With Hanukkah ending on Monday, and a celebration of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth coming on Thursday, Protect The 1st would like to take a moment to ask you to exercise your First Amendment rights by speaking out against antisemitism whenever you encounter it.

We know that this is not your typical holiday message, but then the same can be said for the slaughter of Jewish families celebrating the Festival of Lights on Bondi Beach in Australia.

Words have consequences. Words that demonize people, whatever their race, religion, or partisan leanings, paves the way for violence. Sensible words are in short supply in some quarters of late.  

Some of the top-listed podcasters and online influencers have hosted antisemites, politely asking question about question: Did Hitler really start World War Two, or was it Winston Churchill, who habitually overspent and was indebted to Jewish bankers? One of the top podcasters on Spotify, with millions of listeners, has said the Jewish religion is pedophilic and centered around child sacrifice. She also claims, with no proof, that Israel’s Mossad was behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Others, from another ideological direction, criticize Israel’s military response to the October 7, 2023, massacre without bothering to take even a moment to recognize what a horrendous, inhumane and utterly disgusting attack Hamas launched on Israel that day. Worse, some have demonized Jewish students and faculty on campuses, harassing them and cutting off their access to common facilities like the campus library.

One influencer, Ben Shapiro, is speaking out by speaking truth. “Conspiracy is not courage,” Shapiro says. “It is laziness with a microphone.” He is calling for “courage and clarity,” to “refuse to indulge the lie, even when it is popular.”

Some hide behind the pretense that failing to host these views would amount to censorship and cancel culture. The First Amendment does not obligate anyone to air views that are unhinged and aimed at harming our fellow Americans.

Spotify, are you listening?
​
In this holy season, we want to celebrate the First Amendment and use it to embrace our fellow Americans of all faiths. Christian, Muslim, Jew and all others should hold fast to President Washington’s message in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island – a vision of American in which “every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) set off a political firestorm in September when he warned that a public campaign by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to pressure ABC into firing late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was “dangerous as hell.” Cruz said Carr’s warning to ABC – “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” – sounded less like a regulator than a mob boss, invoking the classic mafioso line: “Nice bar you have here – shame if something happened to it.”
 
The Kimmel controversy revived a perennial concern about government power over speech: when does regulation cross the line into coercion?
 
When Carr appeared last week before the Senate Commerce Committee, however, Sen. Cruz dialed down the rhetoric and sharpened the analysis, making two interesting observations. First, the senator surveyed Democrats’ long record of abusing the First Amendment. Second, he identified the legal authority that makes such abuse possible – the New Deal-era law that created the FCC also empowered the agency to police broadcast licensees to ensure they serve the “public interest” through diversity of views and community service.
 
“I think you would agree that the FCC’s public interest standard has been weaponized against conservatives in the past,” Cruz said to Carr. The senator from Texas cited efforts by Democratic senators in 2018 to prevent the conservative Sinclair media company from making a major acquisition. He noted that in 2023, left-wing groups sought to stop a renewal of the license of a Fox-owned broadcast station over complaints about its 2020 election coverage.
 
Carr agreed that there were times in which the agency, “rather than follow FCC precedent, broke from it and did so in a weaponized way.” This paved the way for Cruz to then examine the behavior of the FCC under Carr.
 
About Kimmel, Cruz said:
 
“ABC and its affiliates would have been fully within their rights to fire him or simply to no longer air his program, that was their choice. But what government cannot do is force private entities to take actions that the government cannot take directly. Government officials threatening adverse consequences for disfavored content is an unconstitutional coercion that chills free speech …
 
“Democrat or Republican, we cannot have the government arbitrating truth or opinion … Mr. Chairman, my question is this: so long as there is a public interest standard, shouldn’t it be understood to encompass robust First Amendment protections to ensure that the FCC cannot use it to chill speech?”
Protect The 1st welcomes Sen. Cruz’s principled stand for restoring the law to its limited, constitutional aims – rather than allowing it to be used for partisan management of news and opinion. But we would go one step further. The “public interest” duty itself has outlived whatever justification it once had.
 
That standard may have made sense in an era when a handful of broadcasters controlled scarce spectrum and dominated local markets. It makes little sense today, in a media environment defined by abundance – streaming video, cable networks, podcasts, and the internet – all of which operate free from FCC content supervision.
 
Experience has now shown that the public interest standard is less a neutral safeguard than a loaded weapon – one that both parties have repeatedly been tempted to wield against disfavored speech. A rule that invites political abuse, chills expression, and places government officials in the role of speech arbiter cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment.
 
Given that history, it is truly in the public interest to retire the public interest standard.

​Not since 1970, when the Weather Underground emerged from the University of Michigan to unleash a wave of bombings – and the nation witnessed the massacre of students at Kent State – has the American campus seemed so prone to ideological violence. What impact is violence having on students’ attitudes toward free speech?

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sponsored a nationwide survey of 2,028 undergraduates in October, in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University (UVU). Some 204 UVU students were included in this survey.

The College Pulse Poll commissioned by FIRE found:

• Half of students say that they are less comfortable attending or hosting controversial public events on their campus.

 

• Forty-five percent are less comfortable expressing their views on controversial topics in class after the murder of Charlie Kirk; 43 percent are less comfortable doing so in common campus spaces, and 48 percent on social media.

 

• Roughly one in five students say they are now less comfortable attending class.

And these results were compiled before a gunman killed two students – at this writing, for reasons unknown – on the Brown University campus on Dec. 13.

Calm Surface, Roiling Emotions

The poll shows that UVU students appear more sensitive to speech rights than their peers, a sensibility born of trauma. The UVU campus, FIRE reports, “appears calm,” but “the survey data tells a more complicated story.”

• Seventy-four percent of students nationally say that the state of free expression in the United States is heading in the wrong direction. By contrast, 86 percent of UVU students believe the environment for free speech is deteriorating.

Confusing Words with Violence

One of the most provocative findings of the national survey is that nine out of ten students agree or partially agree that words can be “violence.” This prompted J.D. Tuccille in Reason to write: “Of all the stupid ideas that have emerged in recent years, there may be none worse than the insistence that unwelcome words are the same as violence.”

We would add some nuances. First, we doubt that all undergraduates immediately grasped the First Amendment implications of this question. Second, it deserves to be said that some speech can inflict wounds and leave lasting scars, much like physical violence. Imagine a drunken father berating his six-year-old daughter in the coarsest, most brutal language imaginable. That’s verbal violence that could lead to a court terminating parental rights.

But we take Tuccille’s point.

Imagine college students triggered into terrified paralysis by a speaker who argues that 19th-century colonialism brought some benefits to the peoples of Africa and Asia, or a professor denouncing Gen. George Washington for ordering massacres of Iroquois villagers during the American Revolution. College students who expect to practice critical thinking need to entertain such challenging thoughts.

“Telling young people who haven’t been raised to be resilient and to deal with the certainty of encountering debate, disagreement, and rude or hateful expressions in an intellectually and ideologically diverse world plays into problems with anxiety and depression,” Tuccille writes. “It teaches that the world is more dangerous than it actually is rather than a place that requires a certain degree of toughness. Worse, if words are violence, it implies that responding ‘in kind’ is justified.”

Is Some Speech So Heinous that Violence Is Justified?

Regarding Tuccille’s last point, perhaps the most interesting result of the survey is that before Kirk’s murder, 81 percent of UVU students responded that using violence to stop a campus speech was “never” acceptable. Now, 94 percent of UVU students believe violence is never acceptable. (We wonder, however, what the remaining 6 percent failed to notice.)
​
The FIRE poll shows that exposure to actual violence – including the impossible-to-unsee silencing of a man who only sought open debate – is making the vast majority of students appreciate the difference between violent acts and provocative speech.

