A lawyer who defended many of the peaceful pro-life protesters targeted by the Biden administration praised the House Judiciary Committee for voting to repeal the decades-old statute used to put them behind bars. 
Steve Crampton, a lawyer with the Thomas More Society, told The Daily Wire that it was “very encouraging” that the Judiciary Committee passed a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/589/all-actions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill</a> on Tuesday from Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The FACE Act, first passed in 1994, is a law that makes obstructing access to an abortion facility a federal crime and ostensibly provides the same protections for churches and pregnancy centers.  
In reality, Crampton noted, the law has been used to go after peaceful pro-life demonstrators, while attacks on churches and crisis pregnancy centers are often ignored. Data obtained by Roy show that 97% of all FACE Act prosecutions since 1994 have been against pro-lifers.
“You have ample law under state law and elsewhere to prosecute truly violent undertakings,” Crampton told The Daily Wire. “All the FACE Act adds is the physical obstruction component, which is targeted at peaceful civil disobedience acts that have historically been really cherished and celebrated in our country, rather than singled out for harsh federal prosecutions.”
Throughout multiple federal trials, Crampton defended peaceful pro-life protesters, such as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kidnapped-at-gunpoint-pro-life-activist-testifies-about-harrowing-fbi-raid-of-home" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paul Vaughn</a> in Tennessee and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-life-activist-sentenced-to-over-four-years-in-prison-over-protest-at-d-c-abortion-facility" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lauren Handy</a> in Washington, D.C., who were convicted under both FACE and conspiracy against rights charges during the Biden administration. Both faced over a decade in prison. Handy was sentenced to over four years in prison, while Vaughn was sentenced to home detention. 
In January, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/they-should-not-have-been-prosecuted-trump-pardons-23-pro-lifers-targeted-by-biden-doj" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pardoned</a> the pro-life protesters, freeing Handy and others from federal prison. Trump’s Justice Department also issued a memo saying FACE would only be prosecuted in cases of extreme violence. 
Crampton said he was disappointed to see California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock voice opposition to repealing FACE during Tuesday’s hearing, as he argued that the law was neutral but abused by the Biden administration. Crampton said the law was inherently content-based, noting that you could only be charged under FACE if your intent was to prevent abortion and not just obstruction in general. He also said that the bias of the law &#8220;screams through the statistics&#8221; of the prosecutions. 
Vaughn, a Christian father of 11 whose Tennessee home was raided by armed FBI agents, told The Daily Wire he was happy to see the repeal advance. 
“The reality is it&#8217;s never done anything other than provide a federal hammer to be used against the pro-life community,” he said. “There&#8217;s not a law that it covers, that is not already a state law, or is not an infraction that it covers, it&#8217;s not covered under a state law.”
Vaughn says he would also like to see reforms brought to the conspiracy against rights provision from the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, which Biden’s Justice Department paired with FACE in their cases against the pro-lifer protesters. That meant that Vaughn and others — like 89-year-old communist concentration camp survivor Eva Edl — faced over 10 years in prison. 
Crampton agreed, noting that he would like to see the provision heavily revised to ensure First Amendment protections or even done away with altogether. He thinks that FACE should be dealt with first because state attorneys general still bring FACE prosecutions under the law even if the Trump administration is not active. 
FACE “remains a very, very powerful weapon in the hands of these left-wing attorneys general,” Crampton told The Daily Wire, adding that &#8220;protecting fundamental First Amendment rights ought to be of the highest priority in our national debate&#8221; and that pro-life advocates should &#8220;keep charging forward.&#8221; 
A full vote on the repeal has not yet been scheduled for the House, and the legislation would likely have an uphill battle in the Senate. Republican Senators such as Mike Lee of Utah and Josh Hawley of Missouri have been very outspoken about the weaponization of the FACE Act.

US-POLITICS-BIDEN

Lawyer Who Fought Biden’s FACE Act Weaponization Urges GOP To ‘Keep Charging Forward’ On Repeal

Biden Administration

Chip Roy

FACE Act

First Amendment

House Judiciary Committee

Pro-Life Movement

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic charity that sued Wisconsin after it was mandated to pay certain unemployment taxes while other religious organizations were exempted.
In its <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-154_2b82.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the court struck down a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that said the Catholic Charities Bureau had to pay taxes on unemployment compensation. The court said that the interpretation of state tax law by Wisconsin&#8217;s Supreme Court violated the First Amendment.
&#8220;The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny,&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority decision. &#8220;The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of [Wisconsin law] imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.&#8221;
Catholic Charities Bureau is an organization that provides services to poor people, the disabled, the elderly, and children with special needs as a ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior. According to its <a href="https://ccbsuperior.org/about-us/">website</a>, it provides around 50 programs to over 10,500 people.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, saying that in addition to violating the First Amendment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine, which means that a religious institution is not defined by any corporate entity it may form.
&#8220;I would reverse for an additional reason — that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;However incorporated, Catholic Charities and its subentities are, from a religious perspective, a mere arm of the Diocese of Superior. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should have deferred to that understanding, and its failure to do so amounted to an unlawful attempt by the State to redefine the Diocese’s internal governance.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Thomas noted that the government could not use entities created by religious institutions as a backdoor means to regulate their internal governance.
&#8220;In short, the corporation is made for the church, not the church for the corporation. Both the basic principles of church autonomy and the history of religious corporations establish that religious institutions are more than the corporate entities that they form,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;It follows that the government may not use such entities as a means of regulating the internal governance of religious institutions.&#8221;
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a separate concurring opinion.

DOGE-FED-BUILDINGS

Supreme Court Sides With Christian Charity Targeted By Wisconsin

Catholic Church

Clarence Thomas

Religious Liberty

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court

Wisconsin

North Carolina Congressman Mark Harris is leading a push to protect pastors who make political statements from being punished by the IRS, he told The Daily Wire. 
Harris on Monday will introduce the “Free Speech Fairness Act,” to make it clear in law that religious leaders can make statements about political candidates and not have to worry about their churches losing tax-exempt status. The bill is specifically aimed at countering the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which restricts churches and other non-profits from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 
“The whole idea was in contrast to Americans’ inalienable rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion,” Harris told The Daily Wire. “It currently puts the IRS in a position of judge and jury on comments that are going to be made by ministers from the pulpit and all speech from non-profits.”
Harris, a Baptist minister, said that the Johnson Amendment had been used as a “tool to silence religious leaders and churches.” He said his legislation would restore free speech to religious leaders and non-profits. 
Senator James Lankford (R-OK) will introduce a companion measure co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the Senate. 
“The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to freedom of speech and religious freedom without the threat of interference from Congress,&#8221; Lankford told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Fundamental American values must extend to everyone, including pastors, social workers, or non-profit employees and volunteers. Everyone should have their constitutional rights to assembly, free speech, freedom of religion and free press protected.”
The bill would “allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose” and if no meaningful expenses are incurred. For example, a pastor could comment on a political candidate during a sermon, or the president of a crisis pregnancy center could point to a candidate&#8217;s record on abortion in a newsletter. 
The legislation would not allow churches or non-profits to become political action committees, Harris said. 
”We’re not looking for churches to become super PACS, that is certainly not the purpose of this,” he told The Daily Wire. “But it is to really restore free speech to the pulpits of America without any threat of our tax code.” 
In the House, the bill has already picked up 14 co-sponsors, including Reps. Michael Guest (MS), Randy Weber (TX), Barry Moore (AL), Clay Higgins (LA), Glenn Grothman (WI), Keith Self (TX), Michael Baumgartner (WA), Mark Messmer (IN), Tim Walberg (MI), Marlin Stutzman (IN), David Rouzer (NC), Doug LaMalfa (CA), Andy Ogles (TN), Abe Hamadeh (AZ), and Mary Miller (IL). 
House Speaker Mike Johnson <a href="https://scalise.house.gov/press-release/scalise-hice-johnson-lankford-reintroduce-free-speech-fairness-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced</a> similar legislation in 2019 alongside House Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
The proposal is also backed by over a dozen conservative groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Catholic Vote, the America First Policy Institute, and others.
Back in 2017, President Donald Trump promised to &#8220;destroy&#8221; the Johnson Amendment to &#8220;allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.&#8221; To that effect, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/09/2017-09574/promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executive order</a> in May 2017 to explicitly protect religious leaders speaking out on politics.

Mark Harris wont face state charges in N.C. 9th District ballot fraud case

EXCLUSIVE: North Carolina Republican Leads Effort To ‘Restore’ Free Speech For Pastors, Churches

Free Speech

James Lankford

North Carolina

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a Democrat-backed bill on Tuesday that advocates say would have been used to target peaceful pro-life protesters and sidewalk counselors outside of abortion facilities. 
The bill would have sharply restricted the activities of pro-life advocates around abortion facilities, including imposing penalties for “impeding” access to an abortion provider. In his veto message, the Republican governor said that the legislation was an unconstitutional attack on free speech. 
“This legislation is an unconstitutional time, place, and manner restriction on the God-given, constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech,” Youngkin <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1324/text/SB1324VG" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. “It creates new criminal penalties for what one might say or where they stand when they say it. If this bill were to become law, a citizen of the Commonwealth, the crucible of our representative democracy, could be jailed simply for carrying a sign.”
The legislation, <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1324/text/SB1324ER" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB 1324</a>, would create penalties for anyone “who knowingly obstructs, detains, hinders, impedes, blocks, or delays another person&#8217;s entry to or exit” from a health care facility. 
It would also block anyone from approaching “another person within eight feet of such person in the public way or sidewalk area within a radius of 40 feet from any entrance door to a health care facility, unless such other person consents to the approach, for the purpose of giving, tendering, or exhibiting any material to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.”
That provision would have restricted the work of pro-life sidewalk counselors who gather outside abortion facilities to urge women not to end the life of their unborn child and frequently offer help with their pregnancies. 
The Democrat-backed legislation <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/votes/SB1324/2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> the House of Delegates 51-45 and Senate 21-19 in party-line votes. 
Pro-life advocates said that SB 1324 was meant to chill their speech.
“This bill is part of a concerted effort to stifle efforts to provide oversight of abortion providers and prevent individuals and groups from counseling women away from abortion,” Victoria Cobb of the Virginia-based Family Foundation <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2025/01/29/trump-pardoned-pro-life-americans-now-virginia-democrats-want-to-lock-them-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> as the measure worked its way through the legislature. “SB 1324 represents a clear attack on the ability to peacefully voice opposition to abortion, criminalizing the very act of offering alternatives and support to women visiting these facilities.”
The law would have been similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a federal offense to sit or stand in front of the entrances to abortion facilities. During the Biden administration, FACE was used to lock up peaceful pro-life protesters. 
President Donald Trump has taken a drastically different approach, pardoning the pro-lifers targeted by Biden, and directing his Justice Department to only prosecute FACE cases in instances of extreme violence. 
Youngkin on Tuesday also vetoed a number of other Democrat backed-bills, including legislation on gun control, pushing so-called green energy, and expanding recreational marijuana.

planecrash

Youngkin Vetoes Democrat Bill Allowing Pro-Lifers To Be ‘Jailed Simply For Carrying A Sign’

Abortion

Glenn Youngkin

Virginia

The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a Colorado law that has been called the state&#8217;s so-called &#8220;conversion therapy&#8221; ban. 
The case was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of private Colorado Springs counselor Kaley Chiles, who says the law violates her First Amendment rights to free speech. Passed in 2019, the law <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1129_signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prohibits</a> counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“Many of my clients chose to work with me because we share a similar perspective on faith and values,” Chiles said during a press call on Wednesday morning. “However, I&#8217;m facing a serious challenge. Colorado’s counseling censorship law threatens my ability to engage in private, professional conversations with my clients.” 
Chiles added that the law pushes children with gender dysphoria “toward harmful medical interventions” while not allowing counselors to help those who may want to detransition. 
Penalties for violating the law include a fine of up to $5000 and professional disciplinary action that could include loss of one’s counseling license. 
“We’re very grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear this very important case. It’s essential that children and parents have access to safe and effective counseling that meets their needs and that avoids dangerous and experimental medical interventions,” ADF lawyer Jim Campbell said. 
Campbell added that Chiles has been forced to turn away multiple clients over the law. 
“Colorado censors Kaley from speaking words her clients want to hear because the government does not like the views she expresses,” he added. “Government officials may not impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and their clients.”
Colorado’s law was previously upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down similar laws implemented by cities in Florida. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the Colorado law in October. 
The Supreme Court is also poised to rule this summer on another transgender-related case. In December, the court heard a challenge to a Tennessee law banning transgender medical procedures on children. Analysts believe that the justices will uphold that law after the conservative-leaning court appeared largely skeptical of the challenge.

8th Anniversary Of Supreme Court’s Obergefell Decision Legalizing Gay Marriage In The United States

SCOTUS To Hear Challenge To Colorado’s Gender Identity ‘Censorship Law’

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Colorado

Courts

Gender Transition

Politics

Transgender

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to restrictions that had been placed on pro-life speech and protest activity within 100 feet of an abortion-providing facility. 
The case arose after the pro-life group Coalition Life challenged a Carbondale, Illinois, <a href="https://go.boarddocs.com/il/coc/Board.nsf/files/D73HT549FC54/$file/2023-03%20Ordinance%20Amending%20Title%20Fourteen%2C%20Chapter%20Four%2C%20Section%20Two%20of%20the%20Carbondale%20Revised%20Code%20as%20it%20Relates%20to%20Disorderly%20Conduct.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordinance</a> that restricted pro-life sidewalk counseling within 100 feet of an abortion facility. The policy, which was first implemented in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, was repealed by the city as Coalition Life prepared its appeal to the Supreme Court. 
Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that they would have heard the challenge. 
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-57_21p3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dissent</a>, Thomas wrote that he would have ruled to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which upheld a Colorado law that required a pro-life protester or counselor to obtain consent to approach within eight feet of a person in a 100-foot radius around an abortion facility. 
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill.”
Thomas wrote that the majority in Hill minimized the restrictions it placed on free speech and said the majority erroneously decided that buffer zone laws were content-neutral. 
“Hill’s abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down,” Thomas wrote, saying that “constitutional rights hang in the balance” while the Supreme Court doesn’t reevaluate the Hill decision. 
<a href="https://coalitionlife.com/?_sm_nck=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Coalition Life</a>, which trains sidewalk counselors to urge women not to get abortions and provide them information about other options, was represented by lawyers with the Thomas More Society and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. 
Peter Breen, the head of litigation for the Thomas More Society, said that the only reason Carbondale repealed its ordinance was to escape Supreme Court scrutiny. 
“On the eve of our petition deadline, Carbondale quietly repealed its bubble zone ordinance in a shadowy, four-minute, weekend meeting, knowing full well their bubble zone would fail constitutional scrutiny if it came before the Supreme Court,” Breen <a href="https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/after-last-minute-gamesmanship-city-avoids-supreme-court-scrutiny-for-silencing-pro-life-advocates">said</a>. “While our clients are now able to sidewalk counsel freely in Carbondale, the city flagrantly violated their Free Speech rights for eighteen months, without penalty.”
Coalition Life Executive Director Brian Westbrook said that his group would continue its work despite the court&#8217;s decision. 
“Our appeal may have been denied but across this nation, at hundreds of abortion facilities, a different sort of tragic ‘denial’ continues,” he said. “Cities and states across America are denying sidewalk counselors and law-abiding citizens their rights to inform women about their options&#8230; Women are being denied true choice as they are bullied into the only option that is offered by the abortion advocates.”

Washington-DC-March-for-Life-2025

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Law Restricting Pro-Life Speech Outside Abortion Facilities

Illinois

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the TikTok ban passed by Congress could go into effect this weekend, saying it did not violate the First Amendment. 
In an unassigned opinion, the court ruled that Congress was justified in passing the ban because of concerns about the Chinese government using TikTok to harvest the private data of millions of Americans. If China-based ByteDance does not sell the social media platform, the ban will go into effect on Sunday, January 19. 
“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the court wrote. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
While the main opinion was not signed, two concurring opinions were attached from Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The court said that those challenging the ban, including a group of TikTok users, did not provide any examples of the law actually curtailing their speech.
&#8220;It is not clear that the Act itself directly regulates protected expressive activity, or conduct with an expressive component. Indeed, the Act does not regulate the creator petitioners at all. And it directly regulates ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok Inc. only through the divestiture requirement,&#8221; the court wrote. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl=1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl%3D1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA..&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1737044212122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3mp2MZNwEXBk00lKmCtOss">CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT</a>
The court added that the regulations imposed by the law, which was signed by President Joe Biden in April, were content neutral.
&#8220;They impose TikTok-specific prohibitions due to a foreign adversary’s control over the platform and make divestiture a prerequisite for the platform’s continued operation in the United States,&#8221; the court wrote. &#8220;The Government also supports the challenged provisions with a content-neutral justification: preventing China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data from 170 million U. S. TikTok users.&#8221;
The law from Congress says that TikTok will be banned as long as it is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. If it is sold to an American company, it will no longer be banned. There have been various proposals floated to save TikTok, including from &#8220;Shark Tank&#8221; investor Kevin O’Leary, who has partnered with a group called &#8220;The People&#8217;s Bid for TikTok.&#8221; 
This is a breaking story. Refresh for updates.

