The large โNo Kingsโ 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 โfirebombโ ICE facilities and personnel. In another scene, children were encouraged to beat a Trump piรฑata. 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 wasย shown on videoย 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, hadย to shut down its website and social media presence.
Martinezโs 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, whoย screamedย to a crowd that โICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.โ Bernal told the crowd, โYou gotta grab a gun!โ and โWe gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system!โ
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 โto the slaughterhouseโ for questioning DEI policies is considering protected speech.
However, the specificity of Bernalโs call to violence could trigger repercussions for him.ย 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.
Bernalโs 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 โimminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.โ
In this case, there was no violence despite Bernalโs apparent inclinations. There was no evidence of โimminent lawless action.โ 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.
Jimmy Kimmel is back on television by less than popular demand. Kimmelโs ratings areย hardly robustย (Kimmel pulls in 1.85 million in comparison to Gutfeld! at 3.2 million). Still,ย his suspension for spreading disinformationย about the killer of Charlie Kirk became a cause celebre on the left. Kimmel continues to air nightly screeds against Trump and conservatives. Of course, he is hardly unique in appealing to an echo-chambered audience. However, this week Kimmel showed children being read Eric Trumpโs book by a drag queen. What was most disturbing was not the use of the children to echo talking points on how great drag queens are but showing them throwing Trumpโs book into a woodchipper. It appears that nothing is funnier for the modern left than a good book burning or chipping.
Trixie Mattelย led the โDrag Queen Storytimeโ with a group of kids in the satiric treatment of Trumpโs book. Mattel asked the kids questions likeย โDo I scare any of you?โ eliciting a response: โYou just look amazing. Why would that be scary?โ
The children are given choices to read like Collectible Spoons of the Third Reich.
It may be the most bizarre element of the skit, even bordering on the ironically humorous. After all, Mattel was portraying the Trump Administration as Nazis but was about to show the children how to destroy books that have views that they do not like. That may not bring back memories of collectible Nazi spoons, but it does bring back memories of Nazi book burning.
The audience delights as one child says that she would โkickโ Donald Trump โin theโฆโ before the show bleeped out the rest of her response.
Mattel then shows the kids how to โmake excellent confettiโ out of a book that they do not like with aย giant wood chipperย outside of the studio. It is the type of comedic styling that would have had Joseph Goebbels rolling on the ground laughing.
For the free-speech community, there are few more disgraceful images as the burning or destruction of books because you do not agree with the authorโs viewpoints. To see children participating in such an exercise is even more troubling. It is easy to dismiss this as simply another bizarre skit on a show struggling for ratings. However, some of us have been raising concerns for years about the embrace of the American left inย effectiveย (orย even actual) book burning.ย Some on the rightย have also embraced book burning.
Cancel campaigns of conservative speakers were not enough for many on the left. They haveย pressured companies not to publish books by conservatives,ย includingย figures like Justice Amy Coney Barrett.ย It is far easier (and environmentally sound) to ban opposing books than to physically burn them. However, the sentiment is the same. Rather than responding to those who oppose you, you fight to silence them and prevent others from reading them.
That is why the image of children happily tossing books into a woodchipper is so disturbing for many in the free speech community. This is not just satire but reality as many push to destroy books with opposing views. None of this means that there is any crime in this comedic sketch. Even book burning is protected speech. Yet, the humor is missed by many of us who have been objecting to the rise of a new generation of self-righteous book burners in America.
Recently, I wrote a column about Metaโs 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):
โReflecting the Companyโs 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.โ
This is another major victory for free speech. Google specifically acknowledged past political censorship and stated that it โvalues conservative voices on its platform.โ
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 โunacceptable and wrongโ 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 Muskโs 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 โdisinformationโ were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In myย 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.
Below is my column in the Hill on the murder of Charlie Kirk, the latest victim of our age of rage. The evidence of Antifa scribblings and indoctrination of the shooter came as no surprise. For months, some of us have been warning Democratic leaders about their dangerous rhetoric and how it would be received by the most radical elements in the Antifa movement.
Here is the column:
โProve me wrong.โ
For years, that tagline of Charlie Kirk and his group, Turning Point USA, enraged many on the left. In โan age of rage,โ nothing is more triggering for the perpetually angry than an invitation to debate issues.
Indeed, someone has now killed him for it.
What is most chilling about the assassination is that it was not in the slightest degree surprising. This follows two attempted assassinations of President Trump and the killing of a pair of Minnesota politicians.
I heard of the assassination in Prague as I prepared to speak about the age of rage and the growing attacks on free speech. I was profoundly saddened by the news. I knew Charlie and respected his effort to challenge the orthodoxy on college campuses. We all have received regular death threats (and Charlie more than most), but there is still a hope that even the most deranged will leave these threats at the ideation rather than the action stage.This killer left Charlieโs wife, Erika, and her two young children as the latest victims of senseless violence against someone who refused to be silenced.
We do not have to know much about the shooter to recognize the rage. The person who killed Charlie did not view him as a father or even as a person. That is the transformative, enabling effect of rage.
In my book, โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,โI write about rage and the uncomfortable truth for many engaging in rage rhetoric: โWhat few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts, flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. โฆ Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.โ
Charlie was brave, and he was brash. He refused to yield to the threats while encouraging others to speak out on our campuses.
He was particularly hated for holding a mirror to the face of higher education, exposing the hate and hypocrisy on our campuses. For decades, faculty have purged their ranks of conservatives and libertarians. Faced with the intolerance of most schools, polls show that a large percentage of students hide their values to avoid retaliation from faculty or their fellow students.
Charlie chose to change all that. TPUSA challenges people to engage and debate them. The response from some on the left has been to trash their tables and threaten the students. Recently, at UC Davis, police stood by and watched as a TPUSA tent was torn apart.
Charlie is only the latest such victim, and he is unlikely to be the last.
For months, some of us have warned about the rise in rage rhetoric. Some believe that they can ride a wave of rage back into power. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture of himself brandishing a baseball bat.
Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) declared, โIโm going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.โ
Various radical groups welcome such rage rhetoric, particularly Antifa. The most violent anti-free speech group in the U.S., Antifa has long attacked journalists and others with opposing views. In his โAntifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,โProfessor Mark Bray noted that โmost Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists. โฆ From that standpoint, โfree speechโ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.โ
Alleged shooter Tyler Robinson, 22, reportedly left telltale Antifa markings on evidence, including marking bullets inscribed with the lyrics: โBella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Ciao, Ciaoโ(from an Italian anti-fascist anthem) and โHey, fascist! Catch!โ
I previously testified in Congress about the dangers of Antifa, and I discuss the group in my book. Despite such warnings, Democratic leaders have dismissed those dangers or actually embraced Antifa.
Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison (D), now Minnesotaโs attorney general, previously celebrated how Antifa would โstrike fear in the heartโ of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group, including onesies for โAntifa babies.โ
Some politicians have privately expressed alarm at the rising violent speech in their ranks. One Democratic member told Axios, โSome of [our supporters] have suggested โฆ what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.โ
Just before he was shot at Utah Valley University, Kirk rallied the group with its signature chant of โprove me wrong.โ Someone responded by killing him.
Of course, the murder proved nothing except that senseless hate is sweeping over our country. Someone preferred to kill Kirk rather than engage with him or others who held opposing views.
It is precisely the lack of debate and dialogue that has triggered this type of violence. For those dwelling deep in the hardened silos of our news and social media, dissenting voices become increasingly intolerable.
Charlie is still exposing that hypocrisy. As I prepared to address Charlieโs murder in Prague, anti-free speech groups were already using his murder to justify even greater limits on free speech to combat hate and disinformation. This is the ultimate dishonoring of his life and his legacy. Charlie died in the fight for free speech, challenging speech codes and censorship.
Greater censorship will not make political violence less likely; it will only make the likelihood of another Charlie Kirk less likely. Europe shows that extremists flourish under speech controls. The neo-Nazis are having a banner year in portraying themselves as victims.
It is the rest of us that are deterred by speech codes. According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.
Charlie was hated because he exposed the leftโs intolerance of opposing views โฆ all in the purported cause of achieving greater tolerance. By challenging others to debate, he triggered a generation of speech-phobics who are more interested in silencing others than speaking on their own account.
Charlie was hated for stripping away the pretense and self-delusion of those canceling, blacklisting, and attacking others for holding opposing views. He did so by standing in harmโs way.
The conservatives that Kirk coaxed out of the shadows can honor his memory by showing that they will not be silenced. They can step forward and renew his same challenge: โProve me wrong.โ
Below is my column that ran earlier on Fox.com on the calls for the termination of academics and others who have criticized Charlie Kirk or expressed satisfaction with his murder. Unfortunately, such hateful remarks are nothing new in academia. However, this is not about them. It is about us, and more importantly, it is about Charlie and what he fought for his entire life. We cannot allow our anger or sorrow to lead us into becoming the very people that Charlie denounced in his life. If you โStand with Charlie,โ you stand with free speech.
Here is the column:
โStand with Charlie!โ That message spontaneously appeared throughout the world after the unspeakable violent attack by an extremist. No, it was not the response to the murder of Charlie Kirk this week. It was ten years ago with the killing of staff at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. World leaders, including the French, German, and Turkish presidents, joined a march for free speech despite their own speech crackdowns, including prior targeting of the magazine and the victims.
The chief editor, Stรฉphane Charbonnier, had refused to be silenced by the French government and declared, โI would rather die standing than live on my knees.โ He was the first person the gunmen asked for in their attack on the office, and he was one of the first to be killed.
At the time, I wrote about the breathtaking hypocrisy and noted that one of the few surviving editors of the magazine refused to join the march with those who relentlessly pursued them with criminal investigation. After the march, France, Germany, and other Western governments expanded their censorship laws and the prosecution of viewpoints deemed inflammatory or hateful.
In the ultimate dishonoring of the memory of the Charlie Hebdo staff, the French officials then proceeded to use their own murders to justify increasing prosecution of speech
The killing of Charlie Kirk in the United States ten years later is clearly different in one critical respect. There will be no โI am Charlieโ campaign on the left. Some on the left have celebrated the killing while others, mouthing regret, attacked Kirk and suggested that he brought this upon himself.
That is hardly a surprise. Kirk spent his tragically short life exposing the hypocrisy and intolerance of the left, particularly in higher education. They hated him for it. Universities and colleges have long been bastions of the left with the purging of most conservative or Republican faculty from most departments and the maintenance of an academic echo chamber in classrooms.
Kirk challenged all that. He drove many mad by inviting them to debate issues. The response was often violence, including the trashing of tables of his group, Turning Point USA. Ultimately, he was killed for insisting on being heard.
However, we are facing the same danger of self-consuming hypocrisy โ ten years after that other Charlie shooting. Some on the right are calling for people who denounce Kirk or celebrate his death to be fired. That ranges from professors to public employees.
I knew Charlie. While I cannot call myself a close friend, we spoke about the lack of free speech on our campuses and the efforts to cancel or fire those with opposing views. More than anyone today, Kirk brilliantly exposed that hypocrisy by putting himself and his group in harmโs way.
The way to honor Charlie Kirkโs life and legacy is not with hypocrisy and intolerance. That is what he died fighting against.
To fire people on campuses for speaking out against Charlie Kirk would make an utter mockery of his work and his death. It would be like banning LGBTQ groups in response to the assassination of Harvey Milk in 1978.
Charlie Kirk wanted unfettered debate. He wanted people to be able to express themselves regardless of how the majority felt about their views. He was the victim, not the advocate, of cancel campaigns.
There are instances where hateful views may raise grounds for termination. A secret service agent is under investigation after dismissing the assassination. Given the need to protect conservative as well as liberal figures (including those in the current administration), the bias in the postings can raise legitimate grounds for inquiry.
Likewise, those who use their official, academic, or corporate positions to espouse hateful messages risk termination.
However, many of these individuals were speaking as individuals outside of their positions, and their hateful commentary is not necessarily compromising or conflicting with their positions.
Hate speech in the United States is protected speech. The crackdown on speech deemed hateful, inflammatory, or intolerant has been the signature of the left, the very thing that Charlie campaigned against.
It is never easy to show restraint when you are angry or grieving. After all, many of those objecting to these cases today were silent or supported crackdowns on conservatives for years on and off campuses. They lack any self-awareness or shame in demanding protections that they rarely extend to others with opposing views. That is the value of an age of rage. It gives you license to silence and attack others for their views while insisting that you are the real victim.
However, we cannot become those we have long fought against in the free speech community. More importantly, we cannot become those whom Charlie fought against up to the very moment of his murder. We honor his legacy by protecting the thing that Charlie cherished the most. We need to โStand with Charlieโ and support free speech.
Former University of Arizona professor Daniel Grossenbach is suing the school over alleged retaliation over his views on gender policies in his childrenโs 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 childrenโs 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 โpolicies and practices of hiding minorsโ mental health information as a violation of fundamental parental rights.โ The impetus of the group wasย gender identity surveysย of students that allegedly led to lists of students who preferred different names and pronouns without notifying parents.
Grossenbachโs advocacy is clearly protected speech under the First Amendment. Grossenbach alleges that he was fired due to anonymous complaints accusing him of leading an โanti-gay hate group,โ engaging in anti-LBGTQ speech on social media, and spreading โmisinformation.โ 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 universityโs 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 Arizonaโs 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 Arizonaโs public records law.
The Vice Mayor of Cudahy, Cynthia Gonzalez, is reportedly being investigated by the FBI after she posted a video urging criminal organizations like the 18th Street and Florencia 13 gangs to protect their โturfโ against ICE. The call for gang action is disgraceful, particularly as ICE reports a 500 percent increase in attacks on its officers. However,ย ย I do not believe that the comments can be the basis for a criminal charge and would be considered protected speech.
Gonzalez has now taken down the video below, but she earlier called for these gangs to move against ICE:
โNot for nothing, but I wanna know where all the cholos are at in Los Angeles? Eighteenth street, Florencia, whereโs the leadership at? Because you guys are all about territory, and this is 18th Street and this is Florencia, you guys tag everything up โ claiming hood, and now that your hoods being invaded, by the biggest gang there is, there ainโt a peep out of youโฆItโs everyone else whoโs not about the gang life thatโs out there protesting and speaking up, weโre out there like fighting our turf, protecting our turf, protecting our people, and like where you at?โ
This is not the first time that Democratic politicians have enlisted violent groups as political allies.
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 โstrike fear in the heartโ of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellisonโs 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.
The problem with being a free speech advocate is that you are often compelled to defend speech that you find grotesque and reprehensible. Gonzalez would shake the faith of any free speech champion. However, her speech would be considered protected under the First Amendment. First, it is sufficiently vague on what she is suggesting to counter a charge of a call for imminent violence. Second, the Supreme Court held that even violent speech is protected.
Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving โviolent speech,โ the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in RAV v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it struck down a ban on any symbol that โarouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.โ In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
The video may not be criminal, but it is still an indictment of how some Democratic politicians continue to pander to violent groups for political purposes. It is a dangerous game. History has shown that those who fuel extreme groups often find themselves later targets as mob rule takes hold. Gonzalez may find that she is also unwelcomed on their โturf.โ
Below is my column in the Hill on resumption of the claims that โdemocracy is dyingโ as part of the โNo Kingsโ 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 Fatherโs 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. โNo Kingsโ 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 โNo Kings, No Kings, No Kings.โ The mantra is a calculated campaign to cement the notion thatย Donald Trumpย 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 โ 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 โ the kind of celebration that is common among our closest allies, from France to Great Britain.
Since this anniversary coincides with Trumpโs 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.ย Eric Swalwellย (D., Calif.) went so far as to declare, โIf we donโt show up, Democracy dies.โ
The Democrats seem to believe that the โdeath of democracyโ theme that failed spectacularly in the last election can now rescue their party from record-low polling. In Chicago, Mayor Brandon Johnson (who is atย 6 percent popularityย with his constituents) announced,ย โI am counting on all of Chicago to resist in this moment.โ
Even some judges appear to have picked up on the mantra. Before issuing his order to stop Trumpโs use of the National Guard in Los Angeles this week, District Court Judge Charles Breyer declared in open court that Trump was another โKing George.โ He then wrote an opinion that included in it many Democratic talking points โ 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.ย Gavin Newsomย (D) had Breyer at hello.
The โNo Kingsโ 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. โDemocracy is dyingโ may be an absurdity, but it is also their advocacy โ 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 โrage rhetoric.โ The images reinforce the โno holds barredโ message.
People watch unhinged members such asย Rep. LeMonica McIverย (D.-N.J.)ย hitting federal officers and forcing her way into federal facilities and the lessons are not lost on them. They see Rep.ย Maxine Watersย (R-Calif.), who has fueled the anger in prior riots, accusing California Guardsmen of coming to shoot people in Los Angeles and telling them, โYou better shoot straight.โ
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 videotapeย screaming about gun controlย in the Capitol as his colleagues left the floor following a vote. Various Democratic members, including former House Majority Whipย Steny Hoyerย (D-Md.), tried to calm Bowman. However, when Rep.ย Thomas Massieย (R-Ky.) asked Bowman to stop yelling, Bowman shouted back: โI was screaming before you interrupted me.โ
These politicians and pundits will not tolerate such interruptions this weekend. Whatever unfolds, itโs Trumpโs fault. There is a national rave planned, and the republic be damned.
Weย recently discussedย 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 โreligiously aggravated public order offence.โ Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist was arrested after burning a Qurโan.
Coskun wasย protestingย the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoฤan in Ankara over his embrace of radical Islamic principles. Exclaiming โf**k Islamโ and โIslam is religion of terrorism,โ he burned the Qurโan 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 โhighly provocativeโ and that they were โmotivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.โ Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom:
โAfter considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. Thatโs based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. Itโs 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.โ
Coskun later correctly condemned the decision as โan assault on free speechโ and added:
โChristian 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 Iโd set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.โ
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 โtoxic ideologyโ 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:
โI do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.โ
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
โ[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 othersโฆโ
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 โsummer of loveโ 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'โฆ 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. Todayโs far-right rally was held here for this very reason โ to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our cityโs values, in the heart of Seattleโs 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 โ 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 โ 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 beenย the โKeyser Sรถzeโ of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association.ย Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifaโs work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated, โAnd we have quite a numberโ โ and โAntifa is a real thing. Itโs not a fiction.โ
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 โstrike fear in the heartโ of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellisonโs son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During aย prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to denounce Antifa. Likewise, Joe Biden hasย dismissed objectionsย to Antifa as just โan idea.โ
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 โLetโs Go Brandon.โ 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 DistโBd. 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 โLetโs Go Brandonโ 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 inย Fraser โฆย (โAs cogently expressed by Judge Newman, โthe First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinkerโs armband, but not Cohenโs jacket [which read {F*** the Draft}].’โ) The relevant four-letter word is a swear word and would be considered vulgar and profane. The Sixth Circuit has written that โit 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.โ โฆ
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 โF#%* Joe Biden.โ School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words โฆ [such as] โSomebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This โDAMโ Shirt.โ โฆ [Defendants] recalled speaking to one student who was wearing a hat that said โFetโs Luckโ โฆ [and asking] a student to change out of a hoodie that displayed the words โUranus Liquorโ 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 โAITA?โ (Am I the A**hole?)โฆ. 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 โSee You Next Tuesdayโ 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 โLetโs Go Brandonโ on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. He alleges that teacher (and registered Democrat)ย Krista Ferini was bothered after spotting the shirt and ordered him to โbutton that up. I know what that means.โ 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 schoolโs 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.ย C.C. was disciplined on two other occasions for wearing the shirt.
The court ruled:
โWhile this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a schoolโs 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 theย D.A.ย case was on summary judgment and presented facts that are different than those before this Court, Defendantโs burden on summary judgment was a preponderance standard which is a lesser burden than Plaintiffโs here. Moreover, that case presented fact issues going to the reasonableness of the schoolโs interpretation. Here, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that โLetโs Go Brandonโ is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden. โIn school speech cases where a school limits or restricts a studentโs expression, courts must determine whether the schoolโs interpretation of the expression is reasonable.โ โThe studentโs expression must be considered in the proper context but the studentโs motivation or subjective intent is irrelevant.โ
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 schoolโs 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 Plaintiffโฆ.โ
โLetโs Go Brandon!โ 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 driverย Brandon Brownย after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavastโs questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of โF*** Joe Biden.โ Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, โYou can hear the chants from the crowd, โLetโs go, Brandon!โโ
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 โLetโs Go Kristaโ shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of โletโs goโ 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 isย controversyย at George Mason University afterย Nicholas Decker,ย an economics PhD student published an essay asking โWhen Must We Kill Them?โ 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 โwhen must we kill them?โ but โwhen can we kill them?โ
On his Substack โHomo Economicus,โ Decker warns that โevil has come to Americaโ and that Trump is โengaged in barbarismโ and seeking โto destroy the institutions which opposeโ him. He then suggests that the answer may be murder and violence.
โWhat remains for us to decide is when we fight,โ Decker writes. โIf 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.โ
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 โviolence is a last resort,โ 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 โas a last resort.โ
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 membersย continue to make the newsย 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 Rodrรญguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that โyouโre not educating sโt [โฆ] This is fโking propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bullsโt. This is violent. Youโre triggering my students.โ
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said โsorryโ to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodrรญguez continued to rave, stating, โNo youโre not โ because you canโt even have a fโking baby. So, you donโt even know what that is. Get this sโt the fโk out of here.โ In anย 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 Overdykeย shut down a pro-life displayย and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, โSheโs a [expletive] professor.โ 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 Deckerโs 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.
Nina Jankowicz, the former head of Bidenโs infamous Disinformation Governance Board, was โback with a vengeance.โ After the outcry over the board led to its elimination, Jankowicz did what many of the displaced disinformation experts have done: she peddled her dubious skills to Europeans and others likeย a wandering rลnin without a master. Now, Jankowicz has appeared before one of the most anti-free speech bodies in the world โ the European Union โ toย call uponย those 27 countries to fight against the United States, which she called a world threat.
How the โMary Poppins of disinformationโ came to alight upon Europe is a familiar tale. The European Union has become the global hub for censorship efforts and, after she departed from the government, Jankowicz made a beeline for Europe.
I have beenย a long criticย of Jankowicz, who became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang โYou can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformationโ inย a TikTok parodyย of the song โSupercalifragilisticexpialidocious.โ After the Biden Administration reluctantly disbanded her board, she later moved toย join a European groupย as a foreign agent to continue her work to block views that she considers disinformation.
The false portrayal of the United States as a lawless, autocratic nation no doubt thrilled the Europeans. In announcing her heading a private disinformation group called the American Sunlight Project, Jankowiczย usedย the same hysteria to attract donors, insisting thatย โDisinformation knows no political party. Its ultimate victim is our democracy.โ
Of course, Jankowicz herself has been accused of disinformation that served one particular party. She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship.
The ultimate irony is that Jankowicz knows that she can count on many of us in the free speech community to support her right to spread such sensational and inflammatory information. She has every right to trash this country and the results of the election.
Jankowicz has clearly found a home with globalists in Europe where our โMary Poppins of Disinformationโ is โpractically perfect in every wayโ
By Dr. JC Chaix โ AlphaNews.org โ April 9, 2025
Attorney Chris Madel said, โToday is a complete vindication for Liz Collin, Dr. Chaix, and Alpha Newsโand a complete victory for the First Amendment.โ On Tuesday, Judge Edward T. Wahl dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by Katie Blackwellโthe Assistant Chief of Operations for the Minneapolis Police Departmentโagainst 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 โextremists.โ They claimed that โthis 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.โโฆ READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon โย Peopleย suspect that many Democrats and some Republicans are being paid off throughย CCPย money and that itโs influencing theirย 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; โCollaborated Extensivelyโ With CCP
By Julian Conradson โ The Gateway Pundit โ Aug 19, 2021
Multiple prominent Democrats who have been leading the charge against efforts to audit the 2020 election were just exposed for their โextensive collaborationโ with one of the Chinese Communist Partyโs most influential propaganda groups. According to an exclusive report byThe National Pulse , โNewDEAL Leaders,โ a radical-progressive Democrat โnetworkโ 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 Americaโs foremost adversary since at least 2016. The trips were paid for by funds from the Peopleโs Liberation Army of China, with the express intent to โinfluenceโ 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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, 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 Josรฉ 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 โthe time for this is over,โ flipped the table over and then walked away.
Bobrowicz immediately called the police and the UW-Eau Claire identified the man as Josรฉ Felipe Alvergue, the chair of the English department. He has beenย put on leaveย by the university.
In his university bio, Alvergue identifies as โa member of the Salvadoran diaspora.โย He adds this rather cryptic statement about โunlocking empathyโ:
โ I believe that we canโt unlock the empathy hidden behind words if we donโt 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.โ
He is now charged with disorderly conduct, according toย 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 Rodrรญguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that โyouโre not educating sโt [โฆ] This is fโking propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bullsโt. This is violent. Youโre triggering my students.โ
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said โsorryโ to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodrรญguez continued to rave, stating, โNo youโre not โ because you canโt even have a fโking baby. So, you donโt even know what that is. Get this sโt the fโk out of here.โ In anย Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table. Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodrรญguez.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdykeย shut down a pro-life displayย and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, โSheโs a [expletive] professor.โ 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 โunlock [his] empathyโ through what is clearly uncontrollable rage.
Itโs been a banner week for authoritarians in Europe, and itโs 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 daughterโs 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 weekโs insanity further proves Vanceโs 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.
โ[A]cross Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat,โ he said. That may have been an understatement.
France isnโt the first country to bar political opposition candidates from its elections. In December, Romaniaโs highest court suspended its presidential election, blaming Russian interference. (Where have we heard that one before?) Calin Georgescu, who cast himself as a Trumpy โRomania firstโ candidate, took the lead in the countryโs 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 Germanyโs prominent right-wing party, Alternative fรผr Deutschland (AfD). In January, lawmakers considered asking the countryโs highest court to โexamine whether the AfD is an anti-constitutional party,โ which Politico characterized as the โfirst step toward legally banning it under German law.โ Leftist lawmaker Carmen Wegge, one of the partisans behind the effort, claimed AfD posed โdangers to democracyโ 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 โEuropean courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others.โ
In addition to her five-year ban on seeking office, Le Pen, who held a double-digit lead over the next closest candidate in Franceโs presidential election, was alsoย slappedย with a fine and a prison sentence for which sheโll 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 โrule of lawโ to defend their prosecution of political opponents. The similaritiesย werenโt lostย on Trump himself.
After the verdict was disclosed, Le Pen told reporters, โI am eliminated, but in reality, itโs millions of French people whose voices have been eliminated.โ
Sheโs right, the voices of European citizens are being silenced โ 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 Britainโs โOnline Safety Actโ went into effect in October 2023, authorities haveย chargedย 292 people and convicted 67 under the anti-speech law. Among other things, the lawย criminalizesย โfalse information intended to cause non-trivial harmโ and targets โmis- and disinformation.โ 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 Policeย confirmedย to the BBC that โa 16-year-old had been arrested on suspicion of a homophobic public order offence.โ
On Sunday, the U.S. State Departmentโs Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau issued a statementย expressingย concern โabout freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.โ The State Department drew attention to the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 62-year-old woman whoย stood trialย last month for holding a sign near an abortion facility with the words โhere to talk, if you want.โ
As U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmerย triesย โ so far, unsuccessfully โ to escape imminent tariffs from the Trump administration, Britainโs authoritarian speech codes undermine Starmerโs case for special treatment from the United States.ย Accordingย to The Telegraph, someone โfamiliar with trade negotiationsโ said the U.K. deserves โno free trade without free speech.โ
Things are no better in Germany, where 16 separate โonline hate task forcesโ are tasked with tracking down online commenters who are accused of publishing false or โhatefulโ speech. Just one of those 16 units โworks on around 3,500 cases a year,โ according to aย reportย from CBS.
German prosecutors readilyย admittedย to CBS that in their country it is a โcrime to insult somebody in publicโ orย evenย to repost false information online. Germans whose speech lands on the wrong side of the statute may have their homes raided byย armedย police, be slapped with fines or imprisoned, and/or have their phones and laptops confiscated.
The European Unionโs Digital Services Act, which took effect last year, ensures speech that authorities deem โhatefulโ can be punished across the continent. Trumpโs Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carrย blastedย the law as โincompatibleโ with the โfree speech tradition.โ
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.
โ[S]hutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process,โ as Vance told European leaders in February, โis the most surefire way to destroy democracy.โ
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.
Americans constitutionally protected right to free speech โhas been under worse attack in the last decade than at any other point in our nationโs history,โ Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway told lawmakers during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.
โThe tentacles of theย censorship-industrial complexย are choking out freedom of expression, debate, and the right to criticize powerful institutions such as corporate media and the government,โ Hemingway said.
Throughout her opening statement, The Federalistโs editor-in-chief highlighted how the federal and state governments have โfund[ed] and promote[d] censorship and blacklisting technology,โ and have even gone as far as to โdirect Big Tech companies to censor American speech and debate.โ She specifically cited how academic institutions โsuch as Stanford University and the University of Texas are given large grants, not to defend free speech, but to conduct research on so-called โdisinformationโ for use by the censorship regime.โ
โNon-profit think tanks such as the Aspen Institute post so-called โdisinformationโ seminars to groom journalists to publish pro-censorship propaganda and to suppress important stories, such as the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell,โ Hemingway said. โNon-profit censorship groups such as theย Global Disinformation Indexย and for-profit censorship businesses such asย NewsGuardย produce widely used censorship tools and blacklists to favor left-wing media while working to silence media that fight false narratives.โ
As described by Hemingway, censorship tools employed by groups such as GDI and NewsGuard โroutinely rate leftwing news outlets, that are no threat to the permanent bureaucracy, higher than those that challenge prevailing orthodoxies.โ These deceptively crafted lists are subsequently used by companies to โboycott some publications and reward others with advertising,โ 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
โThe 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,โ Hemingway said. โMy publication, The Federalist, exposed that hoax through dogged reporting and investigation, as we did with the mediaโs 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.โ
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-wingย Center for Countering Digital Hateย colluded with NBC News to try and strip The Federalist of its Google ad revenue. As The Federalistโs Jordan Boydย reported, โNBC News reported that Google banned The Federalist due to a shoddy report from the networkโs โverification unit,โ and the Center for Countering Digital Hate took issue with The Federalistโs reporting about the race-motivated rioting and violence that plagued the nation during the summer of rage.โ
Hemingway also cited aย 2023 reportย by the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government โdocumenting 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 โdisinformation.’โ The Federalist editor-in-chief noted how she and Federalist CEO Sean Davis were targeted by this censorship operation.
โOne of the censored items was a story about a TV appearance in which I said of the media, โThey lie, they lie, they lie, and then they lie.โ Gallup reported in February that my view is held by 70 percent of Americans, who say they donโt trust corporate media to report news accurately, fairly, or fully,โ Hemingway said.
Hemingway concluded her opening statement by noting the difficulties in โfacingโ the vast censorship-industrial complex, and that while it โwould have been easy to fold,โ doing so is โexactly what censors want: to make it impossible to report the truth about their lies.โ
โThey know our voice is so powerful and influential that they canโt accomplish their goals unless they shut us down. They will not succeed,โ Hemingway said. โWe will never stop. The more they try to shut us down, the harder weโre going to work to stay open, because itโs not about us โ itโs about whether we will have a civilization where people are allowed to say and think things tyrants donโt want us to.โ
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 โThe Censorship Industrial Complexโ 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 intoย the FBIโs role in censoring social media.
Almost 250 years ago, Tom Paine famously wrote that โThese are the times that try menโs 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.โ 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 โThe American Crisis.โ
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 โsummer soldier and sunshine patriotโ 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 โAmerican crisisโ can be our greatest American moment in speaking in one voice โ Democrats, Republicans, and Independents โ 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 โA New World Order with European Values.โ 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:
โA New World Order with European Values.โ Emblazoned across banners and signs, those words met the participants at this weekโs 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, โa New World Orderโ 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 awayย 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 todayโs European values is alarming for free speech.
Free speech is in a free fall in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions โ including for having โtoxic ideologies.โ
The World Forum has a powerful sense of fraternity, even an intimacy, among leaders who see each other as a global elite โ 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 โEuropean peace.โ
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 โNew World Orderโ 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 Europeโs 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 OโNeillโs rule that โall politics is localโ 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 โleader of the century.โ The Clintons were clearly in their element. Speaker after speaker denounced Trump and the rise of what they called โautocratsโ and โoligarchs.โ 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 โopen societiesโ and greater transnational powers.
The discussions focused on blunting the rise of far-right parties and stemming the flow of โdisinformationโ 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 clearย why transnationalย governanceย gravitates towardย 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 โcensorship.โ They prefer โcontent moderation.โ They do not call for limiting speech. Instead, they call for limiting โfalse,โ โhatefulโ or โincitefulโ speech.
As for the rise of opposing parties and figures, they are referred to as movements by โlow-information votersโ 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, โEuropean peaceโ 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.ย One of the speakers was Maria A. Ressa, aย journalist andย Nobel laureate. I admire Ressaโs courage as a journalist butย previously criticizedย herย 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 โI will say it now: โThe fascists are coming.โโ
At the forum, Ressa again called for the audience of โpowerful leadersโ 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 beenย credited with killing a moveย to further expand the criminalization of speech to include โxenophobiaโ and the โpublic dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other materialโ 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 โoligarchsโ and โautocrats.โ Indeed, the EU looks pretty oligarchic with its massive bureaucracy guided by a global elite and โgoodโ 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 โNew World Order Based on European Valuesโ 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 Collegeโs chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. In two separate incidents, Huang spoke out against Palestinian and transgender claims.ย In a disciplinary letter, Mak Tompkins, Davidsonโs director of student rights and responsibilities, wrote that she was accused of spreading โmisinformationโ that could foster Islamophobia and transphobia.
Huang has previouslyย received death threats from peers for criticizing abortion, according to theย site College Fix. However, Davidson is investigating her because she distributed aย pamphletย last fall titled โFive Myths About Israel Perpetrated by the Pro-Hamas Leftโ that argued that Palestinians are not a distinct people and rejected the premise of a Palestinian state.ย 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, โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,โ 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,ย tweetingย that he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and โfelt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolinaโ before adding: โMassa Cooper, let my people go.โ It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left โ including calls toย gasย orย killย orย tortureย conservatives โ 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 โmisinformationโ is revealing in that sense. Davidson is objecting to Huangโs 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 wasย criticalย 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 courtโs 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 Kilbornโs Civil Procedure II exam described how an employee quit โafter she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a โn___โ and โb___โ [sic].โ
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 causedย unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam. Considering the subject matter,ย and the call of the question, the use of the โn____โ and โb____โ 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 โpedagogical relevantโ or โnecessarily germane to the study of civil procedure.โ 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 courtโs decision found the lower court erred in dismissing Kilbornโs 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 o๏ฌcial duties.โ The panel held:
โWe declineย the University o๏ฌcialsโ invitation to extendย Garcettiย to speech involving university teaching and scholar-ship when the Supreme Court was unwilling to do so. Nor areย we alone. Every other circuit to decide the issue has recognized thatย Garcettiย does not apply to university teaching orย scholarship.โย
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.
The anti-free speech movement in the United States was largely an outgrowth of higher education where viewpoint intolerance has taken hold of many schools. Indeed, intolerance and orthodoxy are often defended on the left in the name of tolerance and pluralism.ย Harvard Professor Timothy McCarthyย is one of those voices demanding the removal of faculty with opposing views in the name of tolerance. He recently told New York Universityโsย Washington Square Newsย that any faculty who do not support โgender-affirming careโ should be stripped of their academic titles and fired.
Many academics and citizens oppose โgender-affirmingโ policies on religious or other grounds. Some believe that school-enforced policies inhibit debate over gender dysphoria and the basis for various treatments and protections on both sides. McCarthy believes that no such debate should be allowed among faculty, declaring that โthereโs a particular place in hell for academics who use their academic expertise and power to distort and do violence to people in the world.โ He was targeting two professors at NYU who are affiliated with groups critical of surgical and chemical interventions for gender dysphoria.
Professor McCarthy offered the usual nod to free speech and academic freedom before eviscerating both in his comments. He admitted that โa level of suspicion and inquiry into medical practices is healthy,โ but then dismissed such views as harmful and mere efforts to โpoison the waters.โ
There was a time when such intolerance was directed against the left and groups ranging from feminists to those in the LGBT community. Now, it has become a badge of honor, the expected bona fides that show the correctness and firmness of oneโs views.
The irony is crushing. Harvardโs Kennedy Schoolย websiteย states that McCarthy โwas the first openly gay faculty memberโ at the public policy school โand still teaches the schoolโs only course on LGBTQ matters.โ When I first went into teaching, I had friends who still remained in the closet out of fear that their sexual orientation would undermine their chances for tenure or advancement. Likewise, far-left academics associated with the critical legal studies (CLS) movement were viewed as โpoisoning the watersโ of higher education and often blocked from teaching.
The left has now adopted the same intolerance and orthodoxy once used against it. Indeed, it has been far more successful in purging the faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters. As we have previously discussed, Harvard is particularly notorious for this purging of both its faculty and student body.
This year, Harvard again found itself dead last among 251 universities and colleges in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) annual ranking.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the schoolโs 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 โliberalโ or โvery liberal.โ
Onlyย 5 percent identified as โconservative,โ and only 0.4% as โvery conservative.โ
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 โconservativeโ rather than 35 percent nationally. According to the last student survey, only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Notably, despite Harvardโs maintenance of an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal students 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.
Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.
Professor McCarthy appears right at home in his public call for a further purging of faculty ranks.
This is an area that has deeply divided the country, as was evident in the last election. Higher education should play a critical role in that debate by allowing faculty and students to engage with each other in civil and substantive debate. Instead of spending so much time and effort trying to silence those with opposing views, the left could instead focus on refuting these claims. Instead, it is replicating that same pattern of cancellations, deplatformings and firings that marked the last decade. It is the same approach used against academics who questioned aspects of COVID policies including mask efficacy doubts, natural immunity theories, opposition to the closing of schools, opposition to the six-foot rule, and the lab theory on the virusโs origin. They were also removed from faculties and associations. Yet, many of these views have since been vindicated.
What was lost was not just free speech and academic freedom, but a rigorous debate that might have helped us avoid some of the costs of unsupported COVID policies. For example, some of our closest allies listened to skeptics on the need to close schools and opted to keep young children in school. They were able to avoid the massive educational and psychological costs that we incurred in this country. Much like Professor McCarthy, these skeptics were accused of โpoisoning the watersโ and spreading harmful ideas or disinformation.
There is no difference between the intolerance of figures like Professor McCarthy from those who once sought the same measures against liberals, homosexuals, or feminists. Now firmly in control of higher education, many on the left are using their power to win public debate through retribution, coercion, and attrition. In the process, they are destroying the very essense of higher education for not just our students but ourselves.
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 schoolโs lower standards. Jensen objectedย in 2020 and 2021 to proposed curriculum changes that he argued would have allowed remedial math classes to count for college credit. He distributed aย flyer at an event detailing his concerns and warning that a student would be allowed to graduate from college while only being โready for middle school math.โ
TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworthย 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 โdisobeyingโ her.
In the two performance reviews following the confrontation, Jensenโs department chair suggested he receive an โexcellentโ rating, but Ellsworth gave him โunsatisfactoryโ ratings for โinsubordination.โ That designation required Jensen to undergo review for possible termination.
District Court Judge Larry Hicksย dismissedย 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 theย Pickeringย 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 โbalanc[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.โ Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).
That standard, in turn, triggers a five-part inquiry:
โ(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 plaintiffโs 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.โ Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).
The Ninth Circuit ruled that:
โJensenโs criticism of the changes in TMCCโs mathematics curriculum addressed a matter of public concern. โ[T]he preferable manner of operating [a] school system . . . clearly concerns an issue of general public interest.โ 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 departmentโs lowered standards would impact almost a third of TMCCโs 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 TMCCโs educational standards and the resulting impact on the community is a matter of public concern.โ
The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensenโs 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 โ 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: โUtterly Brokenโ (VIDEO)
By Mike LaChance โ The Gateway Pundit โ Feb 27, 2025
Mark Halperin recently had a conversation with Marc Caputo, formerly of Politico, and they tore into MSNBC for the outletโs 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 networkโฆ 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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Below is my column in The Hill on the disgraceful Democratic attacks against Elon Musk over his status as a naturalized citizen. For years, some of us have raised concerns over the adoption of McCarthyite tactics and rhetoric by the left to demonize those with opposing viewpoints, including critics of the massive censorship system under the Biden Administration. Those attacks are now reaching a dangerous crescendo after the 2024 loss in the presidential election.
Here is the column:
This month, 75 years ago, Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisc.) gave his infamous speech denouncing disloyal Americans working at the highest levels of our government. It was the defining moment for what became known as McCarthyism, which attacked citizens as dangerous and disloyal influences in government.
Some of us have criticized the rising โrage rhetoricโ for years, including that of President Trump and Democratic leaders, denouncing opponents as traitors and enemies of the state.
In the 2024 election, the traditional red state-blue state firewalls again collapsed, as they had in 2016. The response among Democrats has been to unleash a type of new Red Scare, questioning the loyalty of those who are supporting or working with the Trump administration in carrying out his promised reforms.
Elon Musk is the designated disloyal American for many on the left. That rage has reached virtual hysteria on ABCโs โThe View.โ This is the same show before the election on which hosts warned that, if Trump were elected, journalists and homosexuals would be rounded up and โdisappeared.โ
After the election, democracy seemed to stubbornly hang on, so the hosts had to resort to attacking as disloyal anyone joining the government or supporting Trumpโs policies.
This week, co-host Joy Behar followed many others in questioning Muskโs loyalty and attacking him over being a naturalized American citizen: โThe guy was not born in this country, who was born under apartheid in South Africa. So, [he] has that mentality going on. He was pro-Apartheid, as I understand it.โ
Behar was then forced, perhaps by panicked ABC lawyers, to walk back the comment โ such retractions having become a regular feature on โThe Viewโ. What came out was the type of jumbled confusion that results when you interrupt a lunatic on the metro in mid-rave.
Behar stated: โIโm getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid. I donโt really know for sure if he was โฆ He was around at that time, but maybe he was, maybe he wasnโtโhe might have been a young guy, too. So, donโt be suing me, okay Elon?โ
This anti-immigrant attack on Musk, however, has worked its way into many Democratsโ talking points, even though their party had previously claimed to defend immigrants against racist Republicans seeking to close the Southern border and deport criminal illegal immigrants.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)ย launchedย a xenophobic tiradeย that should have shocked the conscience of the nation. She warned citizens that Musk could not be trusted because he is an immigrant who has been a citizen for only a couple of decades: โMr. Musk has just been here just 22 years and heโs a citizen of three countries. I always ask myself the question: With the damage heโs doing here when push comes to shove, which country is he loyal to? South Africa, Canada, or the United States? And heโs only been a citizen, Iโll say again, 22 years.โ
Former Republican Rep. Liz Cheneyย was another joining in to attack Musk for being an immigrant. โYou may be unfamiliar with that part of our history since you werenโt yet an American citizen,โ she wrote on Muskโs social media platform, X.
These attacks are straight out of McCarthyโs playbook. It was McCarthy who insisted that โthere are no degrees of loyalty in the United States โ a man is either loyal or heโs disloyalโฆโ Of course, McCarthy (and the earlier Red Scare) attacked governmentย employees, writers and others on the left. It is now the left that is employing the same tactics, including censorship, blacklisting and public vilification.
Throughout the 2024 campaign, the Democrats, including President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, painted Republicans as either aspiring or actualย fascists. That continued recently with Minnesota Gov. and former Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz (D), who referred to Republicans as โfascists and Nazis.โ
Even journalists and civil libertarians have been reviled using the same terms. After a hearing on censorship two years ago, MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)ย attackedย journalists and members who had spoken in favor of free speech. She denounced the member witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson and former Rep. Gabbard) as โPutin apologistsโ and Putin-lovers.
Stacey Plaskett, the Democratic delegate representing the Virgin Islands in the U.S. House, even suggested arresting respected journalist Matt Taibbi, who, along with Michael Shellenberger, testified on their investigation into a massive censorship system developed under the Biden administration.
The attack on Musk is particularly disgraceful, given his contributions to his adopted country. Ironically, filmmaker Michael Moore denounced the deportations of criminal illegal immigrants last week by noting that Trump was deporting someone who might cure cancer or be the next Steve Jobs. Well, this is a naturalized citizen who not only could be the next Elon Musk. He is Elon Musk.
As politicians and pundits question Muskโs loyalty, Space X is moving to rescue two astronauts stranded in space. Musk has volunteered his time and skills to achieving a record reduction in the size and waste in government. One can disagree with his priorities or the means he uses to achieve his goals, but he has nobly stepped forward to serve his country despite death threats from the left.
Musk is also facing such attacks in Canada, where thousands have signed petitions to strip him of his citizenship. The left did not seek to revoke the citizenship of figures who have eviscerated free speech and other individual rights in that country. It is Musk who is persona non grata.
This is nothing new for Musk, whom the left has targeted since he announced an intention to buy Twitter and restore free speech protections on that site.
The concern is not for Musk, who has the intestinal fortitude (and financial means) to stand up to a global mob. Moreover, with polls showing overwhelming support for reducing the size of government and the budget, the campaign to obstruct these efforts is unlikely to resonate with voters.
The danger is more acute for the country as disagreements over policy are transformed into attacks over loyalty. It is the most dangerous form of rage rhetoric, an effort not to debate but to demonize those with whom you disagree.
When you have members of Congress standing in front of the Capitol, denouncing naturalized citizens as untrustworthy after a mere 22 years as a citizen, it is a moment that would have made McCarthy blush.
There was another meltdown at the Washington Post after owner Jeff Bezos moved again to moderate the newspaperโs 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 ofย Washington Postย opinion editor David Shipley. Outside the paper, another round of calls for boycotts and subscription cancellations followed.
In the announcement below, Bezos declared, โIโm 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. Iโm excited for us together to fill that void.โ
He added that a newspaper should be a voice for freedom โ ย โis ethical โ it minimizes coercion โ and practical โ it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.โ He noted that:
โThere was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the readerโs doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.โ
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, toย declareย that it was the โlast strawโ and post his cancellation.
Jeff Stein, the publisherโs chief economics reporter,ย denounced Bezosย as carrying out a โmassive encroachmentโ that makes it clear โdissenting views will not be published or tolerated there.โ 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 Postโs 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 โan 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 billionaireโs self-interested agenda.โ
Just as a reminder, Bezos simply stated that the newspaper would advocate for freedom and free markets. However, the most telling condemnation came fromย Post columnist Philip Bump, who wrote โwhat the actual f**k.โ Not surprisingly, Bump wrote the condemnation on Bluesky, a site that promisesย a type of safe space for liberalsย 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 Bumpโs reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Bidenโs 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 wasย vividly on displayย 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 โan America issue.โ
During a press briefing, the Washington Postโs Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview andย said,ย โI think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issueโฆitโs an America issue.โ
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 โDemocracy dies in Darkness,โ 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: โObjectivity has got to go.โ
The former Post editor, Downie, recounted how news leaders:
โbelieve that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading โbothsidesismโ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in todayโs diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.โ
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 โheated exchangeโ with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
โWe are going to turn this thing around, but letโs not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,โ Lewis said. โWe are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I canโt sugarcoat it anymore.โ
Other staffers could not get past the gender and race of those who would oversee them. One staffer complained, โWe now have four White men running three newsrooms.โย 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, letโs recap: The Washington Postโs 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 Postย 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 Bezosโs 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 โ 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 staffโs hyperventilation only reinforces the need for such an intervention. These same voices supported the Post adopting โDemocracy dies in Darknessโ 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: โFreedom dies in Silence.โ
Here is the announcement from Jeff Bezos:
I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning: Iโm 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. Weโll 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 readerโs 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 Americaโs success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical โ it minimizes coercion โ and practical โ 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 wasnโt โhell yes,โ then it had to be โno.โ After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it wonโt be easy, and it will require 100% commitment โ I respect his decision.
Weโll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction. Iโm 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. Iโm excited for us together to fill that void.
I am returning today after speaking at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs about my book, โThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.โ 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, donโt 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 schoolโs 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 โliberalโ or โvery liberal.โ
Only 5 percent identified as โconservative,โ and only 0.4% as โvery conservative.โ
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 โconservativeโ 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 โconservative snowflakes,โ 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 schoolโs 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.
Below is my column in the Hill on the new American emigres: โdisinformation expertsโ who are finding themselves unemployed with the restoration of free speech protections.
Here is the column:
President Trumpโs election has brought about mass layoffs among federal employees and contractors, including some who have sued and others who have protested.
But one group โ that of Americaโs would-be censors โ is taking its cause worldwide.
During the Biden administration, a massive industry took root, sweeping up billions in taxpayer funds to research, target and combat those accused of misinformation, disinformation and โmalinformation.โ
Although the exact number is uncertain, many trained censors are now facing unemployment. These self-described โdisinformation expertsโhave become the modern equivalent of rลnin, the Japanese samurai who found themselves without a master and wandered the land looking for a new use of their skill set. They are finding precisely that calling in academia, not-for-profit groups and, most importantly, Europe.
Aย speech-regulation industryย that wasย booming under Biden has gone bust under Trump. Over the last four years, massive amounts of money were poured into universities, non-governmental organizations and other groups in an unprecedented alliance of government, academia and corporations. The media lionized many in the industry asย โsaving democracyโby controlling, targeting and suppressing othersโ political speech. Not only did federal agencies fund these efforts, but they also coordinated censorship of groups and individuals with opposing views, even objecting to jokes on the internet.
Universities cashed in on this largesse as well. It was popular with most liberal administrators and lucrative for academics.
The sudden shutoff of the federal spigot comes as a blow, but it does not mean the speech warriors will simply convert their censor-shields into plowshares. Many will follow in the footsteps of Nina Jankowicz, briefly the head of a now-defunct disinformation governance board. After the outcry over the board, Jankowicz quickly found her skills were in demand in Europe.
Free speech has been in free-fall in Europe for decades. Germany has long enforced a robust system of speech criminalization that began with Nazi symbolism but steadily expanded to include inciteful speech,ย insultsย and merely โdisinformativeโ statements. Theย United Kingdomย andย Franceย showed the same insatiable appetite for the inexorable expansion of censorship and prosecutions.
The European Union has also been ground zero for the anti-free speech movementโsย aggressive use of the Digital Services Act, which bars speech that is viewed as โdisinformationโ or โincitement.โ
When it passed over the objections of free speech advocates, European Commission Executive Vice Presidentย Margrethe Vestagerย was perfectly ecstatic, declaring it is โnot a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now, it is a real thing. Democracyโs back.โ
That is why Vice President J.D. Vanceโs recent speech in Munich was so historic. For the free speech community, Vance went into the belly of the beast and denounced the anti-free-speech movement in the heart of Europe. The response to the Vance speech has beenย nothing short of panicย in the anti-free-speech community. Many are assembling in conferences in Europe, including the upcoming World Forum in Berlin.ย Bill and Hillary Clinton will be in attendance. (I will also be speaking at the conference.)
It was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the pledge to dismantle the censorship system, called upon the EU to force him and others to censor her fellow U.S. citizens. She embraced the infamous Digital Services Act, which seeks to impose a global system of speech control. She has also suggested theย arrest of those spreading disinformation.
Immediately after the speech, familiar European and American voices denounced Vance and doubled down on the need for Europe to hold the line against dangerous free speech.
For the free speech community, there could not be a better place for this debate to unfold. Germany has demonstrated the false claims of the anti-free-speech community over the years. Indeed, you might call their arguments โdisinformation.โ
Vance and others who have challenged the European censorship systems have been attacked as Nazi enablers or sympathizers. Many of those who have fostered this attack are part of the regulator ronin.ย Others simplyย repeated the narrativeย without thought or support.
Takeย CBS anchor Margaret Brennan, who confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubioย over the outrageous fact that Vance was supporting free speech while โstanding in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.โ The claim is stupefyingly uninformed. The first thing that the Nazis did in coming to power was to crack down and criminalize free speech โ just as many on the left have done in European countries.
A few have insisted that the Nazis were brought to power by the lack of government controls over what views could be expressed.ย But this is not true either. The crushing irony is that Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution guaranteed free speech only โwithin the limits of the general laws.โ It did not protect statements deemed by the government asย factually untrue,ย and speech was actively regulated.
Adolf Hitler, for example, was barred from speaking publicly. The Nazis did not use free speech because they did not have it. They did, however, use the denial of free speech to claim that the government was afraid to have certain views aired in public.
Germany has replicated the old system that failed to stop (and perhaps even helped) the Nazis, doubling down on speech controls and criminalization. As I discuss in my book, there has never been a successful censorship system in the history of the world โ not one. Germany is again a chilling example of the true record of such systems.
Pastย polling of German citizensย found that only 18 percent felt free to express their opinions in public. Only 17 percent felt free to express themselves on the internet. So, the neo-Nazi movement is flourishing, even as average German citizens feel chilled in their own speech.
Despite this history, the regulatory ronin are hard at work to scare the public back into empowering and especially into funding their efforts.
The outgoing chairman of the Munich Security Conference spoke through tears as he expressed his โfearโ that Vanceโs call for free speech could take hold in Europe.ย He tellingly added, โIt is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief โฆ that this multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.โ
This โinternational orderโ has striven to impose a single set of norms on speech, particularly through vehicles like the Digital Services Act. The effort stands at odds with the very essence of the American constitutional system and values.
The only thing both sides agree on is that this is an existential fight. For those in the free speech community, it will determine the future of what Justice Louis Brandeis called โthe indispensable right.โ For the other side, it is the future of a European model of free speech, limiting the right to deter those with extreme or inciteful views.
The recent successes in the U.S. at X and more recently at Meta are real. However, the displaced speech regulators are not just going to retool and learn to code or train to work in the hospitality industry.
As Vanceโs speech showed, we are more isolated than ever. Even Americans like Clinton have joined with the Europeans to fight for censorship. It is time to take a side and fight for freedom of speech.
Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is one of the most prominent scientific organizations in the world with associations to such luminaries as Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin. Despite that proud history, British scientists are pushing to politicize the society and expel Elon Musk because they disagree with his political views. It is not simply anti-intellectual but self-destructive for a society committed to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Few individuals in history have had a more pronounced impact on scientific and technological advances than Musk. His work on Space X alone has reshaped space technology. The upcoming mission to rescue the stranded scientists only highlights his transformative role and that of his company.
However, more than 2,700 scientists have signed an open letter that cited his public attacks on figures such as Anthony Fauci. They also noted that โThe situation is rendered more serious because โMr. Musk now occupies a position within a Trump administration in the USA that has over the past several weeks engaged in an assault on scientific research in the US that has fallen foul of federal courts.โโ
It is unclear what cases are being referenced, since there have been several rulings against efforts to enjoin DOGE and Musk. More importantly, such litigation has only just begun. Whether the challengers or the Administration have โfallen foulโ is yet to be determined.
Others made it clear that they simply disagree with Muskโs views.
Professor Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist, resigned earlier from the society, stating โI just feel far more comfortable to be dissociated from an institution that continues to honour this disreputable man.โ
Others accused Musk of spreading โdisinformation,โ a much-abused category in the United Kingdom as a basis for censorship.
Many of these scientists seem selective in their outrage. I do not recall the Royal Society rushing to the defense of the many scientists who were fired or silenced over their dissenting views on COVID-19.
That includes the lab theory that led to scientists being denounced as conspiracy theorists or racists. Now, federal agencies agree that the theory is legitimate and indeed favored by some offices.
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.
There is an alternative. The Royal Society could confine its review to the scientific contributions of figures like Musk. The subjectivity of this criticism should be antithetical to a scientific organization. Science is ideally a field that transcends political, social, and religious divisions. Few figures in history have advanced the cause of space travel and green technology as Musk.
I hope the Royal Society will decline to engage in such political exclusions, but I am hardly hopeful. However, in carrying out this expulsion, they will do far more harm to their society than to Elon Musk.
Below is my column in the Hill on the historic defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich last week. Where John F. Kennedy went to Berlin to declare โIch bin ein Berliner,โ Vance went in Munich to declare a type of โIch bin ein Amerikanisch.โ He spoke of free speech as an American with a power and clarity that is unrivaled in modern times. As expected, he is being attacked by Europeans and many in this country on the left. However, his speech was a tour de force of our core values.
Despite that profound point, on Feb. 14, Vance found that transformative moment. Speaking to European leaders at the Munich Security Conference, he shocked his audience by confronting them over their attacks on free speech in the West. For the free speech community, it was truly Churchillian โ no less than the famous Iron Curtain speech in which Churchill dared the West to confront the existential dangers of communism.
Roughly 80 years after Churchillโs speech, Vance called our allies to account not for the growing threat from countries like Russia or China, but from themselves. To a clearly shocked audience, Vance declared that he was not worried about โexternal actorsโ but โthe threat from within the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.โ
Vance then pulled back the curtain on the censorship and anti-free-speech policies of the European Union and close allies ranging from the United Kingdom to Sweden. He also chastised one of the most vehemently anti-free speech figures in Europe, Thierry Breton, who led the EU efforts to control speech with draconian measures under the infamous Digital Services Act.
Vance called out the hypocrisy of these nations asking for greater and greater military assistance โin the name of our shared democratic valuesโ even as they eviscerate free speech, the very right that once defined Western Civilization.
The point was crushing.
Before we further commit to the defense of Europe, he argued, we should agree on what we are defending. These European nations are erasing the very distinctions between us and our adversaries.
In my recent book, I discussed many of the examples cited by the vice president. One of the most telling came from Canada last year, when the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau temporarily blocked the citizenship of Russian dissident Maria Kartasheva. The reason was that she had a conviction (after a trial in absentia) in Russia for condemning the Ukrainian war. The Canadian government declared that Kartashevaโs conviction in Russia aligns with a Criminal Code offense relating to false information in Canada.
In other words, her use of free speech could be prosecuted in Canada under its abusive Section 372(1) of the Criminal Code, punishing speech deemed to be โconvey[ing] false information with the intent to alarm or injure anyone.โ
Vance ran through just a fraction of the parade of horribles, from Britain arresting people for silent prayers near abortion clinics to Sweden prosecuting a religious protester who burned a Koran, with Judge Gรถran Lundahl insisting that freedom of expression does not constitute a โfree pass to do or say anything.โ Apparently, it does not include acts once called blasphemy or insulting religion.
Vance also mocked the underlying premise for speech crackdowns to combat โdisinformation,โ pointing out that these measures constitute a far greater threat to citizens in the West than any external threat. He had the courage to say what has long been verboten on the restriction of speech to combat foreign influence: โif your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasnโt very strong to begin with.โ
In perhaps the greatest single declaration uttered by an American leader since John F. Kennedy in Germany declared โIch bin ein Berliner,โ he added: โIf you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.โ
The reaction of the European diplomats was one of astonishment. Few even offered the usual polite applause. Instead, rows of smug leaders looked straight ahead with the same level of disgust as if Vance were the second coming of the Visogoths threatening the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace.
In a single speech, Vance shattered the hypocrisy of our alliesโ calling for a defense of the West while abandoning Western values. They did not like it, and many in the American pressย joinedย in dismissing his address. He was called a โwrecking ballโ for bringing up the anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe. One German official declared โThis is all so insane and worrying.โ This is a diplomat from a nation thatย shredded free speechย for decades, to the point of arresting people overย their ringtones.
Of course, our own anti-free speech voices were in attendance, too. Politico quoted one โformer House Democratic stafferโ who bravely attacked Vance anonymously: โI was aghast โฆ He was blaming the victim. What the fโ was that? I had my mouth open in a room full of people with their mouth open. That was bad.โ
No, it was not bad. It was glorious.
After Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the pledge to dismantle the companyโs censorship system, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned to the EU, calling on it to use its Digital Service Act to force the censorship of her fellow American citizens. That did not leave many people agape. But Vanceโs defense of free speech is considered a breathtaking outrage.
In โHillbilly Elergy,โ Vance explained his lack of faith in transformative moments.
โIโve seen far too many people awash in a genuine desire to change, only to lose their mettle when they realized just how difficult change actually is,โ he wrote.
And there is no โgenuine desire to changeโ in Europe. The appetite for censorship is now insatiable, and free speech is in a free fall.
In the midst of this crackdown, Vance spoke with a quintessentially American voice. It was clear, honest and unafraid. There was no pretense or evasion. It was a speech about who we are as a nation and the values that still define us โ and no longer define our allies. They saw him as a virtual hillbilly, an American hayseed who does not understand transnational values.
For the rest of us, it was a true elegy โ part lament and part liberating.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the unhinged response to Vice President J.D. Vanceโs historic defense of free speech in Europe. The chorus of criticism from press and pundits was immediate. Literally speaking through tears, German diplomat Christoph Heusgen responded to VP Vance: โIt is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.โ Indeed, it is and that is a good thing. Vance was speaking truth to transnationalists who view free speech as a threat to the โinternational orderโ that they maintain. The response from the American left was even more bizarre. Not only did CBSโs Margaret Brennan suggest that free speech caused the holocaust, but Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said that Vance, in defending free speech, used โsome of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.โ
Here is the column:
On Friday,ย Vice President JD Vance gave a historic defense of free speechย at the Munich Security Conference. In front of a clearly hostile assemblage of European diplomats, Vance confronted our allies with their systemic censorship as they demanded more support to โdefend democracy.โ For the free speech community, it was akin toย Ronald Reaganโs call: โMr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!โ
Vance questioned how our allies could claim to be the bastions of freedom whileย denying free expression to their citizens. He then delivered this haymaker: โIf you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.โ
Not surprisingly, the Europeans sat on their hands while glaring at Vance for calling them out for their hypocrisy. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius declared Vanceโs remarks were โnot acceptable.โ An unnamed German official in attendance declared, โThis is all so insane and worrying.โ
Theย outrage of the Europeansย was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia. Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speechย โa humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isnโt on the side of the democracies.โ It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy. Indeed, it could be outright fascism.
In one of the most bizarre attacks,ย CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubioย over Vanceโs support for free speech given the fact that he was โstanding in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.โ In other words, it was free speech that brought Hitler to power and caused theย Holocaust. Brennanโs statement is completely detached from history and logic.
Germans did enjoy free speech protections after World War I, though the Weimar Constitution was more limited than the First Amendment. However, one of the first things that the Nazis did in coming to power in 1933 was toย crack down on free speechย and criminalize dissent. Censorship is the harbinger of authoritarianism and Germany is the ultimate example of how noย censorshipย system in history has ever succeededย in killingย one idea or stopping a single movement.
Brennan could not have picked a better country to utterly destroy the point that she was trying to make in favor of limits on free speech.
Germany continued to censor and criminalize speech after World War II, targeting the neo-Nazi movement and other prohibited viewpoints. Authorities charged citizens for everything fromย wine labelsย toย ringtonesย with banned content. The government hasย sought to force figures like X owner Elon Muskย to censor Americans and others to combat anything that it deems โfake newsโย or โdisinformation.โ
Of course, Germanyโs massive censorship effort has done little to deter the thriving neo-Nazi movement. What it has done is chill the speech of ordinary citizens. One poll of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet.
Other nations joined in the harrumphs with equally disingenuous statements, including the United Kingdom. British diplomats expressed shock despite their systemic suppression of free speech, including arresting citizens for simply praying to themselves near abortion clinics.
The British have doubled down on censorship with sweeping new laws. Hundreds have beenย arrested recentlyย for speech crimes like spreading โfake newsโ or disinformation that could lead to โnon-trivial psychological or physical harm.โPreviously, British citizens were arrested for criticizing religious groups or opposing homosexuality or immigration. In one case,ย Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime.
The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his โtoxic ideologyโ based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
In 1963, John F. Kennedy went to Germany to declare โIch bin ein Berlinerโ to express solidarity with those who were fighting for the right to live and speak freely behind the Iron Curtain.
More than 60 years later, Vance returned to essentially declare โIch bin ein Amerikanischer,โ affirming our commitment to a right that not only defines the United States, but once defined Western civilization. He argued that if we are to defeat our foreign adversaries, we must first protect those rights that distinguish us from them.
The response of our press and pundits only proved Vanceโs point. We have returned to the momentย described by Tom Paineย during our Revolution, a time that would โtry menโs souls.โ
Those opposing free speech today are like โthe summer soldier and the sunshine patriotโ who, Paine warned, would โshrinkโ from the defense of our values.
The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has finally reached our shores.
Vance drew a bright line in Europe and we will all have to decide on which side to stand. Some obviously have made the decision to stand with Europe.
For the rest of us, we will stand with free speech.
The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.
The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.
When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the โindispensable rightโ for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.
Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.
Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be โwithin the limits of the general laws.โ It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.
Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.
This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.
Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.
While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the โabsolute shock, absolute shock of our European alliesโ to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: โif you listen, listen carefully itโs actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.โ
Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.
Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech โa humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isnโt on the side of the democracies.โ
By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.
It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.
The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.
Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.
CBSโ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows โhate-filled or toxicโ speech while Germany is โtrying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.โ
German prosecutors (Dr. Matthรคus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.
They acknowledged that โthe people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of wordsโฆ They donโt think it was illegal. And they say, โNo, thatโs my free speech,โ And we say, โNo, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’โ
Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful โor deemed insulting.โ She then asked โIs it a crime to insult somebody in public?โ The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.
Meininghaus started to explain that โif youโre [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician โฆโ Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: โIt sticks around forever.โ
As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vanceโs point. This is an existential fight for the โindispensable right.โ
A.F. Branco Cartoon โ VP Vance gave the European Union a well-deserved good spanking at the Munich Security Conference. Ripping them on their free speech policies.
ICYMI: Hereโs Vice President J.D. Vanceโs 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 โ The Gateway Pundit โ 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 โmisinformationโ 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 โThe Washington Post.โ He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh DโSouza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Below is my column in The Hill on Musk-mania gripping Washington. Democrats are using Musk toย double down on rage rhetoricย and rallying supporters to โfight in the streetโ in a declared โwar.โ It is a familiar pattern for many of us.
Here is the column:
Across the Internet, politicians and pundits are in a monstrous mood. The same people who spent the last year declaring the imminent death of democracy if Donald Trump were elected are now insisting thatย the real threat is the โmonsterโ he hasย unleashed upon the federal bureaucracy. It is the thing of legend, a Beltway monster that you told your children about around campfires late at night: An outsider who comes to town and lays waste to government waste, firing thousands and slashing budgets. Part Frankenstein, part Bigfoot, that creature never had a name, but would be beholden to no one and uninterested in the status quo. The monster now has a name, and it is Elon Musk.
Democratic politicians are now claiming that reducing government is equivalent to destroying government. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yelled dramatically to an outdoor crowd this week that Muskโs government efficiency efforts are โtaking away everything we have.โ
For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have run on reducing government and making it more efficient. But everyone knew that such campaign pledges would be quickly discarded after each election. What is so terrifying this time is that Musk means it. We know that because he has done it before.
When Musk bought Twitter with the promise of dismantling its censorship system and culture, he started by firing virtually everyone. Critics immediately declared that he was a fool and did not understand how to run a social media company. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich said that Muskโs firings meant the death of Twitter and triumphantly declared, โYou break it, you own it.โ
It did not exactly work out that way. Musk fired as much as 90 percent of his staff and the company survived. Liberals only grew more determined, seeking even to boycott his other companies andย bar Space Xย from needed national security missions. As liberal media and pundits raged, Musk stayed firm and survived. Now Amazon hasย increased advertisingย on X, which is now the sixth most popular social media site. It hasย reportedlyย hit 500 million subscribers andย aย reportedย 40-plus percent profitย margin.ย Itย is set to make billions with a greatly reduced overhead due to the firings.
Muskโs model has been watched โ and to some degree replicated โ by other companies. The only way to change a culture isย sometimesย to change the people. Take the U.S. Agency for International Development, where Musk led an effort to freeze operations at the agency and move it to within the State Department. Notably, they are not shutting down the agency, and Trump has said that he wants to continue foreign aid needed for core missions like clean water and disease prevention, for example.
There are good-faith reasons to be concerned that vital programs must not be abruptly ended. However, the complaint is that USAID is the ultimate example of a bloated agency with a high percentage of funding going to administrative costs over field operations.
The State Department reportedly plans to reduce the USAID workforce from over 10,000 to less than 300.ย Itย is vintage Musk. It is easier to take the trauma upfront and then rehire the employees needed to fulfill the mission with a leaner workforce.
That process is easier if you can get people to leave voluntarily. Part of it is performative like Musk showing up at Twitter with a sink โ to let reality โsink inโ for the thousands of employees.
It appears to be working. Many employees are taking an offer to leave with a generous severance package. The idea is simple: If you throw a badger into a crowded car, people will get out. Musk is that badger.
As for Musk being a democracy-devouring Frankenstein, the rhetoric is again outstripping reality. The fact is that liberals rarely hunt monsters, they create their own monsters.
The making of โMuskensteinโ can be found in the cancel campaign launched against him as soon as he pledged to restore free speech on Twitter. An unprecedented alliance of government, corporations, media, and academia were arrayed against him.
This same alliance has worked countless times to get corporations and CEOs to comply with its demands for censorship. But Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, was unbowed. Liberals correctly saw Muskโs defiance as an existential threat. For years, they had exercised virtual total control of social media, legacy media, and academia. Opposing views were denounced as dangerous disinformation.
The key to their system was that you maintain orthodoxy by coercing people into silence. During the COVID pandemic, scientists who challenged the enforced view of masks, COVID-19 origins, and other issues were banned or fired. Others remained silent as they watched colleagues exiled for expressing their opinions.
Musk had to be destroyed, or others might start to believe that they could also defy the groupthink.
The problem is that intolerance for opposing views creates thousands of renegades and outsiders. I was one of them. I was once associated with liberal academia, which frankly worked to my advantage in favorable media and academic opportunities.
I then began to question the growing orthodoxy in academia over the loss of free speech and viewpoint diversity, including the purging of faculties of conservative and libertarian voices. I was quickly targeted for it. But that campaign gave me an even greater understanding of the dangers of the anti-free speech movement from outside the system.
On a much higher level, Musk seems to have felt the same liberating aspects of being declared persona non grata. They turned Musk into the very monster they feared.
They are now doing the same thing with Mark Zuckerberg. After the head of Meta announced that he was going to end the robust censorship system on Facebook and other sites (as well as downsizing staff), the left went after him with the same unhinged hatred.
Like Musk, Zuckerberg had been celebrated as an industry icon, but is now condemned as a grotesque abomination. Politicians such as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) โ who once threatened Zuckerberg not to restore free speech values like Musk โ are now set against him. There is talk of boycotts as many liberals retreat into the safe space of BlueSky, a site that essentially protects liberals from opposing views.
BlueSkyโs appeal is that it stays close to shore, where the waters are safe and shallow. The problem for many on the left is that more and more people want to venture beyond those navigational buoys. Like Musk, they want to consider new horizons and possibilities.
In Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Hector Barbossa warns Captain Jack Sparrow, โYouโre off the edge of the map, mate! Here there be monsters!โ For liberals, we are now off the map where creatures of mythological shapes dwell.
They found them exactly where they thought they would be. After all, they created them. They have made monsters of everyone who challenges the confines of their known world.
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 Harvardโs 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 โ88 and History professor Maya R. Jasanoff โ96, 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 schoolโs 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 โliberalโ or โvery liberal.โ Onlyย 5 percent identified as โconservative,โ and only 0.4% as โvery conservative.โ
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 โconservativeโ 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,ย roughly one-thirdย of the voters still identify as Republican. The student body shows the same bias of selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that onlyย 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 โconservative snowflakes,โ 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 schoolโs 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 Harvardโs position. However,ย after the debate, they overwhelmingly voted against Harvardโs 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.
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 โ 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
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.