#FirstAmendment

[undergroundusa]

"…the most potent threat to free speech comes not from the communist Chinese or the Bolshevistic Russian oligarchs, the Marxist dictators of South America, or the Islamofascists of the Middle East. It is emanating from the far-Left of the Democrat Party…"

ORIGINAL CONTENT: https://www.undergroundusa.com/p/free-speech-under-attack-the-marxists

READ, SUBSCRIBE, SHARE & EDUCATE: PROTECT FREE SPEECH

Free Speech Under Attack: The Marxist’s March To Control Through Censorship

[juegodesupervivenciascum]

Arrest warrants have now been issued for Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble

🔴BREAKING: 🚨⚖️❌The attack on free speech just escalated. Arrest warrants have now been issued for Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, and Andrew Torba, CEO of GAB, on charges of Conspiracy to Defraud the US and more—just two weeks after Pavel Durov was arrested in France. This crackdown on independent platforms is becoming all too familiar. Is this just another step in the drive for mass censorship? Free speech is clearly under siege. Who's next? 🤔

[dannyhellman]

Dean Martin, born June 7, 1917.

“The Rat Pack in Hell”

Cover illustration by Danny Hellman for SCREW Magazine

Art direction by Kevin Hein

5/23/98

[sublimeobservationarcade]

Social Media Activity Checked By US Customs

Americans are having their social media activity checked by US customs and border agents. This is an illustration of how the US has become a fascist police state under Donald Trump. I have written about how China uses a social credit system to rate its citizens’ behaviour and rewards or penalises them accordingly. Many in the US criticise China as a totalitarian state, well the Trump regime is now acting in similarly intrusive ways. The digital world is primarily a record keeping device and the checking of this by security agencies has become their new favourite means of investigating individuals. Free speech and first amendment rights are being routinely trampled on by the Trump regime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhXWAm4iKHo

Border Crossings & Social Media Checking In America

Visitors and citizens are both being screened at the border by US customs agents. Reminiscent of totalitarian regimes around the world America has now fallen into this category. The warnings to the American voters prior to the last Presidential election went unheeded by too many. That Trump represented a threat to democracy and that he and his minions would harm the very fabric of what the United States of America has constitutionally stood for. Well, the police state is in action with ICE agents wearing masks grabbing innocent people off the streets. Academic students and teachers have been disappeared akin to what happened in Chile and Argentina back in the late 20C. It is sickening. https://www.tiktok.com/@npr/video/7491704891199491371 US Airports Screening Travellers’ Phones & Devices Any criticism of the genocide being committed by Israel in Gaza and showing up on your social media will get you likely detained. These Trumpian right wing defenders of free speech have conveniently misplaced their first amendment concerns. “If you’re a visa or green card holder with plans to travel to the US, reports of people being turned away at airports over messages found on their devices might be prompting you to second-guess your travel plans. You might be asking whether Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can search your phone, whether you can opt out and what you should do to minimize your risks. The short answer is that yes, CBP can search your devices. Constitutional protections are generally weaker at US borders, including airports.” - (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/26/phone-search-privacy-us-border-immigration) Americans are having their social media activity checked by US customs and border agents. This is the fascist police state America under Trump and a constant reminder not to normalise the extreme nature of the Trump regime. The legacy media tends to normalise Trump in their coverage, as if we were in a non-judgmental timeless frieze. The reality of what Trump is doing to America is truly disgusting. The welcome mat has been well and truly done away with, especially if you have brown skin, liberal views, tattoos, and stuff on your devices that could point the finger at you.

Photo by Pjiong on Pexels.com “The process which is occurring in the United States right now and to a lesser degree elsewhere too is well worth understanding. Those on the Right and in the Trump regime are discarding adherence to the law, as a fundamental of government. Basically, they were unable to achieve their white supremacy and might is right wishes via upholding the existing US Constitution. Donald Trump’s desire for unchecked executive power is fired by this. Those on the Left, in contrast to this, have been sticklers for abiding by the laws of the land. A majority of the American voting public voted for criminality when they elected Trump, a convicted felon to the White House.” - (https://www.midasword.com.au/the-trump-regime-are-discarding-adherence-to-the-law/) Robert Sudha Hamilton is the author of America Matters: Pre-apocalyptic Posts & Essays in the Shadow of Trump. ©MidasWord

Read the full article

[steadyscopemedia]

The Trump administration has blocked $2 billion in federal funding to Harvard after the university refused demands to restrict activism and change its hiring and admissions practices. Harvard calls it a violation of First Amendment rights. 📚 Is this political pressure—or protecting fairness in education?

[insightdaily]

Takeaways about groups working to identify and report foreign student protesters

FILE – Demonstrators gather in support of detained Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil on March 14, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow, File) ASSOCIATED PRESS

Following President Donald Trump’s executive order calling for the deportation of foreign students involved in “pro-jihadist” demonstrations against the war in Gaza, some supporters of the policy had already begun efforts to identify individuals for potential expulsion.

These developments raise significant concerns about privacy, surveillance, and the intersection of activism and immigration policy.

[munaeem]

ICE Arrests Pro-Palestinian Activist: A Threat to Free Speech?

Hey, Did You Hear About This ICE Bust? So, picture this: it’s Saturday night, March 8, 2025, and Mahmoud Khalil—a Palestinian green card holder and Columbia University grad—is chilling in his apartment near campus. Suddenly, ICE agents roll up, cuff him, and haul him off. Why? Well, he was a big name in last year’s pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia, negotiating between students and admins…

[akashmaphotography]

Social media is a public space

May 06, 2019 By Akashma News Fellow journalists, we must raise our voices against the actions of tech giants such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Their recent measures pose significant threats to free speech, amounting to censorship and potential violations of First Amendment rights. In May 2019, Facebook banned several high-profile individuals, including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan,…

[the-most-humble-blog]

🔥THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX GOT EXPOSED

—AND NOW THEY’RE TERRIFIED

Once upon a time—by which I mean just a couple of years ago—you could get banned off the entire internet for saying something that, in retrospect, turned out to be 100% correct.

COVID origins? Banned. Election concerns? Banned. Saying men shouldn’t box women? Nuclear-level banned.

The Most Humble Blog wasn’t immune to the digital gulag, either. My entire Medium account—which I created about a year ago—was flagged, reported, and permanently nuked for violating the delicate sensibilities of the same people who spend their weekends dressed like discount Madonna impersonators.

I tried to acquiesce. A decision I’m still ashamed of.

I tried not rocking the boat, at least a little.

I thought, maybe, if I wasn’t too loud, if I just toned it down 5%, these lipstick-bearded hall monitors would let me exist.

But it was too late.

The mob had already decided. It didn’t matter if I changed the phrasing, softened the wording, or used gentler language—because it was never about the words.

It was about eliminating the wrong thinkers.

And in case there was any lingering illusion that these platforms were “neutral,” the dismissive response from Medium’s staff confirmed everything I needed to know:

They weren’t just tolerating censorship; they were leading it.

They weren’t punishing bad behavior; they were enforcing ideology.

They weren’t just banning “harmful speech”; they were shutting up anyone who didn't fall in line.

It didn’t even matter that they were the ones who sought me out.

It didn’t matter that they came into my inbox spewing the most profane, unhinged, sexually explicit insults they could string together.

It didn’t matter that they violated every rule on the site.

They had the backing of the moderators.

Because this was never about rules. It was about who gets to speak.

THE GREAT SILENCING—AND THE RISE OF THE RESISTANCE

For years, censorship was camouflaged as virtue.

It wasn’t “banning opposing views”; it was stopping hate. It wasn’t “erasing dissenting voices”; it was protecting marginalized people. It wasn’t “crushing free speech”; it was curating a safe space.

And if you dared question the censors?

You were labeled a menace to society faster than a blue-haired Twitter addict could say, “Report and block.”

The problem? The lies didn’t hold up.

The same experts who silenced COVID skeptics were later forced to admit that lab-leak theories were “plausible.”

The same tech giants who buried election concerns suddenly stopped banning people for asking questions.

The same people who claimed "speech is violence" suddenly had nothing to say when the violence was against people who disagreed with them.

And then, something happened that completely shattered their monopoly on the conversation:

Trump got back into the picture.

And love him or hate him, he did something no other politician had the balls to do:

He put these censor-happy pussies on notice.

Unless there’s a proveable direct threat against a person, people should be able to say whatever the fuck they want. Period.

Not “if it aligns with corporate-approved narratives.” Not “if it doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.” Not “if it’s deemed acceptable by a bunch of unwashed Twitch moderators.”

Whatever. The fuck. They want.

And suddenly?

The entire censorship machine started backpedaling.

NOW THEY’RE SCARED—AND THEY SHOULD BE

Let’s be real. These people never believed in free speech.

They believed in speech control.

They thrived under the old system—where they could run around platforms, flagging people they didn’t like, getting them deplatformed, demonetized, and erased from existence.

But now?

Now they’re absolutely terrified.

Why?

Because they know they can’t win without silencing the opposition.

Because they know they don’t have the numbers.

Because they know that without biased moderators holding their hands, their arguments fall apart faster than a Dollar Store wig in a rainstorm.

And for the first time in years, these people are realizing:

They don’t own the internet anymore.

They don’t get to dictate what’s “allowed” anymore.

They don’t get to be the arbiters of truth anymore.

The free speech Renaissance is here, and they are shitting bricks.

WHAT COMES NEXT?

The fight isn’t over.

These platforms aren’t suddenly pro-free speech out of some moral awakening.

No, no, no.

They’re only backing off because:

They got exposed.

Their narrative fell apart.

And people stopped being afraid.

But don’t think for a second they aren’t waiting for their chance to clamp down again.

The second they think they can regain control, they’ll try it again.

Which is why now, more than ever, you have to:

🔥 Speak your mind. 🔥 Refuse to self-censor. 🔥 Push the conversation forward, no matter how “taboo” it is.

Because the second we go quiet?

They win.

And fuck that.

🔥 REBLOG if you refuse to be silenced.

💬 COMMENT if you've ever been banned, flagged, or censored for speaking facts. 🚀 FOLLOW for more unapologetic, uncensored truth.

[cyarskaren52]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Chelsea Unfiltered (@truthfulteatime)

truthfulteatime

A new level of respect for @kendricklamar . Understanding the importance of influence and the critical time we are in. You, sir, are a champion for the people ✊🏽thank you for understanding the assignment 🖤🖤

[rwnnews]

Jim Acosta Urges Media Boycott Against Trump Administration Over AP Blacklisting.

Jim Acosta Urges Media Boycott Against Trump Administration Over AP Blacklisting. In a bold move signaling deep-seated tensions between the press and the Trump administration, former CNN anchor Jim Acosta has called for a media boycott. This unprecedented suggestion follows the administration’s decision to bar an Associated Press (AP) journalist from White House briefings, an action Acosta deems…

[executive-orders]

Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship (EO 14149)

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-01902

The executive order titled "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, reflects a significant policy shift aimed at addressing perceived overreach by the federal government in the realm of free speech, particularly on digital platforms. Here are some key insights:

Purpose and Background:

The order explicitly criticizes the previous administration for allegedly using coercive measures to control speech on social media platforms under the pretext of fighting misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. This reflects a narrative of government overreach that was a significant talking point in Trump's political rhetoric.

Policy Objectives:

Protection of Free Speech: The order mandates that no federal officer or employee should engage in or facilitate actions that infringe upon First Amendment rights. This is rooted in a strong stance on constitutional rights to free expression.

Resource Allocation: It prohibits the use of taxpayer resources for censorship activities, aligning with conservative views on government spending and public trust in governmental actions related to speech.

Implementation and Accountability:

Investigation into Past Actions: The Attorney General is tasked with investigating past government actions that might have curtailed free speech. This includes looking into interactions with social media companies, which could lead to policy changes or even legal actions against government officials or agencies.

Legal and Practical Implications:

Legal Constraints: The order acknowledges that it does not inherently grant new rights or benefits legally enforceable against the government, suggesting that any enforcement would likely depend on existing legal frameworks or new legislation.

Operational Challenges: Implementing this order would require a nuanced understanding of where government influence ends and private company autonomy begins, especially in an era where misinformation can have real-world consequences.

Political and Social Impact:

Political Messaging: This order serves as a strong political statement, reinforcing Trump's image as a defender of free speech and critic of "big tech" censorship, appealing to his voter base who value these principles.

Social Media and Public Discourse: It could lead to less government interaction with social media platforms regarding content moderation, potentially affecting how misinformation is handled online but also possibly leading to an increase in unchecked speech.

Future Actions:

The order calls for a report with recommendations for remedial actions, which could result in policy changes, new guidelines for government interaction with private entities, or even legislative proposals to further protect free speech.

This executive order, if fully implemented as intended, could reshape how free speech is managed in the digital age, emphasizing a hands-off approach from the government in content regulation, while still navigating the complex interplay between freedom of speech and public safety or misinformation. However, its effectiveness would largely depend on how clearly these boundaries are defined and adhered to by both government and private entities.

Analysis of Executive Order 14149 in Relation to United States Law

Constitutional Basis:

First Amendment: The core of this order is rooted in the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. The order explicitly aims to reinforce this constitutional right by ending what it describes as federal censorship.

Legal Interpretation of Speech: The order's reference to "misinformation," "disinformation," and "malinformation" touches on a nuanced area of First Amendment law. The Supreme Court has generally held that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content unless it falls into certain unprotected categories (like incitement, defamation, or true threats).

Policy Implications:

Government Coercion of Private Entities: The order addresses the issue of government influence over private companies (like social media platforms) to censor speech. This is legally complex because while the government itself is constrained by the First Amendment, private entities are not. However, if government action can be shown to coerce private censorship, this might be considered an unconstitutional state action.

Resource Allocation: The directive in Section 2(c) to ensure no taxpayer resources are used for unconstitutional speech abridgement aligns with the constitutional mandate but could complicate existing programs or initiatives aimed at combating misinformation if they are perceived as censorship.

Legal Precedents and Challenges:

Precedent on Government Influence: Legal precedents like Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) suggest that government coercion of private entities to censor content can be seen as state action under the First Amendment. This executive order might be seen as an attempt to preempt or address such concerns.

Investigation and Remediation: The Attorney General’s role in investigating past actions (Sec. 3(b)) could lead to legal proceedings or policy changes. However, proving unconstitutional government conduct would require substantial evidence of coercion or direct government involvement in censorship.

Implementation Challenges:

Interagency Coordination: Effective implementation would require coordination across federal agencies to ensure compliance, as seen in Section 4(a). This might involve revising existing policies or guidelines on how agencies interact with private entities regarding content moderation.

Legal Boundaries: The order must navigate the fine line between protecting free speech and maintaining national security or public safety, areas where government has traditionally had some leeway to regulate speech.

Potential Legal Actions or Challenges:

Challenges from Affected Parties: If this order results in changes that impact how misinformation is handled, there could be legal challenges from parties who believe their rights or interests are compromised, either in terms of free speech or in combating misinformation.

Judicial Review: The order's effectiveness and legality might eventually be tested in court, particularly if there are claims of overreach or if the order leads to significant policy shifts in government interaction with private platforms.

Conclusion:

Executive Order 14149, while clearly aimed at reinforcing First Amendment rights, enters a legally contentious area regarding the balance between free speech and government's role in information dissemination. Its success in law will hinge on how it's implemented, how agencies interpret its directives, and how courts view the balance between free speech and other governmental interests.

Evaluation of the Effect of Executive Order 14149 on the Spreading of Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation

Potential Reduction in Government-Driven Censorship:

Positive Impact: By explicitly prohibiting federal agencies from engaging in or facilitating censorship, the order could reduce instances where the government pressures platforms to suppress information. This might lead to a broader range of voices and perspectives on platforms, potentially including those previously labeled as misinformation.

Negative Impact: Without government oversight, there might be less structured intervention in combating false information. This could inadvertently allow more misinformation to proliferate if platforms become more cautious or less aggressive in content moderation due to perceived government withdrawal.

Impact on Platform Responsibility:

Increased Responsibility for Platforms: With less perceived governmental pressure, social media platforms might have to take more independent action or develop more robust, transparent policies for dealing with misinformation. This could lead to:

Improved Tools: Platforms might invest more in AI and community guidelines to manage content without government influence.

Potential Inconsistency: Without uniform government guidance, different platforms might handle similar content differently, leading to varied user experiences across platforms.

Public Trust and Information Ecosystem:

Trust in Information: The order might increase public skepticism or trust depending on one's view:

Skepticism: Critics might argue that this could lead to an information environment where false narratives flourish unchecked, reducing trust in digital information sources.

Trust: Proponents might see it as a step towards a more open discourse, where the public can better engage with a variety of viewpoints to discern truth.

Educational Impact: There might be an increased focus on media literacy as both individuals and institutions recognize the need for better public discernment of information.

Legal and Policy Implications:

Legal Clarity: The order could potentially lead to clearer legal guidelines or lawsuits defining the boundaries of free speech versus misinformation control, especially in cases where misinformation leads to harm.

Policy Shifts: Federal agencies might need to adjust how they communicate or engage with the public on issues like public health or national security, where misinformation can have significant consequences.

International Considerations:

Influence Abroad: The U.S. setting such a precedent might influence other countries' policies on information control, potentially affecting global norms on free speech and misinformation.

Cross-Border Information: Misinformation often transcends national boundaries, and this order might complicate international efforts to coordinate responses to global disinformation campaigns.

Long-term Effects on Public Discourse:

Polarization: While aiming to protect free speech, the order might inadvertently increase polarization if unchecked misinformation fuels extreme viewpoints without counter-narratives.

Innovation in Information Sharing: There could be a push towards new forms of communication or platforms that prioritize veracity, possibly leading to innovations in how information is disseminated and verified.

Conclusion:

Executive Order 14149 could significantly alter the landscape of information control by reducing direct government involvement in content moderation. While this might promote a broader spectrum of free speech, it also poses challenges in managing the spread of false information. The ultimate effect will depend on how platforms, the public, and other institutions adapt to this new policy environment, balancing the right to free speech with the need to maintain an informed public.

[annexs-blog]

Trump’s Executive Order on Free Speech Sparks Debate

On January 21, 2025, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship." The move aims to prevent federal authorities from infringing on Americans' free speech rights and includes an investigation into alleged speech suppression by the previous administration.

Supporters are celebrating this as a bold step toward protecting free expression, while critics argue it’s a politically motivated measure. Some even highlight the irony, given Trump’s contentious history with the media during his prior administration.

Is this a step toward true freedom, or does it create more division? The debate rages on.

🔗 Curious about the details? Find out more here: Read the full article.

[gamesatwork]

e487 - Data Privacy and you, NOT!

Photo by Joshua Rawson-Harris on Unsplash This week Andy, Michael, and Michael have a location based show, with discussion on FourSquare, data Privacy, and fast moving robots. Now that Four Square has announced they are shutting down their FourSquare Places site, the team discusses their prior use and how it has tapered off over the years. The guys then pivot from the identification of…