Man sentenced to death for Facebook posts criticising Tunisia’s President. It’s truly shocking, isn’t it? The idea that someone could be sentenced to death for something as seemingly innocuous as criticizing a president on social media is jarring. It immediately brings to mind the very fundamental question of free speech, and how quickly it can be eroded.
The comments, echoing this sentiment, express a mixture of disbelief, anger, and fear. They highlight the precedent set by this ruling. It’s not just about one man, but what this means for the future of expression within the country. It raises questions about the state of human rights, especially given how, for many, Tunisia was seen as one of the more liberal Muslim countries.… Continue reading
A man who disrupted a University of Washington lecture in Kane Hall with Nazi salutes and slurs has been banned from campus. The individual, who is not affiliated with the university, interrupted the lecture on Wednesday, prompting students and the instructor to escort him from the hall until University of Washington Police arrived and took him into custody. The suspect, who has identified himself as a “Nazi sympathizer,” is expected to face criminal charges referred to the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. The university emphasized its commitment to maintaining a safe environment for its community.
Read More
The president signed a memorandum targeting “antifa” and other left-leaning groups, despite the vast majority of political violence in the U.S. being committed by right-wing actors. The memo provides ambiguous definitions of “antifa,” listing views like “anti-American” and “anti-capitalist” as indicators, while failing to specify if targeting would be based on violence or ideology. The document grants the president new powers, including designating groups as “domestic terrorist organizations.” Critics have raised concerns about the implications for free speech, warning that the administration may target non-profits and activists under the guise of combating political violence.
Read More
The recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show highlighted a power struggle between ABC and large broadcast groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, who own a significant number of ABC affiliates. Despite pressure from the FCC, the broadcast groups’ initial decision to remove Kimmel from their stations was ultimately unsuccessful. The economics of the situation favored ABC, as the broadcast groups risked losing viewers and revenue by preempting a popular program like Kimmel. Ultimately, the broadcast groups relented, recognizing that the long-term costs of the standoff outweighed the benefits, and the show was put back on air.
Read More
The legal ramifications of Charlie Kirk’s assassination are unfolding in court as educators challenge their firings and suspensions. These faculty members claim their First Amendment rights were violated due to social media posts regarding the incident. A federal judge has already ordered the reinstatement of a University of South Dakota professor, while a high school teacher in Iowa is also suing over a similar situation. Experts emphasize that professors have a protected right to speak on public matters, with even offensive political speech, such as rhetorical hyperbole, being safeguarded. Consequently, this burgeoning legal battle is poised to be a significant test case for free speech in the context of political fallout.
Read More
Following the termination or suspension of educators due to controversial social media posts regarding the death of Charlie Kirk, several individuals are now pursuing legal action, citing violations of their First Amendment rights. These lawsuits challenge the disciplinary actions taken by universities and school districts, arguing their speech, made in a private capacity on matters of public concern, is protected. Legal experts disagree on the extent of First Amendment protection in these cases, with distinctions drawn between speech related to an employee’s job duties and speech made as a private citizen. Some experts believe that while political speech is highly protected, the courts give universities more leeway than K-12 schools when considering the disruption caused by such speech.
Read More
Swalwell’s statement that he “fully expects” to be prosecuted for his criticism of the Trump administration certainly makes you pause and consider the implications. It’s a chilling thought, isn’t it? The idea of being targeted for expressing your opinions, for speaking truth to power, for simply disagreeing with those in authority. It’s the kind of thing that feels like it belongs in a dystopian novel, not in a country that prides itself on free speech.
This isn’t just about Swalwell, though. It’s about a larger pattern, a growing sense that criticism is becoming a dangerous game. The fear is that if a former president is allowed to use the justice system to punish his political enemies, we’re quickly heading down a very slippery slope.… Continue reading
JD Vance, speaking on Fox News, raised concerns about whether certain TV networks are fulfilling their public interest obligations, thereby questioning the validity of their broadcast licenses. This follows a situation where Trump-appointed FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatened ABC with license revocation over a joke made by Jimmy Kimmel, which led to a temporary suspension of the show. Vance emphasized that broadcast companies, unlike cable channels, utilize public airwaves under the condition of serving the public interest. This stance mirrors Carr’s pressure on ABC and suggests a potential reevaluation of network licensing based on perceived bias and public service.
Read More
In response to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, former White House official Stephen Miller claimed Newsom’s rhetoric “incites violence and terrorism.” Miller’s statement suggests an effort to broaden the definition of incitement, potentially criminalizing protected political speech that criticizes the administration. This comes amid other moves by the Trump administration, like the designation of “antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization,” which critics fear will be used to target those who label the government as “authoritarian”. These actions, and similar statements by other officials, indicate a growing trend of equating criticism with violence, raising concerns about free speech protections.
Read More
On September 23, 2025, Tennessee State University (TSU) removed an unauthorized group known as the “Fearless Debaters” from its campus. The group, displaying controversial signage, sought to stage a “debate table” without prior permission, violating university policy. TSU officials emphasized the professionalism of its students during the incident and reaffirmed its commitment to safety. The event highlights broader tensions surrounding free speech and the deliberate targeting of HBCUs, prompting the university to review policies and strengthen security measures.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker