​The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently held a hearing on a bill that would sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act within 18 months. This proposed legislation, introduced by Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, aims to force Big Tech to collaborate with Congress to establish a new framework for liability. This push to end Section 230 has reopened the debate about the future of online speech and the protections that underpin it.
 
Section 230 has been a cornerstone of internet freedom, allowing online platforms to host user-generated content without being liable for what their users post. This legal shield has enabled the growth of vibrant online communities, empowered individuals to express themselves freely, and supported small businesses and startups in the digital economy.
 
The bill’s proponents claim that Section 230 has outlived its usefulness and is now contributing to a dangerous online environment. This perspective suggests that without the threat of liability, platforms have little incentive to protect users from predators, drug dealers, and other malicious actors.
 
We acknowledge the problems. But without Section 230, social media platforms would either become overly cautious, censoring a wide range of lawful content to avoid potential lawsuits, or they might avoid moderating content altogether to escape liability. This could lead to a less free and more chaotic internet, contrary to the bill’s intentions.
 
It is especially necessary for social media sites to reveal when they’ve been asked by agents of the FBI and other federal agencies to remove content because it constitutes “disinformation.” When the government makes a request of a highly regulated business, it is not treated by that business as a request. This is government censorship by another name. If the government believes a post is from a foreign troll, or foments dangerous advice, it should log its objection on a public, searchable database.
 
Any changes to Section 230 must carefully balance the need to protect users from harm with the imperative to uphold free speech. Sweeping changes or outright repeal would stifle innovation and silence marginalized voices. Protect The 1st looks forward to further participation in this debate.

​Generally speaking, terminating someone’s employment because of their sexual orientation is a gross violation of the law – and it should be. But that doesn’t apply in every instance, particularly when the employer is a religious institution engaged in guiding the spiritual development of others according to the tenets of their faith.
 
Lonnie Billard served as a teacher of English and drama at Charlotte Catholic High School (CCHS). After CCHS fired him for planning to marry his same-sex partner, Billard brought suit for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted Billard’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting the school’s argument that religious exceptions inoculated them against Billard’s claim. Now, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in, reversing the district court’s decision, and entering judgment for the school.
 
This is a tricky and emotional situation, and one would be forgiven for an impassioned reaction – no matter which side of the issue you’re on. Yet, from both a policy and practicality standpoint, you cannot be a teacher charged with imparting a given set of spiritual values while acting in public violation of them. Religious institutions must be able to restrict their staff positions – particularly teaching positions – to those who hold their same beliefs. Otherwise, religion would cease to mean much at all. A Methodist could teach at a mosque, an atheist at a Baptist church school, or an evangelical Christian at a high school atheist club.

CCHS describes itself as “an educational community centered in the Roman Catholic faith that teaches individuals to serve as Christians in our changing world.” It posits that “individuals should model and integrate the teachings of Jesus in all areas of conduct in order to nurture faith and inspire action,” and that “prayer, worship and reflection are essential elements which foster spiritual and moral development of [CCHS’s] students, faculty and staff.”
 
Indeed, all members of the teaching staff are expected to play a part in promoting the Christian faith. This includes leading prayers, attending Mass, and ensuring the “catholicity” of their classrooms. As such, the Fourth Circuit found that CCHS’ employment decision fell under a “ministerial exception” to Title VII. We think a better term today is a “religious mission exception,” one that covers all the positions in which those who work in a particular faith are expected to model it for others.
 
As the Court wrote, “settled doctrine tailored to facts like these – the ministerial exception – already immunizes CCHS’s decision to fire Billard.” Drawing from the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, the Fourth Circuit concluded that CCHS tasked Billard with “vital religious duties,” effectively making him a “messenger” of the faith. Thus, related employment decisions require the courts to stay out.
 
The CCHS/Billard controversy is not an ideal situation for anyone, and an employer’s similar actions in nearly any other scenario would constitute illegal discrimination. The long-established ministerial exception, however, requires the courts to abstain from weighing in on ecclesiastical employment matters – and for good reason: the First Amendment requires it, and it protects the beliefs of everyone.

​The just-completed Memorial Day celebration, for Virginians at least, highlighted two of our most sacred American traditions: honoring our fallen soldiers and celebrating our religious freedom.
 
In an unequivocal victory for the First Amendment, the National Park Service backtracked and allowed the Knights of Columbus to conduct their annual Memorial Day Mass at the Poplar Grove National Cemetery in Petersburg, Virginia. The change in course followed NPS’s denial of a permit for the Catholic fraternal organization (for the second year in a row), a decision which it based on a 2022 policy memorandum restricting the types of events that may be held within national cemeteries.
 
The Knights of Columbus have celebrated a Memorial Day Mass at Poplar Grove since the 1960s. After learning that their permit request was again denied, the group filed for an injunction in coordination with the First Liberty Institute and the McGuireWoods law firm. In their brief, the Knights explain that NPS decided to interpret their religious service as a “demonstration,” and thus impermissible under current regulations.
 
They write: “By prohibiting the Knights from exercising their religious convictions and expressing their patriotism by praying for and honoring the fallen through a Catholic mass held inside the cemetery, NPS is misapplying its own regulations, unlawfully infringing on the Knights’ First Amendment rights and violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).” 
 
That this blatant constitutional disregard occurred in Virginia – arguably the birthplace of America’s tradition of religious freedom (see Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, passed in 1786) – makes it all the more surprising.
 
Some credit might be afforded to the Biden Administration for reversing course here (though the denial never should have happened in the first place). More importantly, our gratitude goes out to the Knights of Columbus for standing up for the First Amendment – and proving in the process that we don’t have to accept a shrinking space for religious liberty.
 
These are, after all, freedoms that Americans have fought for and died to protect.

​A school voucher program in Pennsylvania, previously vetoed by Gov. Josh Shapiro, is getting a second chance.
 
The Senate Education Committee has advanced the PASS scholarship, setting it up for budget negotiations. Last year, Shapiro expressed support for the scholarships but vetoed them when faced with opposition from his fellow Democrats in the Pennsylvania House. These scholarships would provide low-income students in underperforming public schools with funds to attend private schools. The money could also cover school-related fees and special education services.
 
Shapiro's veto message last year hinted at the possibility of reviving the scholarships, a sentiment he reiterated in his recent budget address. The current challenge remains the Democratic-majority House, influenced heavily by teachers' unions opposed to the program. The Senate leadership's firm stance and Shapiro's potential influence could lead to a different outcome this time.
 
Public support for the scholarships is significant. A poll by the Commonwealth Foundation in March found 77 percent of registered voters in favor, including 94 percent of Black voters and 83 percent of those with incomes below $40,000. This support underscores the demand for alternatives to struggling public schools, especially in places like Philadelphia, where proficiency in basic subjects is alarmingly low.
 
The PASS scholarship program aims to provide up to $10,000 for students in the lowest-performing districts to attend private schools. Unlike other voucher programs, it wouldn't divert funds from public schools. Yet public school advocates argue that funds should focus on improving the public education system.
 
The debate over the school voucher program is set to intensify during the 2025 budget negotiations between the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled House. The outcome could significantly impact educational opportunities for many low-income students in Pennsylvania.
 
If you live in Pennsylvania, Protect The 1st urges you to weigh in with your state representative and state senator.

​The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a well-intentioned response to a genuine concern: escalating antisemitism, particularly on college campuses. While the motives behind this bill are commendable, the legislation, as it stands, threatens to infringe upon the free speech rights that are fundamental to American values and academic freedom. We recommend a more nuanced approach. We urge the Senate to refine the bill to effectively combat hateful conduct without compromising constitutionally protected speech – even if that speech is occasionally heinous.
 
The Antisemitism Awareness Act seeks to update the definition of antisemitism used in enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, employing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition. This definition includes criteria such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” While these examples identify antisemitic speech and attitudes, their inclusion in legal statutes brings the government squarely into the business of policing and outlawing speech.
 
This act in its current form has the potential to suppress First Amendment-protected speech. The IHRA definition, though useful as a guideline and for private criticism of antisemitic speech, is too expansive for legal application without risking the suppression of protected political expression. Legal scholars and civil rights activists have noted the dangers of such overreach, which could chill discussions on Israel and Palestine, particularly within academic institutions where vigorous debates are necessary.
 
Worse, the act's broad language risks transforming universities into environments in which administrative caution stifles debate and discussion out of fear of legal repercussions. This could have a chilling effect on academic freedom on many subjects, as educators may become reluctant to address or discuss hot topics. From here, what effectively would be the legal suppression of speech would inevitably spread to protect other groups. A private university has the free-association right to fire a professor or suspend a student for intemperate speech. Frankly, there have been some high-profile examples of academics – glorifying the abduction and rape of women and the murder of babies on Oct. 7 – who richly deserve to spend the rest of their academic careers lecturing squirrels in the park. But the broader legal consequences of this bill in all universities for academic inquiry and the free exchange of ideas – cornerstones of higher education in the United States – are profoundly concerning.
 
The Senate should carefully scrutinize this legislation. It is essential that any law aimed at curbing antisemitism be precise enough to target hateful behavior without punishing speech. Senators should consider amendments that clearly distinguish between hateful acts that single out people by religion and speech, no matter how intemperate, ensuring that the legislation protects individuals without compromising the robust civil discourse essential to a free society.
 
While calling out antisemites is vital and necessary, it must not come at the expense of the constitutional rights that define American democracy and academic freedom that defines the university. We urge an approach in the Senate that robustly defends both Jewish students and free speech.
 
And we politely suggest to supporters of the House bill that once you start to police speech, don’t be too surprised when the speech police come for you.

​Following conspicuous leaks of taxpayer information by the IRS and donor information by the New York attorney general’s office, a new Senate bill sponsored by Sens. Todd Young and James Lankford would increase penalties for unauthorized donor disclosure from $5,000 up to $250,000.
 
“In recent years, donor privacy has been threatened on too many occasions,” Sen. Young said. “This legislation will address the disclosure of donor data to better protect both charitable organizations and their donors.” But is such legislation needed?
 
Our answer is “yes.” Challenges to donor privacy threaten a bedrock First Amendment principle in place since 1958. In that year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the State of Alabama’s efforts to subpoena the NAACP’s membership records would threaten donors who only wanted to exercise their constitutional right to free association.
 
Fast forward to 2021, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California requirement for compelling donor disclosure for nonprofits. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the entrenched constitutional interest in donor privacy, noting “it is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on free­dom of association as [other] forms of governmental action.”
 
That ruling hasn’t dissuaded some states. Arizona in 2022 passed Proposition 211, the “Voters Right to Know Act.” That measure was marketed as requiring disclosure of political “campaign” donors. Instead, it targets any group that speaks out on public policy issues – including nonprofits. It opens the door not just to self-censorship by those who may otherwise be inclined to donate to a cause, but also the possibility of doxing – using online resources for physical, emotional, or financial intimidation, harassment, and cancellation.  
 
Donor disclosure has lately been cast as a left-leaning cause – particularly in the wake of Citizens United. In reality, both sides of the aisle are getting in on the action. In the House, two separate GOP-sponsored bills would require donor disclosure by tax-exempt, non-profits in the event they receive donations from foreign nationals. One such bill, introduced by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), would prohibit non-profits that receive foreign donations from donating to a political campaign for eight years.
 
We agree in principle that there is a compelling public interest in non-profits disclosing whether they receive foreign contributions. But naming individual contributors can lead to a host of constitutional concerns – not to mention the possibility of doxing and personal attacks.
 
Not long ago, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was forced out of his job when the California Attorney General mandated the disclosure of donors in support of Proposition 8, which supported traditional marriage. Small donors received death threats and envelopes containing white powder. Their names and ZIP codes were helpfully overlaid on a Google Map.
 
Exposure of donor information can also heighten donors’ fears that they, or their businesses, will be singled out by vengeful regulators with political motivations or by activist boycotts. While disclosure efforts are typically couched in the language of protecting democracy, they inevitably empower political trolls to chill speech, suppress disagreement, and organize mobs to punish those they don’t like.
 
The Senate bill takes a thoughtful approach. Officials who leak protected donor information should face legal consequences. And perhaps non-profits should disclose whether they receive foreign contributions, as House bills seek to achieve. Anything more onerous risks the well-established constitutional rights of Americans to, in the words of Justice John Marshall Harlan II, “pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others.”

​Protect The 1st is proud to announce our filing of an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal case challenging a law in Michigan that restricts the religious rights of parents.
 