​States from Maine to Colorado keep defying court rulings by crafting new and disingenuous ways to exclude religious charities and schools from enjoying the same access to state benefits as secular organizations. And they keep getting slammed by the courts. And they keep asking to get slammed again.
 
To paraphrase the old John Mellencamp song – sometimes the law doesn’t feel like it should, so judges are there to “make it hurt so good.” This year’s award for top legal masochist has to go to Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.
 
Kaul had gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that the Catholic Charities Bureau of Wisconsin didn’t deserve a religious exemption from the state’s unemployment tax law. The reason? Because Catholic Charities serves the poor and the elderly of all faiths, without discriminating by religion or trying to proselytize its beneficiaries. Kaul thus deemed the Catholic Charities Bureau as being insufficiently religious. In June, Kaul was squashed by a 9-0 Supreme Court opinion.
 
“It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality’ between religion and religion,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court. “There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.”
 
So credit Kaul for at least forging a moment of unity between the liberals and conservatives on the Court.
 
Then Kaul came back with a new theory. He argued that these exemptions should be taken away from all religious charities. In other words, he wanted Wisconsin to go from discriminating against one religion to discriminating against all religions. Protect The 1st joined many groups in filing briefs in support of Catholic Charities.
 
On Monday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court hit Kaul with a terse order to obey the Supreme Court decision. Perhaps they had taken in the advice we gave the court in our brief, writing:
 
“By repealing a valuable statutory exemption for an entire class of religious organizations while keeping the exemptions in place for secular organizations, the State’s proffered remedy invites the Court to violate the Constitution in new ways and to flout U.S. Supreme Court precedent in this and related contexts. This Court should decline that perilous invitation.”
 
Don’t be surprised, however, if Kaul or Wisconsin legislators come back with yet another legal scheme or legislation that continues to push the campaign to punish Catholic Charities. Why these persistent efforts? We don’t pretend to know. Anti-religious bias? Because Roman Catholics hold traditional views on abortion and sexuality? Or do politicians like Kaul have such a blinkered view of the First Amendment that blatant discrimination goes unseen?
 
“It turns out that penalizing charities is not a winning legal strategy,” said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which represented Catholic Charities.
 
But we must admit that there is a kind of logic behind these persistent efforts by the states, whether Kaul’s or Pennsylvania’s continued bullying of the Little Sisters of the Poor. These would-be pruners of the First Amendment only need to get lucky once – to win in an appellate court, with the precedent holding after an exhausted Supreme Court finally finds no room in its docket.
 
For that reason, the defenders of freedom of belief must be just as persistent. Whether you are religious or not, when it comes to the First Amendment we must all keep the faith.

​The Bill of Rights was ratified on this day in 1791 — with the very first of the 10 Amendments stating that Congress “shall make no law” restricting the freedom of speech, the exercise of religion, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 
 
These principles were later extended to government at all levels, protecting Americans’ right to criticize, protest, and register our views with the government.
 
James Madison initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights, worrying that rights not explicitly listed would be treated as non-existent by the government. His friend and mentor Thomas Jefferson wrote to him: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure our rights, let us secure what we can.”
 
In the First Amendment, we secured a lot.
 
Our freedoms are best seen when we compare the vibrant, noisy, robust speech at home with that abroad. Around much of the world, writers, directors, dissidents, artists, journalists, and millions of ordinary people are silenced because there is no legal bar to keep their rulers from persecuting them for their speech. Consider the plight of Jimmy Lai, former publisher of Hong Kong's Apple Daily, found “guilty” by the regime and sentenced to a likely life sentence in prison for merely criticizing those in power.
 
Let us be grateful that James Madison, when he was a Member of the House, changed his mind, authored and sponsored the Bill of Rights. It has shaped our nation and protects us to this day. 
 
The First Amendment’s observance of eternal rights revitalizes America every day and has the power to reshape the world — from China, to Russia, to Cuba, to every society, for every human being.

​Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts that I do understand.”

Whether you’re religious or not, you have to admit he had a point. If the Bible were made into a movie, parts of it would have to be rated NC-17 for violence. The same could be said for some quotes from the Quran. Or consider Hinduism’s Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna prepares Arjuna to wage a bloody battle, inspiring the prince to ride forth in his chariot, shooting arrows and slashing with his sword.

The response of the faithful is that context is everything. Some of these passages are best understood as history, some as religious parable, some as spiritual metaphor – representing the battles we fight within ourselves.

For many contemporary critics of religion, however, things only get worse when someone preaches religious teachings on sexual morality and marriage. All the orthodox forms of the great world religions hold standards of morality that would draw the ire of a modern HR department.

You might cherish or deplore these religious views, but should those who espouse them be prosecuted for hate speech?

The governing Liberal Party in Canada thinks so.

It is backing a move in Parliament to remove an exemption for religious speech under that country’s “hate speech law.” The current criminal code in Canada includes the following exemption that politicians wish to expunge: “If, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief on a religious text.”

It is this exemption that the Liberals and their partner in government, Bloc Québécois, are seeking to strike from the law.

In the United States, under the First Amendment – which guarantees both free speech and the free exercise of religion – Americans can debate their views on religion without fear of prosecution. Any attempt to dictate either speech or theology is forbidden, even when others find the speech or belief offensive.

The efforts of Canadian politicians to criminalize religious speech are a recipe for an endless culture war between the government and Catholics, evangelicals, Muslims, and Hindus. The very idea of forbidding the advocacy of traditional religious standards highlights the danger of having a “hate speech” code in the first place.  
​
Thank you, James Madison.

The Pentagon is no longer content to manage information. According to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times, it now wants to control the press itself.
 
In a sweeping First Amendment challenge, The New York Times and national security reporter Julian E. Barnes have sued the Department of War over a new press-access policy that would allow Pentagon officials to revoke journalists’ credentials for publishing stories the government disfavors – even when those stories rely on unclassified information obtained entirely outside of the Pentagon complex.
 
At the center of this case is a new rule for PFACs – Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials – the badges that have allowed reporters to move around the building and cover briefings, hallway encounters, and day-to-day operations for nearly 80 years. From World War II to 9/11 to Iraq and Afghanistan, that access has been essential to independent reporting on the military.
 
Under the new rule, Pentagon officials can immediately suspend and ultimately revoke a journalist’s PFAC if they conclude the reporter has “solicited,” received, or published “unauthorized” information – even if the information is unclassified and the newsgathering happened entirely outside the building.
 
Such punishments would have clearly aimed to prevent The Washington Post’s scoop that a secondary missile strike killed survivors on a presumed drug-smuggling vessel. This is a revelation so disturbing that some leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate are demanding public disclosure of an unedited video of the boat strike.
 
Would the public and Congress be better off not knowing about these strikes? That sort of “unauthorized” – read: embarrassing – journalism appears to be precisely what this policy is designed to deter.
 
Even routine acts of reporting are swept into the danger zone. Asking questions of Defense Department employees, or publicly posting a call for tips on social media, can be deemed “solicitation” and used as grounds for revoking a reporter’s credentials.
 
Worse still, this policy authorizes officials to pull access for vaguely defined “unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.” The Times says this gives Pentagon leadership “unbridled discretion” to punish disfavored reporters and outlets – exactly the sort of standardless power courts have repeatedly said violates both the First and Fifth Amendments.
 
The Pentagon compounded the crackdown on the media by demanding that reporters sign an “acknowledgment” stating they had read and “understood” the policy. Journalists from nearly every major news organization refused, warning that signing would legitimize a system that punishes routine newsgathering. As a result, they turned in their PFACs and lost day-to-day access to the building.
 
The New York Times, perhaps predictably, criticized the Pentagon’s inclusion of the “next generation of the Pentagon press corps” – which includes, commendably, new and wider media. But, as The Times notes, it also includes influencers friendly to the administration. The lawsuit argues that this is not a neutral security policy, but a viewpoint-based press-access regime.
 
If the policy takes hold, The Times warns, the longstanding adversarial tension between press and government will collapse. It will be replaced by a system in which only approved narratives are permitted, forbidding stories like the missile strike on survivors of a sunken boat, conducted in the name of the American people.
 
That would not be press oversight. That would be press censorship.

​The U.S. Supreme Court spent two hours on Monday debating whether President Trump lawfully fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. At stake is whether the FTC remains an “independent” agency or becomes fully subject to a “unitary executive.”

Given that Section 5 of the FTC Act empowers commissioners to investigate companies for “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” including commercial speech, this case holds significant but contradictory First Amendment implications. But first, some background.

Precedent Is “a Dried Husk”

Several Justices questioned a New Deal-era precedent called Humphrey’s Executor, which prevents a president from firing a commissioner except for cause.

• Chief Justice John Roberts told Slaughter’s lawyer that the precedent “is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was.”

 

• Justice Neil Gorsuch added it was “poorly reasoned” and asserted that there is “no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Remarks like these led many court watchers to predict that Slaughter is unlikely to reclaim her seat when the Court rules next year.

Who Makes the Laws?

Justice Elena Kagan offered perhaps the most consequential line of the day. Under the unitary executive theory, she said, the president has “control over everything, including over much of the lawmaking that happens in this country.”

Lawmaking?

That candid acknowledgement spotlights the central constitutional tension in this case: the FTC engages in “lawmaking,” despite not being part of the only body charged with writing laws – Congress. This plays into Justice’s Gorsuch’s critique that FTC is a hybrid that exists outside of the Constitution’s delegation of powers. That reality may well prompt the Court’s conservative majority to overturn Humphrey’s Executor and place FTC under presidential control.

Congress designed the FTC, with its five commissioners drawn from both parties – three from the majority party – to inspire constructive debate from opposing sides. With one Republican member resigned, a Democrat not contesting his firing, and Slaughter fired, the FTC currently has only two commissioners, both Republicans. The Justices must now consider whether this original congressional bipartisan design can be wholly discarded.

The separation of powers issues created by the growth of agencies and the modern executive branch require not only holding the president accountable for executive functions, but also rolling back the excessive delegation of legislative power to the executive. A unitary executive that amasses control of both executive and legislative functions is no solution. It is a lopsided response to half the problem – leaving the system even more unbalanced.

Regulating Speech: Risks Under Both Models

But how would overruling Humphrey’s Executive affect the First Amendment? Unfortunately, the risks to free expression run in both directions.

Earlier this year, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson launched an investigation into social media censorship. The FTC declared that “censorship by technology platforms is not just un-American, it is illegal.” We’ve often criticized major social media platforms for censoring conservative views. But the law is clear: the First Amendment only forbids government censorship, not private content moderation. Companies can filter, curate, or label content however they want – whether that means putting funny mustaches on every image of President Trump or adding Vulcan ears on Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The FTC does have the power to crack down on fraudulent claims that magic vitamins cure cancer. But it is a profound overreach for government to police a media company simply because regulators want more liberal or conservative content.

As for “un-American,” the Federal Communications Commission – which has some merger authority over media companies – threatened ABC if it did not fire talk show host Jimmy Kimmel. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said, prompting Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to compare his threat to that of a Mafioso.

At least under a unitary executive, an administration can be held publicly accountable, as Sen. Cruz demonstrated. Independent agencies, by contrast, can wield vast power with no democratic check. One of the early congressional architects of the FTC promised the agency would take “business matters out of politics.” President Biden’s Chair Lina Khan rejected that view, declaring that “all decisions are political.”

In truth, the FTC’s deliberations have always been influenced by politics. But the recent heightened politicization of the FTC points to a subtler risk created when Congress delegated its lawmaking powers to an independent agency within the executive branch.

A Constitutional Contradiction with No Easy Fix

The best solution might be to scrap the entire model and rebuild it from the ground up. But no one expects the Supreme Court or the Congress to do that.
​
For now, the task falls to the rest of us to call out free speech violations whether they arise from a presidentially controlled FTC or one run by independent ideologues insulated from democratic accountability.

​The University of Alabama shut down two student run-magazines – one for women, one for Black students. Why? The university holds that these publications’ targeting of readers among its 43,000 students constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

The theory suggests that the university is acting to protect Crimson Tide men who are writhing in pain from their exclusion from Alice, “the University of Alabama’s fashion and lifestyle magazine.” The same can be said for all the white, Asian, and Latino students who are in agony over their exclusion from Nineteen Fifty-Six, a publication dedicated to “Black culture, Black excellence, and Black student experiences.”

In other words, the university is singling out these publications for directing content to women and African-American students, which sounds a lot like – and is – viewpoint discrimination. “You cannot have a more blatant First Amendment violation here,” Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel for the Student Press Law Center, told the student-run The Crimson White.

We would add that it would be hard to have a more profoundly stupid violation, either. This ranks up there with the decision by the U.S. Naval Academy to protect its non-Black students by removing Maya Angelou’s autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings from its library.

Why is this happening? Universities have an understandable desire to stay on the right side of the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. To be fair, DEI ideology and administrative departments had become domineering presences in campus culture and speech, threatening academic careers over faux pas and linguistic misdemeanors. A correction was certainly needed, but we are now veering into overcorrection.

The University of Alabama is acting on its interpretation of a July 29 memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi. That memo included “non-binding suggestions” to help institutions that receive federal funds avoid “unlawful proxies” and “ostensibly neutral criteria that function as substitutes for explicit considerations of race, sex, or other protected characteristics.”

Somehow, that has become a directive to avoid any channelization of communication or free association between Black Americans (12 percent of both the U.S. and the University of Alabama population), and women (51 percent of the U.S. population and 56.5 percent of that university’s population). Taken literally, any lawful interest magazine would have to cater to everyone, of all races, both genders, of all backgrounds, faiths, and national origins. Maybe Fencepost magazine, courtesy of the American Fence Association, fits the bill. (Although some might find its “modern wood designs that keep us coming back” a tad bit risqué.)

The bottom line is that the university’s actions constitute blatant viewpoint discrimination – one of the clearest violations of the First Amendment imaginable.

We draw this conclusion from the U.S. Supreme Court in Rosenberger v. Rector, which slammed the University of Virginia in 1995 for denying standing to a Christian-based student publication. The Court majority’s abiding concern was viewpoint discrimination, not that somehow non-Christians would be discriminated against by the publication’s existence.

A society based on free speech is one that respects pluralism – Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, women, men, gays and non-binary folk, fashionistas, sci-fi geeks, and football fanatics. An effort to enforce an artificial homogeneity is not anti-discriminatory. It is just a new form of discrimination: viewpoint discrimination.
​
We would not be surprised if between the time we post this piece and you read it the university will have listened to its lawyers and reversed these twin cancellations rather than face these students in court. As Nick Saban said, it’s never okay to lose a game.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this week upheld the lengthy prison sentence of a Virginia man for knowingly training a customer who intended to create a weapon to kill federal agents. (Hat tip: Eugene Volokh.)

This case reflects a twist in First Amendment law. The Supreme Court established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that while one cannot be prosecuted for “hate speech,” one can be prosecuted for inciting “imminent lawless action.” But what if the bad intentions are in the mind not of the speaker, but in the mind of the listener?

The defendant in this case, Christopher Arthur, provided training to “help the average person to be able to defend themselves” against “tyrannical government of our own or an invading tyrannical government.” His online manuals included such handy topics as how to create “Fatal Funnels, Wartime Tactics” and “Improvised Explosives.”

As frightening as this sounds, such speech could be lawful if the intent is to defend oneself in a Red Dawn scenario in which communists (or cartels, or aliens, or a future dictator, etc.) conquer the United States. But Arthur became a target of FBI investigation after one of his customers, Joshua Blessed, was found to have had 14 live pipe bombs in his home identical to those in Arthur’s manual. Blessed also started a shootout with law enforcement, firing at least 29 shots, which ended with him being riddled with bullets.

The FBI investigation of Arthur relied on a confidential informant, codenamed “Buckshot,” who told Arthur that he wanted to kill federal ATF agents. From this, the Fourth Circuit majority concluded that the speech was “integral to criminal conduct.” It was “tantamount to aiding and abetting a crime.”

We cannot disagree. Providing the means to create, in Arthur’s words, “a freaking death box” in which to lure and kill federal agents should not be shielded by the First Amendment.

But a dissent from Judge Roger Gregory (p. 32) reminds us that even in the most clear-cut cases, ambiguities exist that could be twisted out of recognition in future cases. Judge Gregory imagines the following scenario.

“Consider, for instance, [a] university professor … who is scheduled to give a lecture on the physics of combustion, or even simply on the topic of potential energy, which surely constitutes ‘part’ of information about explosives. If the professor had reason to believe a listener would weaponize his information – perhaps a potential attendee sent a letter outlining malicious intentions, or an audience member wore a T-shirt suggesting an affinity for violence – then the professor could conceivably be prosecuted” under a federal statute.

“The same could be said for a publisher of an instructional manual for safe use of explosives in construction and demolition. If the publisher received prior notice of a potential reader’s inclination to weaponize the manual’s information, the publisher would be at risk of prosecution … In both examples, protected and socially valuable speech is stilted because of the possibility that a rogue audience member would misuse the information provided, even if the speaker did not intend such misuse …”

This scenario doesn’t appear to apply to Arthur’s case, who received a candid idea of what his customer intended.
​
But Judge Gregory raises an important point. Today’s reasonable inferences have a way of being stretched to unreasonable extremes tomorrow. Holding speakers criminally responsible for a listener’s intentions risks turning protected instruction into prosecutable speech. That’s a standard the courts – and Congress – should watch with caution.

​Jon Richelieu-Booth, 50, an IT consultant from West Yorkshire, returned home from a trip to Florida with a few harmless souvenirs that included snapshots taken by friends of him shooting what appeared to be semi-automatic shotguns.
 
Richelieu-Booth posted the images on LinkedIn with some routine notes about his work and travel.
 
In the United States, where firing guns on private property is legal, such a post would attract little attention beyond a few “likes.” But this is the UK, where an Irish comedian was arrested this summer for a tasteless joke. So it didn’t take long for West Yorkshire police to show up at Richelieu-Booth’s home. The officers declined to examine evidence that the pictures were taken in Florida; perhaps the semi-tropical foliage and algae-scummed pond in the background were proof enough.
 
Under the UK’s increasingly Orwellian speech laws, however, well enough is rarely left alone.
 
The police returned a few weeks later to arrest Richelieu-Booth. He was held overnight before being released on bail. His phones and digital devices were confiscated, effectively destroying his business and livelihood and launching what he described as “13 weeks of hell.” Officers visited Richelieu-Booth at home three more times before the Crown Prosecutor Service ultimately dropped all charges.
 
“And this is why we have the first and second amendments in America,” Elon Musk posted on X.
 
Reform Party UK leader Nigel Farage has urged Americans to be vigilant lest the speech police take root here. Once again, we should be grateful for our Constitution’s protections against state overreach.

​The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once said, “It is hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court.” Is that still true? What if the Supreme Court dropped an opinion and it made no sound?
 
The High Court has repeatedly come down on the side of assuring equal treatment for religious people – from protecting the right of religious schools to participate in “universal” state scholarship programs, to the right to personal religious expression, to the right of religious charities to participate in publicly funded programs.
 
And yet many states – from Maine to Colorado – keep coming back with regulations and state rulings contrary to those of the Supreme Court. Novel legal theories are being advanced, such as the ongoing attempt by Pennsylvania to switch from discriminating against Catholic participation in a charitable exemption – a policy previously knocked down by the Supreme Court – to discriminating against all religions in favor of secular charities.
 
Maine’s attempt to use clever legal tweaks after Carson v. Makin (2024) – in which the Court held that a state antidiscrimination law meant that religious schools could not be excluded from a state tuition program for private schools – threatens to revive the nullification-style legal approach of the Confederacy.
 
What, then, is behind this determination by some states to defy the clear principles set down by the Supreme Court by continuing to try to exclude religious charities and organizations from equal participation in public programs?
 
It’s easy to just say “politics.” But to fully understand this political dynamic, we must look first at the widening gulf between voters of blue and red states on questions of belief.
 
According to the Pew Research Religious Landscape Study, 78 percent of Americans identified as Christian in 2007, with another 5 percent adhering to Judaism, Islam, or another religion. In 2024, 62 percent of Americans identified as Christian, with a slight bump up to 7 percent for other religions.
 
The decline in Christian observance has not been geographically uniform. It is concentrating in the blue polarity of the color spectrum.
 
For example, 77 percent of adults in South Carolina and Mississippi identify as Christian. Bright red South Dakota is 79 percent Christian. But in blue Colorado, the percent of state residents identifying as Christian dropped from 67 percent in 2007 to 52 percent last year. Maine saw a precipitous drop from 72 percent to 51 percent.
 
Pennsylvania’s Christian identification fell from 82 percent to 62 percent. Similar declines can be seen in blue states, from Massachusetts and New York to California. Many of these states are close to minority status for the nation’s largest religion. Oregon is already there, only 43 percent Christian.
 
The First Amendment, of course, protects any and all religion, including conversion to other religions and to no religion at all. But this widening gap between the states is concerning because it coincides with a growing politicization of a principle that, up until now, has been considered sacred by Americans of all beliefs – the free exercise of religion (including the right not to be religious).
 
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) poses as a neutral force to keep church and state separate. But in many domains, from charity to education, strict secularism is not neutral, as seen in Pennsylvania’s attempt to elevate secular charities over religions ones. (The mirror image of such thinking would be efforts by red state politicians who want to place explicitly religious, usually Protestant, content in public classrooms.) Cracking down on the speech of either secularism or religion violates the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment.
 
Yet, with growing non-religious populations in blue states, FFRF is having success in channeling political and legal action against the equitable treatment of religious speech and activities. We hope more lawmakers will come to see that this goes against the philosophy of the signers of the Constitution – many Protestants, two Catholics, and several deists who doubted Biblical miracles and the divinity of Jesus.
 
What the founders understood, we need to understand today: Government can – and must – respect the role of religious people and organizations without being religious itself.

​Wouldn’t it be nice to just get those stupid people who keep advocating for stupid things to just shut up – and if they won’t stop, to get them fired so they will be too busy trying to keep their homes that they will have no time to keep advocating for stupid things!
 
That rant, in a nutshell, characterizes the philosophical depth of the growing practice by leaders at the national and the local level to punish speech by misusing the powers of their office. This is apparently a communicable disease, one that has infected leaders in both parties and Americans across the ideological spectrum.
 
At the national level, President Trump signed executive orders punishing law firms – restricting their access to government contracts and federal buildings (presumably, including federal courthouses) – due to the past political activities of former law firm members. We’ve seen Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr misuse his ability to approve corporate mergers to force a multimillion-dollar settlement over a specious legal claim and to try to get a late-night TV host fired.
 
But Democrats play this game as well. At the national level, the Biden administration nurtured a breathtakingly large scheme of political censorship. Efforts ranged from deploying FBI agents to secretly jawbone social media companies into deplatforming disfavored speech, to providing taxpayer funds to an NGO to bully advertisers into boycotting conservative and libertarian news outlets.
 
Enter Bob Mendes, progressive politician and former Nashville city council member. (Hat tip to Eugene Volokh.)
 
The law firm of Baker Donelson serves as Nashville’s outside counsel. Mendes warned that the firm might well lose this account if it allowed one of its lawyers, James DeLanis, to continue to chair the election committee to certify a referendum that opposed a property tax increase. City officials pressured the law firm to keep the referendum off the ballot and to curb DeLanis’s efforts. As a result of official threats, DeLanis was fired by Baker Donelson.
 
Now Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton, joined by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, has issued an opinion on the misuse of official power to curb the First Amendment. Two major findings leap out from this ruling.
 
First, private firms can fire people for speech. Under the First Amendment, a business has associational rights. Thus, the judges found: “Baker Donelson, for better or worse, sought to protect its client base, not to punish DeLanis for his speech.” The court also found that the law firm is eligible for qualified immunity in this case, limiting its liability.
 
Second, public officials can be held liable for misusing their powers to curb speech. The court found that “Mendes spearheaded an effort to defeat the citizen tax referendum at issue. He ‘berated’ DeLanis at a Commission meeting for orchestrating ‘pre-baked, political theater.’” The court continues: “When a public official warns a law firm that the city may pull business from it due to the public-office actions of one of its lawyers, that suffices to deter a person ‘of ordinary firmness’ from exercising his First Amendment rights in that office …”
 
The Sixth Circuit reminds us of the limits of official power and the breadth of the First Amendment. This opinion should be required reading for any elected or appointed official.

​For more than a decade, the Little Sisters of the Poor – a community of Catholic nuns who devote their lives to caring for the elderly poor – have been trapped in a never-ending nightmare of litigation. Their “crime”? After Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Little Sisters declined to provide coverage for drugs like the week-after pill in their health plan because doing so would violate their core religious beliefs.
 
Pennsylvania Already Slapped Down by the Supreme Court

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a new rule with a broad religious exemption to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate. The government admitted it had broken the law when it previously tried to force faith-based nonprofits into compliance. That acknowledgment should have closed the book on this case.
 
Not satisfied to leave these nuns alone, Pennsylvania immediately sued the federal government to remove the Little Sisters’ exemption. Pennsylvania asked a federal judge to force the Little Sisters to comply with a federal mandate or face tens of millions of dollars in fines.
 
In 2019, after years of litigation, the Little Sisters asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect them. In a 7-2 decision, the Little Sisters won. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, captured the heart of the matter:
 
“For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling… But [since the enactment of the contraceptive mandate], they … have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
 
The Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s authority to issue a religious exemption to the contraceptive mandate under the text of the ACA. It has yet to clarify how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits government from substantially burdening religious exercise, would protect religious groups like the Little Sisters.
 
Pennsylvania Refuses to Throw in the Towel

Despite the Supreme Court’s rebuke, Pennsylvania – joined by more than a dozen states – kept pushing in lower courts to undo the Little Sisters’ protections. On Aug. 13, in a ruling against a Trump-era conscience rule, a federal district court in Philadelphia once again sided with Pennsylvania.
 
The Little Sisters are now again having to appeal to the Third Circuit. A case that should have ended years ago, central to protecting the free exercise rights of all Americans, thus continues on.
 
In the hands of state regulators, a narrow exemption for nuns caring for the elderly poor is apparently worthy of a multistate lawsuit. That alone speaks volumes.
 
The Stakes for Minority Faiths

Courts have long recognized a recurring problem – when judges and regulators do not understand a particular faith, they often undervalue the importance of its practices. That risk is highest for minority religions, which often lack resources, political power, and popular support. These communities depend heavily on statutory protections like RFRA, which is designed to operate:
​

• As a shield – allowing religious believers to defend themselves in court

 

• But also as a sword – empowering the government to proactively avoid violating conscience

If agencies are forbidden from issuing exemptions, religious minorities will be forced to wait until their beliefs are already compromised before seeking relief. By then, the harm is already done.
 
That is what makes the continuing campaign against the Little Sisters so troubling. Even after a decisive 7–2 Supreme Court victory, state governments continue trying to force a group of nuns to violate their vows or face crushing fines.
 
We expect that the Little Sisters will once again prevail. But this case serves as a warning about the fragility of religious liberty in the face of persistent official hostility from many states.

​The U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 struck down a California law requiring non-profits to disclose their donors to the state. This ruling was aligned with a landmark 1958 Court opinion that safeguarded the identities of private donors to the NAACP from an Alabama law also mandating disclosure.
 
In the Alabama case during the Jim Crow era, donors could have been exposed to harassment or far worse. In California, the state had a history of accidentally leaking the identities of donors to controversial causes. California today is not the Alabama of 1958, but donors in the Golden State have still been doxed, harassed, and fired.
 
The protections of anonymity – a practice in America as old as The Federalist Papers – is consistent with the implied First Amendment right to freedom of association. Curiously, however, these protections are limited under federal law. Under current law, some non-profits must hand over the identities of their largest donors to the IRS.
 
The Buckeye Institute – a public policy think tank in Ohio – went to federal court to successfully challenge this collection of sensitive, personal data by the IRS from Form 990 Schedule B. The district court found that the IRS donor disclosure requirement should be subjected to “exacting scrutiny” – a heightened level of review that courts apply in First Amendment cases. Now Buckeye is defending its victory against an appeal by the federal government before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
In its brief before the Sixth Circuit, Buckeye says it needs to protect donor anonymity because it:
 
“… criticizes the government … weighs in on topics that many people feel strongly about … which makes privacy critical for The Buckeye Institute and its supporters. Many donors (and potential donors) fear retribution from Buckeye’s opponents, and they’re reluctant to financially support The Buckeye Institute if doing so means the IRS has easy access to their personal information.”
 
Buckeye notes that shortly after its educational efforts successfully persuaded the Ohio legislature to reject Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act several years ago, “the IRS’s Cincinnati office initiated a full-field audit of The Buckeye Institute.”
 
The protection of “exacting scrutiny,” upheld by the federal court, does not mean that the government cannot access donor information. The institute notes that “it is a high bar, but not insurmountable.” But exacting scrutiny is a level of protection that would guard against the kind of political persecution of speech that appears to have occurred with the IRS and Buckeye.
 
A supporting amicus brief from Advancing American Freedom, including several pages listing hundreds of supporting organizations, covers the deep principles at stake in this case. AAF’s amicus declares:
 
“Freedom of association is an American tradition and is enshrined in the First Amendment. The government cannot condition participation in benefit programs on sacrificing a constitutionally protected right without that condition facing heightened scrutiny. And the government cannot collect massive amounts of data about Americans merely for its own convenience.
 
“As former Attorney General William Barr observed about the Consolidated Audit Trail, and Securities and Exchange Commission data collection project, ‘If the government can collect this information just in case, that’s the big-brother surveillance state.’”
 
And surveillance, as we have seen time and again, almost always results in attempts to curb free speech.

What does the U.S. Supreme Court have to do to make its opinions stick?

In June, the State of Wisconsin was rebuked by a unanimous Court for expelling the local Catholic Charities Bureau from a statewide exemption available to all other religions. Now Wisconsin is trying to get around the Court’s ruling by expelling all religious charities from this program, while continuing to make it available to secular charities.

Here's the background: In June, Justices from Sonia Sotomayor to Clarence Thomas unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that would have forced the Catholic Charities Bureau into the state unemployment system instead of being allowed, as other charities are, to pay into its own more efficient network.

Why were the Catholics singled out? The state court reasoned that because Catholic Charities serves people of all faiths and no faith, it is therefore not inherently a religious charity.
​

• At the time, PT1st noted that an expert witness, one Jesus of Galilee, said that whatever “you do for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you do for me.” Jesus did not say the needy might be outside the orbit of care, whether Samaritans or Greeks. Nor did he say that one must proselytize while providing food, clothing, or shelter.

 

• The Court found that Wisconsin’s discrimination violated Catholic Charities’ First Amendment rights. Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the Court’s unanimous opinion, called Wisconsin’s exclusion “denominational discrimination.” She wrote: “It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality’ between religion and religion. There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.”

Ouch.

