Tag: lawsuits

Lawsuit Filed After LGBT Promoter Stages ‘Setup’ on Christian Jewelry-Store Worker, Gets Her Fired

‘It appears as though Kay Jewelers is anti-Christian.’

A lawsuit has been filed against Kay Jewelers after a Christian employee was fired for talking about her faith with a co-worker.

Commentator Todd Starnes explained the situation had the markings of a “setup.”

“The conversation happened in a back work area at a Kay Jewelers in Fairlawn, Ohio. The coworker continuously pressed (Mika) Cohen for her personal opinions about Pride Month. Finally, she explained that she is a Christian and shared her sincerely held beliefs on God’s definition of marriage and sexuality,” he explained. “A few weeks later Kay Jewelers launched a HR investigation into the conversation alleging her remarks were inappropriate.”

Shortly later, she was fired.

“It certainly appears as though Cohen is the victim of a setup by a pro-LGBT staffer. To make matters even worse, it appears as though Kay Jewelers is anti-Christian. Diamonds may be a girl’s best friend, but Kay Jewelers is certainly no friend to Christians,” he said.

It is the American Center for Law and Justice that took on the case.

It said it is defending “an employee’s right to express her religious beliefs,” this time in Ohio.

Cohen was dismissed by Kay from her position as assistant manager in Fairlawn, Ohio, for sharing her Christian beliefs with a co-worker after repeatedly being asked to do so, the legal team said.

Keep reading

ICAN’s Lawsuit Results in CDC Deleting its Policy of Censoring Claimed “Misinformation”

As a result of the lawsuit ICAN filed against CDC for blocking an individual on its official X (Twitter) account, not only did CDC unblock users, but the agency has now deleted its policy of blocking users for purported “misinformation.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a journalist who was blocked by CDC on X after she posted comments critical of CDC policy. We previously reported that, shortly after we filed the suit, CDC promptly unblocked her and others.

Now, CDC has notified ICAN’s attorneys that it has made significant changes to its former public comment policy. Previously, its policy allowed CDC to hide or delete comments that it felt contained “misleading or false information,” defamation, name calling, personal attacks, or spam. It also stated that “repeated violations” may “cause the author to be blocked.”

The new policy—which applies to all CDC sites, social media profiles, blogs, and applications that allow public comments—contains none of these restrictions!

Keep reading

Ireland’s New Online Censorship Rules Face Showdown With X in Court

X has initiated a High Court challenge against Ireland’s media authority, Coimisiún na Meán, over a newly introduced censorship code that imposes stringent regulations on video-sharing platforms.

The contentious safety code, finalized in October, emerged following the enactment of Ireland’s Online Safety and Media Regulation Act. Rooted in the European Commission’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), the code obliges platforms under Irish jurisdiction to implement measures shielding users—particularly children—from harmful content. Platforms found non-compliant could face severe penalties, including fines of up to €20 million or 10% of annual revenue, whichever is greater.

For platforms like X,  Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and more, the code signals a dramatic shift away from self-regulation and gives Ireland’s regulators more control over online speech.

According to Coimisiún na Meán, the rules are designed to curtail the dissemination of “harmful” material. Criminal content, such as child exploitation or terrorism-related media, also falls within the prohibited categories but was already covered by previous laws.

Keep reading

O’Keefe Scores Victory in 11th Circuit of Appeals Against CNN in Defamation Case

James O’Keefe has scored a significant victory in his ongoing legal battle against CNN, with a ruling in his favor from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This victory comes after three years, thousands of miles traveled, and nearly a million dollars in legal fees in his defamation case against the network.

In 2021 when CNN’s Ana Cabrera falsely accused Project Veritas (PV) of promoting misinformation on Twitter, leading to a suspension of the organization’s account. This defamatory claim was based on a misrepresentation of the facts—PV’s Twitter suspension was not for spreading misinformation, but for publishing truthful, yet supposedly private, information. Cabrera’s statement contradicted a prior CNN report which acknowledged the true reason for the suspension.

The defamation suit aimed to hold CNN accountable for these false claims that directly impacted PV’s reputation. Despite an initial unfavorable ruling from a federal judge in Georgia, who dismissed the lawsuit, O’Keefe and his legal team refused to back down.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with O’Keefe, acknowledging that Cabrera’s statement was not only false, but materially false. The court also found that the statement had the potential to harm the reputation of Project Veritas. This ruling was a crucial step forward in the battle for truth in media, and it sent a strong message that news organizations cannot simply disregard the truth and misrepresent the facts without facing legal consequences.

Judge Ed Carnes, concurring in the decision, highlighted the absurdity of CNN’s defense, pointing out that a major news organization was essentially downplaying the importance of truth in its broadcasts. “If you stay on the bench long enough, you see a lot of things. Still, I never thought I’d see a major news organization downplaying the importance of telling the truth in its broadcasts,” said Carnes.

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s X Sues California Over Deepfake Law Seen as Threat to Free Speech

Elon Musk’s X has initiated legal action against the state of California, seeking to prevent the enforcement of a new statute mandating that major online platforms either remove or label deepfake election-related content, as a violation of the First Amendment, particularly for its impact on memes and satire.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The legal challenge was presented in a federal court earlier this week, focusing on legislation designed to curb the influence of artificially altered videos, images, and sounds, collectively known as deepfakes. The legislation is poised to become effective on January 1.

The law in question, Assembly Bill 2655, was signed as part of California’s efforts to safeguard the integrity of the upcoming 2024 US presidential election from the risks posed by technological manipulation. Governor Gavin Newsom, having clashed with Musk following Musk’s sharing of a parody video of Vice President Kamala Harris, aims to mitigate these alleged risks.

The legislation has sparked concerns among tech giants and free speech supporters, who understand that it suppresses user engagement and stifles free discourse and satire under the guise of curbing misinformation.

Keep reading

US Jury Awards $42 Million To 3 Iraqi Men Tortured At Abu Ghraib By Defense Contractor

The released photos documenting torture of prisoners at the United States government’s Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the Iraq War disgusted many people who could look beyond the war propaganda to feel sympathy for their fellow human beings.

Even if it was assumed that all the people pictured in the midst of their torture were themselves guilty of heinous crimes — an assumption that lacked foundation, the torture was a breach of civilized behavior.

Two decades later, some accountability has been meted out by a jury in Alexandria, Virginia.

The jury decided Tuesday that the military contractor CACI Premier Technology Inc. is liable to pay a total of 42 million dollars in damages to Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili, and Asa’ad Zuba’e — three former detainees at Abu Ghraib in the 2003 through 2004 time period who had brought a lawsuit against the company whose employees worked as interrogators at the prison.

Keep reading

Record labels unhappy with court win, say ISP should pay more for user piracy

The big three record labels notched another court victory against a broadband provider last month, but the music publishing firms aren’t happy that an appeals court only awarded per-album damages instead of damages for each song.

Universal, Warner, and Sony are seeking an en banc rehearing of the copyright infringement case, claiming that Internet service provider Grande Communications should have to pay per-song damages over its failure to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. The decision to make Grande pay for each album instead of each song “threatens copyright owners’ ability to obtain fair damages,” said the record labels’ petition filed last week.

The case is in the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled last month that Grande, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband, violated the law by failing to terminate subscribers accused of being repeat infringers. Subscribers were flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads monitored by Rightscorp, a copyright-enforcement company used by the music labels.

The one good part of the ruling for Grande is that the 5th Circuit ordered a new trial on damages because it said a $46.8 million award was too high. Appeals court judges found that the district court “erred in granting JMOL [judgment as a matter of law] that each of the 1,403 songs in suit was eligible for a separate award of statutory damages.” The damages were $33,333 per song.

Record labels want the per-album portion of the ruling reversed while leaving the rest of it intact.

Keep reading

Missouri v. Biden UPDATE: Judge Orders ‘Jurisdictional Discovery’ to Settle Govt’s Bad Faith Arguments

Experts have said that the Missouri v. Biden case is “the most important free speech case in a generation.”

