​As Ken Klippenstein reports, the FBI is planning to create a new center to proactively track the social media posts of Americans who may be “domestic terrorists.” The dangers to privacy and the Fourth Amendment associated with such extensive surveillance are obvious. But when one considers the list of proposed categories, George Orwell’s notion of “thoughtcrime” leaps to mind rather than anything resembling actual terrorism.

The FBI’s suspect categories include:

• Three varieties of “anti”: anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity
• Three varieties of extreme: concerning migration, race, and gender
• Three varieties of hostility: toward traditional American families, religion, and morality

It’s a perfectly malleable list, capable of being repurposed according to what antagonizes whoever is in power. Today it’s atheists, agnostics, and Bernie Sanders supporters. (Good thing Thomas Paine, the anti-Christian patriot who helped spark the American Revolution, did not live to fall under suspicion from this list.) But tomorrow the government could just as easily cast suspicion on gun owners or perhaps once again target “radical traditional Catholics.”

According to the budget request that Klippenstein highlighted, airing your opinions on social media seems like the best way to get included in the new database:

“Domestic terrorists exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications. They use these platforms to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in-person actions, and disseminate materials encouraging radicalization and mobilization to violence.”

Terrorists do, in fact, use social media. They also use mobile phones, get around in cars, and eat at restaurants. Similarly, most of us use social media, and often use encrypted apps to protect our privacy. Once again, the government is using the broadest of brushes to make everyone a potential suspect.

In other words, warns Klippenstein, under such a regime we should all be officially “on notice.” The Biden administration had convinced itself that the First Amendment did not protect speech it regarded as disinformation or misinformation. Now the Trump administration is ready to use nebulous categories to render people suspect, from your local atheist to the anti-ICE protester.
​
More than ever before in our history, the federal government seems ready to demonize what citizens think. These are the times that try men’s souls.

​The recent consent decree signed by the parties that settled Missouri v. Biden has been hailed by civil libertarians as a “major blow against social media censorship,” signaling that “Free Speech Wins Big in Court.”
 
Kenin Spivak in RealClearPolitics says, “not so fast.”
 
Missouri v. Biden (formerly Murthy v. Missouri) combined lawsuits filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri with claims of several leading health care professionals. After a serpentine trip through the courts, including a remand from the Supreme Court to lower courts, the case has ended with that consent decree. Along the way, an egregious pattern of secret government censorship was exposed.
 
Spivak reports that the case revealed that 80 senior Biden officials and at least 11 federal agencies, including the White House, pressured social media companies into censoring conservative speech. Spivak writes:
 
“Underscoring the left’s strange and newly formed view that the First Amendment somehow does not protect ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ or ‘malinformation’ (truthful information that nonetheless undermines the approved policy agenda), in 2021, CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) director Jen Easterly claimed that social media speech is a form of ‘infrastructure’ that fell within her agency’s purview, and that Americans should not be allowed to make their own decisions about what is true.”
 
Spivak lists censorship targets that included YouTube’s suspension of The Hill newspaper for posts that included Donald Trump’s speech at the CPAC conference, Sen. Ted Cruz, actor James Woods, The New York Post, the Babylon Bee satirical site, and many more.
 
These facts landed hard in court. On July 4, 2023, federal judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction that blocked numerous federal agencies from communicating with social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” These included government requests to social media companies to delete posts that were critical of President Biden, gasoline prices, climate change, and social issues.
 
The judge likened the government’s actions to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth from 1984.
 
One would hope that, in the face of such a massive violation of the First Amendment, the consent decree would arrive like the famous Apple MacIntosh TV ad in 1984, in which an athletic woman hurls a sledgehammer into Big Brother’s screen. Judging from Spivak’s account, the consent decree was more like a hurled paperclip.
 
The consent decree, Spivak writes, is “powerful-sounding pap” in which, for ten years, the Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA will refrain from threatening Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, or YouTube “with some form of punishment (i.e., an adverse legal, regulatory, or economic government sanction)” to remove or deemphasize protected speech.
 
Not included were other bad actors, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the FBI. The decree does not cover other social media companies or those that may arise in the next decade. It includes vague and easily exploited exceptions for “criminal activity” and “national security” that may leave the named plaintiffs vulnerable.
 
We would add that refraining from threatening is a weak standard – one that fails to account for the reality that in such “jawboning” explicit threats are often unnecessary when government officials issue demands to heavily regulated industries.
 
“The First Amendment and Americans have lost an opportunity that may not recur for a strong permanent injunction that would have been nearly impossible to amend, modify, or avoid,” Spivak writes. “Instead, we got press releases.”
 
Read his full piece here.

​Freedom of expression withers when governments are always watching. Our First Amendment freedoms to think, speak, publish, and worship as we choose are strengthened by the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment.

For this reason, defenders of the First Amendment have much at stake in the looming reauthorization debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This surveillance authority, which Congress enacted to allow the surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil, has been used extensively by the FBI to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans millions of times in the last five years.

Section 702 was last reauthorized with a two-year extension in April 2024 under the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA). It is now up for a reauthorization by April 20. Will the U.S. House reauthorize Section 702 the right way – by installing robust constitutional guardrails? Or will the House choose a “clean” reauthorization – rejecting all reform amendments – and continue to allow Americans’ personal communications to be swept up in a web of warrantless, at-will surveillance?

Protect The 1st General Counsel Gene Schaerr described how disregard of the Fourth Amendment has directly undermined the pillars of the First Amendment in testimony before Congress:
​

• Freedom of Religion: Under Section 702, the FBI illegally searched the communications of religious leaders who applied to the FBI's “Citizens Academy.” The FBI has shown an appetite to spy on the religious, from surveillance of “traditional radical Catholics” to Americans who attend their local mosque. If federal agencies can use collected data to generate comprehensive “religious dossiers” on every American, what’s next?

• Freedom of the Press: The expansion of what is called the “make-everyone-a-spy provision” under RISAA allows the government to force providers of office space, including landlords for media organizations, to facilitate warrantless surveillance. The FBI’s searches of journalists’ and political commentators’ communications have become a recurring practice.

