The large “No Kings” protests this weekend were peaceful with the exception of some hot spots in Portland near ICE facilities. There were the usual hot heads carrying guillotines and North Carolina Democrat Rep. Julie von Haefen is under fire for posting a picture of a beheaded Trump. Another protester was arrested for calling for protesters to “firebomb” ICE facilities and personnel. In another scene, children were encouraged to beat a Trump piñata. There was also an assault on a MAGA supporter. These remained happily isolated incidents. However, two school employees in Chicago drew national attention with their violent speeches and offered another test of our free speech standards.
In Chicago, elementary school teacher Lucy Martinez was shown on video mockingly making a gesture akin to being shot in the neck, mimicking how Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The video went viral, and her school, Nathan Hale Elementary School, had to shut down its website and social media presence.
Martinez’s gesture is disgusting, and frankly, I would not want my children to be taught by such a person. However, she did not identify herself as a teacher when she made this vile statement outside of school during her own time. As such, it is, in my view, protected speech.
Then there is the controversy surrounding Wilbur Wright College Adult Education Manager Moises Bernal, who screamed to a crowd that “ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.” Bernal told the crowd, “You gotta grab a gun!” and “We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system!”
In 2017, Bernal was sentenced to 12 months probation in a rare move by the court due to disruptive behavior at a hearing for Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke who was charged with murder.
The question is whether calling for the killing of ICE officers crosses the line for an educator. After all, there are ICE officers who come to campuses in their official capacity or as students. There are also students who want to join law enforcement, including ICE.
Even school board members referring to taking faculty “to the slaughterhouse” for questioning DEI policies is considering protected speech.
However, the specificity of Bernal’s call to violence could trigger repercussions for him. If Bernal had proclaimed that people should shoot minorities or women or Jews, there would be little debate that he represented a threatening element on campus. Certainly, a student who espoused such violent intentions would not be allowed on campus in most universities.
For the university, it is difficult to see how law enforcement personnel in adult education programs would feel comfortable with an administrator who is encouraging others to murder them. Indeed, most people would not feel comfortable in interacting with someone who wants to kill law enforcement personnel.
Bernal’s comments likely fall short of a criminal threat, though, in New York city, David Cox was arrested after allegedly telling a third person that he had firebombs in his car and would be carrying out an attack. That was a specific threat and alleged plan. Bernal was encouraging violence in general.
However, calling for violence at a protest can cross the line for violent speech under existing precedent. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
In this case, there was no violence despite Bernal’s apparent inclinations. There was no evidence of “imminent lawless action.” As such, it is still likely protected. However, that does not mean that Wilbur Wright College, which is part of the city of Chicago college system, cannot fire or suspend him for calling for the murder of law enforcement.
Recently, I wrote a column about Meta’s restoration of free speech protections after the company admitted to censoring users on platforms like Facebook. The company also revealed that it was pressured by the Biden Administration to conduct such censorship. Now, Google has taken the same step in restoring a number of YouTube accounts and pledging to show greater respect for free speech.
Google made the disclosure in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH):
“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”
This is another major victory for free speech. Google specifically acknowledged past political censorship and stated that it “values conservative voices on its platform.”
The company, for the first time, admitted that it yielded to comprehensive pressure from the Biden Administration to censor Americans. It acknowledged that the Biden censorship pressure was “unacceptable and wrong” and pledged to resist such pressure in the future.
Meta has substantially reduced censorship by replicating the approach of Elon Musk at X. These changes are a testament to Musk’s legacy in the restoration of free speech on social media. As I previously noted, we need companies like Facebook and Google. These are companies that are big enough to stand up to the European Union (EU) and its unrelenting campaign against free speech.
The censorship on Google and YouTube had a harmful impact beyond the loss of free speech. It suppressed opposing views on Covid policies from the efficacy of masks to the need to shut down our schools.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.
Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.
The disclosure is also a blow to many Democratic members of Congress who long attacked witnesses, including myself, who testified against the coordinated censorship by corporate and government officials. Before the release of the Twitter files, members insisted that there was no evidence of such coordination. Some still deny such coordination despite multiple companies now confirming it.
The greatest challenge, however, still lies ahead for these companies. The EU remains the greatest threat to free speech facing Americans. After Musk purchased X with a pledge to restore free speech, figures like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the EU use its infamous Digital Services Act to force X to censor Americans.
The Trump administration has warned the EU about its efforts to censor Americans. Meta and Google can now join X in creating a formidable corporate alliance for free speech. For the first time, the free speech community might have a coalition of government and corporate allies that could stand up to the EU.
There will likely remain a degree of mistrust from the free speech community towards these companies after years of censorship and stonewalling. However, we also need to accept our allies where and when we can find them. Free speech is in a free fall in Europe and many on the left are encouraging similar censorship laws for the United States. We need these companies and should support them as they take meaningful actions in favor of free speech.
Former University of Arizona professor Daniel Grossenbach is suing the school over alleged retaliation over his views on gender policies in his children’s school district. Grossenbach, who taught ethics as an adjunct instructor from 2020 to 2023, was a contract faculty member (as opposed to tenured faculty) and was terminated after a cancel campaign over his voicing objections to the policies. The lawsuit presents a familiar free speech controversy in higher education, where conservatives or libertarians are targeted for their views outside of universities, while those on the left are rarely subject to such campaigns.
Daniel Grossenbach says the university was pressured to terminate his contract in November 2023 after receiving anonymous complaints about his parental rights advocacy in his children’s school district. Grossenbach is the father of two students at Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) and founded a parental rights group called SaveCFSD in 2023. The group fought “policies and practices of hiding minors’ mental health information as a violation of fundamental parental rights.” The impetus of the group was gender identity surveys of students that allegedly led to lists of students who preferred different names and pronouns without notifying parents.
Grossenbach’s advocacy is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment. Grossenbach alleges that he was fired due to anonymous complaints accusing him of leading an “anti-gay hate group,” engaging in anti-LBGTQ speech on social media, and spreading “misinformation.” However, the university insisted that his position was eliminated because of funding for new full-time roles.
The problem is that, after he was terminated, the school posted other openings for adjunct professors in the ethics department and Grossenbach alleges that the university withheld documents showing that administrators were responding to the complaints. The lawsuit paints a rather conflicted picture for the university. While we have not seen the university’s answer to the complaint, the pattern is a familiar one.
The support enjoyed by faculty on the far left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given to faculty with moderate, conservative, or libertarian views. This includes blocking figures from speaking on campuses due to their political views. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy.
The University of Arizona’s lack of transparency and conflicting record raise very serious free speech questions in this case. The litigation could create an important precedent if allowed to proceed into discovery and trial.
He is represented by Liberty Counsel, which is alleging violations of the First and 14th Amendments, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Arizona’s public records law.
Below is my column in the Hill on resumption of the claims that “democracy is dying” as part of the “No Kings” protests. When this column posted, I was inundated with the usual threats and profanity. However, the emails and messages were particularly vehement this week. (One on Father’s Day explained that when a bullet is put in my head, my children would celebrate). For self-professed champions of democracy, there is nothing more deflating and demoralizing than being told that democracy is not dying. “No Kings” is the ultimate virtue signal, but it requires a monarch to make the self-image complete. There are obviously important issues to debate and to protest. However, we can have that debate without the absurd claims that our constitutional system is failing, as claimed by many politicians and pundits.
Here is the column:
Across the nation today, thousands of protests are being organized by left-wing groups, unions, and other organizations, with chants of “No Kings, No Kings, No Kings.” The mantra is a calculated campaign to cement the notion that Donald Trump has assumed dictatorial powers. It is a curious campaign, since every indication is that our constitutional system is operating precisely as designed.
Courts have ruled both in favor of and against the Trump administration. Congress has held hearings and passed legislation on various issues. We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in the history of the world. The Constitution is not only designed for times like these — it was written in a time like this.
The superficial appeal of such campaigns is evident in the triggering event that sparked the protests. The Trump administration is holding a parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States Army — the kind of celebration that is common among our closest allies, from France to Great Britain.
Since this anniversary coincides with Trump’s birthday, it is claimed that it is nothing more than a royal birthday bash, even though Trump has been calling for such military parades since his first term.
The well-funded protests are being fueled by Democratic leaders, who are resuming their claims that citizens must either protest this weekend or accept tyranny in the United States. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) went so far as to declare, “If we don’t show up, Democracy dies.”
The Democrats seem to believe that the “death of democracy” theme that failed spectacularly in the last election can now rescue their party from record-low polling. In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson (who is at 6 percent popularity with his constituents) announced, “I am counting on all of Chicago to resist in this moment.”
Even some judges appear to have picked up on the mantra. Before issuing his order to stop Trump’s use of the National Guard in Los Angeles this week, District Court Judge Charles Breyer declared in open court that Trump was another “King George.” He then wrote an opinion that included in it many Democratic talking points — suggesting, for example, that Trump was creating disorder by calling out the National Guard to deal with disorder. Breyer further indicated that the violence in Los Angeles was relatively minor, despite potentially deadly attacks on law enforcement, arson, and looting.
Many of us have noted that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue. However, since the Madison Administration, the Supreme Court has warned lower courts not to second-guess the basis for deployments. Rather than confine himself to the relative authority of the federal and state governments on ordering deployments, Judge Breyer eagerly entered the political fray on these collateral issues. The impression is that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) had Breyer at hello.
The “No Kings” mantra is meant to implant this image in the public psyche, despite the lack of evidence that democracy is in any real danger. It is called the illusory truth effect, whereby the repetition of a false claim can create an impression of truth. Ironically, it is a technique denounced by some of these very same critics as a common means of disinformation. They cite the effect as a justification for censorship of opposing views.
Yet, what is disinformation to some is information to others. “Democracy is dying” may be an absurdity, but it is also their advocacy — and it is protected speech, no matter how disinformative.
The danger is that these Democratic politicians are fueling the most radical and violent elements in our country with their “rage rhetoric.” The images reinforce the “no holds barred” message.
People watch unhinged members such as Rep. LeMonica McIver (D.-N.J.) hitting federal officers and forcing her way into federal facilities and the lessons are not lost on them. They see Rep. Maxine Waters (R-Calif.), who has fueled the anger in prior riots, accusing California Guardsmen of coming to shoot people in Los Angeles and telling them, “You better shoot straight.”
Many are fueling the rage as a license to oppose Trump by any means. What they will not admit is that they need the rage. They like it.
That was evident in the disruption of a press conference by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) who not only yelled at Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, but resisted efforts of security to move him into the hall. He then claimed to be a victim of authoritarianism.
The right to disrupt has never been a basis for democracy, but it is a basis for anarchy. The Democratic Party has finally embraced the philosophy of former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who famously pulled the fire alarm in order to prevent a vote from happening on the House floor.
Before he was voted out of office, Bowman was shown on videotape screaming about gun control in the Capitol as his colleagues left the floor following a vote. Various Democratic members, including former House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), tried to calm Bowman. However, when Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Bowman to stop yelling, Bowman shouted back: “I was screaming before you interrupted me.”
These politicians and pundits will not tolerate such interruptions this weekend. Whatever unfolds, it’s Trump’s fault. There is a national rave planned, and the republic be damned.
We recently discussed how the United Kingdom has continued its erosion of free speech by pushing an effective blasphemy law. Now, a London man has been convicted of a “religiously aggravated public order offence.” Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist was arrested after burning a Qur’an.
Coskun was protesting the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara over his embrace of radical Islamic principles. Exclaiming “f**k Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism,” he burned the Qur’an and was then slashed by a Muslim man with a knife. Critics were outraged that the man (who later pleaded guilty) was released while police continued to hold Coskun.
Despite arguing that his protest was protected speech, District Judge John McGarva convicted him and declared that his actions were “highly provocative” and that they were “motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.” Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom:
“After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That’s based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It’s not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers.’
“I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location.”
Coskun later correctly condemned the decision as “an assault on free speech” and added:
“Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago, and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I’d set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.”
Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement:
“I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
The fear is that an expanded hate speech law that includes criticism of Islamophobia will operate like a British blasphemy law. In 2008, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England. This new effort could constructively restore such prosecutions as they relate to Islam.
On Saturday, Antifa and other radicals launched another violent attack on conservatives. Pastors were holding what they described as a permitted Christian worship event in a park when black-clad Antifa members tried to storm and tear down a barricade. To their credit, the Seattle police moved in and arrested the radicals. However, what happened next is even more concerning: Mayor Bruce Harrell seemed to blame the Christian group and demanded to know why they were given a permit at all for an event in the area.
Police in Seattle are shown in videotapes taking down several black-clad and masked individuals who tried to overcome the fencing and storm the stage. That is clearly an improvement over the “summer of love” approach previously in Seattle.
SEATTLE: Attendees of the praise and worship gathering hosted by MayDay USA tell @choeshow it's time for church-goers to share the love of Jesus Christ in the darkest places of the world.
Their message comes amid Antifa, transgender activists, and other far-left militants'… pic.twitter.com/NKJbnZSKWH
Seattle is proud of our reputation as a welcoming, inclusive city for LGBTQ+ communities, and we stand with our trans neighbors when they face bigotry and injustice. Today’s far-right rally was held here for this very reason – to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.
When the humanity of trans people and those who have been historically marginalized is questioned, we triumph by demonstrating our values through our words and peaceful protest – we lose our voice when this is disrupted by violence, chaos, and confusion.
While there are broad First Amendment requirements around permitting events under free speech protections, I am directing the Parks Department to review all of the circumstances of this application to understand whether there were legal location alternatives or other adjustments that could have been pursued. The Police Department will complete an after-action report of this event, including understanding preparation, crowd management tactics, and review of arrests and citations.
We have discussed other Democratic politicians like Nancy Pelosi demanding reviews or revocation of permits going to Christian or conservative groups. The problem is that conservative or religious views are treated as triggering — a common claim in higher education.
I do not know anything about this Christian group, but they were clearly the victims, not the cause, of this violence. The suggestion that the location was too triggering for transgender activists is yet another example of a failure of leadership on the left.
These two groups clearly disagree on transgender policies. Fine. Protest and counterprotest. However, the police showed how to maintain a principled line. They did not take sides. They protected the free speech rights on both sides and confined their role to maintaining the peace.
Democratic politicians and pundits continue to legitimate Antifa and even align themselves with the vehemently anti-free speech group. This includes selling Antifa gifts on popular sites.
As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated, “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to denounce Antifa. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”
Democratic leaders are playing a dangerous game in pandering to these extreme elements of their party. In the end, they will fare no better than their enemies as this mob turns on enabling establishment figures.
We previously discussed how schools were making students remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon.” I have argued that the shirts should be treated as protected speech. However, United States District Court Judge Christopher Boyko just delivered another blow to free speech in rejecting a claim for such protection, at least as the basis for injunctive relief, in Conrad v. Madison Local School Dist—Bd. of Ed.
In the prior Michigan case with the sweater shown below, Judge Paul Maloney in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (W.D. Mich.) ruled that a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt could be the basis for punishment:
A school can certainly prohibit students from wearing a shirt displaying the phrase F*** Joe Biden. Plaintiffs concede this conclusion. Plaintiff must make this concession as the Supreme Court said as much in Fraser … (“As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, ‘the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket [which read {F*** the Draft}].’”) The relevant four-letter word is a swear word and would be considered vulgar and profane. The Sixth Circuit has written that “it has long been held that despite the sanctity of the First Amendment, speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.” …
If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane. Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting. School administrators could prohibit a shirt that reads “F#%* Joe Biden.” School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words … [such as] “Somebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This ‘DAM’ Shirt.” … [Defendants] recalled speaking to one student who was wearing a hat that said “Fet’s Luck” … [and asking] a student to change out of a hoodie that displayed the words “Uranus Liquor” because the message was lewd. School officials could likely prohibit students from wearing concert shirts from the music duo LMFAO (Laughing My F***ing A** Off) or apparel displaying “AITA?” (Am I the A**hole?)…. Courts too have recognized how seemingly innocuous phrases may convey profane messages. A county court in San Diego, California referred an attorney to the State Bar when counsel, during a hearing, twice directed the phrase “See You Next Tuesday” toward two female attorneys.
Again, I strongly disagreed with that decision. However, it has now been replicated in Ohio.
In his complaint, C.C. details how he was wearing a shirt with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. He alleges that teacher (and registered Democrat) Krista Ferini was bothered after spotting the shirt and ordered him to “button that up. I know what that means.” C.C. did so, but later, he was in a classroom that lacked air conditioning, so he took off his flannel shirt. That is when allegedly Ferini proceeded to write him up for the infraction. Principal Andrew Keeple then instructed C.C. to wear the flannel the rest of the day and never to wear the shirt to school again.
C.C. defied that order and wore the shirt again in January of 2025. While no one else complained, Ferini was reportedly irate and again wrote up C.C. Keeple declared that C.C. had once again violated the school’s dress code and that the shirt constituted a vulgar expression even though it contained no vulgar terms. He stated that further discipline would follow if C.C. continued to wear the shirt.
On March 24, 2025, C.C. wore the t-shirt again. While no one complained, he received a detention from Keeple. C.C. was disciplined on two other occasions for wearing the shirt.
The court ruled:
“While this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a school’s interest in protecting students from vulgar and profane speech, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his high burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence. While the D.A. case was on summary judgment and presented facts that are different than those before this Court, Defendant’s burden on summary judgment was a preponderance standard which is a lesser burden than Plaintiff’s here. Moreover, that case presented fact issues going to the reasonableness of the school’s interpretation. Here, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that “Let’s Go Brandon” is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden. “In school speech cases where a school limits or restricts a student’s expression, courts must determine whether the school’s interpretation of the expression is reasonable.” “The student’s expression must be considered in the proper context but the student’s motivation or subjective intent is irrelevant.”
Given the strong interests of both sides, the unique characteristics of speech in a school setting, the finding by at least one court in this circuit that the school’s interpretation of the phrase as vulgar was reasonable, and the acknowledgment in this case by Plaintiff that the phrase is a vulgar euphemism, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support injunctive relief. This does not mean Plaintiff cannot win on the merits of the claim as discovery will likely provide clearer evidence on the reasonableness of the interpretation. But given the high standard for injunctive relief, the Court finds against Plaintiff….”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
This teacher was clearly put out over the political messaging of the shirt. However, we should encourage students to be politically aware and expressive. Moreover, if schools are allowed to extrapolate profane meaning from non-profane language, it is hard to see the limits on such censorship.
So, what if students now wear “Let’s Go Krista” shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of “let’s go” in any shirt is now prohibited?
C.C. and his family should continue to litigate and, if necessary, appeal this worthy case in the interests of free speech for all students.
There is controversy at George Mason University after Nicholas Decker, an economics PhD student published an essay asking “When Must We Kill Them?” in reference to Trump and his supporters. The essay captures the growing violent ideation on the left, fueled by rage rhetoric from politicians and commentators. The danger is that, for some on the extremes of our society, the question is not “when must we kill them?” but “when can we kill them?”
On his Substack “Homo Economicus,” Decker warns that “evil has come to America” and that Trump is “engaged in barbarism” and seeking “to destroy the institutions which oppose” him. He then suggests that the answer may be murder and violence.
“What remains for us to decide is when we fight,” Decker writes. “If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can affect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.‘
“If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them.“
This is obviously just the reckless rhetoric of one individual. However, it is indicative of a larger and growing problem on the left where people are increasingly turning to political violence. Rage gives people a sense of license to break free from basic norms of civility, decency, and even legality.
Decker is an example of that unhinged hatred masquerading as logic.
I found the essay deeply depressing. This is a student who clearly must be interested in teaching, but has not only undermined his chances of teaching but has adopted the very antithesis of an intellectual life.
Yet, I do not believe that this essay should be the basis for prosecution. The university has referred the matter to federal and state authorities for investigation. I have long opposed violent speech from being criminalized.
As someone who has received death threats for years from the left, I do not take such viewpoints lightly. However, I have long disagreed with sedition and violent speech prosecutions as a general matter.
College is often a time when students dabble with extreme or controversial viewpoints. Most quickly return to the center and moderate their positions. Some yield to the impulse to shock or to unsettle others. Again, it does not excuse the chilling statements made in this essay. While Decker added that “violence is a last resort,” he still maintains that it is an option. He ignores that Trump is the product of a democratic process and that the legal process is working to sort out these disputes.
Trump is likely to prevail in some cases, but not all. Our system does not guarantee that you will prevail in such controversies, and failure to succeed is not a license to use violence “as a last resort.”
What I am more concerned about is the culture that is producing such increasingly violent rhetoric on our campuses. Many current faculty have long espoused such violent positions. Indeed, some faculty members continue to make the news for violent political acts.
Of course, some professors have gone further and committed acts of political violence. Such conduct should be prosecuted and those faculty members fired. However, even in those extreme cases, liberal faculty have often rallied around their colleagues.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That, of course, is the point.
This student is voicing the same rage that he has heard from teachers and commentators. The current generation of faculty and administrators has created this atmosphere of political radicalism and moral relativism on campuses.
I genuinely feel saddened by Decker’s essay because we likely share a desire to teach and to be part of an intellectual community. The most essential part of that life is to defend a diversity of viewpoints and oppose violence as a means to force ideological compliance in others. I hope that Decker and others in our community will come to understand that in time.
Attorney Chris Madel said, “Today is a complete vindication for Liz Collin, Dr. Chaix, and Alpha News—and a complete victory for the First Amendment.” On Tuesday, Judge Edward T. Wahl dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by Katie Blackwell—the Assistant Chief of Operations for the Minneapolis Police Department—against Alpha News, senior reporter Liz Collin, director Dr. JC Chaix, and others. In filing the lawsuit, Blackwell and her attorneys labelled Alpha News and the other defendants as “extremists.” They claimed that “this lawsuit involves the politically motivated attack on a respected member of the Minneapolis Police Department who was maliciously defamed with respect to her performance of the duties of her employment and profession by extremists who are more interested in shaping a narrative and provoking outrage than in communicating any version of truth.”… READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – People suspect that many Democrats and some Republicans are being paid off through CCP money and that it’s influencing their vote on China trade policies, all the while calling Trump a Putin puppet without evidence.
Progressive Anti-Audit Democrats Took Communist-Sponsored Trips to China; “Collaborated Extensively” With CCP
By Julian Conradson – The Gateway Pundit – Aug 19, 2021
Multiple prominent Democrats who have been leading the charge against efforts to audit the 2020 election were just exposed for their “extensive collaboration” with one of the Chinese Communist Party’s most influential propaganda groups. According to an exclusive report byThe National Pulse , “NewDEAL Leaders,” a radical-progressive Democrat ‘network’ comprised of state and local elected officials, has repeatedly sent lawmakers on trips to China that were paid for by the CCP, and have essentially been colluding with America’s foremost adversary since at least 2016. The trips were paid for by funds from the People’s Liberation Army of China, with the express intent to “influence” US policy decisions. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, Elon Musk, and President Trump.
We have been following the rise of political violence on the left since the Trump election. In reality, attacks on conservative and pro-life faculty and students is nothing new. Today, I am speaking at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill on free speech after a student recently trashed a pro-life table on the campus in Asheville. Now, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a professor allegedly trashed a table of the College Republicans over their support for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel. The accused José Felipe Alvergue, is not just a professor but the chair of the English department.
Tatiana Bobrowicz, the chair of the College Republicans at the school, said she set up the table supporting Schimel outside the student center about 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, with candy, doughnuts and literature. Then a man walked up and demanded to know what they were doing. He accused them of being too close to a polling location (which was located in the nearby student center).
Bobrowicz tried to explain that they were not in violation (which allows for tables beyond 100 feet) and that location was approved by the university. She then said that the man declared “the time for this is over,” flipped the table over and then walked away.
Bobrowicz immediately called the police and the UW-Eau Claire identified the man as José Felipe Alvergue, the chair of the English department. He has been put on leave by the university.
In his university bio, Alvergue identifies as “a member of the Salvadoran diaspora.” He adds this rather cryptic statement about “unlocking empathy”:
” I believe that we can’t unlock the empathy hidden behind words if we don’t understand what is at stake in the risk writers and artists take when they decide to transform the matter which makes up the world around them into the story words communicate.”
He is now charged with disorderly conduct, according to Wisconsin court records. While this is a relatively minor crime, it was a crime committed against both students and free speech on campus. He must appear for a court appearance on May 7. He would be hardly unique in advocating or even being convicted of political violence on campus.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table. Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That of course is the point.
If convicted, Alvergue would be not just guilty of the underlying charge but committing political violence against students. There does not appear to have been mitigating circumstances or any provocation other than students who hold an opposing view from his own.
He then walked away rather than address the matter with the students and the authorities. If convicted, the question is whether conservative students should have to wait for Alvergue to find a way to “unlock [his] empathy” through what is clearly uncontrollable rage.
It’s been a banner week for authoritarians in Europe, and it’s only Wednesday.
On Monday, a French court banned Marine Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing National Rally party and the frontrunner in the 2027 presidential election, from seeking public office for the next five years. The same day, The Telegraph reported that a toddler had been booted from a U.K. preschool for being insufficiently supportive of LGBT politics. Over the weekend, a British couple revealed they had been arrested based on complaints they expressed in a WhatsApp chat about their daughter’s public school.
This is exactly the kind of crackdown on free expression that Vice President J.D. Vance chastised complicit European leaders about in February, in an address at the Munich Security Conference. This week’s insanity further proves Vance’s dire warnings were right.
Vance called out the U.K., Germany, Sweden, and the European Union for censoring and criminalizing the free expression of their citizens, citing police raids against Germans for comments posted online and the prosecution of a British man who dared to pray in silence outside of an abortion facility.
“[A]cross Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” he said. That may have been an understatement.
France isn’t the first country to bar political opposition candidates from its elections. In December, Romania’s highest court suspended its presidential election, blaming Russian interference. (Where have we heard that one before?) Calin Georgescu, who cast himself as a Trumpy “Romania first” candidate, took the lead in the country’s first round of voting before the court canceled the election and then barred Georgescu from running again.
Meanwhile, leftists in the German parliament have been threatening a ban on Germany’s prominent right-wing party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). In January, lawmakers considered asking the country’s highest court to “examine whether the AfD is an anti-constitutional party,” which Politico characterized as the “first step toward legally banning it under German law.” Leftist lawmaker Carmen Wegge, one of the partisans behind the effort, claimed AfD posed “dangers to democracy” as she tried to ban the party from the democratic process.
Now, France is the latest in what Vance described as a disturbing trend of “European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others.”
In addition to her five-year ban on seeking office, Le Pen, who held a double-digit lead over the next closest candidate in France’s presidential election, was also slapped with a fine and a prison sentence for which she’ll likely be subject to two years of house arrest. Like U.S. President Donald Trump, Le Pen was accused of complex financial crimes that were alleged to have taken place years ago, with her opponents eagerly invoking the “rule of law” to defend their prosecution of political opponents. The similarities weren’t lost on Trump himself.
After the verdict was disclosed, Le Pen told reporters, “I am eliminated, but in reality, it’s millions of French people whose voices have been eliminated.”
She’s right, the voices of European citizens are being silenced — and not just by courts disenfranchising them by booting their preferred candidates from elections. From parents to preschoolers, Europeans are no longer free to express their views without fear of retribution from the government.
Since Britain’s “Online Safety Act” went into effect in October 2023, authorities have charged 292 people and convicted 67 under the anti-speech law. Among other things, the law criminalizes“false information intended to cause non-trivial harm” and targets “mis- and disinformation.” Months before the law went into effect, a mother posted footage of police arresting her autistic daughter for commenting that a female police officer looked like her lesbian grandmother. A spokesman for the West Yorkshire Police confirmed to the BBC that “a 16-year-old had been arrested on suspicion of a homophobic public order offence.”
On Sunday, the U.S. State Department’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau issued a statement expressing concern “about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.” The State Department drew attention to the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 62-year-old woman who stood trial last month for holding a sign near an abortion facility with the words “here to talk, if you want.”
As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer tries — so far, unsuccessfully — to escape imminent tariffs from the Trump administration, Britain’s authoritarian speech codes undermine Starmer’s case for special treatment from the United States. According to The Telegraph, someone “familiar with trade negotiations” said the U.K. deserves “no free trade without free speech.”
Things are no better in Germany, where 16 separate “online hate task forces” are tasked with tracking down online commenters who are accused of publishing false or “hateful” speech. Just one of those 16 units “works on around 3,500 cases a year,” according to a report from CBS.
German prosecutors readily admitted to CBS that in their country it is a “crime to insult somebody in public” or even to repost false information online. Germans whose speech lands on the wrong side of the statute may have their homes raided by armed police, be slapped with fines or imprisoned, and/or have their phones and laptops confiscated.
The European Union’s Digital Services Act, which took effect last year, ensures speech that authorities deem “hateful” can be punished across the continent. Trump’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr blasted the law as “incompatible” with the “free speech tradition.”
Jailing citizens for the expression of ideas and barring political candidates from elections are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. Neither is compatible with self-government.
“[S]hutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process,” as Vance told European leaders in February, “is the most surefire way to destroy democracy.”
He was right. Unfortunately, European leaders appear to have taken his statement as an instruction manual instead of an urgent warning.
Elle Purnell is the elections editor at The Federalist. Her work has been featured by Fox Business, RealClearPolitics, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Independent Women’s Forum. She received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @_ellepurnell.
Below is my column in the Hill on the effort to end the federal subsidy for National Public Radio, an effort that was greatly advanced by the testimony of its Chief Executive Officer. After imploding at a House hearing, NPR’s Katherine Maher even lost HBO’s Bill Maher who now supports defunding NPR. The Democrats hope to peel off a couple Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to continue to fund the outlet. The pitch is to again mouth “assurances” that NPR will adopt more balanced coverage, the same assurance given for over a decade as the liberal bias at the outlet only became more pronounced.
Here is the column:
“This is NPR.”
Unfortunately for National Public Radio, that proved all too true this week. In one of the most cringeworthy appearances in Congress, Katherine Maher imploded in a House hearing on the public funding of the liberal radio outlet. By the end of her series of contradictions and admissions, Maher had made the definitive case for ending public funding for NPR and state-subsidized media.
Many of us have written for years about the biased reporting at NPR. Not all of this criticism was made out of hostility toward the outlet — many honestly wanted NPR to reverse course and adopt more balanced coverage. That is why, when NPR was searching for a new CEO, I encouraged the board to hire a moderate figure without a history of political advocacy or controversy.
Instead, the board selected Katherine Maher, a former Wikipedia CEO widely criticized for her highly partisan and controversial public statements. She was the personification of advocacy journalism, even declaring that the First Amendment is the “number one challenge” that makes it “tricky” to censor or “modify” content as she would like.
Maher has supported “deplatforming” anyone she deems to be “fascists’” and even suggested that she might support “punching Nazis.” She also declared that “our reverence for the truth might be a distraction [in] getting things done.”
As expected, the bias at NPR only got worse. The leadership even changed a longstanding rule barring journalists from joining political protests.
One editor had had enough. Uri Berliner had watched NPR become an echo chamber for the far left with a virtual purging of all conservatives and Republicans from the newsroom. Berliner noted that NPR’s Washington headquarters has 87 registered Democrats among its editors and zero Republicans.
Maher and NPR remained dismissive of such complaints. Maher attacked the award-winning Berliner for causing an “affront to the individual journalists who work incredibly hard.” She called his criticism “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”
Berliner resigned, after noting how Maher’s “divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR” that he had been pointing out.
For years, NPR continued along this path but then came an election in which Republicans won both houses of Congress and the White House. The bill came due this week. Much of NPR’s time to testify was exhausted with Maher’s struggle to deny or defend her own past comments.
When asked about her past public statements that Trump is a “deranged, racist sociopath,” she said that she would not post such views today. She similarly brushed off her statements that America is “addicted to White supremacy” and her view that the use of the words “boy and girl” constitute “erasing language” for non-binary people.
When asked about her past assertion that the U.S. was founded on “black plunder and white democracy,” Maher said she no longer believed what she had said.
When asked about her support for the book “The Case for Reparations,” Maher denied any memory of ever having read the book. She was then read back her own public statements about how she took a day to read the book in a virtue-signaling post.
She then denied calling for reparations but was read back her own declaration: “Yes, the North, yes all of us, yes America. Yes, our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations. Yes, on this day.” She then bizarrely claimed she had not meant giving Black people actual money, or “fiscal reparations.”
When given statistics on the bias in NPR’s hiring and coverage, Maher seemed to shrug as she said she finds such facts “concerning.”
The one moment of clarity came when Maher was asked about NPR’s refusal to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. When first disclosed, with evidence of millions in alleged influence-peddling by the Biden family, NPR’s then-managing editor Terence Samuels made a strident and even mocking statement: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
Now Maher wants Congress to know that “NPR acknowledges we were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively and sooner.”
All it took was the threat of a complete cutoff of federal funding.
In the end, NPR’s bias and contempt for the public over the years is well-documented. But this should not be the reason for cutting off such funding. Rather, the cutoff should be based on the principle that democracies do not selectively subsidize media outlets. We have long rejected the model of state media, and it is time we reaffirmed that principle. (I also believe there is ample reason to terminate funding for Voice of America, although that is a different conversation.)
Many defenders of NPR would be apoplectic if the government were to fund such competitors as Fox News. Indeed, Democratic members previously sought to pressure cable carriers to drop Fox, the most popular cable news channel. (For full disclosure, I am a Fox News legal analyst.)
Berliner revealed that according to NPR’s demographic research, only 6 percent of its audience is Black and only 7 percent Hispanic. According to Berliner, only 11 percent of NPR listeners describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative. He further stated that NPR’s audience is mostly liberal white Democrats in coastal cities and college towns.
NPR’s audience declined from 60 million weekly listeners in 2020 to just 42 million in 2024 — a drop of nearly 33 percent. This means Democrats are fighting to force taxpayers to support a biased left-wing news outlet with a declining audience of mainly affluent white liberal listeners.
Compounding this issue is the fact that this country is now $36.22 trillion in debt, and core federal programs are now being cut back. To ask citizens (including the half of voters who just voted for Trump) to continue to subsidize one liberal news outlet is embarrassing. It is time for NPR to compete equally in the media market without the help of federal subsidies.
If there was any doubt about that conclusion, it was surely dispatched by Maher’s appearance. After years of objections over its biases, the NPR board hired a CEO notorious for her activism and far-left viewpoints. Now, Maher is the face of NPR as it tries to convince the public that it can be trusted to reform itself. Her denials and deflections convinced no one. Indeed, Maher may have been the worst possible figure to offer such assurances.
Americans constitutionally protected right to free speech “has been under worse attack in the last decade than at any other point in our nation’s history,” Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway told lawmakers during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.
“The tentacles of the censorship-industrial complex are choking out freedom of expression, debate, and the right to criticize powerful institutions such as corporate media and the government,” Hemingway said.
Throughout her opening statement, The Federalist’s editor-in-chief highlighted how the federal and state governments have “fund[ed] and promote[d] censorship and blacklisting technology,” and have even gone as far as to “direct Big Tech companies to censor American speech and debate.” She specifically cited how academic institutions “such as Stanford University and the University of Texas are given large grants, not to defend free speech, but to conduct research on so-called ‘disinformation’ for use by the censorship regime.”
“Non-profit think tanks such as the Aspen Institute post so-called ‘disinformation’ seminars to groom journalists to publish pro-censorship propaganda and to suppress important stories, such as the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell,” Hemingway said. “Non-profit censorship groups such as the Global Disinformation Index and for-profit censorship businesses such as NewsGuard produce widely used censorship tools and blacklists to favor left-wing media while working to silence media that fight false narratives.”
As described by Hemingway, censorship tools employed by groups such as GDI and NewsGuard “routinely rate leftwing news outlets, that are no threat to the permanent bureaucracy, higher than those that challenge prevailing orthodoxies.” These deceptively crafted lists are subsequently used by companies to “boycott some publications and reward others with advertising,” she explained.
Watch Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway's full opening remarks before the U.S. Senate on the censorship-industrial complex. pic.twitter.com/PYZ49DkaxJ
“The Washington Post and New York Times routinely receive the highest marks. Those publications won Pulitzers for their role in the Russia collusion hoax, and we have some participants in that hoax here on this subcommittee,” Hemingway said. “My publication, The Federalist, exposed that hoax through dogged reporting and investigation, as we did with the media’s vicious lies against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. We exposed much of the censorship industrial complex, too, even suing the State Department after discovering its role in promoting and marketing censorship tools that are being used against us even as we sit here today.”
As noted by Hemingway, The Federalist is no stranger to being a target of the expansive censorship-industrial complex.
During the summer of 2020, for example, the left-wing Center for Countering Digital Hate colluded with NBC News to try and strip The Federalist of its Google ad revenue. As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd reported, “NBC News reported that Google banned The Federalist due to a shoddy report from the network’s ‘verification unit,’ and the Center for Countering Digital Hate took issue with The Federalist’s reporting about the race-motivated rioting and violence that plagued the nation during the summer of rage.”
Hemingway also cited a 2023 report by the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government “documenting how Stanford University colluded with two governmental entities to pressure social media companies into censoring true information, jokes, satire, political reporting, and analysis, all of which they claimed was ‘disinformation.’” The Federalist editor-in-chief noted how she and Federalist CEO Sean Davis were targeted by this censorship operation.
“One of the censored items was a story about a TV appearance in which I said of the media, ‘They lie, they lie, they lie, and then they lie.’ Gallup reported in February that my view is held by 70 percent of Americans, who say they don’t trust corporate media to report news accurately, fairly, or fully,” Hemingway said.
Hemingway concluded her opening statement by noting the difficulties in “facing” the vast censorship-industrial complex, and that while it “would have been easy to fold,” doing so is “exactly what censors want: to make it impossible to report the truth about their lies.”
“They know our voice is so powerful and influential that they can’t accomplish their goals unless they shut us down. They will not succeed,” Hemingway said. “We will never stop. The more they try to shut us down, the harder we’re going to work to stay open, because it’s not about us — it’s about whether we will have a civilization where people are allowed to say and think things tyrants don’t want us to.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
After speaking at the National Press Club, I will be testifying today before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on free speech and censorship. My testimony is below.
The hearing, titled “The Censorship Industrial Complex” will be held in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.
We now know a great deal about the censorship system developed under the Biden Administration in coordination with academic and corporate units. Indeed, the release of new information since January has proven a windfall for those of us who have been seeking greater transparency for years. There is still much to be done. It is essential for Congress to complete this work and allow for total transparency on the past funding and coordination by the government.
The past efforts to block investigations and withhold information on the censorship system have failed. However, the motivation is telling. While publicly declaring the need to combat misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, the Biden Administration and its allies in the censorship system struggled to withhold information on their actual targets or actions. The reason again is obvious. The public understands the threat to free speech and strongly supports an investigation into the FBI’s role in censoring social media.
Almost 250 years ago, Tom Paine famously wrote that “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” That was the first line of a work published by Thomas Paine in the Pennsylvania Journal on December 19, 1776, a work which would become known as “The American Crisis.”
We are living through a new crisis in the fight for free speech. The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has now reached our shores. The United States remains a final line of defense for free speech, a nation founded on free speech as our indispensable right as a free people. This is a crisis of faith as the “summer soldier and sunshine patriot” finds every excuse for remaining silent as others are censored or canceled for their views. Congress must step forward to demand both greater transparency and protection for free speech. This new “American crisis” can be our greatest American moment in speaking in one voice – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – in support of the right that defines us as a people.
Below is my column in the Hill on the recent World Forum where leaders gathered to declare “A New World Order with European Values.” Globalists gathered in Berlin to seek a new era based on European values that not only involve the expansion of transnational systems but the contraction of free speech rights.
Here is the column:
“A New World Order with European Values.” Emblazoned across banners and signs, those words met the participants at this week’s meeting of the World Forum in Berlin. Each year, leaders, executives, journalists and academics gather to address the greatest threats facing humanity. This year, there was little doubt about what they view as the current threat: the resurgence of populism and free speech.
In fairness to the Forum, “a New World Order” likely sounds more ominous for some civil libertarians than intended. While the European Union is a transnational government stretching across 27 nations, the organizers were referring to a shift of values away from the United States to Europe.
As one of the few speakers at the forum who was calling for greater protections for free speech, I found it an unnerving message. Even putting aside, the implications of the New World Order, the idea of building a world on today’s European values is alarming for free speech.
Free speech is in a free fall in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions — including for having “toxic ideologies.”
The World Forum has a powerful sense of fraternity, even an intimacy, among leaders who see each other as a global elite — a cadre of enlightened minds protecting citizens from their own poor choices and habits. There has long been a push for transnational governing systems, and European figures see an opportunity created by the conflict with President Trump. The European Union is the model for such a Pax Europaea or “European peace.”
The problem is that this vision for a new Holy Roman Empire lacks a Charlamagne. More importantly, it lacks public support.
The very notion of a “New World Order” is chilling to many who oppose the rise of a globalist class with the rise of transnational governance in the European Union and beyond.
This year, there is a sense of panic among Europe’s elite over the victory of Trump and the Republicans in the U.S., as well as nationalist and populist European movements. For globalists, the late Tip O’Neill’s rule that “all politics is local” is anathema. The European Union is intended to transcend national identities and priorities in favor of an inspired transnational government managed by an expert elite.
The message was clear. The new world order would be based on European, not American, values. To rally the faithful to the cause, the organizers called upon two of the patron saints of the global elite: Bill and Hillary Clinton. President Clinton was even given an award as “leader of the century.” The Clintons were clearly in their element. Speaker after speaker denounced Trump and the rise of what they called “autocrats” and “oligarchs.” The irony was crushing. The European Union is based on the oligarchy of a ruling elite. The World Forum even took time to celebrate billionaires from Bill Gates to George Soros for funding “open societies” and greater transnational powers.
The discussions focused on blunting the rise of far-right parties and stemming the flow of “disinformation” that fosters such dissent. Outside of this rarefied environment, the Orwellian language would border on the humorous: protecting democracy from itself and limiting free speech to foster free speech.
Yet, one aspect of the forum was striking and refreshingly open. This year it became clear why transnational governance gravitates toward greater limits on free speech. Of course, all of this must be done in the name of democracy and free speech.
There is a coded language that is now in vogue with the anti-free speech community. They never say the word “censorship.” They prefer “content moderation.” They do not call for limiting speech. Instead, they call for limiting “false,” “hateful” or “inciteful” speech.
As for the rise of opposing parties and figures, they are referred to as movements by “low-information voters” misled by disinformation. Of course, it is the government that will decide what are acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints.
That code was broken recently by Vice President JD Vance, who confronted our European allies in Munich to restore free speech. He stripped away the pretense and called out the censorship.
With the rise of populist groups, anti-immigration movements and critics of European governance, there is a palpable challenge to EU authority. In that environment, free speech can be viewed as destabilizing because it spreads dissent and falsehoods about these figures and their agenda. Thus far, “European peace” has come at the price of silencing many of those voices, achieving the pretense of consensus through coerced silence.
Transnational governance requires consent over a wide swath of territory. The means that the control or cooperation of media and social media is essential to maintaining the consent of the governed. That is why free speech is in a tailspin in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions.
Yet, it is difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. They have to be very afraid or very angry. One of the speakers was Maria A. Ressa, a journalist and Nobel laureate. I admire Ressa’s courage as a journalist but previously criticized her anti-free speech positions. Ressa has struck out against critics who have denounced her for allegedly antisemitic views. She has warned that the right is using free speech and declaring “I will say it now: ‘The fascists are coming.’”
At the forum, Ressa again called for the audience of “powerful leaders” to prevent lies and dangerous disinformation from spreading worldwide.
But the free speech movement has shown a surprising resilience in the last few years. First, Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled its censorship apparatus, restoring free speech to the social media platform. More recently, Mark Zuckerburg announced that Meta would also restore free speech protections on Facebook and other platforms.
In a shock to many, young Irish voters have been credited with killing a move to further expand the criminalization of speech to include “xenophobia” and the “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material” from viewpoints barred under the law.
Anti-free speech forces are gathering to push back on such trends. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has hardly been subtle about the dangers of free speech to the new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation.
The European Union did precisely that by threatening Musk with confiscatory fines and even arrest unless he censored users. When Musk decided to interview Trump in this election, EU censors warned him that they would be watching for any disinformation.
For many citizens, European governance does not exactly look like a triumph over “oligarchs” and “autocrats.” Indeed, the EU looks pretty oligarchic with its massive bureaucracy guided by a global elite and “good” billionaires like Soros and Gates.
Citizens would be wise to look beyond the catchy themes and consider what Pax Europaea would truly mean to them. We have many shared values with our European allies. However, given the current laws limiting political speech, a “New World Order Based on European Values” is hardly an inviting prospect for those who believe in robust democratic and free speech values.
Davidson College officials have launched an investigation into a student, Cynthia Huang, the president of Davidson College’s chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. In two separate incidents, Huang spoke out against Palestinian and transgender claims. In a disciplinary letter, Mak Tompkins, Davidson’s director of student rights and responsibilities, wrote that she was accused of spreading “misinformation” that could foster Islamophobia and transphobia.
Huang has previously received death threats from peers for criticizing abortion, according to the site College Fix. However, Davidson is investigating her because she distributed a pamphlet last fall titled “Five Myths About Israel Perpetrated by the Pro-Hamas Left” that argued that Palestinians are not a distinct people and rejected the premise of a Palestinian state. She was also faulted for social media comments by YAF about Olympic boxer Imane Khelif, whose gender was controversial during the 2024 Olympics.
Huang has refused to yield and cited, in an op-ed, incidents of being threatened and harassed for her conservative views on the liberal campus.
Her account is all too familiar for many of us in higher education. As I discuss in my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” administrators are often on a hair-trigger when it comes to conservative speech while turning a blind eye to inflammatory rhetoric.
The support enjoyed by faculty on the far left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given faculty with moderate, conservative or libertarian views. Anyone who raises such dissenting views is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet.
One such campaign led to a truly tragic outcome with criminology professor Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for his pandemic rules, tweeting that he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and “felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina” before adding: “Massa Cooper, let my people go.” It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left — including calls to gas or kill or torture conservatives — be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.
Celebrities, faculty, and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He then killed himself a few days before his final day as a professor.
I do not see anything in the Huang material that is not protected speech. The rationale that it is “misinformation” is revealing in that sense. Davidson is objecting to Huang’s views as simply wrong, enforcing a familiar orthodoxy in policing what administrators deem to be information or misinformation.
Higher education is based on the free flow of ideas, including those that challenge orthodoxy. Some of the greatest social and scientific breakthroughs came only after intellectuals were declared heretics or charlatans. Even if Huang escapes punishment, she will be subjected to an investigation as a chilling message to others who may not want to face such public scrutiny or controversy.
Davidson should instead investigate the handling of this matter and expressly bar the use of disinformation and misinformation as the basis for such disciplinary actions.
Four years ago, we first discussed the case of Professor Jason Kilborn, who was investigated and punished for using a pair of racial slurs as part of an exam in his civil procedure course. I was critical of the actions of the John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois (Chicago) as inimical to both free speech and academic freedom. Now, the United States Court of Appeals has reversed a district court’s dismissal of his free speech claims. The UofI will continue to spend huge amounts of money in fighting the protections for academics in their classrooms. It is not simply administrators wasting public funds but spending public funds against the public interest.
Professor Kilborn’s Civil Procedure II exam described how an employee quit “after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n___’ and ‘b___’ [sic].”
The use of the racial slurs led to a complaint in a letter from the Black Law Students Association and later a petition which called for Kilborn to be stripped of his committee assignments and other reforms. The Petition stated:
The slur shocked students created a momentous distraction and caused unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam. Considering the subject matter, and the call of the question, the use of the “n____” and “b____” was certainly unwarranted as it did not serve any educational purpose. The question was culturally insensitive and tone-deaf. It lacked basic civility and respect for the student body, especially considering our social justice efforts this year.
The integration of this dark and vile verbiage on a Civil Procedure II exam was inexcusable and appropriate measures of accountability must be executed by the UIC administration.
My objection was to the measures taken against Professor Kilborn, which I do believe undermine academic freedom. He was suspended and put on administrative leave because of a complaint that in my view was a denial of his pedagogical privileges. He was ultimately denied a raise. He was also required to undergo drug testing, agree to a medical examination, and complete eight weeks of diversity training.
I was also concerned by the position of University of Illinois-Chicago Chancellor Michael Amiridis when the university disputed the claim that the use of the terms was “pedagogical relevant” or “necessarily germane to the study of civil procedure.” That is a statement that drives to the very core of academic freedom.
Just because Kilborn teaches Civil Procedure does not mean that hypotheticals raising racial discrimination are not germane. The best Civil Procedure teachers show how these rules can raise difficult political, social, and constitutional issues when applied in different contexts. Moreover, professors have been pushed by universities and various academic groups to incorporate greater consideration of social justice and racial equality issues in their classes.
Professor Kilborn wrote an exam question that included the censored versions of words that are commonly found in media articles and academic publications. For that, he was publicly suspended and ostracized.
An appellate court’s decision found the lower court erred in dismissing Kilborn’s retaliation claim without giving a full consideration to his First Amendment protections.
The panel declined to apply Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006) as controlling. In that case, the Supreme Court found that public employees are not speaking as citizens when they make statements pursuant to their official duties.” The panel held:
“We decline the University officials’ invitation to extend Garcetti to speech involving university teaching and scholar-ship when the Supreme Court was unwilling to do so. Nor are we alone. Every other circuit to decide the issue has recognized that Garcetti does not apply to university teaching or scholarship.’
According to a FOIA request from the University of Illinois system, UIC Law has already burned through $1.2 million in the case. Rather than discipline these officials who denied basic protections for Kilborn, the school continues to add to the costly effort in the court.
The question is how long the university will burn through funds to fight these core rights afforded to all professors.
