freedom of expression – Page 4

Mesa High School student barred from wearing military stole at graduation

A graduation controversy is unfolding at Arizona’s largest school district, Mesa Public Schools. School leaders won’t allow a senior at Mesa High School who is enlisted in the National Guard to wear a military stole at graduation on Thursday.

Daniela Rascon-Rivas earned the stole when she enlisted in the Arizona National Guard. “It would show my classmates that I am enlisted in the Army and that I am fighting for them, keeping our country safe from foreign and domestic enemies,” she says.

Rascon-Rivas says a Mesa High School administrator brought her down to the office last week to explain the district policy against wearing the stole at graduation. “I was disheartened. I was disappointed,” she says. “I felt betrayed.”

Mesa High sent Arizona’s Family a statement, reading in part, “Mesa High absolutely encourages families to bring their student’s stoles for photos and celebrations after the event.”

“I see no point in wearing it afterward,” Rascon-Rivas says. “The point of me wearing these stoles and cords is so that my classmates can see what I have accomplished and the accolades I have collected.”

Her father is also expressing disappointment. “When I got notice that she cannot wear the stole, that broke my heart,” says Jose Rascon.

Rascon-Rivas started a petition that’s gotten the attention of school board member Rachel Walden. “You get that one shot where you go up and grab your diploma and you do the handshake for the photo,” Walden says. “If she has her National Guard stole on, that’s going to make the night more meaningful for her. I think there’s no reason she shouldn’t be able to do that.”

Walden thinks the superintendent should step in and order the school administration to allow the military stoles on Thursday. “If they have to pull rank, then that’s what needs to be done,” she says. “Then we can address it permanently going forward by writing it into policy, if my colleagues on the board agree with that, we can pass a vote to update our policy.”

Keep reading

Trump Signs Take It Down Act

President Donald Trump has now signed into law the Take It Down Act, a measure designed to address the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including increasingly prevalent AI-generated deepfakes.

While the legislation is being celebrated by both major parties as a victory for online safety, particularly for children and victims of abuse, it has also raised concerns about the potential for overreach, selective enforcement, and the erosion of free speech under the guise of digital protection, particularly because of the broad wording of the bill.

The law’s most prominent advocate within the administration has been First Lady Melania Trump, who campaigned heavily for its passage and made rare public appearances to promote it. During the Rose Garden signing ceremony, President Trump invited her to add her signature beneath his, an unusual but symbolic gesture that underscored her role in pushing the legislation forward.

“This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused,” Mrs Trump said. In her remarks, she repeated her criticism of AI and social media, calling them “the digital candy for the next generation,” and warned that these technologies “can be weaponized, shaped beliefs, and sadly affect emotions and even be deadly.”

President Trump, for his part, appeared to dismiss constitutional concerns. “People talked about all sorts of First Amendment, Second Amendment. They talked about any amendment they could make up, and we got it through because of some very brave people,” he said.

Earlier in the year, during his March 4 address to Congress, Trump had signaled his intent to sign the bill. “The Senate passed the Take It Down Act…Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”

While made in jest, the remark pointed to an unresolved issue: how this law will be enforced, and who will benefit most from it.

There is no denying the harm caused by NCII. Victims often struggle to remove intimate images, whether real or AI-generated, while the content continues to spread. The Take It Down Act requires websites to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a complaint. But, just like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), platforms have little way of determining if a complaint is legitimate or being used as a censorship mechanism.

That timeline is designed to offer swift recourse to victims. However, the law’s broad wording leaves its applications open to interpretation.

The bill defines a violation as involving an “identifiable individual” engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” without offering a clear or narrow definition of what that conduct entails. This vagueness creates a gray area that could easily be used to suppress satire, parody, or even critical political speech.

Keep reading

Sen. Mike Lee’s obscenity bill is a free speech nightmare straight out of Project 2025’s playbook

A new bill in Congress threatens to dictate what Americans can read, watch and say online. On May 8, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah and Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., introduced the “Interstate Obscenity Definition Act” (IODA) — a recycled attempt to ban online pornography nationwide.

While concerns about pornography, including moral and religious ones, are part of any healthy public debate, this bill does something far more dangerous: It empowers the federal government to police speech based on subjective values. When lawmakers try to enforce the beliefs of some Americans at the expense of others’ rights, they cross a constitutional line — and put the First Amendment at risk.

The legislation aims to rewrite the legal definition of obscenity, an area of law that represents a very narrow exception to First Amendment protections.