The case involves the federal government wholesale deleting and deplatforming millions of Americans from social media based entirely on their truthful political statements.

Just this past week, the trial court has issued a new order in the case, after an appeal to the Supreme Court was successful for the Biden administration, which sought to undo a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the censorship regime.

Now, the trial court is ordering the two sides to conduct “jurisdictional discovery” so that it can prove one issue critical to the case moving forward: whether the Plaintiffs on the side of free speech have enough legal ‘standing’ to move forward. What this means is that the parties are now going to fight about whether the specific Plaintiffs in the case can prove that they were specifically harmed.

You can read the court order here.

Whereas previously the parties could show the massive censorship regime and show that they were deplatformed, now the parties must show the connection and demonstrate that the specific Biden speech suppression complex deplatformed these specific Plaintiffs.

Thus the court is allowing both parties to issue ‘discovery’ to primarily third parties right now, meaning demand evidence, documents, and depositions from people, organizations, and companies, in order to build the record of evidence both parties need to make their arguments.

The claims in the case cannot rest on mere speculation, the parties need to be able to get tangible evidence to back up their claims. Lawyers involved in the case say the critical issue at this juncture is: proving that the federal government targeted a specific Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s speech was harmed as a result.

Keep reading

Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Biden-Harris DOJ to Block Destruction of Jack Smith’s Records Exposing Lawfare Against President Trump

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Paxton’s legal action seeks to secure a preservation order that would block any potential destruction of records from Jack Smith’s investigation into former President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit highlights a pattern of record destruction by past special counsels and raises concerns about accountability in a “weaponized” justice system under the Biden-Harris regime.

Paxton initiated the lawsuit following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request he filed, seeking access to documents and communications related to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation.

“Past Special Counsels, including—notoriously—Robert Mueller, destroyed records at the end of their investigations to avoid accountability. It is not clear why nobody was prosecuted for doing so. This request is part of my Office’s efforts to ensure that Americans are not cheated out of accountability or information again. This pattern of weaponizing the justice system for partisan retribution must end,” Ken Paxton said.

The letter reads in part:

“The State of Texas is requesting a waiver of all fees, and meets the criteria per Justice Department policy. This information request is in the public interest, as it will provide critical information for the public understanding of the Office of Special Counsel’s activities.

This request does not serve the commercial interest of the Attorney General’s office. This request is made in the State of Texas’s sovereign capacity. And this FOIA request seeks information that is important for the American people.

FOIA serves as “a means for citizens to know what their Government is up to.” And it provides “a structural necessity in a real democracy.” The Texas Attorney General’s Office frequently updates constituents on important, newsworthy information.

The Office issues press releases, and posts news on its website that is frequently reported on by the press. The information from this FOIA request will significantly contribute to the public’s understanding of the Special Counsel’s investigation, particularly when the subject of that investigation has been elected as the 47th President of the United States.”

Smith, appointed by Garland in November 2022, was tasked with investigating Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 presidential bid.

Jack Smith spent over $50 million of taxpayer money to hunt down Trump for non-crimes.

Since then, Smith’s investigation has led to a series of high-profile indictments against Trump.

Keep reading

Woman Fired For Refusing COVID Vaccine Wins Record $12 Million From Rogue Employer

A woman fired for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine has won a record $12 million settlement from her employer.

Lisa Domski, who worked at the insurance company Blue Cross Blue as an IT specialist for over three decades, was fired from her position for refusing to take the jab, which has since been proven to have been neither safe nor effective.

After suing the company for religious discirmination against her Catholic faith, Domski was awarded significant damages by a federal jury in Detroit, according to the Associated Press.

The ruling included $10 million in punitive damages against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, as well as $1.7 million in lost wages and $1 million in noneconomic damages.

Her lawyer, Jon Marko, pointed out that during the so-called pandemic, Domski always worked remotely. Even before the virus broke out, the vast majority of her work was carried out remotely.

“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion. Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience,” Marko said in a statement after the verdict was confirmed.

“Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known,” he continued.

Keep reading