This week, the Ninth Circuit delivered a significant victory for free speech after Professor Lars Jensen won a critical reversal against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno. Jensen had criticized the school’s lower standards. Jensen objected in 2020 and 2021 to proposed curriculum changes that he argued would have allowed remedial math classes to count for college credit. He distributed a flyer at an event detailing his concerns and warning that a student would be allowed to graduate from college while only being “ready for middle school math.”
TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break at the event, but he refused to relent. Ellsworth warned him that there would be consequences for his “disobeying” her.
In the two performance reviews following the confrontation, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth gave him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” That designation required Jensen to undergo review for possible termination.
District Court Judge Larry Hicks dismissed the case in 2023. Now the Ninth Circuit has reversed Judge Hicks and found that Jensen is entitled to his day in court. Moreover, the panel found that Judge Hicks erred in refusing to allow Jensen to amend his complaint.
The panel applied the Pickering standard that we have previously discussed. The Court has held that, when a public employer retaliates against an employee for workplace-related speech, the First Amendment requires “balanc[ing] . . . the interests of the [public employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).
That standard, in turn, triggers a five-part inquiry:
“(1) whether the plaintiff spoke on a matter of public concern; (2) whether the plaintiff spoke as a private citizen or public employee; (3) whether the plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action; (4) whether the state had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from other members of the general public; and (5) whether the state would have taken the adverse employment action even absent the protected speech.” Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).
The Ninth Circuit ruled that:
“Jensen’s criticism of the changes in TMCC’s mathematics curriculum addressed a matter of public concern. “[T]he preferable manner of operating [a] school system . . . clearly concerns an issue of general public interest.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 571. The handout Jensen distributed at the Math Summit spoke to the preferable manner of operating TMCC, specifically its math department. Jensen described how the math department’s lowered standards would impact almost a third of TMCC’s degree and certificate programs and how graduates would consequently have inadequate math and technical skills when entering the job market. Jensen also grounded his criticism in the effect these lower standards would have on the community, noting that employers in the surrounding area subsidize TMCC through their taxes and expect competent graduates in return. The decline of TMCC’s educational standards and the resulting impact on the community is a matter of public concern.”
The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The legacy Media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, NY Times, etc.) have lost all credibility among most of America because of the outright lies and bias toward the left they have shown over the past few decades. The new Alternative media, such as Warroom with Steve Bannon, Dan Bongino, The Gateway Pundit, and many others, are being turned to as reliable sources for information.
Mark Halperin and Guest Slam Tone Deafness and Bias of Media Outlets Like MSNBC: ‘Utterly Broken’ (VIDEO)
By Mike LaChance – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 27, 2025
Mark Halperin recently had a conversation with Marc Caputo, formerly of Politico, and they tore into MSNBC for the outlet’s inability or flat out refusal to course correct after the outcome of the 2024 election. They make some great points, especially about the hiring of Jen Psaki at MSNBC and how no one in the mainstream media seemed to have a problem with it. MSNBC is in the process of imploding. Joy Reid was just fired and Rachel Maddow has lost a significant portion of her staff and yet they show no signs of trying to fix the problems that are killing the network… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
There was another meltdown at the Washington Post after owner Jeff Bezos moved again to moderate the newspaper’s message, which has plummeted in readership. Bezos told the editors that he wanted the newspaper to advocate for individual liberties and the free market. The message sent the left into vapors and led to the resignation of Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley. Outside the paper, another round of calls for boycotts and subscription cancellations followed.
In the announcement below, Bezos declared, “I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.”
He added that a newspaper should be a voice for freedom — “is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.” He noted that:
“There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”
For those of us in the free speech community, the return of the Post as a champion of free speech and other individual rights would be a welcomed change. Notably, staff did not object when prior owners aligned with their views on editorial priorities. Obviously, we will need to see how this new directive is carried out. I would be equally opposed to the Post purging liberal views in the way it moved against conservative and libertarian views for the last decade. I do not see such a directive in this announcement. Bezos wants his newspaper to be a voice for individual freedom and free market principles. That should not mean that the newspaper will not run any dissenting views on policies and programs. It does mean that the newspaper will continue to be an outlet for voicing extreme views calling for the curtailment of free speech and other individual rights.
What is striking is that many on the left expect Bezos to run the newspaper like a vanity project, losing millions of dollars to bankroll a far-left agenda. This is an announcement that goes to the position of the newspaper, not any intrusion into reporting. It also does not bar a diversity of opinion on the op-ed pages which still have a vast majority of liberal writers.
The thought that the Post would now focus on advocating for individual rights and the free market led Jeffrey Evan Gold, who posts as a legal analyst for CNN and other networks, to declare that it was the “last straw” and post his cancellation.
Jeff Stein, the publisher’s chief economics reporter, denounced Bezos as carrying out a “massive encroachment” that makes it clear “dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there.” For many moderates and conservatives, it was a crushingly ironic objection given the virtual purging of conservative and libertarian voices at the newspaper.
Amanda Katz, who resigned from the Post’s opinion team at the end of 2024, offered a vivid example of the culture that Bezos is trying to change at the Post. Katz said the change was “an absolute abandonment of the principles of accountability of the powerful, justice, democracy, human rights, and accurate information that previously animated the section in favor of a white male billionaire’s self-interested agenda.”
Just as a reminder, Bezos simply stated that the newspaper would advocate for freedom and free markets. However, the most telling condemnation came from Post columnist Philip Bump, who wrote “what the actual f**k.” Not surprisingly, Bump wrote the condemnation on Bluesky, a site that promises a type of safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views.
Bump previously had a meltdown in an interview when confronted about past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that it stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.
We have previously discussed the sharp change in culture at the Post, which became an outlet that pushed anti-free speech views and embraced advocacy journalism. The result was that many moderates and conservatives stopped reading the newspaper.
In my book on free speech, I discuss at length how the Post and the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. I once regularly wrote for the Post and personally witnessed the sharp change in editorial priorities as editors delayed or killed columns with conservative or moderate viewpoints.
Last year, that culture was vividly on display when the newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is “an America issue.”
During a press briefing, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview and said, “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.”
There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” was entirely silent. No correction. No qualification.
The Wootson controversy was consistent with the embrace of advocacy journalism at the Post. We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
The former Post editor, Downie, recounted how news leaders:
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Other staffers could not get past the gender and race of those who would oversee them. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.
So, let’s recap: The Washington Post’s owner has been pushing the newspaper to shift back toward the middle and restore greater balance on its pages. He is unwilling to bankroll a far-left echo chamber of advocacy journalism. Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley resigned in protest rather than agree to emphasize individual rights and free markets in editorials that speak for the newspaper.
Shipley previously fought to reverse Bezos’s decision not to endorse presidential candidates in 2024 or later elections. Some of us have long argued that newspapers should end such endorsements as inimical to journalistic neutrality and objectivity. The editors reportedly encouraged Bezos that, if he wanted to end such endorsements, he should wait until after endorsing Harris in this election cycle — a remarkable position devoid of any cognizable or controlling principle.
There was a time when advocating for editorials to champion freedom would not have been controversial. The staff’s hyperventilation only reinforces the need for such an intervention. These same voices supported the Post adopting “Democracy dies in Darkness” to oppose what they viewed as an attack on democracy from Trump or the right. However, advocating for freedom in editorials is simply unacceptable.
Perish the thought that a newspaper would commit itself to advocating for individual rights and the free market. (Warning foul language below)
Perhaps the Post could adopt a new slogan: “Freedom dies in Silence.”
Here is the announcement from Jeff Bezos:
I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning: I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision.
We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction. I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
I am returning today after speaking at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs about my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Last night, I was approached by a student named Andrew who asked whether he should just remain quiet at his college, where professors routinely slam conservatives and teach highly ideological views as gospel. I went on a walk this morning around dawn and spotted this swan. I immediately thought of the young man who came up to me after my talk.
Andrew, when you find yourself surrounded by ducks, don’t try to be a duck.
There are three simple reasons. First, you will make a uniquely poor duck, and the flight South will be exhausting. Second, none of the other ducks are likely to believe that you are really a duck. Finally, and most importantly, you are not a migratory bird. You only go through this life once and either live it on your own terms or live an inauthentic life.
We have discussed how the current orthodox and intolerant environment in higher education has resulted in a culture of self-censorship. (here, here, here, and here). Surveys show conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor. Even the largely liberal faculty at leading schools report self-censoring to avoid being targeted.
This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
During the Harvard debate, I raised the gradual reduction of conservatives and libertarians in the student body and the faculty.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.
Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.
While Professor Kennedy dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one-third of the voters still identify as Republican.
The student body shows the same selection bias. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative, but the latest survey shows that number at 9 percent.
Some faculty members are wringing their hands over this continued hostile environment. However, the faculty as a whole is unwilling to restore free speech and intellectual diversity by adding conservative and libertarian faculty members and sponsoring events that reflect a broad array of viewpoints.
Given my respect for Professor Kennedy, I was surprised that he dismissed the sharp rise in students saying that they did not feel comfortable speaking in classes. Referring to them as “conservative snowflakes,” he insisted that they had to have the courage of their convictions.
This ignores the fact that they depend upon professors for recommendations, and challenging the school’s orthodoxy can threaten their standing. Moreover, a recent survey shows that even liberal students feel chilled in the environment created by Harvard faculty and administrators.
In other words, these are ducks surrounded by ducks who are still afraid of quacking out of turn.
Even a mute swan is actually not mute and are known to trumpet when other animals (including humans) threaten their nests or cygnets.
In other words, Andrew, if you are a swan, be a swan.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – VP Vance gave the European Union a well-deserved good spanking at the Munich Security Conference. Ripping them on their free speech policies.
ICYMI: Here’s Vice President J.D. Vance’s Full Speech on Free Speech and Tyrannical Censorship That Sent European Elites Into a Total Meltdown at the Munich Security Conference (FULL TRANSCRIPT)
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 16, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a fiery speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, taking direct aim at European elites for their war on free speech and authoritarian censorship tactics. In a no-holds-barred address, Vance exposed the hypocrisy of European leaders, who claim to champion democracy while silencing dissent and weaponizing so-called ‘misinformation’ laws to crush political opposition. Below is the full transcript of his explosive speech: READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Harvard has long been accused of fostering an anti-free speech environment and quelching viewpoint diversity. That was the subject of my recent debate with Law Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard. A new report confirms many of the objections raised in that debate, including a chilling environment where only a third of Harvard’s most recent graduating class expressed comfort in discussing controversial subjects.
Some 89 percent of the graduating class responded to the survey. The study of the Classroom Social Compact Committee, co-chaired by Economics professor David I. Laibson ’88 and History professor Maya R. Jasanoff ’96, found that, with an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal Harvard students still found a chilling environment for free expression at the school. And it is getting worse. The results show a 13 percent decrease from the Class of 2023.
This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative. Yet even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
During the Harvard debate, I raised the gradual reduction of conservatives and libertarians in the student body and the faculty. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%). So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.
Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats. While Professor Kennedy dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one-third of the voters still identify as Republican. The student body shows the same bias of selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. The latest survey shows that level at 9 percent.
Some faculty members are wringing their hands over this continued hostile environment. However, the faculty as a whole is unwilling to restore free speech and intellectual diversity by adding conservative and libertarian faculty members and sponsoring events that reflect a broad array of viewpoints.
Given my respect for Professor Kennedy, I was surprised that he dismissed the sharp rise in students saying that they did not feel comfortable speaking in classes. Referring to them as “conservative snowflakes,” he insisted that they had to have the courage of their convictions.
This ignores the fact that they depend upon professors for recommendations, and challenging the school’s orthodoxy can threaten their standing. Moreover, a recent survey shows that even liberal students feel chilled in the environment created by Harvard faculty and administrators.
There was a hopeful aspect, however, to the debate. Before the debate, the large audience voted heavily in favor of Harvard’s position. However, after the debate, they overwhelmingly voted against Harvard’s position on free speech. It is an example of how exposure to opposing views can change the bias or assumptions in higher education.
There is little likelihood that Harvard or higher education will change. It is like the old joke about how many psychiatrists it takes to change a light bulb. The answer is just one but the bulb really has to want to change.
At the end of the day, there is no real indication that Harvard faculty want any of this to change. They will continue to report the results of surveys and express deep angst and confusion over the results. What they will not do is meaningfully change their course in the hiring of faculty, admission of students, and sponsoring of debates.
The student union of Leeds University has suspended a third-year philosophy and theology student, Connie Shaw, for what were declared “gender critical” views. Shaw’s transgression was to discuss her concerns over transgender ideology. We have previously seen student governments or bodies engage in such anti-free speech activities. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the school administration to maintain free-speech protections on campuses.
Shaw wrote an article, “Gender Madness at the University of Leeds,” questioning the university’s “gender expression fund.” She also interviewed Irish comedian Graham Linehan, an outspoken critic of transgender policies.
She promptly received a “notice of suspension” after she allegedly brought the radio station into “disrepute” because of her “social media activity,” according to The Telegraph.
We have previously discussed how free speech is in a free fall in the United Kingdom. This latest case seems to build on prior moves against “toxic ideologies.”
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
Clearly, Shaw did not confine her views to herself. She wanted to engage and challenge others. She wanted to test her ideas against those who believe strongly in transgender values. Instead of an exchange of differing viewpoints, she received a suspension from further expression by the student group.
The fact that students took the action in Leeds should not change the significance for the free speech community. Universities often allow students to carry out anti-free speech agendas in the name of student self-governance. However, students come to our institutions to learn in an environment of free speech and self-exploration. Administrators cannot simply shrug and walk away as students seek to silence dissenting or opposing viewpoints.
The British government has created a culture of speech criminalization and censorship. This culture infects every aspect of life, from government to the media to academia. It even distorts the view of a group of students engaged in journalism who seek to punish the expression of opposing views. Rather than view this as a great opportunity for a passionate debate, the students prefer to silence or suspend one side in a growing debate around the world. In the ultimate doublespeak, they are enforcing a strict rule of intolerance in the name of tolerance.
I understand that the students have strong views opposing those of Shaw. Those are counter views that should be given the same opportunity of expression. Let’s have the debate rather than focusing on how to silence one side.
Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies, which treated the lab theory as a fringe, conspiratorial, or even racist theory.
Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency did not reject the theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).
The BBC reported that “the CIA on Saturday offered a new assessment on the origin of the Covid outbreak, saying the coronavirus is ‘more likely’ to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals. But the intelligence agency cautioned it had ‘low confidence’ in this determination.”
The low confidence finding shows that the agency found the evidence fragmented and fluid. However, the point is that the natural origins theory and the lab theory were both viable theories. Neither was disproven or rejected. Other agencies like the FBI seemed to have a higher confidence in the lab theory over the natural origins’ theory.
Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.
This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.
As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.
Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified.”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.
NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”
The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.
In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.
As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.
Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.
Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”
One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.
The CIA report obviously does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.
NB: This column was changed shortly after publication to add the link to the meaning of “low confidence” in the CIA report and to repeat that the issue is not which theory is correct, but that neither theory was found dispositive or invalid. Other media links were added as background.
You need a quantum computer to keep up with all the lies Democrats tell. The people whose pictures are next to the dictionary definition of “misinformation” continue claiming they want to prevent it. The irony could power a small city.
Before I explain Democrats’ new strategy, let’s revisit just a few of their lies.
They’ve lied about COVID, vaccines, the 2020 election, January 6th, the border, Biden’s health, Kamala Harris’ popularity, and more. At this point, it’s easier to compile a list of what they haven’t lied about—although that might be a very short article.
Take Biden’s health, for instance. According to the Left, Biden is a spry 81-year-old whose physical fitness rivals an Olympic decathlete. Forget the times he’s needed directions to exit a stage or appeared to shake hands with invisible people. These are just “Right-wing conspiracy theories,” they assure us. Pay no attention to the fact that his press secretary has to fend off questions about cognitive tests as if she were playing dodgeball at a middle school gym.
But the lies don’t stop there. Polls, the Holy Grail of Democrat propaganda, are another playground for their creativity.
They’d have us believe that Kamala Harris is an inspirational leader—a cross between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Beyoncé. Never mind her poll numbers, which are less popular than cold soup on a winter night. It’s not that people dislike her; it’s that they “don’t understand her brilliance,” we’re told. Apparently, Harris’ true genius is just too avant-garde for the unwashed masses.
When it comes to controlling the narrative, Democrats run their misinformation machine with the precision of a Swiss watchmaker. They use their iron grip on media and social platforms to determine what’s permissible to discuss. Don’t believe Hunter Biden’s laptop is real? Good. Because until recently, they didn’t want you to. Now that they’ve quietly admitted its authenticity, it’s suddenly not a story. The Left’s motto? “When caught lying, either double down or move on.”
