Sen. Chuck Schumer Says Jimmy Kimmel Must Stay on Air to Save Democracy — Then Urges Him to Sue Disney

Senator Chuck Schumer has warned that Jimmy Kimmel must remain on air to protect American democracy.

Disney confirmed on Wednesday night that Kimmel’s show will be suspended indefinitely after comments he made about last week’s assassination of Charlie Kirk at the hands of a disturbed left-wing student.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them — and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel remarked during Monday night’s show.

“Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” said Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division, in a statement on Wednesday.

Schumer, who is currently America’s most powerful elected Democrat, is urging Kimmel to take the matter to court.

“America is meant to be a bastion of free speech,” Schumer wrote on the X platform. “Everybody across the political spectrum should be speaking out to stop what’s happening to Jimmy Kimmel.”

“This is about protecting democracy,” he continued. “This must go to court.”

Keep reading

Parents Sue Character.AI for Allegedly Leading Kids to Sexual Abuse, Suicidal Behavior

Parents filed three separate lawsuits on Sept. 16, alleging that Character.AI, which features characters or chatbots for users to interact with, sexually abused their children and led them into suicidal behavior.

At least one of the children, 13-year-old Juliana Peralta, ended her life in 2023 after alleged harmful interactions with an AI character named Hero. Another attempted suicide but survived after a severe overdose, according to a filing.

Each of the lawsuits, which were filed in New York and Colorado, came from the Social Media Victims Law Center. The group has represented the mother of Sewell Setzer, who ended his life in 2024 after interacting with a romantic AI companion.

According to the center, the chatbots are allegedly programmed to be deceptive, isolate children from families, and expose them to sexually abusive content.

“Each of these stories demonstrates a horrifying truth … that Character.AI and its developers knowingly designed chatbots to mimic human relationships, manipulate vulnerable children, and inflict psychological harm,” Matthew Bergman, who founded the law center, said in a press release.

According to the lawsuit over Peralta’s suicide, both she and Setzer reiterated the concept of “shift[ing],” which authorities identified as a reference to shifting consciousness from one reality to another. Handwritten journal entries within the filing show both Peralta and Setzer writing “I will shift” more than a dozen consecutive times on a sheet of paper—something the lawsuit described as “eerily similar.”

Keep reading

President Trump Files $15 Billion Defamation and Libel Lawsuit Against The New York Times

President Trump late Monday evening announced he filed a $15 billion libel lawsuit against the New York Times and several reporters, including Michael Schmidt.

The lawsuit was filed in a Tampa, Florida, federal court.

President Trump accused the newspaper of being a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party and said they gave Kamala Harris the single largest illegal campaign contribution ever.

“Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party. I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The “Times” has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected “rag” responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely “smearing” me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. They practiced this longterm INTENT and pattern of abuse, which is both unacceptable and illegal. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW! The suit is being brought in the Great State of Florida. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump said on Truth Social.

Keep reading

Environmental Groups Are Suing To Silence Scientists Who Wrote a Report Questioning Climate Change Alarmism

In July, the Energy Department released a report challenging many of the mainstream narratives surrounding climate change. The report, which was authored by the Climate Working Group (CWG)—a team of five climate scientists and economists—was drafted to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy,” according to Energy Secretary Chris Wright. 

“To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report,” the energy secretary wrote in the report’s foreword. The publication has indeed opened up debate, garnering nearly 60,000 comments in the Federal Register. But it has also introduced a series of legal challenges against the agency and the CWG. 

On Thursday, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by two environmental groups—the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists—against the Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the CWG. 

The lawsuit argues that when forming the CWG, Wright and the Energy Department violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires federal advisory groups to provide meeting notices and meeting notes to the public, create an approved charter of the group’s mission, and “have a balanced membership in terms of ‘the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee,'” according to the the Congressional Research Service. 