The IODA seeks to sidestep the Supreme Court’s long-standing three-part test for obscenity, established in the 1973 case Miller v. California. The material must appeal to a prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Lee’s bill would scrap that standard and replace it with a broader, far more subjective definition. It would label content obscene if it simply focuses on nudity, sex or excretion in a way that is intended to arouse and if it lacks “serious value.”

By discarding the concept of community standards, the IODA removes a key safeguard that allows local norms to shape what counts as obscenity. Without it, the federal government could impose a single national standard that fails to account for regional differences, cultural context or evolving social values.

The bill also deletes the requirement that material be “patently offensive,” a crucial element that keeps the obscenity test anchored in societal consensus. Instead, it replaces it with a subjective inquiry into whether the work was intended to arouse or titillate. But intent is notoriously difficult to prove and easy to allege. That language could easily sweep in a wide range of protected expression, including art, health information and sex education.

Keep reading

Redefining Obscenity: Lawmakers Take Aim at More Online Content

Two Republican lawmakers are advancing a bill that could dramatically expand the federal government’s ability to criminalize certain content online.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Mary Miller of Illinois have introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), legislation that aims to overhaul the legal definition of obscenity and give prosecutors wide authority to target more online content.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters of the bill claim it is designed to protect families and children from harmful material, but civil liberties advocates warn that its sweeping language threatens to criminalize large swaths of constitutionally protected expression.

IODA discards key elements of the Supreme Court’s long-standing Miller test, which has served as the nation’s benchmark for identifying obscene content since 1973. Under that framework, courts assess whether material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a “patently offensive” way by community standards, and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Lee and Miller’s bill replaces that careful balancing test with a rigid federal definition. According to the proposed language, content is considered obscene if “taken as a whole, [it] appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,” if it “depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person,” and if it “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Promoting the bill, Lee declared, “Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children.” He added, “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Keep reading

GOP Senator Introduces Bill to Make All Porn a Federal Crime, Following Project 2025 Playbook

Last year, the rightwing think-tank the Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025, which laid out much of the policy blueprint for the current Trump administration. One of the project’s espoused goals was to permanently criminalize all pornography. Now, a Republican senator with kind words for Trump has introduced a bill that would do just that.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining what it means to be obscene. For years, “obscenity” has been all but a defunct legal category that narrowly defines speech that remains unprotected by the First Amendment. Lee would explode this legal category, expanding it to encompass virtually all visual representations of sex.

According to the bill text, “a picture, image, graphic image file, film, videotape, or other visual depiction” of any media that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion” would be considered criminal. In other words, if you have an old VHS tape of some Cinemax-style smut stashed away in your garage, you could, under this law, be considered to be harboring deeply illicit materials. Some critics have suggested that Lee’s definition of obscenity is so ridiculously broad that it could effectively criminalize Game of Thrones. That said, the punishments for merely possessing porn under the proposed law seem unclear at this point, as the legislation seems more focused on punishing the creators and distributors of racy material.

The law would “pave the way for the prosecution of obscene content disseminated across state lines or from foreign countries and open the door to federal restrictions or bans regarding online porn,” The Daily Caller writes.

“Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,” said Lee, in a press release about the bill. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Lee’s view of pornography hews closely to that of the Heritage Foundation, which has similarly sought to crush the smut industry. In its Mandate for Leadership, Project 2025 defines pornography as the “omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children” and argues that the “people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned” and that “telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”

It should be noted that porn has always been a hot-button issue and that critics have long tried to criminalize it. The history of the anti-pornography movement in the U.S. is a long and complicated one, littered with differing ideological justifications and strange bedfellows. In recent years, however, the anti-porn crusade has largely been led by the MAGA right.

Keep reading

Missouri 13-Year-Old Suspended for Making a Rifle Out of Dr. Pepper Cans

A 13-year-old Missouri middle school student was suspended for sharing a photo of his weekend art project on his private Snapchat account. The student, W.G., and his mother Riley Grunden are now suing the school district, principal, and superintendent for violating W.G.’s constitutionally protected First Amendment right to creative expression and for labeling him a “cyberbully” on his permanent record.

While at home after school on September 14, 2024, W.G. took a photo on his personal electronic device of Dr. Pepper cans assembled into the shape of a rifle to mimic a social media trend of “can art,” according to the lawsuit filed by Goldwater Institute’s American Freedom Network. He then posted the photo on his personal Snapchat story to share with his friends. The post was accompanied by a trending audio file, titled “Ak47,” which includes a voiceover saying, “This is the famous AK47, with over 50 million manufactured in ten countries, the AK47 is the most popular assault rifle in the world.”