• Freedom of Speech and Political Expression: “Backdoor searches” are another favorite FBI tactic – and when used to illegally surveil presidential campaigns and transitions, they amount to interference in political expression. Not to mention the warrantless search of the communications of 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. “Political dossiers,” anyone? Better watch what you post on social media.

• Freedom of Assembly and Association: By purchasing sensitive digital data from brokers, the government acquires information that reveals Americans’ political activities and associations. Case in point: The FBI searched (without a judge-approved warrant) the communications of individuals participating in mass gatherings, specifically Black Lives Matter and January 6 protesters.

• The Right to Petition the Government: In a direct affront to citizens interacting with the justice system, the FBI conducted warrantless searches of victims who approached the Bureau to report crimes. The FBI also spied on a state judge who reported suspected civil rights violations committed by a local police chief.

As these examples illustrate, attempted reforms like RISAA in 2024 offered little in the way of meaningful guardrails on Section 702 operations. Congress has one more chance to get this right. The House must legally require government agents to obtain a warrant to search through Americans’ communications, with reasonable exceptions for emergencies.

Given that 80 percent of Congress’s constituents want these changes to become law, it seems like it should be easy. This is the time to reinforce that the “consent of the governed” still matters.

Can police arrest a journalist simply for asking questions? The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to say “no.”

The plight of journalist Priscilla Villarreal began with her arrest in 2017, with Laredo, Texas, police clearly out to use the law to punish her. She was followed throughout the booking process by police officers, who humiliated her by jeering and snapping pictures of her during the booking process.

What was Villarreal’s crime? She had asked questions.

Under the moniker “La Gordiloca,” Villarreal has amassed a large following for her coverage of events in Laredo on her Facebook page. Her reporting has long irked local officials, from live-streaming Laredo Police Department officers choking an arrestee, to criticizing the Webb County District Attorney for not charging a relative with a crime, despite evidence that the relative had abused animals.

Following up on two stories – a Border Patrol agent who had committed suicide, and family involved in a fatal car crash – Villarreal confirmed the names of these victims with a Laredo Police Department officer before reporting them. Months later, she was charged under a Texas statute forbidding the “misuse of official information.” This law held that it was illegal to solicit information from a public official to obtain a “benefit.”

Under this rubric, any journalist could be charged for seeking to obtain the “benefit” of a scoop.

After a national outcry, these absurd and abusive charges were dropped. But what about the thuggish behavior of the Laredo Police Department? It is often said in law that a right without a remedy is no right at all. Villarreal filed a civil rights lawsuit against the police, seeking damages for her clearly unconstitutional mistreatment.

Villarreal won her case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, only to lose on appeal before the full bench. That court held that the doctrine of qualified immunity, a judge-created doctrine that shields officials from being held liable for constitutional violations, protected the Laredo police. This shield applies unless officials violate “clearly established law.”

Did that not happen?

When the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in Villarreal’s case, the Laredo Police Department got off scot-free. The First Amendment suddenly became not quite as clearly established as we thought it was.

“It should be obvious that this arrest violated the First Amendment,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent, calling the Court’s refusal to take up the case “a grave error.”

Judge James Ho, in Villarreal’s initial win, wrote for the court that “if the First Amendment means anything, it surely means that a citizen journalist has the right to ask a public official a question, without fear of being imprisoned.”
​
We have seen time and again, from the raid of a newspaper by police in Kansas, to arbitrary arrests of people peacefully filming ICE officers, a growing appetite to arrest reporters for doing their jobs. It is only a matter of time before an even more egregious abuse of the First Amendment brings a new test to the doctrine of qualified immunity.

What is left is right, and what is right is left – and both are getting it all wrong.

A convergence is taking place between the philosophies of some on the new right and the progressive left that treats social media as a “product” that must be regulated in the best interests of the American people, sweeping aside quaint concerns about the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

We recently covered attempts by the Trump chairmen of the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission to regulate journalism by overriding the First Amendment with appeals to consumer protection and airwave regulation.

This dovetails nicely with a recent New York Times op-ed by Tim Wu – who led the implementation of progressive policies from inside the Biden White House – arguing that social media is “a defective, hazardous product” that must be regulated “as a matter of public health.”

He echoes the reasoning of trial lawyers seeking to hold Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok liable for harming youth. Wu lists a parade of horribles – “algorithmic recommendations, infinite scroll, auto video play and intermittent reinforcement (in which likes, comments, and refreshed content are rewarded unpredictably rather than consistently).”

Put aside, for a moment, the obvious lack of utility of a social media platform that doesn’t guide users to what they want to see, or that requires manual intervention to get something to play. Wu’s point here is that “the very design of social media is intentionally engineered to create compulsions and habits of overuse, regardless of the content provided.”

He adds: “Lofty platitudes about free speech ring hollow in the face of teenage depression, self-harm and suicide.”

Thus the circle squares, from Trump FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who wants to apply consumer product regulation to Apple News, to Wu, who wants public regulation of social media to make it less harmful.

Wu is, to say the least, less than an ardent defender of free speech. He achieved notoriety with an essay that asked, “Is the First Amendment Obsolete?” (Short answer from Wu: yes.) There is also a more thoughtful side to Wu. He is right that American teens are too absorbed by social media, many dangerously so. But the solution, if there is one, could never come from government control of speech.

Several years ago, Elizabeth Nolan Brown in Reason magazine summed up the problem with blaming all the ills of the world on algorithms – which are, after all, a way to give users control of the content they see. Brown wrote:

“It's no secret that tech companies engineer their platforms to keep people coming back. But this isn't some uniquely nefarious feature of social media businesses. Keeping people engaged and coming back is the crux of entertainment entities from TV networks to amusement parks.

“Moreover, critics have the effect of algorithms precisely backward. A world without algorithms would mean kids (and everyone else) encountering more offensive or questionable content.”

Brown quoted Meta’s former vice president of Global Affairs, Nick Clegg, who said that without the news feed algorithm, “the first thing that would happen is that people would see more, not less, hate speech; more, not less, misinformation; more, not less, harmful content.”

Algorithms pluck what users follow out of a torrent of billions of global messages. Without them, that torrent would hit us all in the face.

For reasons spelled out by Brown, Wu’s idea of turning over algorithmic control – and thus speech control – to law enforcement and trial lawyers has no hope of working. The same is true of the efforts of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson to force journalists to adhere to their idea of greater ideological balance.

If either side ever succeeds in putting their schemes into action, they are sure to be disappointed when their controls fail to deliver the intended results. The obvious answer, to them at least, will be that even more control is needed. Then more.

Both ideological extremes are in a race to the bottom. Defenders of the First Amendment must be bolder than ever in declaring that speech is not a product – it is a human right.

We briefly wondered if Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was having a bad day when he threatened ABC if it did not fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he told a podcaster, suggesting the regulatory options available to the FCC to punish the network.

Carr also used his authority over media mergers to force Paramount into paying a $16 million settlement to the Trump library project. Paramount, then seeking to complete a merger, was forced to settle the president’s nuisance complaint against its CBS News division for how it edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris.

On Saturday, Chairman Carr left no doubt where he stands on censorship – he is for it and he is the would-be censor. He doubled down by threatening to revoke broadcasters’ licenses if they do not stop the “hoaxes and news distortions” about the Iran war. If they want to stay in the good graces of the FCC, Carr wrote that broadcasters must “correct course” and toe the administration’s line or risk losing access to the airwaves.

One can argue that networks have focused too much on the blowback to U.S. actions against Iran. This is perhaps more of a matter of proximity than of bias. It is much more visually compelling to show an Iranian drone strike on the Dubai International Airport than it is to show a map of Iran with an explosion emoji designating a strike on an Iranian airfield.

It is also true that the media is sometimes sensational and biased. Consider the recent story about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “blowing” millions of dollars on lobsters and steaks. What was left out in many accounts is that the U.S. Department of Defense has made such expenditures for decades – as an occasional morale booster for deployed troops who often subsist on the preserved food of Meals Ready-to-Eat.

All of these are fair points. Similar criticisms can be made about much of the current war coverage.

But would we be better off if these content decisions were made by the FCC? Is the “public interest” standard of the FCC Act too easily defined as the agenda of whichever party is in power? Would officially sanctioned coverage be more objective or trustworthy? Ask the people of Russia, of China, and of Iran.

The threat in Carr’s message is unmistakable. Some of the strongest objections to Carr’s attempts at censorship come from conservatives. Sen. Ted Cruz, who oversees the FCC as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, likened Carr’s statements to a mobster’s threat – “nice bar you have here… it’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Conservatives, who were victimized by secret acts of censorship by the Biden administration, should be especially wary. If the power of the FCC to punish networks for content becomes institutionalized, Fox News, Newsmax, and other conservative outlets are sure to be targeted by a future Democratic administration.

We expect Russia to crack down on media for spreading “distortions” and undermining national unity. We do not expect to see the idea of licensed speech in America.

Chairman Carr: the First Amendment protects speech that you find disagreeable, biased, or wrong. It exists to protect all speech and a free press. The government does not supervise or license journalism. Period.
​
Conservatives who were righteously angry about the ham-handed jawboning of the Biden administration should be furious about this far-greater abuse of the First Amendment, and the roadmap it creates for future administrations. These breaches of principle, as Sen. Cruz said, “are dangerous as hell.” They are also profoundly un-American.

Censorship is making a comeback as extremists in both parties try to use the mechanisms of government to shut down the bad speech of all those stupid people who just won’t shut the @#%$*& up!
 
On the left, the Biden administration engaged in an official censorship program by deploying 80 FBI agents to secretly jawbone social media companies into shadow-banning and removing conservative content. It also had a State Department program that quietly funded efforts through a London-based NGO to scare off advertisers from conservative news outlets.
 
On the right, Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, apparently determined to leave no bad idea behind, is flirting with censorship by asserting the right of his agency to regulate the editorial decisions of a journalistic enterprise and a media rater.
 
We could credit Ferguson with doing publicly what the Biden administration did secretly. But the brazen, public assertion of FTC authority over private, journalistic enterprises is perhaps the greater danger – one that if accepted by the public and the courts would transform the United States from a First Amendment society into a semi-free, authoritarian country like Hungary.
 
Apple News and Journalistic “Deception”

The previous FTC chair, the progressive Lina Khan, gave a broad interpretation to Section 5 of the FTC Act that empowers the agency to bring legal actions against private actors for “unfair or deceptive practices.” Her predecessors in both parties interpreted this vague authority with modesty, choosing to go after phony claims of cancer cures or the selling of worthless swamp land. Khan used it freely to investigate businesses.
 
But not even Khan asserted that this vague authority gave her the ability to regulate news outlets. That bit of pioneering belongs to Ferguson. He recently fired off a “warning letter” to Apple CEO Tim Cook accusing Apple News of violating its terms of service and the “reasonable consumer expectations of tens of millions of Americans.”
 
Apple News is an aggregator that features content from outlets ranging from Politico to The Wall Street Journal to USA Today. Ferguson accuses Apple News of favoring liberal content while ignoring stories from conservative media – which to be clear, the First Amendment would protect even if true.
 
What about Ferguson’s “terms of service” claim? We pored over the terms of service for Apple News (so you don’t have to) and found that this document eschews any promises about quality, neutrality, balance, or editorial fairness. It’s not even as if its marketing catchphrase is “Fair and Balanced,” or “All the News that’s Fit to Print.” In fact, this document explicitly disclaims responsibility for content accuracy or quality arising from Apple News’s curated, third-party material. And apart from any disclaimer, accusations of editorial slant or an assumed obligation of balance or good judgment ultimately boil down to matters of opinion – of the editors and the readers – not government diktat.
 
Quite simply, Ferguson is attempting to extend consumer protection laws to allow the government to regulate the editorial decisions of a news organization and impose its own editorial slant on organizations it dislikes. That is not consumer protection. It is phony concern about terms of service to promote terms of censorship.
 
FTC Seeks to Ransack the Files of Media Rater
​
The FTC also issued a civil investigative demand related to an antitrust investigation, requiring NewsGuard – a for-profit organization that rates the credibility of news organizations – to produce all its documents. This order includes any documents NewsGuard created or received since its founding in 2018, including reporters’ notes and lists of subscribers.
 
Many conservatives had their suspicions raised when they learned that this business received $25,000 in 2020 from the Pentagon and the State Department to identify hoaxes about COVID-19. On the other hand, as The Wall Street Journal has noted, NewsGuard rates Fox News ahead of MS Now, and National Review above CNN.
 
Of course, even if one thinks it is biased, NewsGuard and its viewpoints are protected by the First Amendment. NewsGuard understandably responded to the FTC’s actions by suing the government for attempted censorship.
 
Regardless of whether you privately agree with Ferguson’s underlying point about overall media bias against conservatives, that is a private opinion for you to make and others to reject. That opinion can control your choices about which media to follow, praise, or criticize, but other individuals get to make those same choices for themselves. Giving the government the means to regulate editorial decisions, and to constrain those choices from on high, guarantees abuse and censorship. Conservatives should be the first to recognize this. If Ferguson’s tactics stick, they will surely be used against conservatives tomorrow just as they are being used against allegedly biased news organizations today.
 
More and more, leaders on the right and the left seem dedicated to living out what Ray Bradbury predicted in 1953 in his dystopian novel, Fahrenheit 451: “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Protect The 1st's general counsel, Gene Schaerr, examines how the ongoing persecution of heroic dissident Jimmy Lai exemplifies how capitalism and civil liberties reinforce one another in the National Review. 

​While missiles are flying and bombs detonating in the Middle East, domestic political rhetoric has predictably become progressively more bombastic and incendiary. As in all wars, the First Amendment will be tested by the desire to shut down speech judged to be warmongering, unpatriotic, or just plain stupid.

It was off to the races after New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani called President Trump’s strikes on Iran “a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression,” adding: “I want to speak directly to Iranian New Yorkers: you are part of the fabric of this city – you are our neighbors, small business owners, students, artists, workers, and community leaders. You will be safe here.”

When we read this we had the same thought as millions of other Americans – yes, they will be safe here. No sanctioned religious police will cuff Iranian-American women about the ears if they appear in public without a headscarf on Lexington Avenue, or rape them in a police station if they are arrested. Iranian-American students, artists, and community leaders need not fear being slowly strangled to death by having a steel cable put around their necks before being lifted into the air by a crane.

Masih Alinejad, an Iranian-American journalist in New York, shot back at the mayor: “I don’t feel safe in New York listening to someone like you, Mamdani, who sympathizes with the regime that killed more than 30,000 unarmed Iranians in less than 24 hours.”

We would add that if Iran’s ambition to build a nuclear bomb is not arrested, then no New Yorker will be safe. But let us leave that point and examine how the First Amendment comes into this debate.

We predict that before the cherry blossoms bloom around Washington’s Tidal Basin, official threats will be leveled against the speech rights of critics of the attack on Iran. We also expect a few lonely voices in Hollywood, academia, and other centers of monolithic opinion will be hounded, harassed, and threatened if they dare break with the received views of the cultural cognoscenti.

With rhetorical bombs bursting in air, we should keep in mind that the United States has a history of government trying to crack down on “unpatriotic” speech on one side, and violence to end participation in a war on the other. During World War One, the Woodrow Wilson administration secured a 10-year prison sentence against presidential candidate Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party for criticizing America’s entry into that conflict. During the Nixon years, the Weather Underground planted more than two dozen bombs to protest the Vietnam War.

In the face of a new war, we should keep in mind that the First Amendment protects speech that is stupid, false, unpatriotic, warmongering, and ungrounded in fact. The hot exchange between Mayor Mamdani and Alinejad shows that speech and counter-speech can be pointed, polemical, and angry – hallmarks of American political speech since before we were a country – without resorting to laws or mob action to punish the speaker for speaking.
​
President Trump said on Monday that the military action against Iran could last for weeks. As events roll forward, we should keep our emotions in check and respect the speech rights of all – even if we have no respect for what is said.

Anonymity online can be a mask that allows people to say ugly, hateful or untrue things without taking responsibility for them. But it can also be a shield that protects women hiding from abusers, whistleblowers one step ahead of their pursuers, journalists reaching out to confidential sources about wrongdoing, and consumers searching online for answers to questions about their health that they’d rather not have anyone know about.

This is why the current effort by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to use emergency subpoenas to force Big Tech companies to reveal the identities of Americans who make critical posts about ICE is so dangerous. If this practice sticks, it will likely migrate to other federal agencies and erode anonymity online.

But the shedding of anonymous speech might come by a different route – not from executive-branch meddling or legislative mistakes, but from lawsuits claiming harms from child internet “addiction.”

Dan Frieth of the digital anti-censorship advocacy group, Reclaim The Net, listened to five hours of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony in a Los Angeles civil case and distilled it to a jarring and important warning – the age of anonymity could be coming to an end at the hands of the trial bar.

Zuckerberg testified in one of 1,600 lawsuits over internet addiction. In this case, a woman claimed that at age nine Meta’s Instagram addicted her, plunging her into a hell of anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal thoughts.

Frieth notes that the science of internet addiction is “genuinely disputed.” He writes:

“None of this means the harms alleged are fabricated. It means the word ‘addiction’ is doing heavy rhetorical and legal work, and the policy consequences are far beyond anything a jury in Los Angeles will decide.

“‘Addiction’ is how you get a public health emergency. A public health emergency is how you get emergency powers and make it easier for people to overlook constitutional protections. Emergency powers applied to the internet mean mandatory access controls. And mandatory access controls on the internet mean the end of anonymous and pseudonymous speech.

“When social media is classified as a drug, access to it becomes a medical and regulatory matter” justifying “identity verification, access controls, and a surveillance architecture that follows users across every platform and device.”

Frieth notes that a win for the plaintiff in this case would strip the current law protecting platform design decisions. This danger is not theoretical. Frieth reports that Zuckerberg repeatedly suggested that any age verification mandate – and thus identification – be shifted from platforms to owners of operating systems. Zuckerberg would thus toss his liability hot potato from Instagram to Apple and Google.

