In contrast to a mixed martial arts event celebrating President Trump, actor and activist Jane Fonda will host a concert in New York City. Her group, Committee for the First Amendment, is presenting “Rise Up, Sing Out” to support free speech and democracy, principles Fonda believes are under attack. The event, featuring prominent actors and musicians, will be livestreamed and highlights Fonda’s decades of activism and her recent efforts to draw attention to environmental issues and media consolidation. Fonda sees this moment as crucial for artists to actively participate in shaping historical narratives.
Read More
The federal government, through actions taken by the FCC and the President, appears to be exceeding constitutional bounds by using regulatory pressure and intimidation to silence speech it dislikes. This approach, exemplified by the scrutiny of ABC and Jimmy Kimmel’s commentary, goes beyond prohibiting direct censorship to employing indirect coercion, a practice deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Such weaponization of regulatory power, regardless of the content of the speech, erodes First Amendment protections and sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
Read More
Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, numerous individuals faced termination from their jobs due to social media posts critical of the conservative activist. In the aftermath, these firings have led to significant legal repercussions, with settlements now totaling over $1.5 million for those who lost employment. These cases, occurring in states like Florida, Tennessee, and Indiana, underscore a broader national debate concerning the boundaries of the First Amendment in the context of political discourse and online expression. The substantial payouts indicate the considerable financial cost institutions may incur for alleged violations of free speech principles, as exemplified by the case of former police officer Larry Bushart who received an $850,000 settlement after being wrongly arrested and fired for a social media post.
Read More
A federal judge has ruled that an anti-Trump group, Accountability Now USA, can continue flying a flag near the National Mall that reads “86-47.” This decision comes as a significant victory for free speech advocates and a setback for the government’s attempt to restrict the display. The judge granted a restraining order, preventing the National Park Service from interfering with the group’s demonstration and their prominent display of the flag.
The judge’s reasoning centers on the interpretation of “86-47.” It was determined that this numerical code is intended to advocate for President Trump’s removal from office, specifically through impeachment. Crucially, the court found that “86” is not an unambiguous call for political violence, nor is it an incitement to “imminent” violence.… Continue reading
Britain has denied entry to left-wing media personalities Cenk Uygur and his nephew Hasan Piker, who were scheduled to speak at events in London. Both individuals stated their exclusion was due to their critical views on Israel. The UK’s interior ministry confirmed the cancellation of travel authorization for these individuals, citing that their presence might not be conducive to the public good, without explicitly mentioning Israel. This action follows concerns raised about free speech infringements in Britain, and a previous instance where the government barred foreign far-right agitators.
Read More
The recent commencement address by JD Vance at the U.S. Air Force Academy has sparked a considerable amount of commentary, largely centered around a specific remark he made to the graduating cadets. Vance, in his capacity as Vice President of the United States, reportedly told the graduates that they couldn’t boo him because of his title. This statement, intended perhaps as a lighthearted jest, seems to have landed with a mixed reception, prompting discussion about the nature of free speech, respect for office, and the perceived thin skin of public figures.
The core of the discussion revolves around the assertion that holding the office of Vice President somehow immunizes an individual from public dissent, such as booing.… Continue reading
A proposal to place a living person’s image on U.S. currency, specifically former President Trump, faced significant legal and procedural obstacles. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing’s printing director, Patricia Solimene, was reassigned after explaining these difficulties, noting the lengthy process and lack of authorization for such a high-denomination bill. Her reassignment, which she stated was involuntary, highlighted the bureaucratic challenges in advancing the unapproved currency initiative.
Read More
Suzanne Swierc will receive $225,000 in a settlement following her termination from Ball State University. Swierc was fired for a private Facebook post criticizing conservative activist Charlie Kirk after his death, which the university claimed caused significant disruption. The ACLU argued the firing violated Swierc’s free speech rights as she was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. Ball State stated the settlement was a financially prudent decision compared to litigation costs, citing the potential harm to student enrollment and fundraising caused by the controversy.
Read More
Ball State University has settled a lawsuit for $225,000 with a former employee whose termination over a private Facebook post about conservative activist Charlie Kirk was alleged to violate her free-speech rights. The university cited significant campus disruption and potential harm to enrollment and fundraising as reasons for the dismissal, but the ACLU argued the employee was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, protected by the First Amendment. This settlement follows similar cases where employees were terminated for social media comments about Kirk’s death, resulting in six-figure settlements for the affected individuals.
Read More
According to former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, politicians must be held accountable when their falsehoods undermine democracy. He proposes systemic reforms, including a “Truth in Elections Act,” to address election deceit without infringing on free speech rights. Weissmann draws parallels to existing laws that criminalize false claims for tangible benefit and notes international examples where election lies have led to consequences. He argues that the solution to false speech is not necessarily more free speech, especially when it jeopardizes democratic processes.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood