sept. 17, 2024, girls’ soccer game featuring a male player for not removing their wristbands, which refer to the female chromosome pair, and issued no-trespass orders. Bow set up a “protest zone” for critics of male inclusion soon after the suit was filed. 

Their passive protest shortly followed a federal judge blocking The Free State’s law that “prohibits biological males from participating in female athletics,” an injunction that applied only to the male athletes who sued, not every male who identifies as a girl.

A district judge nominated by President George H.W. Bush rejected a preliminary injunction against Bow this spring, claiming the wristbands send a “demeaning and harassing” message to males who identify as girls and participate in girls’ sports.

Wednesday’s oral argument suggested the panel might buck the 1st Circuit’s reputation as a rubber stamp for schools on gender identity, frequently leaving Bow School District lawyer Jonathan Shirley seeming to stumble for answers that would satisfy their questions.

Another panel upheld a school district’s ban on a student wearing an “Only Two Genders” shirt because it “assertedly demeans characteristics of personal identity” even if done “passively, silently, and without mentioning any specific students.” Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas blasted their colleagues for not accepting that case.

One of Wednesday’s panel members, Judge Julie Rikelman, served on another that upheld a school district’s practice of hiding students’ identification as the opposite sex from their parents. President Biden nominated Rikelman, who argued to preserve federal abortion rights in Dobbs, a month after SCOTUS ruled against her abortion-clinic client.

The 1st Circuit was the only federal appeals court until recently without any active GOP-nominated judges, which Reuters reported has made its lower courts “magnets for lawsuits challenging Trump’s agenda by Democratic state attorneys general and advocacy groups.” The Senate confirmed President Trump nominee Joshua Dunlap on Tuesday.

Wednesday’s panel included two judges with senior status, meaning they are allowed to handle a reduced caseload compared to active judges: Jeffrey Howard, nominated by President George W. Bush, and Sandra Lynch, by President Clinton.

Keep reading

When the Government Censored Dracula, Frankenstein, and King Kong

In 1931, Universal Studios released a pair of films that still haunt American culture. The first to emerge from the shadows was Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi as the titular vampire who creeps by night to feed on the blood of his victims. Then, shambling in the bloodsucker’s wake, came Frankenstein, starring Boris Karloff as the tragic creature who was pieced together from dead body parts and brought to unnatural life by the titular mad scientist.

Some modern horror fans might find these films to be too slow or tame for their liking. But we must remember that they were genuinely frightening or disturbing to many audiences back in the day. They were so upsetting to some people, in fact, that the official censorship boards that then existed in multiple states took a page from Dr. Frankenstein and sliced off the best parts.

Today, the idea of an official state censor requiring specific cuts to a mainstream Hollywood movie in order for that movie to be shown to paying adult customers would be laughed out of court on First Amendment grounds.

But no such robust First Amendment jurisprudence existed in the 1930s. In fact, it was not until 1925 that the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized that the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech applied to the actions of state and local governments. And, as we will see, it was not until 1952 that the First Amendment’s protections against state censorship were extended to the movies.

So Dracula and Frankenstein both faced the censors’ knives when they were first released. For example, in his invaluable book, The Monster Show: A Cultural History of Horror, David J. Skal noted that Massachusetts mandated several cuts to all Sunday screenings of Dracula, including the removal of a shot “showing part of a skeleton in a casket as well as one of a beetle-like insect emerging from a miniature coffin.”

As for Frankenstein, Skal reported that one of the most commonly maimed scenes involved the creature encountering a young girl who was tossing flowers onto a lake and watching them float. Seemingly charmed by the girl’s joyful actions, the creature, behaving with a sort of child-like innocence of its own, tosses the girl onto the water to watch her float like a flower. But the girl (predictably) drowns, compounding the creature’s pathos and isolation.

Many censors objected to that upsetting scene and it was typically cut in a way that removed the sight of the creature actually tossing the girl onto the water. Yet, as Skal observed, such an edit “ironically [left] some viewers with the impression that they had been spared the spectacle of some shocking molestation.” In other words, the censors arguably made the scene even more disturbing by forcing audiences to draw their own conclusions about the full nature of the girl’s fatal meeting with the creature. The censors thus defeated the point of their own clumsy censorship.

Several years later, Frankenstein‘s even better (in my view) sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein, faced its own angry mob of censors. The “list of eliminations ordered by the Ohio Censor Board,” complained one Universal staffer, in a report quoted by Skal, were “very drastic and very harmful to the success of this picture.”

Perhaps the fullest record we have of that era’s heavy-handed government crackdown on horror movies comes from a 1933 pamphlet published by the National Council on Freedom From Censorship titled What Shocked the Censors: A Complete Record of Cuts in Motion Picture Films Ordered by the New York State Censors from January, 1932 to March, 1933.

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

Texas Is Sued Over Digital ID Age Verification Bill

A major technology association is suing the State of Texas over a new law that threatens both privacy and free expression.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2420, which is set to take effect on January 1, 2026.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The group argues that the law forces both app stores and developers to impose invasive ID age checks, obtain parental consent, and label content in state-approved ways that violate the First Amendment.

Under SB 2420, anyone with an app store account would need to complete an age-verification process before downloading or updating applications.

If an app store determines that a user is under 18, that user would be blocked from downloading most apps or making in-app purchases unless a parent gives consent and assumes control of the account.

Minors who cannot link their profiles to a parent or guardian would lose access to app store content entirely.

App developers would also face new rules.

They must classify their apps into multiple age categories and provide written explanations for each rating. Every update, feature addition, or design change would require written notice to the app store.

CCIA says these mandates compel developers to describe their products in ways dictated by the state and pressure companies to collect personal data that users should not have to disclose.

Keep reading

After SCOTUS ignores ‘only two genders’ censorship, appeals court upholds ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ ban

Five months after Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas blasted their colleagues for refusing to review a ruling against a student punished for wearing an “Only Two Genders” shirt to school, a second federal appeals court has blessed another way for schools to clamp down on disfavored messages: the inference of vulgarity.

A divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a ban on “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts by Michigan’s Tri County Area Schools, ruling Tuesday that school administrators’ perception that the expression is code for “F— Joe Biden” renders it profane and thus exempt from students’ First Amendment rights in schools.

President Trump-nominated Judge John Nalbandian, who appeared to be the swing vote in oral argument, joined with President Clinton-nominated Judge Karen Nelson Moore to apply the SCOTUS precedent Fraser, which upheld a student’s discipline based on a “school assembly speech that had a rather elaborate sexual metaphor.”

This is despite the duo’s admission that “Let’s Go Brandon” has “a wide range of meanings” going back to its creation, when NBC Sports reporter Kelli Stavast falsely claimed crude chants against President Biden at a NASCAR race were support for driver Brandon Brown.

“Some saw it as merely a euphemism for what the crowd really said,” the majority said. “Others used it as a shibboleth to express antipathy” toward Biden and his policies, and yet others “used it to question what they perceived as liberal bias in the media—based on the theory that NBC had been trying to hide the anti-Biden sentiment on display at Talladega.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents the anonymous students who wore the sweatshirts, told Just the News it plans to appeal but hasn’t decided yet whether to go straight to SCOTUS or seek a full-court 6th Circuit review.

Keep reading