“This is more than age verification,” Frieth concludes. “It is a national digital ID layer baked into the two operating systems that run the majority of the world’s smartphones.”

There are a lot of competing interests in this case – the safety of children, the nature of the internet, and the value of free speech. Juries don’t have to balance these equities. They can just side with the plaintiff and inadvertently make policy for U.S. tech – and by extension, the world.
​
Any new approach to child safety should not require adults to give up speech rights recognized in this country since Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote collectively as the pseudonymous “Publius” in The Federalist Papers.

​The latest furor over whether Stephen Colbert can air an interview with Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico exposes a relic of broadcast regulation that no longer fits the modern media world: the FCC’s “equal time” rule. And what we’re seeing isn’t just awkward – it’s constitutionally and technologically outdated.

The rule, rooted in the Communications Act of 1934, requires broadcasters who give airtime to one political candidate to offer comparable time to opponents. In an era of three networks and scarce spectrum, regulators claimed such mandates served the public interest. Today, the rule feels as antiquated as a Philco radio crackling with the Eddie Cantor Show.

Even worse, enforcement is inconsistent. Traditional news programs are largely exempt from strict balancing requirements, while talk shows face a shifting and often opaque standard. When Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his California gubernatorial run on The Tonight Show in 2003, the FCC declined to invoke equal time. Yet now, Colbert faces scrutiny for doing what modern media personalities do every night – interview public figures.

Joe Lancaster, writing in Reason magazine, spells out how badly the equal time rule had become superannuated by 2024.
 
“Today the broadcast networks no longer have a stranglehold on what people can watch. Last year, according to Nielsen, the combined share of TV viewership that took place on over-the-air broadcasts or cable fell below 50 percent for the first time, as streaming skyrocketed. Only 20 percent took place on conventional broadcast television – meaning 80 percent of all TV viewership was not subject to any FCC content regulation, much less equal time rules.

“When the equal time rule was drafted, a far more limited number of frequencies were available across the broadcast spectrum. But that world no longer exists. We've reached the point where nearly 17 percent of American adults get their news from TikTok.
 
“The equal time rule imposes burdens on one group of broadcasters while sparing their cable or streaming competitors. Any public benefit that its drafters intended no longer meaningfully exists. Let's abolish it before the next election cycle begins.”
​
Lancaster points to some history that should be our guide.
 
In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo overturned a Florida law that required publishers to print a reply to any political editorial or personal criticism, print version of the equal time rule.
 
At that time, a dominant newspaper held tremendous sway in a market. Today, in most cities, the local newspaper is just another website. As with newspapers, broadcasters are now just one of many media outlets constantly competing for our attention.
 
It is time for the law to adjust. Throw the equal time rule into the round file.

​If you’re going to tell a mean joke about Donald Trump – like Trevor Noah did last week at the Grammys – expect the president to threaten a lawsuit.

“Song of the Year,” quipped Noah. “That is a Grammy that every artist wants almost as much as Trump wants Greenland. Which makes sense, I mean, because Epstein’s island is gone, so he needs a new one to hang out on with Bill Clinton.”

Yes, the joke was factually off-center; Trump says he never went to Epstein’s Island, and there is no evidence that he did. Moreover, it wasn’t even a particularly well-written or clever joke.

But it’s still a joke – not a news report. Such distinctions are often lost on public figures, who seem not to understand the difference between slander and libel, versus humor. The former purports to be fact and is meant to be taken seriously, to be believed as true. With news reporting, the wisdom of New York Times v. Sullivan endures, which allows public figures to sue for journalism corrupted by malice.

Various forms of humor are by their nature not meant to be believed. A joke is funny precisely because it is off-kilter and hyperbolic. As such, jokes are protected as free expression under the First Amendment.

The threat of a lawsuit is perhaps inevitable, both because jokes can wound and because going to court is a perfectly American reaction. But, like a bad joke, frivolous lawsuits brought by billionaires can have a chilling effect on the public’s willingness to express views critical of those with power. Threatening to sue a comedian for insulting you is not censorship, but the expense of having to defend oneself against a billionaire who happens to be the President of the United States amounts to punishment by litigation.

Presidents have structural advantages as well. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that presidents can be sued for unofficial acts, but not for official acts. On the other hand, the president can sue at will, just like anyone else. And let’s not forget that this administration has shown no restraint in weaponizing the executive branch and using its regulatory authority to go after its critics (just ask Jimmy Kimmel).

What can be done about this imbalance in legal power?

Perhaps Congress should pass a law stipulating that a lawsuit filed by a president must be stayed until the occupant leaves office. Only once he is a private citizen again could the lawsuit move forward. Where state laws constrain or complicate this stipulation, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause ought to override them.
​
In the meantime, thin-skinned public figures in both parties and of all stripes need to learn how to take a joke – even bad ones. In a free society, the proper response to a bad joke isn’t a lawsuit – it’s a better joke.

​Irish comedian and television writer Graham Linehan testified this week before a House Judiciary Committee hearing: “But I warn you – the Atlantic is not as wide as you think.”
 
That is the thesis of a staff report from that same committee, also released this week, entitled, Europe’s Decade-Long Campaign to Censor the Global Internet and How It Harms American Speech in the United States.
 
This committee staff report, the second in a series, is informed by evidence from subpoenaed communications between ten U.S. tech companies and the European Union. It draws on thousands of documents and communications to present an eye-popping portrayal of Europe’s ambition to control speech across the Atlantic.
 
That report declares:
 
“The European Commission, in a comprehensive decade-long effort, has successfully pressured social media platforms to change their global content moderation rules, thereby directly infringing on Americans’ online speech in the United States.”
 
The EU’s enabling authority in this effort springs from the Digital Services Act (DSA), which went into effect in 2023. In December 2025, the European Commission finally cracked its knuckles and hit X with the first DSA fine, a whopping €120 million ($140 million). Of the several justifications for this punishment, the most telling was that X was charged with not being as forthcoming as possible in providing American data to “vetted researchers” around the world.
 
