On Monday evening, a man ignited a U.S. flag in Lafayette Square, directly across from the White House. The act was a protest against President Trump’s executive order regarding flag burning. Despite the demonstration’s nature, the man was not charged for burning the flag or violating the executive order. Instead, he was arrested and charged with violating federal park regulations against setting fires.
A man was arrested by federal authorities across the street from the White House after setting an American flag on fire. The man, who identified himself as a veteran, stated he was protesting the president. The Secret Service detained the man and turned him over to U.S. Park Police, who arrested him for lighting a fire in a public park. This occurred hours after President Trump signed an executive order aimed at cracking down on flag burning in connection with inciting violence, although the Supreme Court previously ruled that flag burning is constitutionally protected.
Despite a Supreme Court ruling protecting flag burning as free speech, President Trump has issued an order directing the Department of Justice to prosecute anyone who desecrates the American flag, seeking to overturn the 1989 decision. The order aims to criminalize flag burning, potentially leading to a year of incarceration, contradicting the First Amendment. This directive also instructs the Secretary of State to deny visas and other benefits to foreign nationals who desecrate the flag, further restricting free speech. Legal experts have criticized the order, asserting that it cannot override the First Amendment’s protections for symbolic speech, even if offensive.
President Trump recently issued an executive order directing federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals who burn the American flag during protests. This action aims to circumvent a 1989 Supreme Court decision, *Texas v. Johnson*, which protects flag burning as a form of protected political expression under the First Amendment. The order instructs the US attorney general to explore charges like disturbing the peace or environmental violations, rather than directly criminalizing flag burning. Trump has a long history of advocating for consequences for flag burning, a stance shared by a majority of Americans according to recent polling.
A Manhattan federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing sanctions against two U.S. citizens and law professors who work with the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ruling stems from a lawsuit challenging a February executive order imposing sanctions on the ICC and prohibiting interactions with designated ICC officials. The court’s permanent injunction prevents the administration from enforcing civil or criminal penalties against the professors for providing various services to the ICC, including education, training, and analytical support. This decision, echoing a similar ruling in Maine, safeguards the professors’ First Amendment rights, allowing them to continue assisting the ICC in its investigations and prosecutions.
4chan’s legal representation has declared the online message board will not comply with fines imposed by the UK’s media regulator, Ofcom, under the Online Safety Act. The lawyer, Preston Byrne, stated that Ofcom’s notices hold no legal weight in the United States and viewed the investigation as harassment against US tech firms. 4chan, a US-incorporated company, asserts its protection under the First Amendment and will not pay the proposed £20,000 fine and subsequent daily penalties. They plan to seek relief in US federal court if necessary and have already briefed US authorities on their stance.
A judge issued a temporary injunction against Texas’s new law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. This ruling, the third against such a state law, was in response to a lawsuit filed by Dallas-area families and faith leaders who argued the requirement violated the First Amendment. The ruling is expected to escalate the legal battle, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, as similar laws in Louisiana and Arkansas have faced legal challenges. The court reasoned that the law would force teachers to answer questions about the Ten Commandments, effectively promoting religion in the classroom.
A federal judge has invalidated significant portions of a Florida law enabling parents to remove objectionable books from schools, siding with publishers and authors who challenged the legislation. Judge Carlos Mendoza found the law’s ban on material describing sexual conduct to be overly broad and its interpretation unconstitutional. Consequently, schools are instructed to adhere to a U.S. Supreme Court standard for assessing whether a work is obscene. The ruling comes after the removal of numerous books, including literary classics, spurred by the law passed by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature.
Senator Mike Lee’s Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which seeks to criminalize all pornography, has moved to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill redefines “obscenity” and could potentially criminalize content that appeals to prurient interests. Critics have raised concerns that the broad definition could encompass various media and have unintended consequences, including impacting adult content creators and even seemingly innocuous media. The bill is similar to a proposed pornography ban outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
Candace Owens expressed panic regarding the Macrons’ lawsuit, labeling it a “foreign invasion.” She criticized the silence of Trump and others, arguing they should defend the First Amendment and condemn the legal action against her. Owens stated that the job of the federal government is to defend against foreign invaders, claiming Macron is acting as one. This response came after Owens spread misinformation about the French First Lady.
John Q. Hosedrinker