Ron Paul: Free speech is worth fighting for

Free Speech is Worth Fighting For | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

March 31, 2025 - "Our Founders, particularly James Madison who drafted the Bill of Rights, understood that our rights are not privileges granted to us by government. No, it was understood at the founding that these basic natural rights outlined by Madison were granted by our Creator and thus no mere mortal could take them away. And first among these is the First Amendment which recognizes that most basic of our natural rights: the right to express ourselves in any way we wish.

Ron Paul in 2012. Photo: David Carlyon.

CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons.

"Unfortunately the US government has not always been in accord with this sentiment and has many times in our history been at war with our freedom of speech. From the alien and sedition acts at the beginning of our republic to Abraham Lincoln’s war on speech to the jailing of antiwar activists during both World Wars to Kent State, the political class is all for free speech unless it is threatening to the political class.

"Recently a new front has been opened in the war on free speech ... one that Americans must take seriously. On university campuses across the country students – both American and foreign guests – have taken to protesting US support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, where tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed. The political class in the United States is determined to defend Israel from its critics and has responded to these protests by threatening and blackmailing the universities if they do not crack down on speech the powers-that-be do not like. 

"Both Presidents Biden and Trump have used the power of US government funding to demand a crackdown on speech they don’t like, with President Trump recently pulling 400 million dollars in federal funding for Columbia University if they don’t silence the protesters. The real scandal is that nearly every US university – both public and “private” – is government funded in the first place. But for politicians to use the power of the purse to deny students the right to express themselves – as long as peaceful – just adds insult to injury.

"Last week a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University was arrested on the street by plainclothes government agents for reportedly simply writing an editorial in her university newspaper expressing her views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. She faces deportation from the country. And she is not alone. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has openly bragged about sending hundreds of students home because they express a political position he disagrees with. Others – including American citizens – have been expelled from their schools and have even had their degrees rescinded. For peacefully expressing a political position that powerful people in Washington disagree with.

"You may also [disagree] with the political position of these students. But to cheer their punishment by the US government is to turn your back on the founding principles of this country. Freedom of speech is a natural right not reserved for American citizens but for all of humanity. And it has been a natural right worth defending for nearly 250 years.

"First they came for foreign students expressing controversial positions and many Americans cheered because they were not foreign and did not like the opinions. But make no mistake: this war on speech will not end with only foreigners being punished. It never does."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Read more: https://ronpaulinstitute.org/free-speech-is-worth-fighting-for/ 

Tim Walz gets First Amendment wrong

During last Tuesday's VPOTUS debate, Tim Walz fumbled a key moment by misunderstanding the First Amendment.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz giving the State of the State 2024. Office of Gov. Tim Walz / Wikimedia Commons.

Yes, Tim Walz, You Can Shout 'Fire' In A Crowded Theatre | Reason | Emma Camp:

October 2, 2024 - "It would be nice if everyone on a presidential ticket understood how the First Amendment works, but unfortunately, that seems to be too much to ask of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. During an exchange about censorship and threats to Democracy — springing, inexplicably, from Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) dodging a question about whether former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election — Walz made two major free speech fumbles. He claimed there is no First Amendment right to 'hate speech' and repeated the myth that you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

"When Vance pivoted to correctly pointing out that Walz had previously 'said there's no First Amendment right to misinformation,' Walz interjected, adding 'or threatening, or hate speech.' But Walz is wrong. While threats aren't protected by the First Amendment, 'hate speech' most certainly is. Speech that is merely offensive — and not part of an unprotected category like true threats or harassment — has full First Amendment protection.... 'The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish hate speech,' reads a rundown on hate speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment group.... 

"But that wasn't Walz's only error. A few seconds later, he said 'You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. That's the test. That's the Supreme Court test.' Again, this is incorrect. It's a common misconception that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre isn't protected by the First Amendment — a myth that originates from a hypothetical used in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1919 Supreme Court opinion in Schenk v. United States. 

"Holmes wrote that 'the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.' Not only was this a purely hypothetical example used to explain Holmes' opinion, but the ruling itself was largely overturned 50 years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

"'The real problem with the 'fire in a crowded theater' discourse is that it too often is used as a placeholder justification for regulating any speech that someone believes is harmful or objectionable,' Naval Academy professor Jeff Kosseff wrote for Reason last year. 'In reality, the Supreme Court has defined narrow categories of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protections and set an extraordinarily high bar for imposing liability for other types of speech.'

"The worst part about all this for Walz is that his sloppy, revealing answers on free speech derailed what had been one of his strongest moments in the debate. The subject only came up in the first place because Vance, in an attempt to sidestep a question about Trump's election loss and the possibility of challenging future results, argued that big-tech censorship and government jawboning pose a bigger threat to democracy than Trump's election denial.... Walz was making a good point and asking an important question. That is, until he revealed what he really thinks about the First Amendment." 

Read more: https://reason.com/2024/10/02/yes-tim-walz-you-can-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre/ 

US appeals court stays social media injunction

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated a lower court's injunction barring federal government agencies from ordering social media companies to suppress protected free speech.

Federal Officials Can Keep Pressing Tech Platforms To Remove Content for Now, Court Says | Reason | Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

July 17, 2023 - "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put on temporary hold an order blocking federal officials from pressuring social media companies to suppress certain accounts, posts, or types of information ... issued Friday. It deferred ruling on the Biden administration's motion for a stay pending appeal 'to the oral argument merits panel which receives this case,' which means those judges will decide whether to lift the current administrative stay or keep things on pause [after] the full appeals process plays out. The court also expedited the case to the next available oral argument slot, meaning an appeals court panel will hold a full hearing on the case as soon as possible....

"First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere recently wrote for Reason about this case (Missouri v. Biden), suggesting that 'the political noise surrounding the case is distracting attention from the important First Amendment principles at stake.' Corn-Revere cites Judge Richard Posner in Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart: A public official who 'threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff's First Amendment rights, regardless of whether the threatened punishment comes in the form of the use (or, misuse) of the defendant's direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority…or in some less-direct form.' (In that case, an Illinois sheriff pressured credit card companies to stop doing business with Backpage.)

"A ruling that federal authorities must limit flagging online speech to encourage its suppression or removal by tech platforms should be viewed by free speech defenders as an unambiguously good thing. But the lower court's decision in Missouri v. Biden — the decision now on temporary hold — has attracted a lot of criticism in some corners that should know better. For instance, The Washington Post called the initial order 'a victory for conservatives' and warned that it 'could have a major chilling effect on contacts between tech companies…and a broad swath of federal agencies' — as if that's a bad thing!... 

"In the lower court's ruling, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty banned all Department of Justice and FBI employees plus many federal public health officials from 'meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content,' and 'specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech'....

"The case was brought by the Republican attorneys general (A.G.s) of Louisiana and Missouri, as part of a beef with the Biden administration.... 'State A.G.s are unlikely defenders of the First Amendment given the members of that fraternity who make their political bones by mounting anti-speech crusades,' notes Corn-Revere. And on the same day Missouri v. Biden came down, [Missouri A.G. Andrew] Bailey was one of seven state A.G.s who sent a threatening letter to Target warning that the sale of LGBTQ-themed merchandise as part of a 'Pride' campaign might violate state obscenity laws.'

So, Bailey is not exactly a stalwart and unwavering defender of First Amendment principles. And Doughty's opinion 'credulously accepts plaintiffs' claims that almost all of the contacts with government officials (and some civilians) were coercive, and it uncritically accepts assertions that "only conservative viewpoints were allegedly suppressed,"' notes Corn-Revere. Doughty also makes a number of other puzzling assertions in his (now on-hold) 155-page ruling.... But it doesn't mean that Doughty's decision is totally without merits, either.

"'The district court's ruling in Missouri v. Biden rightly recognizes the serious threat government pressure tactics pose to free speech online,' as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression put it. This sort of backhanded pressure on social media has come to be known as 'jawboning.' Robby Soave took a deep look at the issue for Reason's March 2023 cover story [see video].

"Perhaps the 5th Circuit's temporary hold on the order is 'the right call given the scope of the order and the many questions it raises," suggests Corn-Revere. But 'while the court of appeals should clarify and narrow the terms of the injunction, reversing it would be a mistake. It doesn't require an active imagination to predict how far a future administration (of either party) might venture if the courts greenlighted this level of governmental meddling in private moderation decisions.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/2023/07/17/federal-officials-can-keep-pressing-tech-platforms-to-remove-content-for-now-court-says/?itm_source=parsely-api

Emails show CDC policed COVID speech on Facebook | Reason TV | January 19, 2023:

"Disinformation" crusaders oppose 1st Amendment

Some critics of the injunction against the U.S. government using social media to suppress constitutionally protected speech actually have a problem with the Constitution itself.

Some Critics of the Ruling Against Biden's Censorship by Proxy Have a Beef With the 1st Amendment Itself | Reason | Jacob Sullum:

July 12, 2023 - "Some critics of last week's preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, which bars federal officials from encouraging social media platforms to suppress constitutionally protected speech, reject the premise that such contacts amount to government-directed censorship. Other critics, especially researchers who focus on 'disinformation' and hate speech, pretty much concede that point but see nothing troubling about it. From their perspective, the problem is that complying with the First Amendment means tolerating inaccurate, misleading, and hateful speech that endangers public health, democracy, and social harmony.

Courtesy Library of Congress.

"The day after Terry Doughty, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, issued the injunction, The New York Times gave voice to those [latter] concerns in a piece headlined 'Disinformation Researchers Fret About Fallout From Judge's Order.' According to the subhead, those researchers 'said a restriction on government interaction with social media companies could impede efforts to curb false claims about vaccines and voter fraud'.... 

"'Most misinformation or disinformation that violates social platforms' policies is flagged by researchers, nonprofits, or people and software at the platforms themselves,' the Times notes. But 'academics and anti-disinformation organizations often complained that platforms were unresponsive to their concerns.'

 The paper reinforces that point with a quote from Viktorya Vilk, director for digital safety and free expression (!) at PEN America: 'Platforms are very good at ignoring civil society organizations and our requests for help or requests for information or escalation of individual cases. They are less comfortable ignoring the government.'

"The reason social media companies are 'less comfortable ignoring the government,' of course, is that it exercises coercive power over them and could use that power to punish them for failing to censor speech it considers dangerous. In the 155-page opinion laying out the reasoning behind his injunction, Doughty ... cites myriad communications that show administration officials expected platforms to promptly comply with the government's censorship 'requests,' which they typically did, and repeatedly complained when companies were less than fully cooperative. He emphasizes how keen Facebook et al. were to assuage President Joe Biden's anger at moderation practices that he said were "killing people'.... As the fretful researchers quoted by the Times see it, that is all as it should be....

"The Times paraphrases Bond Benton, an associate communication professor at Montclair State University, who worries that Doughty's ruling 'carried a message that misinformation qualifies as speech and its removal as the suppression of speech.' As usual, the Times glides over disputes about what qualifies as 'misinformation,' which according to the Biden administration includes truthful content that it considers misleading or unhelpful. But since even a demonstrably false assertion 'qualifies as speech' under the First Amendment, the 'message' that troubles Benton is an accurate statement of constitutional law. That does not mean platforms cannot decide for themselves what content they are willing to host, but it does mean the government should not try to dictate such decisions....

"In an interview with the Times, Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, complained that the U.S. takes 'a 'particularly fangless' approach to dangerous content compared with places like Australia and the European Union.' Those comparisons are telling. Australia's Online Safety Act empowers regulators to order removal of 'illegal and restricted content'.... Internet service providers that do not comply with complaint-triggered takedown orders within 24 hours are subject to civil penalties.... Freedom House notes that Australia's law includes 'no requirement for the eSafety Commissioner to give reasons for removal notices and provides no opportunity for users to respond to complaints'.... Australia's scheme plainly restricts or prohibits speech that would be constitutionally protected in the United States. 

"Likewise the European Union's Digital Services Act, which covers 'illegal content,' a category that is defined broadly to include anything that runs afoul of a member nation's speech restrictions. E.U. countries such as France and Germany prohibit several types of speech that are covered by the First Amendment.... These are the models that Ahmed thinks the U.S. should be following.... Critics like Ahmed, in short, do not merely object to Doughty's legal analysis; they have a beef with the First Amendment itself, which allows Americans to express all sorts of potentially objectionable opinions. If you value that freedom, you probably consider it a virtue of the American legal system. But if your priority is eliminating 'hate and disinformation,' the First Amendment is, at best, an inconvenient obstacle."

Read more: https://reason.com/2023/07/12/some-critics-of-the-ruling-against-bidens-censorship-by-proxy-have-a-beef-with-the-1st-amendment-itself/

Americans trending libertarian on 1st Amendment freedoms

Study: On First Amendment Freedoms, Americans Are Trending Libertarian - Daniel Davis:

July 8, 2015 - "Does the First Amendment go too far? According to a new survey, most Americans say it doesn't.... The study, conducted by the Newseum's First Amendment Center, surveyed Americans on a range of hot-button political issues that pertain to the First Amendment. Should businesses be forced to violate their consciences and serve gay weddings? Should the government's domestic spying programs be more limited? Should corporate spending on elections have limits?....

"Seventy-five percent of respondents said the First Amendment does not go too far, and only 19 percent said it does. That's nearly a 20-point shift in favor of First Amendment rights from one year ago, when 57 percent of respondents said the First Amendment goes too far.... Only 9 percent of Americans under age 30 think the First Amendment goes too far, while 22 percent of seniors (above age 65) think it goes too far. This same correlation holds for the intermediary age groups as well, creating a steady gradient between young adults and seniors on the issue.

"Should state governments be able to deny people license plates that display the Confederate flag? Fifty-six percent of respondents said no, and 35 percent said yes....

"Last year, 52 percent of Americans believed that businesses should not have the right to decline service to gay weddings, regardless of their religious or conscientious objections. In 2015, that number has shrunk to 38 percent — a 14-point drop....

"54 percent of respondents said they are against government spying on phone calls and online messages in order to catch terrorists. Thirty-seven said they support such spying operations. Interestingly, independent voters showed the least support for these operations, with only 31 percent approving them....

"When asked whether drawing cartoons of Muhammed should be legal, 60 percent said yes, while 32 percent said no....

"The one First Amendment issue where public opinion trends less libertarian is the issue of campaign finance. When asked whether corporations and unions should have more limits placed on their campaign spending, 73 percent said yes. Only 23 percent said spending should remain unlimited. This represents a 10-point shift in favor of stricter spending rules since 2012."

Read more: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldavis/2015/07/08/draft-n2022731
'via Blog this'