You would think that after this humiliation, Wisconsin would get it right. But like many other states, from Maine to New York, when it comes to equitable treatment of religious organizations, Wisconsin came back with a novel way to get around the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Wisconsin’s new theory is that it should now ban all religiously based charities from accessing the exemption.

There is just one problem with the state’s workaround. It would leave the exemption in effect for secular organizations, creating fresh violations of the First Amendment. So the state has gone from denominational discrimination to discrimination against all religions.

In our brief supporting Catholic Charities’ petition before the Supreme Court, we note:

“The miserly remedy requested by the State on remand calls to mind a poem by American poet and illustrator, Shel Silverstein. It reads: ‘Now I lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to keep. And if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my toys to break. So none of the other kids can use ‘em … Amen.”

​“I didn’t seek to be a media sensation,” 61-year-old Larry Bushart told local media after the retired Tennessee police officer spent 37 days in jail and was hit with a $2 million bond – all for reposting a meme on a Facebook thread.

At 11 p.m. on Sept. 21, officers came to Bushart’s Linden, Tennessee, home, handcuffed him, and locked him up for “threatening mass violence at a school.”
Did he?

Consider: Bushart’s post came after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and centered around a vigil in Perry County, Tennessee. The meme included a quote from then-candidate Donald Trump in the aftermath of a school shooting in Iowa, saying: “We have to get over it.”

When we checked candidate Trump’s remarks, we found that this quote was plucked from a longer and more sympathetic statement. But when it comes to taking something out of context, the Perry County Sheriff’s Department is unexcelled. You might find the shared meme highly offensive, or you might nod in agreement. But one thing it is not is a threat of mass violence at a school.

Nevertheless, the arrest affidavit for Bushart states that a “reasonable person would conclude [it] could lead to serious bodily injury, or death to multiple people.” Please tell us, where do we find these “reasonable people”? Probably only in the Perry County Sheriff’s office.

Meanwhile, in the more than five weeks Bushart spent in jail, he missed the birth of his granddaughter and lost a post-retirement job providing medical transportation. The charges against Bushart were finally dropped, but only after the case began to receive national notoriety.

“A free country does not dispatch police in the dead of night to pull people from their homes because a sheriff objects to their social media posts,” said Adam Steinbaugh of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is representing Bushart’s in his lawsuit to defend his rights.
​
As this case moves forward, these local authorities in Tennessee may well find their infringement on Bushart’s speech to be expensive. Consider that a raid on a small-town newspaper in Kansas recently resulted in a $3 million settlement.

​Can you remember a time when the survival of free speech in America – something we’ve long taken for granted – was suddenly a matter of national concern?
 
Consider what has emerged in the last year:

• The Biden Administration funded a foreign non-governmental organization that then mounted a secret effort to defund U.S. news outlets that had a libertarian or conservative stance.

 

• Charlie Kirk was murdered as he tried to hold a respectful debate on a college campus with people who disagreed with him.

 

• Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, urged the firing of a late-night talk-show host.

 

• The Trump administration issued executive orders punishing law firms by limiting their access to federal buildings and contracts, citing the political activities of former members of these firms.

We could go on. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably could as well. But there is good news – the American people are noticing what is going on in Washington – and they don’t like it.
 
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression conducts a quarterly survey that makes up its National Speech Index. It finds unprecedented levels of Americans concerned that the protection of free speech, the most basic of our liberties, is eroding.

• When asked in October if the right of people to freely express their views is heading in the right or wrong direction, 74 percent of respondents replied “wrong direction.” This is a 10-point jump from the previous July survey.

 

• People of all political persuasions are worried. Since July, Democrats who think the treatment of speech is heading in the right direction dropped from 17 percent to 11 percent; independents fell from 31 percent to 19 percent; and Republicans fell from 69 percent to 55 percent.

The survey also shows that while concern for free speech is rising, a substantial minority still doesn’t seem to understand or respect the basic principle of free speech.

• Almost a quarter of respondents believe a professor should be fired for saying, “Our colleges and universities are progressive indoctrination centers.”

 

• Fourteen percent would consider firing a professor who echoed the theme of the last successful presidential campaign, “We are going to make America great again.”

An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll in September found that 30 percent of American adults believe that Americans “may have to resort to violence to get the country back on track.”
 
Somehow, large numbers of Americans fail to appreciate that free speech means tolerating speech (and the politics) of people we intensely dislike. Recent events underscore this blind spot.
​

• Actor Jon Voight posted a statement over the weekend asking President Trump to “terminate” the mayoralty of New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to save us from this “communist fool.”

 

• The Washington Free Beacon reported on Monday that philanthropist George Soros has given $250,000 to the UK Center for Countering Digital Hate, which organizes boycotts of conservative speech.

These calls for censorship are morally wrong because they violate the inherent right of human beings to vote and speak as they wish, even if you think their ideas are disastrous. And the censors are endangering their own interests. A federal government powerful enough to overturn local elections and defund speech is powerful enough to turn on them.

​The rise of virulent, occasionally violent, antisemitism at the extremes of the political spectrum is testing the meaning and durability of the First Amendment.
 
High-Profile Antisemitism on the Right
Let’s start with Tucker Carlson’s recent softball promotion of antisemite and Hitler fan Nick Fuentes, as well as Carlson’s equally promotional interview with Darryl Cooper – who identified Winston Churchill, not Adolf Hitler, as the villain who started World War Two.
 
Victor Davis Hanson has incisively critiqued Carlson for conducting these interviews of two extremists “without cross-examination.” Carlson introduced Cooper as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States,” though Cooper has no history books or academic articles to his name. When Cooper described the Holocaust as a botched humanitarian response rather than a deliberate act of mass murder, Carlson let that comment slide by without challenge.
Antisemitism on the Left
It was only months ago that left-wing antisemitism was testing the limits of a tolerant society. At UCLA, anti-Israel protesters enforced what they called “Jew-Free Zones.” At Columbia, Jewish students and faculty were physically and verbally harassed. It wasn’t until the Trump Administration dropped the hammer on these institutions of higher learning that administrators began to adequately protect students and faculty from attack.
 
So where does the law actually come down? Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) speech that incites “imminent lawless action” is prohibited. “True threats” were later proscribed. Ideological thugs who spout true threats at Jews on college campuses are acting outside the law. Their harassment and threats could hardly be excused as mere “speech.”
 
Even speech that is protected by the First Amendment can be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Protesters can shout on the quad at 3 p.m., but at 3 a.m. they cannot bang on dorm room doors or awaken the campus with megaphones. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits speakers from denying members of one religion equal access to a college campus, as happened at UCLA.
 
So What About Carlson, Cooper, and Fuentes?
They are clearly spreading hate speech. As scholar Richard Weaver famously wrote, “ideas have consequences.” Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher – though he never personally killed anyone – was justly sentenced to death at the Nuremberg tribunal and hanged in 1946 for directly inciting the Holocaust. He espoused true threats and, indeed, violence that had a huge consequence – the deaths of millions.
 
As galling as it may be, however, Fuentes and Cooper so far cannot and should not be punished for their speech. Yes, Fuentes says he’s on “Team Hitler” and that “Hitler was right.” Yes, Cooper has managed to be something worse than a Holocaust denier – he’s a Holocaust rationalizer. Unlike Streicher, neither man is on record calling for violence. Also legal in many circumstances is the widespread chant of campus demonstrators, “from the river to the sea,” which could be taken to mean the replacement, if not the eradication, of Israel. Hate speech might flirt with violence, but the Supreme Court chose – wisely in our estimation – to reject the path of many European governments today that attempt to police speech.
 
Again, hate speech crosses the line only with “true threats” and calls for “imminent lawless action.” This is admittedly an unsatisfactory solution. Perhaps the line between a Fuentes and a Streicher, or many campus protesters and Hamas, is a thin one. But observing that line provides maximum room for freedom of speech for all of us. It prevents travesties like the arrest of a comedian in the UK for tasteless jokes. A government that asserts a right to scrutinize every uttered or posted word for hate is a government that will inevitably become a threat itself.
 
