Tag: freedom of expression

Man Kicked Out Of Major League Soccer Game For Wearing Trump MAGA Hat

In a video going viral online, a Trump supporter filmed the moment he was kicked out of a St. Louis City Soccer Club match this week for wearing a Make America Great Again hat.

One of the security guards kicking the man out of the stadium even said he was also a Trump supporter but that the team didn’t allow “political” paraphernalia.

The MAGA hat-wearing individual pointed out there were several fans waving gay pride and trans flags, which he argued were political statements.

Security threatened to take the Trump supporter out “in handcuffs” if he did not voluntarily exit the facility as police officers arrived on the scene.

“Trump is no welcome in St. Louis City SC Club,” the man said as he was escorted from the premises.

Keep reading

Welcome To The Land Of The Free… Until You Express An Opinion

Britain’s cancel culture is a purposely designed social credit system.

Say the wrong thing, and you’re done for. One ‘offensive’ tweet? Straight to prison.

Say a silent prayer? You’re nicked.

Point out that men don’t have wombs, or that climate change hysteria is exaggerated? You’re sacked and shunned.

Post a meme that contradicts a government orthodoxy or expresses concerns about illegal immigration? Congrats, you’re now persona non grata and at risk of being given a holiday at His Majesty’s pleasure.

Welcome to the land of the free… until you express an opinion…

Great Britain, 2025, where the air is thick with sanctimonious twaddle, and our inalienable rights are under attack from the self-proclaimed elite. Those pompous, hypocritical overlords of ‘correct’ thinking have decided our words, thoughts, and even our chickens need their approval. Free speech? In the U.K., members of the public are in prison for sending a single tweet. And just wait until they roll out digital ID (the so called BritCard) and the Stasi levels of censorship which will follow.

The Establishment has closed its grip harder than Keir Starmer on free Arsenal tickets. Wielding censorship like a sledgehammer and telling us what constitutes ‘approved truth’ as though we’re living in Orwell’s 1984.

But fear not, because there’s a growing rebellion. Increasing numbers of Brits simply aren’t having it anymore. They see through this dystopian farce, preferring instead to give it the middle finger. Our great nation isn’t China or North Korea (though they’d like it to be). Britain is the crucible of free speech and has long championed open expression across literature, the arts and politics.

Amidst the madness, we salute a titan of liberty: John Milton, whose Areopagitica in 1644 stands as a blazing beacon for free speech. With a poet’s fire and a rebel’s heart, Milton faced down Parliament’s suffocating book licensing laws, daring to proclaim that truth thrives only when it wrestles openly with falsehood. “Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” he thundered, crafting a vision of Britain as a place for ideas, where no censor’s pen could silence the quest for truth. His words, a clarion call against tyranny, sowed the seeds for our nation’s proud claim as a bastion of free expression.

Keep reading

Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans – Will U.S. Follow Suit?

The X-rated social media platform OnlyFans is experiencing real growth, with revenue, content, and user numbers all on the rise. The site’s over 4 million “creators” sell content – including images, videos, and personalized chats – to more than 300 million subscribers, or “fans.” It’s primarily a sex site, and claims that the platform isn’t powered by porn are usually accompanied by winks and nods to the contrary.

OnlyFans keeps a 20% cut of what users pay, boasting $1.3 billion of revenue in 2023. It’s a lucrative approach to monetizing porn consumption, but the platform just hit a legal roadblock in a seemingly unlikely country.

Sweden, which in 1971 became the second country in the world to formally legalize all forms of pornography, has not been as soft on prostitution. In 1999, the country criminalized the purchase of sex, but not the sale, in efforts to protect vulnerable women from facing stiff legal consequences.

That policy will now apply to the virtual world. As of July 1, Swedes could face up to a year in prison for paying someone for personalized online sexual services, including sexting and video content. The new law also criminalizes promoting or profiting from others who perform sex acts for payment on demand, forcing OnlyFans to pull out of Sweden.

In a country known for libertines more than prudes, the law passed with broad, cross-party support. “The idea is that anyone who buys sexual acts performed remotely should be penalized in the same way as those who buy sexual acts involving physical contact,” said Gunnar Strommer, Sweden’s Justice Minister and a member of the Moderate party.

Keep reading

Zelensky considers legalizing porn production

A petition demanding the legalization of pornography production in Ukraine has been forwarded to the country’s parliament for review, Vladimir Zelensky announced on Tuesday. The statement was published on his website after the initiative got more than 25,000 signatures, meeting the legal threshold that requires formal consideration.

The petition, authored by Ukrainian OnlyFans model Svetlana Dvornikova, calls for the decriminalization of adult content production, arguing that law enforcement resources should be directed toward investigating serious crimes rather than conducting “controlled purchases of intimate photos.” It requests legislative changes which would stop police from pursuing the individuals involved.

Pornography was banned in Ukraine in 2009, when then-President Viktor Yushchenko signed legislation that outlawed the possession, distribution, sale, and manufacture of such materials. 

Dvornikova’s petition, submitted on June 27, 2025, has quickly gained support. By early July, it had reached the required number of signatures, prompting Zelensky’s response.

In June, Dvornikova publicly urged Zelensky to support legalization. She claimed that her content had generated significant tax revenue for the state, yet she had faced two criminal cases — one for alleged tax evasion and another for the production of pornography. 

Keep reading

South Dakota Follows Texas with Broader Online Digital ID Law

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of Texas’ age verification law for adult websites has paved the way for a surge of similar online digital ID measures across the country.

South Dakota is the first to follow, as its new statute requiring age verification or estimation for sites distributing adult content takes effect today.

However the South Dakota law is much broader and applies to a wider range of websites, not just those that have a large percentage of adult content.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

The law applies broadly to any platform that regularly deals in explicit material, without setting a specific threshold for how much of the site’s content qualifies.

This contrasts with Texas’ approach, where the rule kicks in if at least one-third of a site’s material is deemed pornographic.

Keep reading

France Pushes Digital ID Check Laws For Platforms Like Reddit and Bluesky

Efforts by the French government to combat online access to pornography are quickly turning into a broader push to dismantle online anonymity, raising significant alarm among privacy advocates.

Authorities are now considering applying harsh age-verification mandates not just to explicit sites, but also to social networks like Reddit, Mastodon, and Bluesky, platforms where adult content may appear but where identity is not typically tethered to real-world credentials.

The shift doesn’t involve new legislation, but a reinterpretation of existing laws under France’s recently enacted regulations. This would allow the state to brand platforms that “enable the sharing of pornographic content” as porn sites, subjecting them to some of the most invasive digital ID checks yet proposed in the EU.

Digital Minister Clara Chappaz’s office stated, “Our focus is age verification for any platform that distributes or enables the sharing of pornographic content.”

Though framed as a move to protect children, the implications extend well beyond youth safety. Any service caught in this net would be forced to track the age, and by extension, the identity, of its users, undermining pseudonymity and threatening to make anonymous online activity impossible in practice.

The government’s renewed urgency follows the tragic killing of a teaching assistant in a high school, which President Emmanuel Macron used to reemphasize his call to ban social media for users under 15. While unrelated to pornography, the incident is being used to justify sweeping controls over digital spaces.

Platforms that fail to comply with the new age-check rules risk being fined, blacklisted by search engines, or even blocked entirely. Chappaz recently signaled that Elon Musk’s X is close to being designated as a pornographic platform, despite its primary function as a text-based social media site, highlighting how blurry and expansive the government’s definitions have become.

However, the legal path is anything but clear. Under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), decisions over “Very Large Online Platforms” rest with the European Commission, not individual member states.

These platforms are expected to assess and mitigate risks, including those tied to adult content, but retain discretion on how to do so. A legal review in France is reportedly underway, signaling the state’s intent to push this policy despite potential conflicts with EU law.

Keep reading

Southern Baptists target porn, sports betting, same-sex marriage and ‘willful childlessness’

Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval of same-sex marriage.

The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization’s public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn’t extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions.

In a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid.

Remnants of the epic showdown in Dallas 40 years ago

Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics.

The 1985 showdown was “the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,” said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination’s rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985’s, but that meeting’s influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members.

Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support.

A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family” and to oppose laws contradicting “what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.”

To some outside observers, such language is theocratic.

Keep reading

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