This legal challenge opposes what is known as a Blaine Amendment. This lawsuit is spearheaded by a group of Michigan parents confronting the amendment's prohibition on state aid to private, religiously affiliated schools. They show that it violates the Equal Protection Clause by denying families the opportunity to advocate for the freedom to choose educational options that align with their religious values.
 
The origins of Blaine Amendments are steeped in ugly history marked by discrimination and bigotry. Initially proposed as a federal law in 1875 by House Speaker James G. Blaine, these amendments seek to prevent direct government aid to religiously affiliated educational institutions. They reflect a period of intense anti-Catholic sentiment, targeting the influx of Catholic immigrants and their schools. While the federal amendment failed, many states, including Michigan, adopted similar provisions. Michigan's Blaine Amendment, like those of other states, effectively bars state support for religious schools, impacting those who seek education aligned with their religious beliefs and cultural values.
 
Protect The 1st believes that such amendments are not only a relic of a prejudiced past but continue to infringe on our First Amendment rights today. They undermine the pluralism that is vital to our nation’s educational landscape by restricting access to diverse schooling options that reflect familial and cultural values. This approach runs counter to the essence of American liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the right of parents to direct their children's education.
 
Our brief celebrates the opportunity to challenge Michigan’s outdated and discriminatory Blaine Amendment. By standing with the petitioners, we aim to affirm the importance of educational choice and religious freedom, ensuring that all families have the right to educate their children in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Just five days after the petitioners filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court called for a response in this case, a positive sign that the Court is seriously considering granting it cert.
 
Protect The 1st looks forward to further developments in this case.

​Facebook’s independent oversight board is now considering whether to recommend labeling the phrase “from the river to the sea” as hate speech. The slogan – often considered antisemitic – serves as a pro-Palestine rallying cry that calls for the creation of a unified Palestinian state throughout what is currently Israeli territory. What would happen to the millions of people who live in Israel today is, post Oct. 7th, the crux of the controversy.
 
However one feels about that phrase and its prominent, often uninformed, use by courageous keyboard warriors, it is appropriate that any debate about censoring it takes place in the open. This is particularly important for what is still a central social media platform, Facebook. Like X/Twitter, Instagram, and a few other media platforms, Facebook is an important venue for robust public debate. And while these private companies have every First Amendment right to moderate speech on their platforms on their own terms, because of their size and centrality we believe they nonetheless ought to be as open as possible about how they approach content moderation. Like all prominent thought leaders – individuals and companies alike – they can play an important role in reinforcing societal norms on matters of free expression, even if not legally obliged to do so.
 
Still, at the end of the day, it’s their call.
 
And make a call they did. According to the company, Meta analyzed numerous instances of posts using the phrase “from the river to the sea,” finding that they did not violate its policies against “Violence and Incitement,” “Hate Speech” or “Dangerous Organizations and Individuals.” This in contrast with the U.S. House of Representatives, which recently passed a resolution last month, 377-1, condemning the slogan as antisemitic. 
 
The House has a right to pass resolutions. But the opinions and sentiments of the government should not inform, and constitutionally cannot control, what we see on our news feeds. Already, we see too many instances of federal influence over social media platforms’ internal decisions, apparently done behind the scenes and always backed by an implied and sometimes expressed threat of coercion for highly regulated tech companies. Such government “censorship by surrogate” is inappropriate and inconsistent with the First Amendment. That’s why Protect the 1st opposes laws in Florida and Texas that would regulate how social media platforms police their own content. It’s simply not the place of government to use its power and influence to pressure private companies to remove posts or tell them how to make editorial choices.
 
In this same spirit, we urge any decisions by Facebook to remove content to be done with full transparency, especially when that content is of a political nature. No law requires this, nor should it, but transparency is a sensible approach that provides clarity to consumers and reformers about societal norms regarding free expression and association. Hats off to Meta for allowing its advisory board to review and to potentially overrule its decision. 

Chaya and Yoni Loffman in RealClearPolicy:

“When we learned that our three-year-old son had autism, we knew that finding the right school would be hard. But we were confident that with the right help and resources, our son could thrive.

“Unfortunately, California politicians disagree. When public schools fail to meet the needs of students with disabilities, the federal and state funding for that student can be redirected to private schools that are better able to accommodate their disabilities. But while California lets secular private schools receive these funds, it completely excludes religious private schools, simply because they are religious.” 
 