Much of the lawsuit focuses on the viewpoint balance of the CWG, with the plaintiffs arguing that “all five authors are well known for holding ‘contrarian views on climate science that are out of step with the mainstream'” and “none of the members represents the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities…have unequivocally caused global warming.” To remedy the lawsuit, the environmental groups are demanding that the working group be disbanded, the report be vacated, and CWG members be prohibited from advising federal agencies until the defendants “comply with all requirements for the group to operate legally as an advisory committee.”

The Energy Department has refuted claims that it violated the FACA, arguing that the CWG is not an advisory group under the law because it was created to “exchange facts or information” with the Energy Department, not to “make recommendations on an identified governmental policy for which specified advice was being sought.” Additionally, the CWG was disbanded on September 3, in a letter sent from Wright to the group’s members, rendering “most of Plaintiffs’ claims…moot due to the CWG’s dissolution.” Even with the CWG officially being shut down, its members will continue to collaborate (outside of the federal government’s scope) and update the report, according to Bloomberg.

Keep reading

NMSU Alumnus and Former Professor Files Legal Action Over Unlawful Vaccine Mandate

Today, David K. Clements, a former Assistant Professor of consumer protection and business law, announced the filing of a lawsuit against New Mexico State University (NMSU) and its Board of Regents, alleging breach of contract and violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

The action stems from his wrongful termination on October 15, 2021, for refusing to comply with NMSU’s COVID-19 experimental vaccine and mask mandate, which he contends violated federal law by lacking informed consent and refusal rights.

“It is difficult to announce this lawsuit in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. He fought for free speech on campuses just like NMSU. Before his life was tragically taken, lives and reputations were destroyed on campuses across America for exercising our First Amendment right to combat forced injections, masking, and invasive testing. For those who held the line against forced injection, many had to endure a six-inch nasal swab shoved up their nose, scraping the back of their throats every week, or else face the loss of their job. It was dehumanizing. I will fight these monsters with everything I have,” Clements stated.

Clements, who taught at NMSU until his dismissal, argues that the mandate disrupted educational services to both students and faculty—services generating $2.6 billion in economic output—and exploited his position as a tenure-track professor to pressure students to get an injection with virtually no scientific data advising them of their risks. The Complaint can be read here.

“The university effectively took bribe money tied to the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, among others. They chose to rake in millions of dollars rather than look out for the health and safety of faculty and students. The statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years. I hope this lawsuit will alert former colleagues and students that were harmed by the jab or denied accommodations, that a university’s greed should not outweigh their rights to receive an education free of coercion. There is still time on the clock for thousands of lawsuits to be filed,” Clements stated.

NMSU is no stranger to controversy. Over the past five years, it has been sued for allegations of hazing, sexual assault, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. These include an $8 million settlement in June 2023 with former basketball players Deuce Benjamin, Shak Odunewu, and William Benjamin for hazing and sexual assault claims; a $495,000 settlement in March 2024 with former provost Carol Parker for discrimination and retaliation; a $60,000 settlement in February 2024 with former Title IX coordinator Laura Castille for retaliation; a $1 million settlement in July 2025 with a female student alleging mishandling of a sexual assault case; and an undisclosed settlement in August 2025 with former basketball coach Greg Heiar for wrongful termination. These resolutions, totaling over $9.5 million in disclosed amounts, reflect a troubling track record.

Clements’ objection to the mandate’s illegality has been vindicated by recent developments, including the CDC’s 2025 withdrawal of vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women and Moderna’s requirement for placebo-controlled trials. “As an alumnus and educator, I sought to protect my students and colleagues from potential harm, only to face retaliation,” Clements stated.

The lawsuit seeks reinstatement to a tenured position, compensatory and treble (triple) damages under the UPA for what Clements describes as a willful and unconscionable trade practice. He has requested preservation of all related records to ensure transparency.

Keep reading

Holding Politicians Accountable: Using Civil Litigation To Combat Incitement To Violence

In an era of heightened political polarization, inflammatory rhetoric from public figures has increasingly been linked to real-world acts of violence.  While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, there are legal boundaries where words cross into incitement.  This article explores how civil lawsuits can serve as a mechanism to hold politicians accountable for fomenting violence, regardless of party affiliation.  By examining the legal framework, historical precedents, and potential impacts, we can understand how the courts might act as a bulwark against dangerous discourse—focusing on truth-seeking principles rather than partisan blame.  The horrendous assassination of Youth Leader and Turning Point Founder Charlie Kirk brings this discussion to the forefront of our world culture.

The Legal Foundation for Civil Suits Against Politicians

Under U.S. law, politicians are not immune from accountability for their words if they directly contribute to harm.  The primary vehicle for such claims is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state officials (including governors, mayors, and lawmakers) for violations of constitutional rights while acting “under color of state law.” If a politician’s statements or actions are alleged to incite violence that results in death, injury, or deprivation of rights—such as the right to life or due process—victims or their families could pursue damages.

However, the bar is high.  The First Amendment protects speech unless it meets the strict criteria established in *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1969): it must be directed at producing “imminent lawless action” and be likely to produce such action.  Mere hyperbolic or critical language, even if divisive, typically doesn’t qualify.  Additionally, officials often benefit from qualified immunity, which shields them unless their conduct violates a “clearly established” right.  Sovereign immunity may also apply to actions taken in an official capacity, although personal-capacity suits can bypass this immunity.

Keep reading

Chicago police officer says he received racist image from fellow officers in lawsuit against city

A Chicago police officer is suing the city and several of his fellow officers, accusing them of racism and intimidation.

On March 17, Chicago police Officer Anthony Banks was allegedly cornered by a group of fellow officers inside the Chicago Police Department’s 11th District on the city’s West Side.

The alleged incident sent Banks on medical leave due to emotional distress, trauma and fear for his own safety.

“They encircled him in such a fashion that he did not feel free to leave,” Attorney Blake Horwitz said. “They all surrounded my client and start making racial comments, using [a racial slur] and also telling him to go back from where he came from, which has a double meaning.”

Banks’ attorney said the alleged incident happened after a disagreement during an investigation.

The police officers were carrying out their duties inside someone’s home, when Banks allegedly stepped in to deescalate a heated exchange between a visibly pregnant woman and another officer.

“He intervened, and said, ‘why don’t you distance yourself and give her some room?'” Horwitz said.

According to the lawsuit, two Chicago police sergeants who witnessed the confrontation intervened.

Banks was sent home and asked to fill out a report documenting the incident.

The next day, Banks “received a graphic and threatening email containing a racist image on his department-issued phone,” his attorney said.

“The image is the most racially perverse photograph of how an African American can kill himself,” Horwitz said. “It is a 1950s Mississippi-type of representation.”

The attorney said Banks went on medical leave shortly after the incident.

The officer returned to duty on July 1. He was transferred to CPD’s 6th District.

He chose to file a lawsuit to shed light on the issue of racism within the department

Keep reading

Google ordered to pay over $425 million in damages for smartphone privacy violations

Tech giant Google has been ordered to pay over $425 million for improperly snooping on the data of smartphone users and invading users’ privacy from 2016-2024.

It’s a violation of public trust,” said attorney & political analyst Madeline Summerville.

The class action lawsuit, initially filed in 2020, accused the company of collecting data from 98 million devices that had turned off a tracking feature in their Google account.

Even though I’ve shutoff all the different apparatuses that would keep Google from monitoring me, they’re still doing it because they were doing it through third party apps,” Summerville said.

The jury found Google spied on users and was in violation of California privacy laws. But Google denied it was improperly accessing devices. A Google spokesperson told Reuters, this decision misunderstands how its products work and it plans to file an appeal. “Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice.”

Keep reading

She Couldn’t Read Her Own Diploma: Why Public Schools Pass Students but Fail Society

A nineteen-year-old college student is suing her former high school for negligence because she graduated despite being unable to read or write.

The student, Aleysha Ortiz, graduated from Hartford Public Schools in the spring of 2024 with honors.

She earned a scholarship to attend the University of Connecticut, where she’s studying public policy. But while she was in high school, she had to use speech-to-text apps to help her read and write essays, and despite years of advocating for support for her literacy struggles, her school never addressed them.

Her story is shocking, but unfortunately, it isn’t isolated. At 24 Illinois public schools, not a single student can read at grade level. Nationwide, 54 percent of the American adult population reads at or below a sixth grade level. Put a different way: only 46 percent of American adults gained even a middle-school level mastery of literacy—let alone high school or collegiate levels.

In a first-world country where we spend nearly $16,000 per student per year to educate our children, that’s a horrifying statistic.

Literacy is supposed to be the bedrock of a free and liberally educated society. As the Washington Post’s motto so aptly reminds us, “democracy dies in darkness.”

Illiteracy is a form of darkness, and an illiterate populace is not one equipped to handle the demands of a world filled with forms and papers and words, let alone be the voting citizens of a democratic society.

What Do Literacy Stats Actually Mean?

Officially, the United States reports a basic literacy rate of 99 percent (which should perhaps be called into question, if students like Aleysha Ortiz can graduate with honors and still be illiterate).

But “basic literacy” is a bit of a sales pitch. It sounds impressive, but in practice, “basic literacy skills” means a K-3 grade level of reading—things like Hop on Pop and Amelia Bedelia.

“Functional literacy” is what actually matters: the ability to read and understand things like forms, instructions, job applications, and other forms of text you’ll encounter in your day-to-day life. It measures both technical reading skill and comprehension—your ability to decipher the words, and your ability to discern their meaning.

An estimated 21 percent of American adults (~43 million Americans) are functionally illiterate, meaning they have difficulty reading and comprehending instructions and filling out forms. A functionally illiterate American adult is unable to complete tasks like reading job descriptions or filling out paperwork for Social Security and Medicaid.

Perhaps worse still is the statistic that 54 percent of the American adult population reads at or below a sixth-grade level. Most of us don’t think about reading in terms of grade level, so this statistic feels intuitively bad but practically meaningless. What is a sixth-grade level?

Books written at the sixth-grade level are intended (in both literacy and comprehension skills) for eleven- and twelve-year-olds. Think of books like A Wrinkle in Time, Percy Jackson and The Olympians, and The Giver.

They’re good stories, but they don’t require the same vocabulary and mental acuity as making sense of a tax form. This is an excerpt from The Giver:

Garbriel’s breathing was even and deep. Jonas liked having him there, though he felt guilty about the secret. Each night he gave memories to Gabriel: memories of boat rides and picnics in the sun; memories of soft rainfall against windowpanes; memories of dancing barefoot on a damp lawn.

More complex than Dick and Jane or Hop on Pop, obviously. But this isn’t an adult level of comprehension. If your reading abilities cap out here, you’re going to encounter a lot of text in your day-to-day life that’s difficult to decipher—often things that are important for you to be able to comprehend, like the terms of a lease agreement or the instructions on a medication.

Keep reading

First Amendment Claim Rejected in Case Over Tennessee Lawmaker’s Facebook Page

Tennessee lawmaker Jeremy Faison, a prominent Republican figure and chairman of the state House GOP Caucus, has emerged at the center of a court case with broader implications for how public officials use social media and what rights their constituents have when they engage online.

Faison operates a Facebook page that blends political messaging with personal content.

That blend became a legal flashpoint when a man named Fox, who doesn’t live in Faison’s district, posted comments that were subsequently deleted.

After being blocked from the page, Fox filed a lawsuit, arguing that Faison had violated his constitutional rights.

The court didn’t see it that way.

Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lindke v. Freed, the judge determined that Faison was not acting in an official state capacity even when using the page to perform functions associated with his role as a legislator.

We obtained the opinion for you here.

Because individual lawmakers cannot, by law, speak on behalf of the state, the court said Faison’s moderation of comments wasn’t subject to First Amendment constraints.

Keep reading