Is Carlson Facing Cancel Culture?
Just because speech is legal, however, does not mean its speaker has a right to be platformed by private parties or to not be criticized by others. Heritage President Kevin Roberts, in his heavily panned defense of Carlson’s interview with Fuentes, said: “I don’t participate in cancel culture.” This is a profound misunderstanding of what free speech is all about.
 
Carlson, Fuentes, and Cooper – the Three Stooges of Antisemitism – have as much right to speak as any other American. But the First Amendment also expresses a right to free association. Think about it – how free would the speech of any organization be if it had to sponsor speakers with views inimical to its own? It is not cancel culture if the Roman Catholic Church chooses not to sponsor an atheist. And it would not be cancel culture if Heritage drops its association with Tucker Carlson.
 
Though not a matter of law, a culture of free speech imposes on us the moral obligation to call out truly bad speech – and to name names.
 
Sen. Ted Cruz made this point before a Federalist Society convention:
“My colleagues, almost to a person, think what is happening is horrible, but a great many of them are frightened, because he [Tucker Carlson] has one hell of a big megaphone,” Cruz said.
“It’s easy right now to denounce Fuentes,” Cruz later said at the convention. “Are you willing to say Tucker’s name?”
 
Sen. Cruz reminds us that timid criticism of bad speech that avoids mentioning the source is insufficient. We have a moral obligation to confront really bad speech – and to name the speakers.
 
Princeton University scholar Robert George, who on Monday announced that he had resigned from the Heritage Foundation board, set out foundational principles on X that liberals, as well as conservatives, should adopt.
 
“… I believe that the conservative movement, though it can and should be a broad tent, simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement …
 
“Is this a call for ‘cancelation’? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something – or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable … I am – notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives – committed to the principle of free speech for everybody, including people with whom I profoundly disagree on even the most important issues, indeed, including racists and other bigots. But defending their rights does not mean allying with them, welcoming them into our movement, or treating them as representing legitimate forms of conservatism.”
 
Dr. George’s hygienic standard for conservatism is a good guide for people on all sides of the political spectrum and for universities as well.

Enraged by The Marion County Record’s reporting on a public document about a restaurateur’s DUI, officers of the Marion, Kansas, police department and the local sheriff’s department raided the newspaper, and seized its computers, servers, and cellphones. Editor Eric Meyer had his home raided while his 98-year-old mother Joan – a former editor – watched the police ransack her home in great distress.
 
Joan Meyer died the next day.
 
Marion County has now agreed to pay a total of $3 million to the victims of this raid in 2023 and to Joan Meyer’s estate. The Marion County Sheriff’s Office, for its part in the raid, issued an apology as well as a check:
 
“This likely would not have happened if established law had been reviewed and applied prior to the execution of the warrants.”

The Freedom of the Press Foundation responded by saying:
 
“You think? Any police officer or judge with half an understanding of the First Amendment should’ve known better than to ask for or sign off on the raid on The Record and the home of owners Eric and Joan Meyer.
 
“But apparently, police don’t always read the law, and judges may need a refresher, too. Let’s break down the flashing red lights any judge or cop should heed before storming a newsroom.
 
“The First and Fourth Amendments strongly protect against searches of journalists and newsrooms.
 
“Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause, which means a likelihood that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place. The government must also specify the place to be searched and the thing to be seized.
 
“When a search warrant targets materials protected by the First Amendment — like notes, recordings, drafts, and materials used or created by journalists — the Fourth Amendment’s requirements must be scrupulously followed, the Supreme Court has said.
 
“This means that judges must be extra strict in applying the Fourth Amendment’s requirements when a search impacts First Amendment rights, which it will any time it involves a journalist or newsroom. What judges should never do is allow overly broad searches where police rifle through journalists’ desks and computer files willy-nilly in the hopes of turning up something ‘incriminating.’”
 
The Freedom of the Press Foundation also noted that Kansas, like most states, has a press shield law that would have required a court hearing before law enforcement could rifle through journalists’ confidential sources. The federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980 requires law enforcement to obtain a subpoena, not just a warrant, thereby giving The Record an additional opportunity to challenge the demand in court.
 
The Freedom of the Press Foundation concluded:
 
“Journalists also have a right to publish information given to them by a source, even if the source obtained it illegally, as long as the journalist didn’t participate in the illegality. That means that if a source gives a journalist a document or recording that the source stole, the journalist can’t be punished for publishing it.
 
“Because these things are not crimes, it also means that accessing publicly available information or publishing information that a source illegally obtained can’t be the basis for a raid on a newsroom or search of a journalist’s materials.
 
“Next time, think before you raid.”

​There’s actually nothing to read in tea leaves except, perhaps, whether they would make a good cup of tea. The same can often be said for oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Time and again, justices who pepper lawyers on one side with critical questions sometimes vote in their favor.
 
Still, Damon Landor, the petitioner in Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections, who sat through the oral argument of his case, has every reason to feel despondent over the hot bench questioning of his lawyer on Monday.
 
Landor is seeking damages for violations of his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects the religious rights of prisoners. This is important because it is a long-standing principle that where there’s a right, there must be a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium). Many legal scholars argue that courts have a responsibility to impose remedies – in this case, personal damages for state prison guards.
 
That Landor has a sympathetic case has been recognized by all. A devout Rastafarian, Landor was in prison for a drug-related conviction. For most of his incarceration, Landor maintained long dreadlocks under the Nazarite vow, an important outward sign of his faith.
 
With only three weeks left before his release, Landor was transferred to the Ramond Laborde Correctional Center in Louisiana. At intake, he explained his beliefs, presented proof of past accommodations, and handed a guard a copy of the Fifth Circuit decision protecting Rastafarian inmates.
 
The guard threw it in the trash. When Landor offered to contact his lawyer to affirm the legal principle protecting his dedication to his religion, guards forcibly handcuffed him to a chair and shaved his head.
 
Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to speak for everyone when she said, “the facts of this case are egregious.” She echoed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which “emphatically” condemned “the treatment Landor endured.” But, as Justice Neil Gorsuch told Landor’s attorney, the federal appeals courts “are unanimously against you and have been for many, many, many years.”
 
The many “manys” are justified. Despite the sympathy of the Fifth Circuit, Landor lost, as he had done before in lower courts. “We can’t decide a case just based on these facts,” Barrett said.
 
She joined Justice Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in pressing Landor’s lawyer and the Trump administration about insufficient notice to states that their employees could pay heavy fines for violating RLUIPA’s federal religious protections. Citing the string of losses by Landor and others, Justice Barrett said, “It’s hard to see how it could be clear to the states [when] all of the law went the other way.”
 
Justice Kavanaugh weighed in: “The hard part, as I see it, for your case, for me, is that you need a clear statement” to alert state employees that they are personally at risk for violations.
 
Conservative justices – including Chief Justice John Roberts – displayed skepticism that RLUIPA, an express application of Congress’s spending power, could authorize damages against individual state officers if they had not participated in contract negotiations accepting federal funds. Liberal justices – who often part ways with that conservative majority on expanding protections of religious freedom – were more sympathetic to Landor.
 
“Generally speaking, if you’re a prison official, you know you’re working in a prison and you are bound by law to pay damages if you violate the law,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
 
It remains to be seen which side will prevail. But when warm weather returns to Washington, we will know if Landor’s tough day in court was an omen or not.

​The public statements we post on social media are, by definition, available to all. Federal investigators often have good reason to access some of this information from social media, some of the time. How far that power goes is a line for the courts to draw.

However, that line – meaning the First Amendment – is clearly crossed when the government conducts mass surveillance of social media posts not because of a particular suspicion of bad behavior, but to make a case against targeted people.