COVID might be their magnum opus of deception. Remember “two weeks to flatten the curve”? That turned into two years of lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, and lives disrupted—all built on shifting narratives. When questioned about the science behind their mandates, they responded with a collective shrug and a mantra: “Trust the experts.” But their experts were often caught contradicting themselves. Masks worked until they didn’t. Vaccines prevented transmission until they didn’t. Yet, questioning any of this earned you a label: “misinformation spreader.”
And then there’s the border. According to Democrats, it’s “secure.” To anyone with eyes, it’s a humanitarian disaster. Footage of people streaming across the border like concertgoers at a music festival? That’s just Right-wing fearmongering, they insist. Meanwhile, cities like New York and Chicago are collapsing under the weight of their sanctuary policies, but don’t expect an admission of failure. For the Left, reality is just another obstacle to overcome with spin.
Speaking of spin, the 2020 election was a masterclass in narrative control.
Question the results? You’re a “threat to democracy.” Ignore the irregularities, the last-minute rule changes, and the statistical anomalies—all “perfectly normal,” they assured us. Then came January 6th, which they’ve weaponized to such an extent that it’s become the Left’s 9/11. To hear them tell it, the Capitol breach was an existential threat to the republic, second only to people questioning vaccine efficacy.
But perhaps the most brazen lie is their insistence that they’re the party of “truth.” They’ve launched a new version of Obama’s infamous “Attack Watch” website, this time with a straight face. It’s a digital tattletale system designed to flag dissent and offer counter-narratives, which are really just rebranded talking points. Back in 2011, Attack Watch was mocked out of existence, but Democrats are banking on the fact that people have short memories.
“Big Disinfo” is their answer. A website dedicated to trying to debunk the truth.
And if you’re wondering where all that extra money went that the Biden team gave to the NGOs to spend as quickly as possible, you guessed it. Big Disinfo promises to defend democracy the lies with fact-checking operations promised to patrol the boundaries of reality.
Their desperation to control the truth is a sign of how tenuous their grip on it has become. They’re the snake oil salesmen of politics, peddling elixirs that don’t work and hoping no one notices. But here’s the catch: the American people are noticing. Polls show increasing skepticism of the media, distrust of institutions, and disapproval of the Biden administration’s policies. The harder the Left tries to sell their version of reality; the more people question the product.
Democrats are trapped in a web of their own making.
Their lies have become so convoluted that even they can’t keep them straight. Like a bad sitcom with too many plot twists, the audience is tuning out. And while they’ll undoubtedly try to spin this as another “Right-wing conspiracy,” the truth is catching up with them. Slowly, but inevitably.
As we head into 2025, expect the Left’s misinformation machine to go into overdrive. The lies will get bigger, the narratives more absurd, and the denials more emphatic. But remember: desperation smells a lot like a Democrat trying to convince you they’re telling the truth. And the stench is getting harder to ignore.
Martin Speake, a British jazz “composer, saxophonist, academic and educator” is preparing a lawsuit against Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance over a cancel campaign that targeted him after he criticized the school’s “BLM/anti-racist policies and initiatives” and denied that there was “systemic racial inequality in the UK jazz scene.” His case is strikingly similar to other targeted professors discussed in my recent book on free speech.
The controversy began when Speake was asked to give feedback on the policies. As he later explained, he was immediately set upon by critics calling him a racist. He stressed his bona fides:
Sometime later I forwarded this email to a student with whom I had had a stimulating conversation on the topic earlier that day. This student showed the email to some peers, but didn’t forward it to anyone. Nevertheless, as some students heard about it, the email began to attract some discontent and speculation within the student body. TL [Trinity Laban] then halted my teaching and pressured me to consent to the circulation of my email to the entire jazz department.
Speake said that Trinity Laban “threatened” him with “disciplinary action,” and he was subjected to the all-too-familiar cancel campaign, including a boycott of his classes.
Students complained that his view of the jazz community had “affected their mental health” and a Change.org petition created by “Distressed Student” complained of being “deeply affected” by Speake’s view and how it “perpetuated harmful and defamatory narratives about black musicians in the jazz industry.”
Most disturbing may have been the knee-jerk reaction of the London Jazz Orchestra. Speake was the lead alto saxophonist for 15 years, but he was requested to take a leave of absence. So, the London Jazz Orchestra forced a musician to take leave after he exercised his free speech rights. He would not have faced such action if he had supported the policies. He had voiced a dissenting note on such policies, and the Orchestra tossed a fellow artist to the curb.
So, Speake is now persona non grata because, by offering his view of these policies, he allegedly showed a “lack of sensitivity” and “created an uncomfortable and distressing learning environment.”
Speake later announced that “with a very heavy heart I had no choice but to resign from my post with [Trinity Laban] in November 2024 as my working environment had become unbearable.” He has filed a complaint against Trinity Laban.
George Gershwin once said that “life is a lot like jazz… it’s best when you improvise.” However, Trinity Laban and the London Jazz Orchestra would add that musicians should not take such freedom beyond their music. Improvisation in speech is likely to get you canceled. When it comes to free speech, the jazz community is perfectly Gregorian.
This week, North Dakota State University is under fire for its statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, including from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The university issued a “statement of inclusivity” that included a pledge to combat “violence in language or in action.” The notion of “violent speech” is a touchstone for the anti-free speech community, which treats the expression of viewpoints as akin to physical attacks on students.
While this is merely a university statement, the inclusion of combatting violent speech as a priority was concerning for many. As I have previously written in columns and my recent book on free speech, violent speech has long been a rallying cry in higher education.
The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” is a favorite excuse for violent groups like Antifa, which continue to physically assault speakers with pro-life and other disfavored views. As explained by Rutgers Professor Mark Bray in his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” the group believes that “‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
As one Antifa member explained, free speech is a “nonargument…you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.” When people criticized Antifa for its violent philosophy, MSNBC’s Joy Reid responded to the critics that “you might be the fascist.”
The Pride Office website at the University of Colorado (Boulder) declared that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.”
University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers declared that some of those boycotting the store Target over its line of Pride Month clothing were engaging in “literal terrorism.” (He insists that he was referring to those confronting Target employees.)
The diversity, equity, and inclusion statement at North Dakota State University maintains that the College of Business aims to help students “feel safe” and provide “space to be their own person.” However, the question is how treating speech as violence provides a safe space for free speech on campus.
Blurring the line between speech and violence can lead to censorship and viewpoint intolerance at a university. Speech directed at individuals to threaten them is actionable and potentially criminal. However, sweeping claims that speech is violence are the mantra being used in higher education to rationalize speech codes and censorship. Free speech requires bright lines of protection to avoid the chilling effect of arbitrary or capricious enforcement.
North Dakota State University would be wise to revise its policy statement.
Mark Zuckerberg wants to turn over a new leaf on the social media censorship — but some in the media don’t seem happy about giving up the power to silence people.
Tuesday morning, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta’s social media sites including Facebook, Instagram, and Threads would be eliminating their heavy-handed censorship policies and moving towards a “community notes” model for policing content like X. This includes terminating their “third party factchecking program” where the company paid legacy media organizations to “fact check” content on the site and then used those judgments to censor content.
At this point there’s little reason to believe that Mark Zuckerberg can do much to atone for what he did to suppress speech and damage conservative publications. However, on the surface level this is a significant PR victory for free speech and, unsurprisingly, Facebook’s fact checking partners are not taking it well. Aaron Sharockman, the executive director of PolitiFact which is one of Facebook/Meta’s original fact checking partners going back eight years, just posted this defensive letter on X. Some of the highlights:
The decision to remove independent journalists from Facebook’s content moderation program in the United States has nothing to do with free speech or censorship. Mark Zuckerberg could not be less subtle. …
Facebook and Meta solely created the penalties that publishers faced and the warning labels and overlays that users saw. It was Facebook and Meta that created a system that allowed ordinary citizens to see their posts demoted but exempted politicians and political leaders who said the very same things. In case it needs to be said, PolitiFact and U.S. fact-checking journalists played no role in the decision to remove Donald Trump from Facebook. …
When we make an error, there is a process to correct those mistakes. And there is also a process to make sure Facebook and Meta receive the corrected information. That’s how the information cycle is supposed to work.
If Meta is upset it created a tool to censor, it should look in the mirror.
PolitiFact has been a thoroughly dishonest and contemptible organization since its inception, but this is a particularly dishonest and self-serving excuse, even for them. And I happen know what I’m talking about. After years of detailed reporting on the dishonesty of so called “fact checkers,” the publication I worked for, The Weekly Standard, made the decision to become, like PolitiFact, one of Facebook’s official fact checking partners. And I can tell you a few things about this arrangement that, if you care about free speech and journalistic integrity, will make your blood boil.
The first is that Facebook paid it’s fact checking partners for participating in this program — in PolitiFact’s case, Meta supplied more than 5 percent of their annual revenue. In practice, this meant that news organizations such as PolitiFact, USA Today, and, yes, The Weekly Standard, participating in this program were taking a large sum from one of the country’s largest and most influential corporations. This was a massive conflict of interest, considering these same publications were also tasked with covering Facebook neutrally when it came up in the news. Which was a lot.
Already news organizations were skittish about Facebook because the death of print media and the subscription model meant they were heavily dependent on Facebook for steering traffic their way to make money on digital advertising. Taking money directly from Facebook meant they had you over a barrel in multiple ways. If there was cause to criticize Facebook’s policies about censoring content or any other matter, doing so meant these publications were biting the hand that fed them.
Soon after the [2016] election, BuzzFeed was reporting, “Facebook employees have formed an unofficial task force to question the role their company played in promoting fake news in the lead-up to Donald Trump’s victory in the US election last week.” The group was operating in open defiance of CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who said the idea that Facebook had unfairly tilted the election in Trump’s favor was “crazy.” Zuckerberg had already faced criticism earlier, in May 2016, when Gizmodo reported, “Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending’ news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project.”
By December 2016, Zuckerberg had caved. Facebook adopted a new policy of trying to combat the alleged “fake news” that troubled Facebook’s left-wing employees. The tech giant would start paying media outlets to “fact-check” news on the site. With media revenue steadily declining — in no small part because Facebook had radically disrupted the traditional journalistic business models — once reputable news organizations signed up to participate in the fact-checking program. Media outlets that were supposed to be objectively covering Facebook were now on Facebook’s payroll, given the power to determine all the news that was fit to print.
Whether or not the tech companies wanted to admit it, much of Silicon Valley’s anger over Trump’s victory was about their inability to control American opinion.
Third, the idea that PolitiFact or any of Facebook’s media fact checking partners were blameless for participating in Facebook’s censorship and stifling free speech is such a dubious and offensive argument it’s incredible anyone would attempt to make it.
In the summer of 2018, the Weekly Standard’s participation in the Facebook’s fact checking program led to far and away the most awkward staff meeting in the eight years that I worked there. I wrote about this episode at length (and in this book), but essentially what happened is that the young journalist The Weekly Standard employed who wrote fact checks for Facebook openly said he was uncomfortable with the responsibility:
He explained that whenever he did one of his fact checking columns, part of his gig involved going into a special portal in Facebook’s backend created for its fact checking mercenaries, where he entered details about his fact check. When he entered a claim of “false,” he was asked to enter the URL of the story where he found the claim – at which point Facebook, according to their own press releases, would then kill 80 percent of the global internet traffic to that story. Our fact checker explained this was making him uncomfortable. Some of these fact checks were complicated, and he felt his judgment wasn’t absolute.
It was a record scratch moment in the staff meeting. After a beat, I spoke up and said something to the effect of “you mean to tell me, that a single journalist has the power to render judgment to nearly wipe a news story off of the internet?” Where our publication had once taken pride in challenging the dishonesty and bias of the corporate media, it dawned on me — and more than a few others in the room — that whatever influence our failing publication had was now being leveraged to act as part of a terrifyingly effective censorship regime controlled by a hated social media company run by one of the world’s richest men.
Suffice this anecdote to say, this all culminated in one editor at the magazine raising his voice — in defense of Facebook — in a way that made everyone in the room rather uncomfortable. Imagine you’re a writer at a conservative magazine and confronting the fact you’re participating in a program where a centi-billionaire pays a bunch of legacy media hacks to disproportionately censor politically inconvenient opinions on the right. I knew it was bad, but I was pretty alarmed to realize not all of my colleagues found this intolerable. But by this point The Weekly Standard was hemorrhaging subscribers and was shut down a few months later. Alas, the more animated editor in that meeting doesn’t appear to have learned from the episode.
After the closure of The Weekly Standard, alumni from that magazine started a new publication known as The Dispatch. Despite what had happened at our ill-fated previous employer, becoming a Facebook fact checking partner was one easy way for a new publication to get revenue, I guess. Anyway, it wasn’t long before this new arrangement prompted controversy. A Dispatch fact check claimed two advertisements from the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List claimed “partly false information.”
The allegedly false information was that the Susan B. Anthony List was claiming Joe Biden and the Democrat Party supported late-term abortion. It didn’t matter that this claim wasn’t even particularly debatable as Biden and the Democrat Party clearly support late-term abortion.
After a lot of online blowback — at the time, one of the marquee names at The Dispatch was David French, an alleged evangelical pro-life stalwart turned Kamala Harris voter — the publication promised to review and correct their error. Despite the public promise, you should not be surprised to learn that, either through negligence by The Dispatch or Facebook, the “process to make sure Facebook and Meta receive the corrected information” touted above got no results. Susan B. Anthony List and its election ads were banned from Facebook in the critical weeks right before the 2020 election, which was decided by a mere 40,000 or so votes.
Mind you, this is all based on my comparably limited experience with a censorship program whose flaws were readily apparent to anyone. It would be impossible to muster enough contempt for an organization such as PolitiFact, who by their own admission did thousands of fact checks for Facebook to enable their direct censorship of ordinary citizens and important political voices alike.
Like I said, I find Mark Zuckerberg’s motivations suspect, to say nothing of the restitution he owes conservative publications like this one that told the truth only to be suppressed and censored. But regardless of how we arrived at this point, Facebook’s statement that what they were doing was wrong and the termination of their fact checking program are important concessions to the reality that ordinary Americans believe in and want free speech.
I imagine it’s hard to accept that you’ve been the villain all along, but Sharockman and PolitiFact don’t get to have it both ways. PolitiFact concedes they took Facebook’s money, but that doesn’t mean they share any responsibility for Facebook justifying censorship with the services they provided? No, PolitiFact knew full well they were providing the bullets for Facebook’s gun, and they were happy to do it because they liked who Facebook was aiming at.
We’ll see if Facebook follows through with its promise to be less censorious, but it’s impossible to read Sharockman’s hackneyed justifications without looking forward to the day where self-appointed fact checkers are irrelevant to what Americans are allowed to say.
Mark Hemingway is the Book Editor at The Federalist, and was formerly a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator
Below is my column in Fox.com on the potentially historic change in policy at Meta to restore free speech protections. As one of the longest and loudest critics of the company over its censorship history, it is admittedly hard to trust. However, an alliance of Mark Zuckerberg with Elon Musk could prove the most important development for free speech
Here is the column:
“Faithful friends are hard to find.” For the free speech community, those words from Shakespeare have long been tragically true. Indeed, until Elon Musk bought Twitter (now X), we were losing ground around the world to an unprecedented anti-free speech coalition of government, corporate, media, and academic interests. Now, Musk may have added a major new ally that could help turn the tide for free speech: Mark Zuckerberg.
In a new video, Meta’s CEO announced that the company would adopt X standards and restore free speech protections across Facebook, Instagram, and Meta platforms. Meta will also end its third-party fact-checking program, introduce a ‘community notes’ system, and focus on removing criminal and fraudulent material—the very guidelines proposed by some of us in prior years.
For the free speech community, it was like the United States entering World War II to support Great Britain. Where Musk stopped the progress of the global anti-free speech movement, Zuckerberg could actually help us regain ground around the world.
As one of Zuckerberg’s most vocal critics over free speech, it is admittedly hard to trust. We all love redemptive sinners, but it would be more impressive if the redemption preceded the apprehension.
So allow me a brief cathartic moment…
In the last few years, a mix of House investigations and litigation has forced more of the censorship system under the Biden Administration into public view. That is expected to draw even greater attention with the continued discovery in Missouri v. Biden, showing years of false statements about the extent of this government-corporate alliance across social media platforms.
In my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I wrote about Zuckerberg and Meta’s record on censorship, including their failure (until recently) to release the Facebook files.
Meta resisted efforts to uncover this evidence for years, even after Musk released the Twitter Files and revealed a censorship system described by one court as perfectly “Orwellian.”
While Zuckerberg portrayed Meta as an unwilling partner in this censorship system in his video, he and the company ignored many years of objections from many of us regarding the critical role the company plays in targeting and censoring opposing viewpoints. Facebook even ran a creepy ad campaign to try to convince young people to embrace what they call “content modification” as part of their evolution with technology. It did not work.
When the anti-free speech movement targeted Musk, Zuckerberg did nothing for years. Fearing that other companies might restore free speech protections, members of Congress, including now Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), sent a chilling letter to Facebook stating that it should not even consider such a move or risk becoming “part of our ongoing oversight efforts.”
In a November 2020 Senate hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), D-Conn., warned Zuckerberg and other CEOs that he and his Senate colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”
While Musk defied those threats, the pressure seemed to work with Zuckerberg. It was not until the Republicans won both houses and the White House that Zuckerberg and Meta decided that free speech was worth fighting for.
In his exclusive interview with Fox News, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, admitted that the Trump election changed the situation for Meta: “We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression.”
It is a chilling statement if one thinks of what might have happened if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, arguably the most anti-free speech ticket in history, had won. The suggestion is that the new spring at Meta would have turned into a frozen tundra for free speech.
Around the world, free speech is in a free fall. Speech crimes and censorship have become the norm in the West. A new industry of “disinformation” experts has commoditized censorship, making millions in the targeting and silencing of others. An anti-free speech culture has taken root in government, higher education, and the media.
We will either hold the line now or we will lose this indispensable right for future generations. Zuckerberg could make this a truly transformative moment but it will take more than a passing meta-culpa.
We need Zuckerberg now more than ever. So, with that off my chest, I can get to what I have longed to say: Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the fight.
Below is my column in the Hill on the resignation of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his anti-free speech legacy. The collapse of free speech in Canada is a cautionary tale for Americans. It shows how Trudeau and the Liberal Party used faux rhetoric of tolerance and inclusion to justify intolerance and exclusion.
Here is the column:
With Justin Trudeau’s announcement that he will step down as prime minister, Canada is now looking for a new leader after a decade under his policies. The question is whether anyone will look for the remnants of Canadian free speech in the wreckage of the Trudeau government.
Canada has long been a country caught between two influences: the United Kingdom and the United States. It has shared DNA with both nations. Unfortunately, it has largely followed the British approach in treating free speech more like a privilege than a right. That dubious tradition was magnified over the last decade by a wholesale attack on free speech deemed hostile, insulting or triggering for different groups. In many ways, Canada has been a cautionary tale for many in the U.S., as the same voices of censorship and criminalization grow on our campuses and in Congress.
Indeed, BlueSky, a social media site that offers a safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views, has apparently embraced Canadian-style standards for censorship as part of its pitch for those with viewpoint intolerance.
For over a decade, Trudeau has been the cheerful face of modern censorship. While exuding tolerance and inclusivity, he hammered critics with draconian measures and perfectly Orwellian soundbites. In the name of tolerance, he proudly proclaimed intolerance for opposing views.
Trudeau shows how speech codes and virtue signaling are now chic on the left. In a town hall event, Trudeau chastised a woman for asking a question that used the term “mankind” and instructed her, “We like to say ‘peoplekind’ … because it’s more inclusive.” (He later claimed he was joking. If so, many of his policies have the same punchline and are no joking matter.)
In many ways, Trudeau’s true colors emerged in his crackdown on the trucker protests opposing COVID-19 mandates in 2022, a campaign widely supported by an enabling media. Trudeau invoked the 1988 Emergencies Act for the first time to freeze bank accounts of truckers and contributions by other Canadian citizens, powers long condemned by civil liberties groups in Canada.
The anti-free speech apple did not fall far from the tree. It was Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, who as prime minister used the predecessor to the act for the first time in peacetime to suspend civil liberties.
Trudeau was widely criticized for his anti-free speech policies, including his move to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to criminalize any “communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
It was used to prevent “social media platforms [from being] used to threaten, intimidate, bully and harass people, or used to promote racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic and homophobic views that target communities, put people’s safety at risk and undermine Canada’s social cohesion or democracy.”
Under Trudeau, human rights commissions became virtual speech commissars in Canada. A conservative webmaster was prosecuted for allowing third parties to leave insulting comments about gay people and minorities on the site. Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley insisted that “the minimal harm caused … to freedom of expression is far outweighed by the benefit it provides to vulnerable groups and to the promotion of equality.” Even a comedian was prosecuted for insulting jokes involving lesbians.
Recently, a Canadian mayor and a town were prosecuted for not hoisting an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” in celebration of Pride Month — even though they did not have a flagpole.
Despite crushing the trucker protests, the Canadian parliament extended Trudeau’s emergency powers to allow him to continue to harass and threaten those on the right. Despite broad opposition, the Liberal Party, the NDP and other allies were able to muster 181 votes to keep authoritarian powers alive in Canada. (The Canadian courts later, belatedly, declared the Trudeau powers unconstitutional).
Many of the same legislators would later push to increase the penalties for certain speech crimes to life imprisonment. One of the most tragically ironic moments for Canada came last year, when Trudeau’s government blocked the citizenship of Russian dissident Maria Kartasheva because she has a conviction in Russia. She had been tried in absentia by a judge sanctioned by Canada for her exercise of free speech in Russia in condemning the Ukrainian war. The Canadian government informed Kartasheva that her conviction in Russia aligns with a Criminal Code offense relating to false information in Canada.
Think about that. Canada was concerned because she violated anti-free speech laws that are similar to its own. The Russians convicted her of disseminating “deliberately false information,” and Canada convicts’ people under laws like Section 372(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada for efforts “to convey, cause, or procure to be conveyed false information with the intent to alarm or injure anyone.”
That is why some of us spit out our soup in 2022 when Trudeau’s government condemned Cuba for its own crackdown on protesters, claiming that “Canada strongly advocates for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly free from intimidation.” Trudeau also condemned China for cracking down on protests over COVID-19, the very subject of his own crackdown on the truckers.
Yet Trudeau has been a darling of the Canadian and American press despite a disapproval rate of around 68 percent among Canadian citizens. The media clearly approves of his position that “freedom of expression is not without limits” when others seek “to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.”
So the question is: Now that Trudeau is heading out, where do Canadians go to get their free speech back?
It appears no liberal Christmas is complete without the ultimate stocking stuffer: an actual stocking to wear over your face while rioting. While not yet selling face coverings for anonymous violence, Crooked Media, co-founded by former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor, is selling a line of Antifa items for liberals wanting to make a statement against any “Peace on Earth.” (As of this posting, Antifa items were still being sold on the “Crooked Store” site). You can now proudly wear your “Antifa Dad” hat to signal your support for political violence and deplatforming. It is the ultimate naughty gift list for putting the slay back into your Sleigh Bells.
These liberal hosts and their “POD SAVE AMERICA” show have been featured on various shows and courted by figures like Hillary Clinton. There is no apparent backlash for their support of one of the most violent groups in the world, which routinely attacks journalists and anyone who holds opposing views. Imagine the media response if a conservative site started selling “Proud Boy” items. Yet, Crooked Media is now offering liberals the chance to buy “ANTIFA” onesies for babies, a T-shirt for toddlers reading “ANTIFA” and other items.
Just to make sure that everyone understands the support for the violent group, a spokesperson for Crooked Media told Fox News Digital that the clothes it has listed on its website “are not a joke.” The spokesman added that “all toddlers are antifa until their souls are broken by capitalism.”
“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”
Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the anti-free speech movement nationally. As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated, “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”
It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
Now, liberal families can bring a small part of that political violence into their homes for the holiday to pledge that there will be no peace or silent nights so long as opposing views are heard. Antifa has gone retail, and there is no better way to celebrate political violence and rage than your Antifa onesie.
With tensions rising after the election, the embrace of organizations like Antifa will only fuel calls for violent action. Liberal figures like ex-Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz have even conveyed support for the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan.
It is not the time to go full naughty list to celebrate a group that regularly beats reporters and others with opposing viewpoints. While this may appeal to your own special smash-mouth Santa, tis the season for political violence.
Below is my column in The Hill on new evidence released by the House related to the January 6th riot. The J6 Committee fueled doubts about the official accounts by using only Democratically appointed members and skewing the evidence. The new information further undermines the narrative pushed by both members and the media.
Here is the column:
On Jan. 6, 2021, the nation was rocked by the disruption of the certification of Joe Biden as our next president. With Donald Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, it is astonishing how much of that day remains a matter of intense debate. Those divisions are likely only to deepen after a slew of recent reports that have challenged the selective release of information from the House January 6 Committee.
January 6 remains as much a political litmus test as it is a historical event. Whether you refer to that day as a riot or an insurrection puts you on one side or the other of a giant political chasm. I viewed the attack on that day as a desecration of our constitutional process, but I did not view it as an insurrection. I still don’t.
It was a protest that became a riot when a woefully insufficient security plan collapsed. And that is a view shared by most Americans. One year after the riot, a CBS poll showed that 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”
A Harvard study also found that those arrested on that day were motivated by loyalty to Trump rather than support for an insurrection.
A recent poll found that almost half of the public (43 percent) felt that “too much is being made” of the riot and that it is “time to move on.” Of course, that still leaves a little over half who view the day as “an attack on democracy.”
The continued distrust of the official accounts of Jan. 6 reflects a failure of the House Democrats, and specifically former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to guarantee a credible and comprehensive investigation.
The House Select Committee to investigate January 6 was comprised of Democrat-selected members who offered only one possible view: that January 6 was an attempt to overthrow our democracy by Trump and his supporters. The committee hired a former ABC News producer to create a slick, made-for-television production that barred opposing views and countervailing evidence. The members, including Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney, played edited videotapes of Trump’s speech that removed the portion where Trump called on his supporters to protest “peacefully.”
The committee fostered false accounts, including the claim that there was a violent episode with Trump trying to wrestle control of the presidential limousine. The Committee knew that the key Secret Service driver directly contradicted that account offered by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.
While the Democrats insisted that Trump’s speech constituted criminal incitement, he was never charged with that crime — not even by the motivated prosecutors who pledged to pursue such charges. The reason is that Trump’s speech was entirely protected under the First Amendment. Such a charge of criminal incitement would have quickly collapsed in court.
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, NPR, other media and the committee members called Jan. 6 an “insurrection” engineered by Trump. Figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) insisted the committee had evidence that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021. That evidence never materialized.
The lack of adequate security measures that day has long puzzled many of us. After all, there had been a violent riot at the White House before January 6, in which more officers were injured and Trump had to be moved to a secure location. The National Guard had to be called out to protect the White House, but those same measures (including a fence) were not ordered at the Capitol.
Two of the recent reports offered new details related to those questions.
One report confirmed that Trump did, in fact, offer the deployment of the National Guard in anticipation of the protest. The Jan. 6 Committee repeatedly dismissed this claim. After all, it would be a rather curious attempt at an insurrection if Trump was suggesting the use of thousands of troops to prevent any breach of Congress. The committee specifically found “no evidence” that the Trump administration called for 10,000 National Guard members to be sent to Washington, D.C., to protect the Capitol. The Washington Post even supposedly “debunked” Trump’s comments with an award of “Four Pinocchios.”
Yet evidence now shows that Trump personally suggested the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops to prevent violence. For example, a transcript includes the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato in January 2022 with Liz Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops.
Videotapes have also emerged showing Pelosi privately admitting that she and Democratic leadership were responsible for the security failure on Jan. 6.
Another new report from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, shows that it was the Defense Department that delayed the eventual deployment of National Guard in the critical hours of the riot. The evidence shows that, at 3:18 p.m., Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy “tells sheltering Members of Congress that he is not blocking the deployment of the National Guard and, while referencing the D.C. National Guard, shares that ‘We have the green light. We are moving.’” However, the secretary of the Army’s own timeline indicates that the DCNG did not physically leave the Armory until 5 pm.
That was the critical period for the riot. Around 2:10 p.m., people surged up the Capitol steps. Just an hour later, McCarthy said troops were on their way. At 4:17 p.m., Trump made his public statement asking rioters to stop — roughly an hour and a half later. Yet it was not until 5 pm that the troops actually left for the Capitol.
The House is also under greater scrutiny this week for new information on the shooting of the only person to die on Jan. 6. While Democrats have referred to many deaths on that day, the only person who died in the riot itself was Ashli Babbitt, a protester shot by Capitol Police. I have long disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd for this shooting. The media lionized Byrd and, in sharp contrast to other police shootings during that period, blamed the deceased. Again, an unjustified shooting of a protester would not fit the media narrative.
The concerns over the shooting were heightened by the Justice Department’s bizarre review and report, which notably did not state that the shooting was justified. Instead, it declared that it could not prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”
Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran who was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage and other offenses at the time she was shot. However, Babbitt was unarmed when she tried to climb through a broken window.
Byrd stated “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” In other words, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon. He took Babbitt’s effort to crawl through the window as sufficient justification to kill her. It was not. And it is worth noting that Byrd could just as well have hit the officers standing just behind Babbitt.
The new report confirms that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues, including “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.” In one incident, detailed in a letter from Loudermilk, Byrd was suspected of lying about the circumstances under which he shot at the fleeing car.
None of this means that Trump or even Babbitt are without fault in this matter. Trump’s speech was clearly “reckless and wrong,” and Babbitt herself was involved in that riot. However, these reports only further highlight what we still do not know about that day.
This week, HBO delivered the corporate version of the Expelliarmus or disarming curse for the long-standing cancel campaign targeting “Harry Potter” creator J.K. Rowling. We have been discussing this campaign against Rowling, a feminist who has opposed transgender policies that she views as inimical to the rights of women. The cancel campaign against Rowling has been extreme and unhinged from blacklisting her books to even barring the playing of Harry Potter games in pubs. Even authors who support Rowling’s free speech have been targeted. Nevertheless, HBO, which has also been targeted in the past, is now saying enough. Rowling’s work will continue to be featured and developed by the company.
HBO has enraged the anti-Rowling movement by announcing that it will not yield and will continue to work with the author: “J.K. Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.” It added that “her contribution has been invaluable.”
HBO has a new upcoming Potter series set to premiere on HBO’s Max streaming platform in 2026.
Both Harry Potter stars, Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry Potter, and Emma Watson, who played Hermine Granger, have joined the criticism of Rowling. However, the criticism itself is not the primary problem, even if they unfairly characterize Rowlings’ actual statements. That is a use of their own free speech rights. However, the cancel campaigns are far more damaging for free speech, as I discuss in my book, The Indispensable Right.
The issue of cancel campaigns came up in my recent debate at Harvard Law School on free speech with Professor Randall Kennedy. Kennedy defended cancel campaigns as the exercise of free speech. There is no question that such campaigns involve the act of free speech as people rallying for or against viewpoints. However, the impact of such campaigns, particularly in higher education, is to limit the diversity of viewpoints and reinforce an orthodoxy on our campuses. It is not to express a view but to seek to silence an opposing view. It is the antithesis of free speech values in higher education.
It also has a damaging effect on an academic community. When students see faculty supporting the canceling of conservative, libertarian, or dissenting speakers, it is hardly an invitation to speak freely yourself in class.
The same is true for publishers. We have discussed companies discontinuing publication of Rowling’s work and both editors and writers joining blacklisting campaigns against her and others. We have even seen the embracing of book burning.
For the activists behind this massive cancel campaign, HBO’s announcement is nothing short of a corporate Cruciatus (torture) Curse. However, both the arts and free speech are the winners in Rowling’s continuing to produce and expand her legendary body of work.
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how free speech is in a free fall in Great Britain, where officials continue to crack down on an ever-widening array of viewpoints. Some of these actions are designated as “non-crime hate” but are still the subject of law enforcement actions. According to the Daily Mail, they now include children who have been pulled in for calling other children schoolyard names like “retard” or saying that other children smell “like fish.”
“A nine-year-old child is among the youngsters being probed by police over hate incidents… Officers recorded incidents against the child, who called a fellow primary school pupil a ‘retard’, and against two schoolgirls who said another student smelled ‘like fish.’ The youngsters were among multiple cases of children being recorded as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), The Times discovered through freedom of information requests to police forces.”
“Non-crime hate” was introduced in 2014 as part of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines. It is chilling in its ambiguity and scope. It only requires the perception of either a victim or a third party that a statement is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.
The HCOG stresses, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”
That guarantees the maximal level of investigation and documentation of speech incidents. The chilling effect on free speech is glacial.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests:
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views. After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Southeast (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
Great Britain is now turning, it appears, to their children in speech crackdowns. Schoolyard taunts can be investigated by officers. The impact on both parents and children will obviously be immense. It adds a coercive element to speech laws. Given the subjective and vague standard, the response is to self-censor to avoid any such accusations. Raising children in such an environment will only erode free speech values. Indeed, it fosters the type of speech-phobic generation that many activists may welcome. Speech is viewed as dangerous and subject to continual monitoring by the state.
Stopping some kid from using a playground taunt will do little to instill mutual respect, but it will instill fear over how the state may respond to your words. It is a lesson that many in the free speech community may relish but one that most citizens should reject. “Non-crime hate” investigations are meant to maintain a constant sense of oversight and monitoring of speech, even with our children.
I previously criticized the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for selecting Todd Wolfson as its new president. Wolfson is a controversial voice within the teaching academy and immediately doubled down on the bias against conservatives and those calling for greater intellectual diversity. He is now decrying the election and publicly joining the resistance to the Trump Administration.
Some of us have been writing for years about the decline in viewpoint diversity and the rise of an academic orthodoxy in higher education. It is one of the focuses of my new book, The Indispensable Right. Wolfson personifies the intolerance for free speech and diversity of viewpoints that now characterize American higher education.
Despite calls for greater tolerance, AAUP elected Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, who was viewed as an ally for those who oppose intellectual diversity in favor of ideological orthodoxy in higher education.
Wolfson is the author of “Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left.” He was known to be openly hostile to those of us who have criticized the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters.
Unlike others who try to maintain the pretense of neutrality and tolerance, Wolfson is viewed by some of us as a true believer who supports the activism and orthodoxy in higher education.
It took Wolfson little time to confirm our worst expectations. He issued a statement denouncing the Trump and GOP victories as “disappointing,” dismissing any possibility that he should speak for all academics, including the dwindling number of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and independents who voted for the GOP.
Before the election, Inside Higher Ed reported that Wolfson called JD Vance a “fascist.”
“While the results of this presidential election are disappointing, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our principles and ensuring that future generations of Americans are afforded the opportunity that higher education provides.’
“…The AAUP is committed to defending our campuses and the mission of higher education through organizing our communities to face the challenges ahead. Our collective power is needed now more than ever.”
Wolfson declared, “[t]here are massive political intrusions coming on, coming at us around academic freedom. There’s no way to be a neutral arbiter. We must stand for things in this environment.”
Kelly Benjamin, media relations officer for AAUP, also confirmed to Campus Reform that “the growth of repressive forces in American society, much of which is visible on the campus itself, is a source of continuing and acute alarm to the American Association of University Professors…We call on the academic community to resist all public & private assaults against this principle.”
It is all part of what Wolfson promised would be a “fighting organization” pursuing such activism in higher education.
As my book discusses, the AAUP was once the bastion of free speech and academic integrity values. It opposed the invasion of politics into higher education. However, it has become captured by the same forces that have converted our campuses into intolerant spaces for many faculty and students.
Wolfson has been widely criticized for AAUP’s decision to reverse its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts, which is viewed as targeting Israeli institutions. This move is clearly part of his strategy to make AAUP even more of a “fighting organization,” and he has insisted that “collective action of all sorts does not necessarily come into and undermine academic freedom.”
Wolfson’s election shows how the objections of so many to the lack of intellectual diversity and tolerance are having little impact on faculty. When elected officials threaten reductions in support, these same academics are outraged by the attacks on higher education. Many offer perfunctory commitments to intellectual diversity while doing little to achieve it. As shown here, they are continuing to maintain and expand the culture that is suffocating our educational programs on every level.
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how an enforced orthodoxy has replaced free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. As suggested in prior columns, the intolerance for opposing views will only increase after the election. Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) has already learned that lesson after suggesting the need for greater diversity of opinion in the party and the reconsideration of issues like transgender athletic policies. The response was fast and furious, including from a department head at Tufts University.
Many of us have been writing about that intolerance for years, but while belated, it is good to see a Democratic member acknowledging the problem. It took the loss of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the popular vote, but the belated recognition from long-silent Democrats is a welcomed sign.
After the election losses, Moulton told The New York Times that it was time for greater reflection within the party, including on the issue of transgender policies: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” He later added in a WBZ-TV interview that “this is an example of a contentious issue that we have to be willing to take on as a Democratic Party . . . we’re losing on issues like this.”
Democratic politicians and pundits immediately confirmed his criticism with a signature flash mob pile-on. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey denounced Moulton for “playing politics” with the lives of transgender citizens.
Former staffers and interns demanded the usual public confession and apology from a dissenter. One top aide resigned rather than work with Moulton. Steve Kerrigan, Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, expressed outrage and declared“these comments do not represent the broad view of our Party.” That broad view clearly does not include dissenting viewpoints.
This is clearly a debate that triggers intense feelings, including how it is discussed. The Tufts controversy follows a CNN contributor being chastised on air as a bigot and “transphobe” after he also raised objections on the issue by referring to “boys” playing girl sports. CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton rephrased his comments after the heated objections from other guests.
At Tufts University, the chair of the political science department, David Art, went with the “no soup for you” option for Moulton. Art declared that Moulton would be cut off from student internships in the future due to his statements. While refusing to confirm statements made about Moulton to the faculty, he reportedly told the Boston Globe that Tufts would not facilitate such internships, even if Moulton and the students wanted them.
Moulton struck out at Tufts, saying that the move is “frightening [and] sounds like China.” Once again, it would have been good if Moulton had shown a modicum of concern over the last decade as the mob was running professors out of universities or canceling events. However, allies are hard to find in the Democratic party.
I understand objections to how these athletes are referenced. Those objections can be made in the course of a discussion without leveling charges or sanctions against those with opposing views. Tufts eventually countermanded the policy of the political science department and wrote on X that “we have not–and will not–limit internship opportunities with his office.”
There was, however, one thing missing from the Tufts statement. There was no indication that Art or his department would face any repercussions or review for announcing a type of political litmus test for internships. It suggested that any members taking the same position would also be barred from internships. It was a direct attack on free speech and diversity of viewpoints, but the university simply responded by saying that there is “nothing to see here.”
While Professor Art clearly consulted with colleagues, it is not clear if conveying the views of his department in seeking to sanction Moulton. The assumption is that others in the department supported his position. It is a familiar pattern for those of us who have challenged this orthodoxy for years. Academics enforce a group-think culture that allows for little challenge or criticism.
That is only likely to increase after this election. There is no evidence any real effort to restore a diversity of viewpoints or tolerance on faculties. The mistake made at Tufts was to be so open about it. However, that only demonstrates the level of anger within academia at the results of the election.
The academy can then return to its previous lock-stepped orthodoxy. Indeed, the Tufts Political Science Department was spotted this week heading to another faculty meeting:
Below is my column on Fox.com on the expanding boycott of the Washington Post by Democratic politicians, pundits, and members of the press. The reason? Because owner Jeff Bezos wants to stay politically neutral and leave the matter to the public. In an age of advocacy journalism, the return to neutrality is intolerable. The reaction is itself revealing. In a heated meeting this week at the Post, writers were apoplectic with attacks on Bezos and alarm over the very notion of remaining neutral in an election. One declared to the group: “One thing that can’t happen in this country is for Trump to get another four years.” The immediate and reflexive call of the left for boycotts and canceling campaigns is all too familiar to many of us. The question is whether the targeting of Bezos could backfire in creating a major ally for the restoration of American journalism.
Here is the slightly altered column:
It is not every day that you go from being Obi-Wan Kenobi to Sheev Palpatine in twenty-four hours. However, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos now has the distinction of having Luke (Mark Hamill) lead a boycott of his “democracy dies in darkness” newspaper as the daily of the Darkside.
Then something fascinating happened. Bezos stood his ground.
The left has made an art form of flash-mob politics, crushing opposition with the threat of economic or professional ruin. Most cave to the pressure, including business leaders like Meta’s Mark Zuckerburg. That record came to a screeching halt when the unstoppable force of the left met the immovable object of Elon Musk. The left continues to oppose his government contracts and pressure his advertisers over his refusal to restore the prior censorship system at X, formerly Twitter.
Now, the left may be creating another defiant billionaire. This week, Bezos penned an op-ed that doubled down on his decision not to endorse a presidential candidate now or in the future. Some of us have argued for newpapers to stop all political endorsements for decades. The encouraging aspect of Bezos’s column was that he not only recognized the corrosive effect of endorsements on maintaining neutrality as a media organization, but he also recognized that the Post is facing plummeting revenues and readership due to its perceived bias and activism.
I used to write regularly for the Post, and I wrote in my new book about the decline of the newspaper as part of the “advocacy journalism” movement. As Bezos wrote, “Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.”
Bezos previously brought in a publisher to save the Post from itself. Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis promptly delivered a truth bomb in the middle of the newsroom by telling the staff, “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right? I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
The response was that the entire staff seemed to go into vapors, and many called for Lewis to be canned. Bezos stood with Lewis.
Now, resignations and recriminations are coming from reporters and columnists alike. In a public statement, Post columnists blasted the decision and said that while maybe endorsements should be ended, not now because everyone has to oppose Trump to save democracy and journalism. The statement produced some chuckles, given the signatories, including Phillip Bump and Jen Rubin, who have been repeatedly accused of pushing false stories and reckless rhetoric. (Rubin later denounced Bezos for his “Bulls**t explanation” and said that he was merely “bending a knee” to Trump.).
Bezos could do for the media what Musk did for free speech. He could create a bulwark against advocacy journalism in one of the premier newspapers in the world. Students in “J Schools” today are being told to abandon neutrality and objectivity since, as former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has explained, “all journalism is activism.”
After a series of interviews with over 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Few can stand up to this movement other than a Bezos or a Musk. However, the left has long created their own monsters by demanding absolute fealty or unleashing absolute cancel campaigns. Simply because Bezos wants his newspaper to restore neutrality, the left is calling for a boycott of not just the Post but all of his companies. That is precisely what they did with Musk.
A Bezos/Musk alliance would be truly a thing to behold. They could give the push for the restoration of free speech and the free press a real chance to create a beachhead to regain the ground that we have lost in the last two decades. The left will accept nothing short of total capitulation and Bezos does not appear willing to pay that price. Instead, he could not just save the Post but American journalism from itself.
If so, all I can say is: Welcome to the fight, Mr. Bezos.
Recently, I spoke at an event about my book, “The Indispensable Right,” at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Appearing on the panel with me was a New York University professor and one of the Facebook board members directing “content moderation.” We had a sharp disagreement over the record of Meta/Facebook on censorship, which I described as partisan and anti-free speech. Now, Congress has released the internal communications at Facebook, showing an express effort to appease Biden officials by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election.
In a new report released by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government, Facebook executives are shown following the lead of the FBI, which gave them prior warnings to prepare to spike such stories before the election. The FBI knew that the laptop was authentic. They had possession of the laptop, and American intelligence concluded that it was not Russian disinformation.
One Microsoft employee wrote, “FBI tipped us all off last week that this Burisma story was likely to emerge,”
However, these communications also show a knowing effort to appease Biden and Harris and effectively assist them in their election efforts. Facebook’s then-Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg reportedly wrote to Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan, “[o]bviously, our calls on this could colour the way an incoming Biden administration views us more than almost anything else.”
One of the most interesting communications came from a Facebook employee who recognized that they would be accused of seeking to influence the election: “When we get hauled up to [Capitol] [H]ill to testify on why we influenced the 2020 elections, we can say we have been meeting for YEARS with USG [the U.S. government] to plan for it.”
The Facebook files go beyond influencing the election. At one point, Nick Clegg, the company’s president of global affairs, asked, “Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made.” The Vice President in charge of content policy responded, “We were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. We shouldn’t have done it.”
Notably, Democrats opposed every effort to seek this information, and Facebook only recently relented in turning over its files years after Elon Musk ordered the release of the “Twitter files.” I raised this issue during the NCC event to counter the glowing self-appraisal of Meta over its record. Despite its claims of transparency, it refused calls from many of us for years to release these files. When finally forced by the House to do so, CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a perfunctory apology and moved on. As shown at the NCC event, it is now spinning its record as a defense of free speech.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the prestigious award given to Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya last week and what it has to say about those who censored, blacklisted, and vilified him for the last four years. In celebrating his fight for “intellectual freedom,” the National Academy effectively condemned those who joined the mob against him as well as the many professors who stayed silent as he and others were targeted.
Here is the column:
Few in the media seemed eager to attend a ceremony last week in Washington, D.C., where the prestigious American Academy of Sciences and Letters was awarding its top intellectual freedom award. The problem may have been the recipient: Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
Bhattacharya has spent years being vilified by the media over his dissenting views on the pandemic. As one of the signatories of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, he was canceled, censored, and even received death threats.
That open letter called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.
All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.
It did not matter those positions once denounced as “conspiracy theories” have been recognized or embraced by many. Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.
Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media also further ostracized dissenting critics.
Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.
I spoke at the University of Chicago with Bhattacharya and other dissenting scientists in the front row a couple of years ago. After the event, I asked them how many had been welcomed back to their faculties or associations since the recognition of some of their positions. They all said that they were still treated as pariahs for challenging the groupthink culture.
Now the scientific community is recognizing the courage shown by Bhattacharya and others with its annual Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom.
So, what about all of those in government, academia, and the media who spent years hounding these scientists?
Biden Administration officials and Democratic members targeted Bhattacharya and demanded his censorship. For example, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) attacked Bhattacharya and others who challenged the official narrative during the pandemic. Krishnamoorthi expressed outrage that the scientists were even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”
Journalists and columnists also supported the censorship and blacklisting of these scientists. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik decried how “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford allowed these scientists to speak at a scientific forum. He was outraged that, while “Bhattacharya’s name doesn’t appear in the event announcement,” he was an event organizer. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”
Then there are those lionized censors at Twitter who shadow-banned Bhattacharya. As former CEO Parag Agrawal generally explained, the “focus [was] less on thinking about free speech … [but[ who can be heard.”
None of this means that Bhattacharya or others were right in all of their views. Instead, many of the most influential voices in the media, government, and academia worked to prevent this discussion from occurring when it was most needed.
There is still a debate over Bhattacharya’s “herd immunity” theories, but there is little debate over the herd mentality used to cancel him.
The Academy was right to honor Bhattacharya. It is equally right to condemn all those who sought to silence a scientist who is now being praised for resisting their campaign to silence him and others.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right, I explore how vandalism and aggressive campus protests should not be treated as free speech but as proscribed conduct. College Fix has another example of this distinction today when a person trashed a Turning Point table on the campus of UC Berkeley.
The posting shows a possible student pouring tomato juice over the group’s fliers and posters. The display promoted an event with Chloe Cole and Harrison Tinsley, who are critics of gender transitioning. The activist responds to objections from the volunteers by saying “Are you worried I’m going to stain your f**king signs as you lie to people, aw so sorry. I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes. Enjoy getting this stain out.”
Likewise, anti-Israeli protesters at the University of Minnesota occupied and reportedly trashed a university building. None of these acts are protected as free speech. They are conduct that violate either university rules or criminal law or both. Much like shouting down speakers, these are actions that silence others or damage property. Trashing displays or silencing others is the antithesis of free speech. Yet, universities often fail to take meaningful action against such actors.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students. She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students. Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
What is most striking about this video is the license that the activist claims in trashing the display in stating “I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes.” The notion is that, if you tell people with opposing views that they are wrong, you are then justified to take violent action. It is the license of rage and this video shows how many today do not like to admit that they like the rage. It is addictive. It gives you this sense of license to say and do things that you would not ordinarily say or do.
This activist has every right to protest this event at Berkeley. However, trashing a display is a criminal act that should be punished by the university if this is a student. It should also be pursued by police to deter such conduct in the future. Free speech is enhanced, not curtailed, when such conduct is barred on our campuses.
Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania has been struggling for years with falling revenue and difficulty attracting applications. It has had to reduce faculty and even shutdown a historic journal to stay afloat. Students have raised the alarm of how their institution is “slowly inching toward a financial precipice.” In the midst of this crisis, the college is now facing a new controversy after its admissions counselor and representative for Long Island and New York City went on a tirade against any supporters of former President Donald Trump as “pieces of s**t.”
Lupe Lazaro previously featured on the college website as a “first-generation student” who came to Gettysburg and was wowed by being able to see stars: “it was the first time I’d ever seen the stars. I love the stars, but I live in New York City. On my bus ride home, I applied Early Decision immediately because I knew [seeing the stars] was my sign.” That feature appears to have been removed from the website but can be seen here at another site.
If the claim seemed a bit hyperbolic, it was downright restrained given her recent tirade on Instagram. Lazaro notes that “[n]ot all Trump supporters are xenophobic. But they all decided that xenophobia wasn’t a deal breaker.” She added that “homophobia . . . misogyny . . . rape . . . [and] overthrow[ing] democracy” are also not “deal breaker[s].” According to the conservative site Campus Reform, she accused Trump supporters of having little problem with “misogyny,” “rape,” “homophobia,” “xenophobia,” attempting to overthrow democracy or trying to “lynch the vice president.”
She declared that “You are no different than the piece of s**t human you stand behind.”
Pennsylvania is famously divided right down the middle between Trump and Harris supporters. Long Island also has some of the highest numbers of supporters for Trump in New York. It is difficult to see how some applicants would feel that they had a fair chance with the college if they are openly supporters of the former president.
The fact is Lazaro is just a counselor, and her views should not be ascribed to the college. Moreover, I have long supported the right of academics to speak on social media and outside of their institutions, even when they espouse hateful views.
I just finished a debate at Harvard over that school’s lack of diversity among the faculty and the maintenance of an academic echo chamber. The vast majority of faculty today run from the left to the far left.
The difference is that Lazaro is the face of the college for new applicants and the snarling social media posts send a message of intolerance at the college. If you are one of those little Trump-supporting “pieces of s**t,” the controversy may lead you to think twice about applying.
I am still opposed to sanctions for students and faculty generally for social media postings expressing their political views. Lazaro is a representative of the college and has added obligations as part of that public role outside of the university.
As a recruiter, the college can ask for Lazaro to avoid public comments that denigrate or abuse groups of applicants. It can also issue a statement that these views are not those of the institution. However, it does not appear that Lazaro’s comments specifically referred to students or applicants and she should be allowed to be actively and vocally involved in this election.
It is admittedly a tough line to walk as an administrator, but labeling all Trump supporters as democracy-killing, rape-supporting, women-hating people is not exactly conducive toward drawing more applicants to the struggling school. It does not help an already tarnished image for the school. Gettysburg College ranked a dismal 217th on the annual ranking of colleges and universities on free speech. The school is already viewed as intolerant of opposing viewpoints by many and this does not help. Yet, it will have to establish a clear guideline on how public comments are addressed on social media for admissions personnel.
As I discuss in my book, The Indispensable Right, the trust of higher education is at an all-time low. Academics are destroying our institutions with a culture of viewpoint intolerance and orthodoxy.
Gettysburg College is an old and revered institution. It is now struggling like many to maintain its faculty and programs. Administrators seem willing to do most anything but restore free speech and intellectual diversity as part of the appeal to new students.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent interview of Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz defending his record on free speech. The interview with Fox host Shannon Bream only magnified concerns over what I previously described as the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries.
Here is the column:
Roughly five centuries ago, a new dance first reported in Augsburg, Germany was promptly dubbed the “waltz” after the German term for “to roll or revolve.” Today, there is no nimbler performer of that dizzying dance than Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz.
Indeed, “Walzing” has become the Minnesota governor’s signature political two-step after his controversial statements on his allegedly socialist views, eliminating the electoral college and other topics. On Sunday, Walz’s dance partner was Fox News host Shannon Bream, who seemed to be fighting vertigo as the candidate tried to deflect his shocking prior statements on free speech.
Bream asked Walz about his prior declaration that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”— a statement that runs counter to decades of Supreme Court decisions. Walz notably did not deny or retract his statement. Instead, his interview ironically became itself a flagrant example of misinformation.
First of all, misinformation and hate speech are not exceptions to the First Amendment: Whether it is the cross burnings of infamous figures like KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg or the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., hate speech is protected. Yet both Harris and Walz are true believers in the righteousness of censorship for disinformation, misinformation and malinformation.
The Biden administration defines misinformation as “false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm” — meaning it would subject you to censorship even if you are not intending harm. It defines malinformation as “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” So, you can post “true facts,” but would still be subject to censorship if you are viewed as misleading others with your pesky truth-telling.
Furthermore, “book bans” are not equivalent to the Harris-Walz censorship policies. After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting, Democrats are attempting to deflect questions by claiming that the GOP is the greater threat.
“We’re seeing censorship coming in the form of book banning’s in different places,” Walz told Bream. “We’re seeing attempts in schools.”
First, a reality check: The Biden-Harris administration has helped fund and actively support the largest censorship system in our history, a system described by one federal court as “Orwellian.” These are actual and unrelenting efforts to target individuals and groups for opposing views on subjects ranging from gender identity to climate change to COVID to election fraud. While Walz and others rarely specifically reference the book bans in question, Florida is one state whose laws concern age limits on access to graphic or sexual material in schools.
School districts have always been given wide latitude in making such decisions on curriculum or library policies. Indeed, while rarely mentioned by the media, the left has demanded the banning or alteration of a number of classic books, including “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Of Mice and Men,” under diversity or equity rationales.
I have long opposed actual book bans perpetrated by both the left and the right. However, school districts have always made such access and curriculum decisions.
Finally, Walz and others often sell censorship by citing the dangers of child pornography or of threats made against individuals. Walz on Sunday followed Hillary Clinton’s recent pro-censorship campaign as he employed such misdirection.
“The issue on this was the hate speech and the protected hate speech — speech that’s aimed at creating violence, speech that’s aimed at threats to individuals,” he claimed. “That’s what we’re talking about in this.”
First, he’d said there is no protected hate speech. Second, the law already provides ample protections against threats toward individuals. What’s most striking is that, after years of unapologetically embracing censorship (often under the Orwellian term “content moderation”), the left does not seem to want to discuss it in this election.
Democrats in Congress opposed every major effort to investigate the role of the Biden administration in the social-media censorship system it constructed. Many denied any such connection. Elon Musk ended much of that debate with the release of the Twitter Files showing thousands of emails from the administration targeting individuals and groups with opposing views.
Now the public is being asked to vote for the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries — but neither Harris nor Walz want to talk about it in any detail. The result may be the largest bait-and-switch in history. Walz, Clinton and others also falsely claim they are simply trying to stop things like child pornography — which is already covered by existing criminal laws.
But what many on the left want is to regain what Clinton called their loss of “control” over what we are allowed to say or hear on social media.
Make no mistake about it: The “Walzing” of free speech is one dance you would be wise to decline. Otherwise, do not be surprised if, when the music stops, you find yourself without both your partner and your free speech.
Maricopa County Recorder Steven Richer turned to the left-leaning States United Democracy Center and an overseas group bankrolled by the State Department to help his office target election speech that’s disapproved of by the government, according to emails obtained by The Federalist.
Richer thanked States United for offering to let his office “piggyback” on the group’s anti-speech operations, which he described as “deep scanning” the internet for “disinformation,” a term often invoked to censor speech the government disagrees with. States United is a left-wing election law group that consistently opposes Republican election integrity legislation like voter ID laws and supports Democrat attempts to diminish election security, according to InfluenceWatch. The group has praised the weaponization of the justice system against Trump, and was described by The New York Times as part of a “coalition” preparing to “push back” against a potential Trump victory with “extraordinary pre-emptive actions.”
According to email records, States United set up a call with Richer’s staff and the global censorship group, Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). ISD is a London group that has been accused of wrongly labeling “mainstream views” as “misinformation” and subsequently censoring conservative opinions online, according to InfluenceWatch. The group was the recipient of a 2021 grant sponsored by the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which “fund[s] the development of censorship tools,” as The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland has reported. The ISD works with governments, leftist 501(c)(3) groups, and Big Tech companies as well as some of the left’sbiggestfinancialbackers.
Richer later suggested Arizona State University officials should fire Faculty Associate Aaron Ludwig for retweeting election concerns, apparently looping States United in on the process.
Briefings by Professional Censorship Gurus
“Thanks very much to States United for the kind offer to let us piggyback on some of the deep scanning you’re contracting for election threats and disinformation,” Richer emailed then-States United Senior Counsel Bo Dul on June 17, 2022. Richer indicated his office and “some … partners at the county” do some of this work already, but that he would “love to fill any holes” with the offer from States United.
A few minutes later, Dul told Richer that the States United senior adviser “leading our disinfo work,”Caroline Chambers, would be “circl[ing] up with our partners at ISD and your team to set up a call soon.” Before working for States United, Dul was the senior elections policy adviser and general counsel in the Arizona secretary of state’s office under Democrat Katie Hobbs. Now she’s again working as general counsel for Hobbs, who became governor of Arizona last year.
Chambers sent an email to Dul on June 21 and copied Richer, indicating she wanted to “set up a briefing.” On June 23, a States United staffer emailed Chambers, Dul, and other recipients a link to a Zoom meeting with the subject line “Maricopa County Recorder’s Office x SUDC x ISD Briefing.” The meeting was scheduled for June 28.
A “management analyst and special assistant to the Maricopa County Recorder” emailed staff on June 27, reminding them about the briefing the next morning.
The assistant pointed recipients to “background information on the Electoral Disinformation work the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) performs,” linking to an ISD webpage on “electoral disinformation.” The page boasts about ISD working with States United ahead of the 2022 midterms to “detect, analyze and escalate threats” like “election denialist activity,” and links to news clips of ISD representatives celebrating efforts to pressure Big Tech into censoring more speech.
The June 27, 2022, email from the “special assistant” indicated Richer was traveling at the time of the briefing and may or may not have attended the call but wanted his staff to “go ahead” and attend either way. Asked how long the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office has collaborated with States United and ISD and whether they are currently working with those groups, a representative from Richer’s office told The Federalist the recorder has “worked with numerous entities” over “the last several years.”
“We have received information from States United Democracy Center regarding election worker safety and, as we do with all new information, taken it into consideration,” the representative said, before listing ways the office has made itself “widely available to the public.”
Attempt to Cancel a Professor for Retweeting Election Post
Just the next month, Richer emailed Arizona State University officials to suggest they fire Criminology and Criminal Justice Faculty Associate Aaron Ludwig for his online speech. Richer was upset because Ludwig had retweeted election concerns.
“He is a regular purveyor of election disinformation and misinformation,” Richer wrote on July 31, linking to Ludwig’s account on Twitter (now X). “I ask that you assess if he is fit to be part of the ASU faculty.”
Richer claimed Ludwig was “promoting messages that encourage harassment of and violence toward” two Maricopa County Elections Department employees. The recorder included several screenshots of tweets Ludwig reposted, including one that accused the employees of improperly using a security badge and deleting election files and another that was critical of Richer himself.
“The allegations are, of course, errant nonsense that only imbecilic troglodytes could possibly believe after five minutes of research,” Richer spewed in the email, referencing the retweet.
An ASU dean, Cynthia Lietz, sent an email to Richer the same day with the subject line “RE: Aaron Ludwig.”
“Thank you for this important information, we will look into this,” she wrote.
Dul, the States United operative, also emailed Richer and his staff the next day with the subject line “Re: Aaron Ludwig.” The entire body of the email was redacted when released to The Federalist.
Months passed, but Richer wouldn’t let Ludwig’s speech go. He followed up with Lietz on Feb. 6, 2023, in the same email thread.
“Did anything ever come of this?” he asked.
“Yes, we did address this,” Lietz wrote in an email the next day.
Ludwig told The Federalist his supervisors never discussed the matter with him, but he first heard about the situation in April when acquaintances found the interchange in a public records request. He said he thinks Richer’s actions violate the First Amendment.
“The government should not be allowed, and I believe, is not allowed pursuant to the First Amendment, to censor free speech unless it is those few things that can” constitutionally be regulated, he said.
Ludwig was chief of the racketeering and asset forfeiture section at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office from 2011 to 2014, and a special prosecutor for the office until 2015, according to his LinkedIn.
“I led Arizona’s charge against organized crime and the southern border, the transnational criminal organizations including all the drug cartels,” he told The Federalist. “For somebody to attack my background and credentials and professionalism and integrity, and accuse me of being some filthy liar or anything is so offensive. It’s destructive to my reputation. I believe it’s defamatory per se.”
Called Free Speech a ‘Thorn in the Side of My Office’
Richer recently lost the Republican primary for county recorder. He initially campaigned on election integrity, but once in office, he used “his perch as an opportunity to regularly defend the Democrat-run 2020 election in Maricopa County, write op-eds at CNN against the type of election audits he conducted to gain power, draft lengthy screeds lambasting Republican leaders and voters for their election integrity concerns, and push ranked-choice voting and other efforts critics say are disastrous for voter confidence in elections,” as the Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway previously reported.
“The Constitution today is in some ways a thorn in the side of my office. Specifically the First Amendment,” the recorder allegedly wrote in a draft speech, according to Just the News. The outlet also obtained a document with instructions on “banning a user on social media,” which the county reportedly told Just the News was “a draft document of ideas that were brought up in a meeting but never implemented.” Richer has also worked with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — the federal government’s censorship“nerve center” — in his war on unapproved speech.
Richer, who has become a corporate mediadarling for criticizing the election integrity concerns of his former supporters, has also attracted the attention of Democrat megadonor Reid Hoffman. During Richer’s unsuccessful primary bid, Hoffman helped fund mailers backing the recorder, as The Federalist previously reported.
Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.
Hillary Clinton is continuing her global efforts to get countries, including the United States, to crackdown on opposing views. Clinton went on CNN to lament the continued resistance to censorship and to call upon Congress to limit free speech. In pushing her latest book, “Something Lost and Something Gained,” Clinton amplified on her warnings about the dangers of free speech. What is clear is that the gain of greater power for leaders like Clinton would be the loss of free speech for ordinary citizens.
Clinton heralded the growing anti-free speech movement and noted that “there are people who are championing it, but it’s been a long and difficult road to getting anything done.” She is right, of course. As I discuss in my book, the challenge for anti-free speech champions like Clinton is that it is not easy to convince a free people to give up their freedom. That is why figures like Clinton are going “old school” and turning to government or corporations to simply crackdown on citizens. One of the lowest moments came after Elon Musk bought Twitter on a pledge to restore free speech protections, Clinton called upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). This is a former democratic presidential nominee calling upon Europeans to force the censorship of Americans.
She was joined recently by another former democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, who called for government crackdowns on free speech. Other democrats have praised Brazil for banning X. For her part, Clinton praised the anti-free speech efforts in California and New York and called for the rest of the country to replicate the approach of those states.
Clinton added a particularly illuminating line that said the quiet part out loud. This is all about power and the fear that she and others will “lose control” over speech:
“Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects it’s real harm, it’s child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.”
Clinton continues to offer a textbook example of the anti-free speech narrative. While seeking sweeping censorship for anything deemed disinformation, Clinton cites specific examples that are already barred under federal law like child porn.
Despite the amplified message on sites like CNN, most citizens may not be as aggrieved as Clinton that she and her allies could “lose total control” over the Internet. The greater fear is that she and her allies could regain control of social media. The Internet is the single greatest invention for free speech since the printing press. That is precisely why figures like Clinton are panicked over the inability to control it.
If citizens remain true to their values and this indispensable right, Clinton will hopefully continue to face “a long and difficult road to getting anything done” in limiting the free speech of her fellow citizens.
Below is my column in USA Today on the most chilling moment from the Vance-Walz debate when the Democratic nominee showed why he is part of the dream ticket for the anti-free speech movement.
Here is the column:
In the vice-presidential debate Tuesday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pulled the fire alarm. His opponent, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, cited the massive system of censorship supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate. Walz proceeded to quote the line from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said you do not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the favorite mantra of the anti-free speech movement. It also is fundamentally wrong.
‘Fire in a theater’ case supported government censorship
As I discuss in the book, the line was largely lifted from a brief in an earlier free speech case. It has since become the rationale for politicians and pundits seeking to curtail free speech in America.
For example, when I testified last year before Congress against a censorship system that has been described by one federal court as “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., interjected with the fire-in-a-theater question to say such censorship is needed and constitutional. In other words, the internet is now a huge, crowded theater and those with opposing views are shouting fire.
Goldman and Walz both cited a case in which socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Their “crime” was to pass out flyers in opposition to the military draft during World War I. Schenck and Baer called on their fellow citizens not to “submit to intimidation” and to “assert your rights.” They argued, “If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.” They also described the military draft as “involuntary servitude.”
In the vice-presidential debate, Walz showed that he and other Democratic leaders most certainly do need a class in First Amendment law. As I have said, the Biden-Harris administration has proved to be the most anti-free speech administration in two centuries. You have to go back to John Adams’ administration to find the equal of this administration.
Harris has been an outspoken champion of censorship in an administration that supports targeting disinformation, misinformation and “malinformation.” That last category was defined by the Biden administration as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
In the debate, Walz also returned to his favorite dismissal of censorship objections by saying that it is all just inflammatory rhetoric. Recently, Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” That is entirely untrue and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the right called “indispensable” by the Supreme Court. Even after some of us condemned his claim as ironically dangerous disinformation, Walz continues to repeat it.
Free speech advocates view Harris as a threat
This is why, for the free speech community, the prospect of a Harris-Walz administration is chilling. Where President Joe Biden was viewed as supporting censorship out of political opportunism, Harris and Walz are viewed as true believers.
We are living through the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in American history. We have never before faced the current alliance of government, corporate, academic and media forces aligned against free speech. A Harris-Walz administration with a supportive Congress could make this right entirely dispensable.
Others are laying the groundwork for precisely that moment. University of Michigan Law School professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has said that free speech “can also be our Achilles’ heel.”
Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, wrote a New York Times op-ed with the headline, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control.” He told readers that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”
Walz said in the debate that Vice President Harris is promoting the “politics of joy.” Indeed, the wrong people are perfectly ecstatic. Harris and Walz are the dream team for the anti-free speech movement.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
.jpg)
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.