The first committee staff report in 2025 traced “these so-called researchers” back to academia and NGOs, finding them to be “uniformly left-wing and pro-censorship.”
 
The DSA also lists many content infractions, revealing a determination to restrict free speech in the United States and to curtail our First Amendment. The report details an EU handbook that helpfully lists “offending” categories, which include:
 
• “Populist rhetoric”
• “Anti-government/anti-EU” content
• “Anti-elite” content
• “Political satire”
• “Meme subculture”
 
To help enforce this censorship, a European disinformation “task force” is focused on specific disinformation topics, including “fact-checking, elections, and demonetization of conservative news outlets.”
 
The committee recounts how TikTok was forced to buckle to pressure from such groups. It was compelled to report to the European Commission how it censored over 45,000 pieces of alleged “misinformation,” including political speech on topics such as migration, climate change, security, and defense, ahead of the 2024 EU elections.
 
Most alarming of all is Europe’s desire to control American speech about American elections. The absurd lengths of Europe’s ambition were on full display when then-EU Commissioner Thierry Breton “threatened X with regulatory action under the DSA for hosting a live interview with Donald Trump in the United States during the 2024 elections, warning that ‘spillovers’ of U.S. speech into the EU could spur the Commission to adopt retaliatory ‘measures’ against X under the DSA.”
 
Such “spillover” is the EU’s excuse for trying to deny users of X around the world the ability to watch an interview with a former president who was a major-party nominee seeking to return to the White House. Whatever your view of Donald Trump, Breton’s actions revealed the breathtaking determination of Europe to try to manage our domestic political dialogue.
 
The report concludes that the EU’s Digital Services Act “represents a grave danger to American freedom of speech online: the European Commission has intentionally pressured technology companies to change their global content moderation policies, and deliberately targeted American speech and elections.”
 
In short:
 
“The European Commission’s extraterritorial actions directly infringe on American sovereignty.”

That conclusion should alarm anyone who values the First Amendment. Europe is not merely regulating its own digital marketplace – it is attempting to export its censorship regime to the United States by pressuring American companies to silence American speakers.

If American leaders allow foreign regulators to dictate what Americans may say, hear, or share online, the First Amendment will not be repealed. It will be quietly nullified, one “spillover” at a time.

An Irish comedian, a physician elected to the Finnish Parliament, and a lawyer defending speech rights in Europe – all testified about the growing danger that EU and UK censorship poses to the health of free speech in America and around the world.

Graham Linehan, longtime television comedy writer, who was arrested at Heathrow Airport for an off-color tweet:

“The First Amendment protects you from government censorship. It does not protect you from what the British government has learned to outsource.

“In the UK, police record ‘non-crime hate incidents’ against citizens who have broken no law. These records appear on background checks. They affect employment. They create a chilling effect without a single prosecution.

“But the state has also learned to let others do its work. When employers fire workers for protected speech, when banks close accounts, when publishers drop authors, when platforms suspend users – the government's hands stay clean. The censorship happens. The state didn't do it. In Britain, we have discovered that you can have formal free speech and no free speech at all.”

Dr. Päivi Räsänen, physician, member of the Finnish Parliament since 1995, and former Minister of the Interior, fighting in court for posting a traditional view on sexuality:

“I expressed my Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality in a Twitter post … I added a picture of Scripture verses from the book of Romans …”

“For this exercise of my free speech, I was investigated by the police and interrogated for more than thirteen hours. The questions from police were shamelessly about the Bible and its interpretation. I was asked, ‘What is the message of the book of Romans and its first chapter?’ and ‘What do I mean by the words ‘sin’ and ‘shame’?’ A joke spread on social media that Päivi Räsänen was once again meeting for a Bible study at the police station …

“The crime of ‘agitation against a minority group’ falls under the ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’ section in the Finnish criminal code and can carry up to two years of prison time. I did not insult or call for harm against anyone. I was being criminally charged for simply expressing convictions rooted in my faith and conscience …

“Even when courts ultimately acquit, our story shows how the process itself becomes the punishment. We have faced years of investigation, public scrutiny, and legal uncertainty. This creates a chilling effect, not just for Christians, but for everyone who holds views outside a narrow, state-approved consensus.”

Lorcán Price of the Alliance Defending Freedom International testified on the anti-free speech extremism of the European Union:

“The EU’s obsession with harmonization and regulation is at odds with the values of free speech and a free press. Those are supposed to be universal human freedoms as well as European values … In practice, the DSA undermines the right to express opinions, the freedom to receive and impart information, and the respect for media freedom and pluralism inherent in European human rights law …

“This opens the prospect of worldwide enforcement of draconian European hate speech laws, such as the law against insulting public figures in Germany … The effect of the DSA is to require U.S. companies to apply the lowest common European legal denominator to police memes, jokes, and controversial commentary across the globe.

“The DSA permits each EU member state to implement its own rules and procedures … Thus, the nightmare scenario X currently finds itself in includes active parallel investigations by two regulatory bodies, under differing procedures and in different legal contexts, both using sweeping powers to scrutinize the company and levy enormous fines against it. This fate will befall any company that refuses to bend the knee to the Commission’s demands …

“Germany, France, and every other European country have all adopted criminal speech offences in vague, overbroad, and ambiguously worded laws that are used to prosecute legitimate political speech. At times in a democracy, citizens will use robust, rude, irreverent, and sometimes offensive speech to express themselves on matters of public importance.”

***

The committee’s Democratic minority refused to cooperate with Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and the Republican majority in discussing the subject of the hearing, which was exploring European censorship. Democrats focused, instead, on the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minnesota and elsewhere. From the Democrats’ protest, useful insights on free speech emerged – showing us that as egregious as European censorship is, we must also continue to practice vigilance at home.

Deepinder Mayell, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, spoke on the right to record law enforcement:

“Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Specifically, the First Amendment protects the right to photograph and video police conduct occurring in public, both because it protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and because it protects the right to record matters of public interest. This includes the right to livestream such content.

“The repression I have described is not just happening in Minnesota. From Illinois to Southern California, again and again, we have seen federal agents threaten peaceful protesters and physically assault them – including veterans, members of the clergy and the elderly.”

Overall, the hearing reinforced what Ronald Reagan said years ago:
​
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It has to be fought for and defended by each generation.”

​CNN reports that comedian Megan Stalter taped a video asking her fellow Christians to speak out against the heavy-handed tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis, only to be iced out of TikTok.
 
Her video was popular on Instagram, reposted more than 12,000 times. But several attempts to upload her video on TikTok failed. Others have complained of similar experiences. For its part, TikTok responded that power outages at a data center were to blame.
 
Even if TikTok’s behavior was completely above board, a little history shows the basis for users’ suspicion: Congress, concerned by the national security implications of a Chinese-owned company collecting the personal data of 170 million Americans, passed a law requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the platform or face a U.S. ban by Jan. 19, 2025.
 
When Donald Trump was sworn in as president a day after the statutory deadline, he promptly refused to enforce that law. The president instead worked to secure a deal for U.S. ownership of TikTok. Last month, a group of investors led by Trump ally Larry Ellison of Oracle acquired TikTok’s U.S. operations.
 
With this deal brokered out of the Oval Office, is it any wonder that TikTok users immediately leapt to the conclusion that they were being censored to please the administration?
 
The distrust of these anti-ICE critics follows the distrust of conservatives, who still rankle from being deplatformed and shadowbanned on major social media platforms. During the Biden administration, eighty FBI agents in a program overseen by the White House quietly contacted social media companies to “jawbone” them into removing conservative content.
 
What the Biden administration did privately, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has done publicly. He threatened to withhold the approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger. Carr only relented when CBS News, owned by Paramount, agreed to pay $16 million to settle a weak lawsuit filed by President Trump regarding how 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris.
 
CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss – a noted critic of mainstream liberal journalism – entered the job saddled with this history. When she made the controversial decision to hold and revise a story about the Trump administration’s detentions of deportees to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison facility, there was an immediate outcry from fellow journalists. Her editorial judgment was quickly tainted by the perception that CBS was kowtowing to federal regulators for business reasons – and perhaps to CBS’s new owner, the Ellison family.
 
The Wall Street Journal summed up Holman Jenkins’ editorial on this debacle with this subhead: “The Ellison family is getting what it paid for when it acquired the journalistic mouthpiece.” 

Fair? Probably not. Weiss may have made a defensible editorial decision and TikTok may, in fact, be having technical issues. The problem remains that when government officials can reward or punish media companies through secret “jawboning” and selective enforcement of licensing and mergers, the line between private editorial judgment in the media and the political needs of administrations begins to blur.
 
When the business of media is entangled with political agendas and government wheeling and dealing, even innocent explanations are tainted.

A woman in Maine was using her cellphone on Friday to record the public actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
 
When one agent began taking pictures of her and her car, she said: “It’s not illegal to record.”
 
“Exactly, that’s what we’re doing,” the agent replied.
 
“So why are you taking my information down?” she asked him.
 
“Because we have a nice little database,” he replied. “And now you’re considered a domestic terrorist, so have fun with that."

This is consistent with a report by Ken Klippenstein on his independent news site that a federal law enforcement official told him that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has ordered immigration officers to collect information on anyone video-recording ICE agents at work. The official told Klippenstein that intelligence agents use this data to perform a “work-up” on targets that likely includes running their license plates and criminal history checks, and even analyzing their social media profiles.
 
Why is the federal government building intelligence files on Americans engaged in activity that is plainly protected by the First Amendment? Will Americans in this database suddenly find themselves facing legal restrictions, such as appearing on a “No Fly” list, barring them from air travel?
 
That would run counter to rulings by seven federal circuits that have recognized Americans’ “right to record” – the right to hold up a smartphone and make a video of law enforcement in action. One of those – the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals – noted that “recording police encounters creates information that contributes to discussion about governmental affairs.”
 
Yet DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said that “videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online” is a crime, and that “we will prosecute those who illegally harass ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law.”
 
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem seems to have a similar view. After the shooting of Renée Good, Noem connected her to  “domestic terrorism.” And McLaughlin labeled Alex Pretti – slain by agents after he filmed them – as also committing an “act of domestic terrorism.” 
 
Preemptively labeling Good and Pretti as terrorists when official investigations have hardly begun seems counterproductive. And the current administration would do well to remember the Biden Administration, which linked parents who got into heated discussions at school board meetings and “radical traditional Catholics” to “domestic terrorism.” Remember, too, that the Woodrow Wilson administration freely labeled Americans as “disloyal” and worse if they criticized America’s participation in World War I.
​
History has been unkind to every administration that has tried to stretch charged words like “terrorism” to cover lawful dissent. The Trump Administration would do well to make a clean break with these broad-brush depictions of Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. Let us hope that such a break will be part of President Trump’s recently announced “reset” of his administration’s immigration enforcement policy.

​Iran did not merely censor dissent last week. It turned off the lights on an entire nation.

In a recent post on X, Greg Lukianoff, a free speech lawyer and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), pointedly reminded defenders of liberty what the tumult in Iran represents:

“So, my international free-speech brethren: this is a big one. A tyrannical theocracy has shut down the internet for an entire country so the world can’t see the brutal tactics it plans to use to crush a free Iran. In my view, this is the biggest free-speech story in the world.”

Behind these drawn curtains, international observers believe that thousands of protesters were tortured and executed. Many U.S. commentators are asking why American college students, who so vigorously protested the human rights dimensions of Israel’s actions in Gaza, have been largely silent about Iran. This is a double standard in which Israel and other democracies are always fair game for severe criticism and protest, but tyrants, perhaps because they are expected to behave badly, get a free pass. (Not all campuses have been quiet. The Iranian Student Association of Northeastern University in Boston occupied the campus quad and chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho. Ayatollah must go.”)

Every American, not just college students, should be alarmed at the ease with which the Iranian regime cut off dissidents and protesters from the world. This incident shows how internet access has become the oxygen of safety and free speech. Shutting it down, like stepping on an oxygen tube, is an act of authoritarian aggression against people. As FIRE’s Sarah McLaughlin posted, with internet blackouts, the repression of information goes hand-in-hand with brutal violence:

“Iran isn’t just using brute force to escalate the crackdown on its people. It’s also deploying a repressive tactic that’s become increasingly common: suppression of the tools government critics use to broadcast their message on a mass scale. Authorities’ ultimate aim is to limit what their subjects can say – and what the rest of the world can know about it.”

And while Tehran is a repeat offender, it is by no means alone:

“Last year marked the most severe year yet for internet shutdowns, with researchers tracking nearly 300 disruptions and blackouts in dozens of nations. India, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Russia stood among the worst offenders.”

No doubt, Iran’s tyrants are deeply worried. Authoritarians, McLauglin points out, wouldn’t work so hard if they thought their populations were powerless. When they believe their people are cowed, they are happy to let them have their digital distractions.

What’s happening in the world’s dictatorships is also happening in democracies in quieter, more bureaucratic forms (see more on India). “The future of freedom depends on the internet,” writes McLaughlin. “We must start acting like it.”

That means recognizing internet access not just as a convenience or source of entertainment, but as a critical civic infrastructure – no less essential than open roads, courts, or elections. When governments claim the power to silence networks “temporarily,” they are asserting the power to disappear people permanently. Iran’s blackout is not a foreign aberration. It is a stress test – and one free societies should not assume they will pass by default.

​The media has had a field day with indignant headlines over Texas A&M University forbidding the teaching of Plato – in a philosophy class! There must be an Aggie joke in there somewhere.

But underneath the headlines are some deeper issues worthy of discussion.

The Texas A&M University System’s Board of Regents voted in November to require professors to seek the approval of their campus presidents in advance for any courses that “advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.” They simultaneously prohibited faculty from teaching material inconsistent with a course’s approved syllabus.

Since Texas A&M is a public institution, it can be directed – or at least influenced – by public policy in a way that a private university cannot. The board was responding to the widespread conviction within the conservative majority in the Texas Legislature that “gender studies” is too ideological and crowds out serious studies with turgid, jargony papers.

But Plato is anything but turgid or jargony. The philosopher who invented the concept of academia had a lot to say about sex. The many facets of Plato’s discussion on eros provoke critical thinking, as it was meant to.

The proposed curricula included parts of Plato’s Symposium in which seven characters express varying views on sexuality. One speaker praises homosexuality as a way to create virtuous and courageous armies. Another extols the supposed benefits young males receive when having relations with older men. The drunken Alcibiades regrets that he couldn’t seduce the elderly, homely, Socrates.

Socrates, as usual, seems to speak for Plato when he turns from these earth-bound considerations to spiritual ones. He recounts a relationship he had as a young man with an older woman, Diotima. She taught him about the “ladder of love,” an escalation from physical attraction to a love of knowledge, ultimately to a sublime appreciation for Beauty. Socrates concludes by extolling the “pregnancy of the mind,” which gives birth to insights and virtue.

These passages would have also given Texas A&M students insights into Socrates’ unique take on eros as an invitation for the soul to climb the ladder of love. It certainly wouldn’t have corrupted them (leave that to the internet). Corruption of youth is the charge behind the sentence that resulted in Socrates drinking hemlock. Today, we just make the professor pull the course.

Texas legislators and leaders of the Texas A&M system alike should consider that their backlash is a mirror image of what they are reacting against. Is this action no less a betrayal of the First Amendment’s protection of the free expression of ideas than was the preceding, decades-long hostility towards conservative ideas (often disguised as “speech codes”)?

“This is what happens when the board of regents gives university bureaucrats veto power over academic content,” wrote Lindsie Rank of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “You don’t protect students by banning 2,400-year-old philosophy.”

If all of this strikes you (as it does us) as impinging on academic freedom, you’re not alone.

“That’s not education,” tweeted FIRE, “it’s risk management.” The purpose of higher education, from a First Amendment perspective, remains the opposite of that, namely intellectual risk taking. Should faculty follow their syllabi? Common sense requires that they do. But the content of those syllabi – by whom should that be governed?
​
After he founded the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson declared to his Enlightenment pen pal William Roscoe, “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

Will Smith sang of Miami, “the heat is on all night.” In Miami Beach, it’s on all day too, especially if one is brazen enough to criticize the mayor.

A couple of weeks ago, resident Raquel Pacheco left a hot comment on a Facebook post by Mayor Steven Meiner. The mayor had posted, “Miami Beach is a safe haven for everyone,” adding, “We will always stand firm against any discrimination.”

In response, Pacheco commented:

“The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way (even leaves the room when they vote on related matters) wants you to know that you’re all welcome here.”

She then added three clown emojis.

Two police officers were soon dispatched to knock on her door. One of the officers was later identified in a photo taken at a residential campaign event for the mayor in October.

Both Pacheco and Meiner are Jewish, but they have very different views when it comes to Israel, culture, and politics. To be clear, Pacheco’s post was hyperbolic. The mayor has never called for the death of Palestinians. He did, however, attempt to break the city’s lease with a theater that was showing what he considered to be a film that contained anti-Israeli hate speech. As for LGBTQ issues, community reviews are far from glowing.

Pacheco’s comment and additional replies contained inaccuracies, sarcasm, and exaggeration. But nothing in it justified a police visit, which could be taken as a thinly disguised attempt at intimidation. Agree or disagree with her words, they strike us as a traditionally, and perhaps uniquely, American approach to political discourse – which is to say, rude –  yet guaranteed by an at-times inconvenient First Amendment. This isn’t Germany, after all, or the UK, where comedians are arrested for tasteless jokes.

Which leads us to wonder, was it the clown emojis that pushed the mayor and his team over the edge? We wouldn’t envy anyone the task of explaining emojis to James Madison and his fellow founders, but we feel confident they would recognize them as symbolic communication, the substance of all human language, and therefore something to be given a wide berth when confronted by thin-skinned authorities.

The only truly scary line uttered by anyone involved in this entire imbroglio came from one of the attending police officers. Whether speaking on behalf of his boss or not, he told Pacheco:

​“What we’re just trying to prevent is someone else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement.”

Send in the clowns.

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.

​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.

​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.