Michael Helfand and Maury Litwack in The Hill
 
“A group of Los Angeles Jewish parents, children and two schools were in court this week challenging a California law that explicitly bans religious schools from becoming state-certified special needs schools, all the while allowing other private schools the ability to apply for the same state-certification. 

“The consequences of this law have long been devastating, preventing the Jewish community from accessing the necessary funds to build and operate educational institutions that can meet the needs of its special-needs community. 

“But California’s unlawful exclusion has taken on greater urgency in recent months as allegations of rampant antisemitism have plagued California educational institutions from public schools to college campuses. Now, California’s rules put Jews in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma: You can’t have your own schools, and when you come to our schools, be prepared for an environment hostile to your Jewish identity and practices. California cannot allow this state of affairs to continue.” 

The latest from FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

​During his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden made a bold promise to be the most pro-union president in history. According to analysis by Tom Hebert in The Washington Times, this pledge has translated into a troubling reality. Biden has weaponized federal regulations to suppress free speech within workplaces, all to increase the strength of unions. This manipulation of regulatory power underscores a stark departure from advocating for workers' rights, veering instead towards serving union agendas at the expense of free expression.
 
Leading the charge in this regulatory shift is the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Traditionally, employers have been able to hold meetings, known as employer meetings on unionization (EMUs), to discuss unionization transparently with employees. These meetings, which have been uncontroversial since the 1940s, compensate employees for their time and educate them on their rights.
 
The NLRB’s recent recommendation to ban EMUs marks a significant policy reversal. This move is a strategic attempt to leave workers uninformed and sway them toward union membership. This aggressive stance against EMUs has been echoed in several states, pushing to restrict these meetings despite their longstanding acceptance and the fair context in which they were traditionally held.
 
A specific example of the NLRB's controversial approach involves Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, who faced allegations of labor law violations based on paraphrased comments from public interviews, rather than direct quotes. Jassy discussed the benefits of non-unionized workplaces, specifically noting their agility in making improvements without the bureaucratic hurdles posed by unions. However, these comments were interpreted by the NLRB as threats to workers, lacking objective evidence and direct quotes. This method of interpretation demonstrates how regulatory bodies might stretch interpretations to silence employer perspectives during union drives.
 
Legislative initiatives like the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act underscore a growing disregard for free speech in the workplace. As Hebert says, “one little-known PRO Act provision would force employers to hand over sensitive employee contact information – including phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses and shift times – to union bosses during organizing drives. If the act became legal, workers on the fence about unionization could get a 3 a.m. knock on the door from organizers attempting to “help them make up their minds.” This provision effectively silences any counter-narrative to unionization at a critical decision-making moment, highlighting a troubling shift toward limiting open dialogue and enhancing union influence under the guise of worker protection.
 
The ongoing crackdown on free speech in the workplace not only threatens the foundational rights of employees and employers but also reflects a larger governance trend where union interests are prioritized over open dialogue and workers' rights. The challenge lies in balancing these interests without undermining the principles of workplace democracy and freedom of expression, ensuring that all voices can be heard and respected in the critical conversations about unionization.
 
Protect The 1st emphasizes the importance of free and open discourse in any decision-making process about unions. We look forward to further developments in this story.

​Iowa has proudly become the 27th state to enact its own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), reinforcing the Hawkeye State’s commitment to the right of religious expression. This landmark legislation underscores Iowa's alignment with a majority of states that have already recognized the importance of protecting religious freedoms at the state level. By adopting RFRA, Iowa joins a diverse coalition of states – from Massachusetts to Texas – committed to safeguarding the freedoms that form the cornerstone of American values.
 
RFRA is designed to ensure that any government action potentially infringing on religious practices serves a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive manner possible. Iowa’s RFRA reflects the Hawkeye State’s deep respect for individual rights and religious diversity.
 
This law isn't merely a replication of the federal RFRA passed thirty years ago, but a reaffirmation of a commitment seen across a spectrum of states, both red and blue. The original federal law, championed by political figures such as Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy and signed by President Bill Clinton, showcases the bipartisan foundation upon which the RFRA stands. Such historical bipartisanship highlights the act's fundamental purpose: protecting religious freedoms.
 
While concerns have been raised about potential misuses of the RFRA, particularly regarding discrimination against LGBTQ individuals, states with longstanding RFRAs like Connecticut and Illinois have been recognized as among the best for LGBTQ rights. These examples demonstrate that RFRAs can coexist with strong protections for minority communities. The Becket Foundation reminds us that RFRAs have historically defended the rights of various minority groups – from Native Americans to Muslims and Sikhs – against governmental overreach without negating anti-discrimination laws concerning race or gender. Religious freedom is no zero-sum game.
 
The adoption of RFRA in Iowa also coincides with a national shift towards more robust protections of individual rights, as seen in the prairie fire expansion of school choice from coast-to-coast. This trend reflects a growing recognition of the importance of safeguarding personal freedoms against governmental overreach.
 
More states should take Iowa’s example to heart. Respecting deeply held religious beliefs and protecting civil rights are not mutually exclusive objectives. The continued expansion of RFRA laws could serve as a model for maintaining harmony between personal liberties and social obligations, ensuring that religious freedom remains a protected and cherished American value. Protect The 1st congratulates Gov. Kim Reynolds on her accomplishment and urges every state to join the push to protect religious freedom.

​Sometimes it seems as if the left and the right are in a contest to see which side can be the most illiberal. With each polarity defining the other as a “threat to democracy,” restrictions on political opponents are rationalized away as a necessary act of public hygiene. Recent events in Europe, from Budapest to Brussels, should serve as a warning to Americans who want to use police power to make their opponents shut up.
 
In December, the U.S. State Department warned that a new Sovereign Defense Authority law in Hungary “can be used to intimidate and punish” Hungarians who disagree with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his ruling party. No less an observer than David Pressman, the U.S. ambassador in Budapest, said: “This new state body has unfettered powers to interrogate Hungarians, demand their private documents and utilize the services of Hungary’s intelligence apparatus – all without any judicial oversight or judicial recourse for its targets.”
 
So how are left-leaning critics responding to the rise of the Europe right? By also using intimidation to shut down speech. In Brussels, police in April acted on orders from local authorities by forcibly shutting down a National Conservatism conference. This event, which was to host discussions among European conservative figures, including Prime Minister Orbán and former Brexit champion Nigel Farage, was terminated hours after it began.
 
The cited reasons for the closure included concerns over potential public disorder linked to planned protests. Such a policy, of course, gives protesters pre-emptive veto power over controversial speech, backed by the police.
 
The conference had earlier faced official meddling to prevent the selection of a venue. Initial plans to host the event at the Concert Noble were thwarted due to pressure from the Socialist mayor of Brussels. Subsequently, a booking at the Sofitel hotel in Etterbeek was canceled after local activists alerted that city’s mayor, who pressured the hotel to withdraw its support. Finally, the organizers settled on the Claridge Hotel, only to encounter further challenges including threats to the venue’s owner and logistical disruptions orchestrated by local authorities, culminating in the police blockade that effectively stifled the conference.
 
The good news is public response to the shutdown of the National Conservatism conference was vocal and critical. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo voiced a strong objection, stating that such bans on political meetings were unequivocally unconstitutional. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also responded that canceling events and de-platforming speakers is damaging to democracy.
 
The closure in Brussels is particularly ironic given the city's status as the capital of the European Union, a supposed bastion of liberal democratic values. The forced closure, threats to cut electricity, and the barring of speakers are tactics that betray a fundamental disrespect for democratic norms. What transpired was a scenario more befitting a "tinpot dictatorship," as Frank Füredi, one of the event's organizers, put it.
 
Speech crackdowns seem to be a European disease. This aggressive move to silence a peaceful assembly under the guise of preventing disorder echoes the same illiberal impulses driving Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act. That law broadly criminalizes speech under the expansive banner of “stirring up hatred.”
 
Americans would do well to look to Europe to see what cancellation and criminalization of speech looks like. As the cities and campuses of the United States face what promises to be a hot summer of protest over Gaza, Americans need to keep a relentless focus on protecting speech – even speech one regards as heinous – while preventing tent city invasions, vandalism, and violence that compromises the rights of others.

​Reporters Without Borders dropped the United States 10 places on its annual rankings from last year, from 45th to 55th place out of 180 countries in its 2024 World Press Freedom Index. This is part of a trend. This NGO has downgraded the United States, which enshrines freedom of the press in our Constitution, from 17th best for press freedom in 2002 to that 55th place now.
 
To be fair, some of the organization’s metrics are questionable. For example, Argentina fell from 40th place last year to 66th place in 2024 after newly elected President Javier Miliei shuttered news outlet Télam and put its 700 journalists on the street. It should be noted, however, that Télam was a money-losing, state-funded news agency founded by Juan Perón and known for being a government and Peronista mouthpiece under previous administrations.
 
So how fairly did Reporters Without Borders treat the United States? It seems overkill to us to rank the United States below the Ivory Coast, where reporters are routinely called in by prosecutors and newspapers are suspended – or Romania, where a prominent journalist who investigated the government had her personal images hacked and uploaded to an adult website.
 
At the same time, while we can take issue with the overall ranking of the United States, this NGO is correct on what the British call the direction of travel. Protect The 1st has reported what Reporters Without Borders states: “In several high-profile instances, local law enforcement has carried out chilling actions, including raiding newsrooms and arresting journalists.” We would add to that the lack of a federal press shield law also leaves reporters vulnerable to being wiretapped and worse.
 
The good news is that protections for reporters have a strong basis of public support in the United States. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center reveals robust support among Americans for the principle of press freedom, underscoring its vital role in our democracy. It’s heartening to note that nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults (73 percent) consider the freedom of the press — enshrined in the First Amendment — extremely or very important to the well-being of society.
 
Still, we have reason for caution. While a significant majority of Americans acknowledge the importance of a free press, many are concerned about threats to journalistic freedom. Notably, a substantial portion of the population believes U.S. media is influenced by corporate and political interests — 84 percent and 83 percent respectively. In our polarized society, partisan differences color these perceptions of press freedom. Republicans and Independents consistently express greater concern over media restrictions and the influence of political interests compared to Democrats.
 
Equally concerning is the broader debate over the balance between safeguarding press freedom and curbing “misinformation.” Approximately half of the American population is torn between the necessity to prevent the spread of false information and the imperative to protect press freedoms, even if it means some false information might circulate.
 
While it's encouraging to see strong support for journalistic freedoms among Americans, local authorities must understand that raids and legal threats against reporters is intolerable under our Constitution and under the press shield laws of 49 states. And we need a federal press shield law – the PRESS Act, which recently passed the U.S. House – to reduce the shadow the Department of Justice can cast over the free exercise of journalism.
 
We’ve got work to do.

​Like many declarations of the United Nations, the 31st anniversary of World Press Freedom Day is more aspirational than reality in many UN member countries.
 
In some countries, journalists are routinely killed for reporting on corrupt politicians and police agencies. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ says that violence is also common among journalists covering local environmental issues like illegal mining, logging, poaching and other acts of “environmental vandalism.”
 
Much of the repression comes from sophisticated state actors. In China, imprisoned Hong Kong publisher Jimmy Lai stayed in that jurisdiction to bravely stare down official repression after his newspaper, Apple Daily, was shuttered. In Russia, Evan Gershkovich of The Wall Street Journal remains held on specious charges of spying for the CIA by Vladimir Putin’s judicial puppets.
 
“Journalism should not be a crime anywhere on the earth,” President Biden declared today. We agree and would only add, for unfortunately necessary emphasis, “including the United States.”
   
While 49 U.S. states have press shield laws, there is no federal law that protects the notes and sources of a journalist from being seized by a federal prosecutor. Many U.S. reporters have gone to jail rather than bow to a prosecutor’s demand to reveal his or her sources. All the more reason to celebrate World Press Freedom in America by asking Congress to get behind the PRESS Act, which would extend these basic protections to the federal government.
 
“If you cannot offer a source a promise of confidentiality as a journalist, your toolbox is empty,” celebrated investigative journalist Catherine Herridge told members of a House Judiciary subcommittee. “No whistleblower is coming forward, no government official with evidence of misconduct or corruption. And what that means is that it interrupts the free flow of information to the public … Journalism is about an informed electorate, which is the bedrock of our democracy.”
 
We urge Congress to honor the First Amendment and the freedom of the press by passing the PRESS Act.