Taylor Lorenz reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is building out a massive social media surveillance program. It is searching posts and looking for “speech that, essentially, they feel they can deport people over. They can take lawful, legal speech and convert it into fresh leads for enforcement raids.”

Now add The Intercept’s disturbing report suggesting that ICE is so obsessed with its reputation that it wants to track any “negative” social media discourse directed toward it.

Such a program would scrape a user’s internet history and associations, then use facial recognition to create a dossier composed of a “photograph, partial legal name, partial date of birth, possible city, possible work affiliations, possible school or university affiliation, and any identified possible family members or associates.” Not to mention the possible infringements of the First Amendment. Such surveillance programs deter people from expressing certain ideas. This is precisely the kind of content-based restriction and viewpoint discrimination that courts often treat as presumptively unconstitutional.

Nor should we forget about the right to associate for expressive purposes. Without an utterly compelling justification, government actions cannot “burden association” (in this case, citizens sharing a discourse of critique against the government). Thinking of social media as an electronic sidewalk might help here, making the removal of anti-government apps akin to clearing sidewalks of speech the government doesn’t like.

To quote Taylor Lorenz again, all this amounts to a “mass, automated digital dragnet.” And few acts of surveillance are more anti-constitutional than warrantless dragnets. Dragnets are a symptom of policy enforcement inspired by animus to speech and activism. From a First Amendment perspective, this looks like retaliation. And the fact that social media seems to be increasingly used as the basis of crackdowns amounts to what Lorenz calls the gradual “militarization of our data.”

We live in an era in which our digital and physical selves have become indistinguishable. Government monitoring our social media and internet presence 24/7, then using it to profile us, enables government regulation of speech. Add ICE’s new capability to track us by our location histories, and we have a system not far from tapping phones or raiding homes.
​
Whether the government’s intrusion is analog or digital, it harms free speech.

​The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote about a fire that broke out backstage in a theater: “The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it's a joke.”

In our time, deepfake audio calls prompt people to wire their life savings to thieves, change their vote, or pay off sextortionists. One of the worst aspects of AI deepfake technology is that it can put actual authorities in the position of the frantic clown.

Denmark has had enough. The Danish culture minister, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, said: “Human beings can be run through the digital copy machine and be misused for all sorts of purposes and I’m not willing to accept that.”

Danish legislators are now supporting a measure to grant every citizen a right to control uses of their image, likeness, and voice, similar to “right of publicity” laws in many U.S. states that give Americans property rights to commercial uses of their identities. Under a proposal expected to soon pass Parliament, Danes will gain sweeping legal control over any digital recreation. This is important for Americans, because European law often sets standards in the global internet that adjust the policies of U.S. tech companies.

This Danish proposal, at first glance, might seem like overdue privacy armor against criminals, stalkers, propagandists, and hostile intelligence services. If Denmark passes this “right to your likeness,” as it appears poised to do, Danes will be able to demand takedowns and seek compensation. Platforms could face penalties for failing to comply.

But there’s a catch – a threat to free speech if Europeans and Americans are not careful in how such laws are drafted and enforced.

The Danish legislation does include carve-outs for “satire” and “parody,” meant to preserve comedy, creative expression, and political commentary. That is a good step. But these categories don’t explicitly protect other forms of speech. Such laws could easily be used to punish fair uses of AI, from commentary and criticism to historical fiction, docudramas, and much more.

If the parameters of an anti-deepfake law are too narrow, risk-averse platforms and creators will pull back. Algorithms will over-filter, even with exemptions. Studios and satirists will second-guess viral impressions, political cartoons, and docudramas depicting real people. Defamation law already chills speech. A sweeping likeness-ownership regime could freeze it solid.

When this issue came up in the U.S. Congress last year, the Motion Picture Association and civil liberties groups met with Members of Congress to craft a balanced approach. This approach, one with growing bipartisan support, would protect people from outrageous AI abuses – such as having one’s image and voice used for false endorsements, to perpetrate fraud, or for revenge porn – while fully protecting a wide range of AI uses in creative commentary, art, journalism, documentary work, and political speech.

No less important, Americans are learning that the best anti-AI filters are the ones we install in our brains.

Facebook is a great instructor, exposing us to one ridiculous scenario after another. Users are learning to ignore home security footage of rabbits gleefully jumping on backyard trampolines, or wolves and their cat friends ringing doorbells. As we get deeper into this age, we’re learning to relax our fingers and not share the ridiculous, the impossible, and the unlikely.
​
AI challenges our sense of reality. But it is also strengthening our patience and skepticism.

​The U.S. Supreme Court in 1952 slapped down President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 10340, which nationalized America’s steel factories to stabilize production during the Korean War. Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority that “we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property...”
 
Washington, D.C., today has a workaround to control business in a way that no Court opinion will likely overturn. Its approach is very simple – invest taxpayer money in a targeted company. This may be perfectly legal, but it is certainly dangerous. How free can a company remain when the most powerful monopolist of them all – Uncle Sam – sits on its board?
 
Make no mistake, Washington is making huge inroads into private businesses, and the list is growing. To cite one example, the White House has made deals with Nvidia and AMD to take a 15 percent cut from their revenues from computer chip sales in China. This is not regulatory oversight. It is revenue-sharing with the government.
 
Government also invests by leveraging its regulatory permission. The Trump administration took a “golden share” in U.S. Steel as a precondition for allowing Nippon Steel of Japan to acquire the company. The government’s golden share now gives Washington veto power over plant closures, factory idling, offshoring, moving the company’s headquarters from Pittsburgh, or even changing the company’s name.
 
With U.S. Steel, shares were “bought” in exchange for settling the administration’s claim against the company. Only the 800-pound gorilla of government could get away with threatening an acquisition, and then remove the threat and watch the value of its investment rise. This is not a market exchange. It is nationalization by another name.
 
Such government ownership of the means of production (sound familiar?) guarantees that business decisions will be politicized.
 
Would a defense contractor reliant on Washington’s goodwill feel pressured to purchase components from a company partially owned by the federal government? Would a company feel free to announce layoffs in a swing state, or subsidize an inefficient investment for political protection? Would a company that is partly government-owned turn to Washington to approve its business strategy?
 
Washington is not exactly shy about directing business strategies.
 
President Biden lectured snack companies about producing too few potato chips per bag and pressured social media companies to deplatform dissenting voices he accused of “killing people.” President Trump, meanwhile, personally lobbied Coca-Cola to replace high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar. When President Trump read media reports that Amazon was considering posting the added costs of tariffs to some of its products sold online, the president called Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to complain. “Jeff Bezos was very nice,” President Trump told reporters. “He solved the problem very quickly.” As Washington continues mixing public power and private enterprise, expect more heavily regulated companies to be “very nice” in not speaking out about the price impact of tariffs.
 
As the state’s power increases, the ability of companies to speak freely will also shrink. Witness the whipsawing of General Motors CEO Mary Barra, who supported the first Trump administration’s legal actions in favor of fossil fuels, then endorsed President Biden’s mandate for an all-electric future, only to later donate $1 million and provide vehicles for the Trump Inauguration. Last week, GM announced a $1.6 billion write-off for its electric vehicle business as it switches back to gasoline-powered vehicles.
 
Whatever Mary Barra really thinks, she has an obligation to her company to parrot the currently approved line from whichever party is in power.
 
This marks a departure from historic norms. J.P. Morgan, Bernard Baruch, and Lee Iacocca gave presidents unvarnished technical and economic advice. But as Washington increases its ownership of business – amplified by regulatory gamesmanship like the whiplash inflicted on car companies – expect executives to sound less like independent business leaders and more like government mouthpieces.
 
A government that owns a business will not tolerate disagreement from it. Every share Washington buys comes with a little less freedom for everyone else. Perhaps Congress should consider passing a First Amendment Is Not for Sale Act.