The following day, W.G.’s mother received a phone call from W.G.’s school principal, who informed her that another parent had reported the Snapchat post and that W.G. would be subject to a search before entering the school premises the next day. The day after the search, Grunden met with the principal, superintendent, and school resource officer, where she and W.G. were told that, even though the superintendent had found “no credible evidence of any danger,” the Snapchat post had “brought fear to other students” and could be interpreted as a “terrorist threat.” As a result, W.G. would receive three days of out-of-school suspension for cyberbullying. Before this incident, W.G. had no history of bullying or cyberbullying. Now, Grunden is suing on behalf of her son’s free expression rights.

Although adolescent social media and internet use is one of today’s hot topics, the Supreme Court has made it clear that schools do not have the right to punish students for constitutionally protected speech that has no connection to school safety.

The Court’s 2021 Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. opinion reiterated schools’ limited ability to regulate off-campus speech only when speech materially disrupts the educational environment, and hedged against the temptation to censor all off-campus speech. Rather, the Court warned that “courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.” Additionally, in the 2023 Counterman v. Colorado opinion, the Court established that speech could only be punished as a “true threat” if the speaker anticipated that the expression would be perceived as threatening.

Keep reading

Springfield Illinois City Council Bans Trump Shirt

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) was founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms.

Under the leadership of Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the organization engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.

ACLJ has taken on the case of Ms. Rosanna Pulido, a resident of Springfield, Illinois, who “faced outrageous restrictions on her freedom of expression at a city council meeting.”

According to ACLJ, Ms. Pulido attended a Springfield City Council meeting on October 29, 2024, sporting a “Chicanos for Trump” T-shirt.

Despite her peaceful and orderly participation, exercising her free speech was too much for the council, and she was singled out by a Springfield alderwoman, who claimed the shirt violated a policy against “campaign materials” in the council chambers.

She was then forced to either turn her shirt inside out or cover the message.

As ACLJ notes, this rule is nowhere to be found in writing and, although Ms. Pulido wrote to the city council and to the city’s attorney asking what law was being enforced, she received no reply.

Further, the rule is completely unconstitutional: Citizens can wear campaign T-shirts in public places.

Keep reading

Colorado Agrees to Settlement in First Amendment Case Where Designer Was Coerced into Same-Sex Wedding Website Design

Colorado’s government has consented to a settlement requiring it to disburse more than $1.5 million in attorney fees to Lorie Smith, a graphic designer who won in a First Amendment challenge against the state’s anti-discrimination law.

This legal resolution, announced on Tuesday, follows a definitive Supreme Court verdict that Colorado’s attempt to coerce Smith into designing wedding websites for same-sex couples violated her free speech rights, in conflict with her religious beliefs.

We obtained a copy of the final judgement for you here.

The case, known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which we first covered back in 2022, was decisively settled earlier this year when a federal district court ruled that Colorado must stop mandating Smith to engage in speech that contradicts her convictions. “After enduring Colorado’s censorship for nearly seven years, I’m incredibly grateful for the work of my attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom to bring my case to victory,” Smith stated, in a press release sent to Reclaim The Net, appreciating the efforts of her legal team. She added, “As the Supreme Court said, I’m free to create art consistent with my beliefs without fear of Colorado punishing me anymore.”

Keep reading

Buffalo Bills Security Sparks Outrage, Tells Fan He Can’t Wear Trump T-Shirt at Game

A Buffalo Bills fan was confronted by security personnel at Highmark Stadium on Sunday before the team’s matchup against the Miami Dolphins.

The fan, proudly sporting a navy “Trump 2024” shirt emblazoned with the slogan “Keep America First!” was informed that he could not wear the shirt due to NFL policy prohibiting political attire.

Erie County GOP quickly took to X, expressing outrage over the incident.

“WIDE LEFT! Buffalo Bills security telling a fan he can’t wear a Trump T-shirt at the game? What a joke! If anyone knows this proud Trump supporter, send us a message – we’d love to hook him up with some Trump gear!”

Despite the fan’s insistence that he was exercising his rights in a free country, security personnel remained firm in his stance.

Keep reading

	Orbital Data Centers… on Orbital Data Centers Will…
	Criminalizing Bible… on Criminalizing Bible Verses? Ca…
	Conservative Cornell… on Conservative Cornell Law Prof…
	Resignation Of Bulga… on Resignation Of Bulgarian Prime…
	Alarming figures sho… on Alarming figures show the numb…