​As student pro-Palestine protests evolved into harassment and shut-downs of the University of Southern California and Columbia University campuses, the University of Texas was presented with a Gordian knot of free-speech issues. When University of Texas protesters planned a march through campus, administrators said they had intelligence that non-student activists were planning on leading students to occupy the campus with a tent city (sleeping on the campus lawn is against university rules). This could have shut down the university.
 
With the backing of Gov. Gregg Abbott, police chose to simply cut the knot by arresting 57 peaceful protesters on campus. That event leaves us with hard questions about the limits and protections of speech rights within the academy.
 
In late March, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered public universities to revise their free speech policies, specifically targeting antisemitic rhetoric. The governor’s response is understandable after lax concern shown by the former presidents of Harvard and other institutions about on-campus antisemitism. But viewpoint-based bans on rhetoric rather than behavior had the practical effect of targeting pro-Palestine student groups, which are often wellsprings of intemperate speech.
 
The governor’s executive order put the University of Texas in an awkward position. The First Amendment applies specifically to the federal government, and the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts have held freedom of speech and assembly to apply to public universities as well. Under both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, the University of Texas cannot unduly restrict these rights. While the law allows for “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions to ensure public safety and order, these must be neutrally applied, without viewpoint discrimination.
 
Despite this, many of the recent arrests of the protesters at the University of Texas were arguably necessary, given the warnings on which they were based. Columbia University demonstrated that laxity about existing time, place, and manner restrictions led to students living in tents, shutting down live instruction, and violently taking over a building. Columbia finally demanded students leave or face suspension. Some who broke into and occupied an academic building will likely face expulsion. At USC, potentially violent protests have shut down that school’s commencement.
 
In light of events at other universities, it is easy to see the UT administrators’ dilemma. Should they have stood by to see if their intelligence regarding planned disruptions was correct, acting only if the worst came to pass? This might have led to the same worst-of-both-worlds scenario we saw at Columbia, where classrooms and open discourse were shut down and the school still had to rely on police to clear out the occupiers. At such a point, how many cracked skulls would it have taken to clear the University of Texas?
 
For their part, students, faculty, and advocacy groups argue that the arrests of peaceful protesters who announced their march in advance was disproportionate. They also point to a 2019 Texas state law that designates common outdoor areas on public university campuses as traditional public forums. Supported by Gov. Abbott and conservative lawmakers, this law protects broad expressive activities, provided they do not disrupt campus functions or break the law. But before we cue the petards to be hoisted, consider that a planned occupation would definitely have disrupted instruction and broken the law. But did their evidence of a planned occupation meet the standard of a “clear and present danger?
 
This tension at the University of Texas reflects the larger national debate about the complex nature of speech rights, especially in academic settings where the free and open exchange of ideas is to be encouraged, not quelled. There is a legitimate need to maintain order and safety on campus. There is also a constitutional imperative to protect free speech, including speech many find offensive.
 
Gov. Abbott’s crackdown on campus antisemitism reflected commendable concern. But hate speech laws are notoriously overbroad and often unworkable. “True threats” are a legitimate (and necessary) reason for authorities to intervene. Most likely, fighting words and incitement to violence likewise can be restricted and punished. But some latitude is needed for more ambiguous chants like “from the river to the sea” – the plain meaning of which is the violent abolition of Israel but could be taken by a student as merely a call for freedom or a criticism of “colonialism.” Never mind how doubtful you may find that interpretation or blinkered you may find that tired trope. The First Amendment protects all speech, including stupid speech. Thus, any intrusion into speech rights that Abbott permits today could enable further restrictions down the line (and restrict in directions the governor may not like).
 
Misunderstandings about the First Amendment are at the core of such dilemmas. It is odd that elite private universities, Columbia, Yale, and USC, which have more latitude in enforcing discipline, stood by in stupefied inaction at the harassment of Jewish students and disruption of classroom learning. One protester at Yale stabbed a Jewish student in the eye with a Palestinian flag. True threats and fighting words have a way of becoming acts of violence, which is why Columbia finally did bar a student who said “Zionists don’t deserve to live.”
 
Universities, public and private, must never forget the imperative that universities remain centers of free inquiry and discussion, reflecting the constitutional rights and values they are built to impart. They must also protect their students and classrooms. Like all dilemmas, this one at least contains teachable moments. Where better to teach these intricacies of the First Amendment?