TikTok

Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban

China

Communist China

Kevin O'Leary

SCOTUS

U.S.

In a world of mounting censorship, it’s never been more important to protect every person’s right to speak. Freedom of speech is indispensable to a free society—there’s little meaning to an electoral system if we can’t speak our mind to one another and to our representatives. It’s also a fundamental human right, guaranteed by the First Amendment and every major human rights treaty around the world.
Responding to this rising threat, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), where I serve as legal counsel, recently launched a new litigation team, the <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/introducing-the-adf-center-for-free-speech/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Center for Free Speech</a>. ADF’s mission in creating this dedicated team of attorneys is to defend every person’s right to free speech and to hold the government and powerful corporations accountable when they unlawfully censor or punish speech.
This new era of censorship calls for innovative strategies. A complex international web of shadowy government actors, nonprofit groups, and for-profit corporations are colluding to stop speech they don’t like, invoking buzzwords like “misinformation” and “disinformation” as their pretext for viewpoint-based restrictions. We will stop unlawful censorship while preserving the fundamental rights of individuals and organizations.
My team’s efforts will include suing private-sector censors who are working with the government or abusing their power to suppress or deplatform disfavored speech. There must be consequences for governments and government proxies that participate in the corrupt Censorship Industrial Complex (CIC).
The coordinated push of government, universities, think tanks, NGOs, and private businesses bleeds into almost every major industry and part of life. When entities or people are deplatformed, debanked, blacklisted, or refused business for their speech because the government has enlisted private sector participation in engaging in unlawful censorship, that is government corruption and must be stopped.
In Brazil, a justice on the country’s Supreme Court <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/brazil-elon-musk-x-and-censorship-what-you-need-know/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suspended the social media platform X</a> across the country after the company declined to censor certain voices. The justice’s order spoke of the “real danger” posed by X of influencing the electorate with “massive misinformation.” Once a government begins using such vague criteria to censor messages, it opens the door to widespread suppression of speech.
But it’s not just happening in Brazil. The U.S. Department of Justice <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/adf-scotus-govt-cant-coerce-social-media-companies-act-speech-police/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pressured</a> Facebook, Twitter, and Google into silencing dissenting voices on a wide range of hot-button cultural issues, including climate change, abortion, economic policy, gender identity, and COVID-19 policies. Big tech companies collude with the government to censor viewpoints they don’t like.
We’ve already begun to litigate several cases under the umbrella of the Center for Free Speech including a pair of cases where we’re suing the state of California.
In <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/humor-trial-babylon-bee-challenges-california-laws-censoring-political-satire/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Babylon Bee v. Bonta</a> and <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/rumble-joins-the-babylon-bee-in-challenging-californias-censorship/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rumble v. Bonta</a>, ADF represents popular satire website The Babylon Bee, attorney and blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, and video platform Rumble. One of the laws our clients are challenging is AB 2655, passed by the California legislature earlier this year. The law requires large online platforms to become state censors by sometimes labeling and other times taking down posts with “materially deceptive content” about elections.
And in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/studnicki-v-sage-publications/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Studnicki v. Sage Publications</a>, we represent several doctors who published multiple papers in a peer-reviewed medical journal on the dangers of abortion drugs. After the publisher received complaints about the authors’ pro-life affiliations, Sage retracted these articles and even removed one of the authors from the journal’s board of directors.
Defending free speech is nothing new to ADF. We’ve won landmark free speech victories before the U.S. Supreme Court and have been especially prolific on public university campuses as its Center for Academic Freedom has <a href="https://adflegal.org/issues/free-speech/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">secured</a> more than 400 victories protecting students’ free speech rights.
Government agencies and powerful private actors – or worse yet, a combination of the two – are using vague buzzwords as an excuse for censorship. The outgoing administration spent the past four years relentlessly attacking our constitutionally protected freedoms and unlawfully extending executive power.
But we cannot expect the entrenched censorship apparatus to unilaterally disarm. And we must insist that the new administration dismantle the CIC instead of trying to wield it for its own purposes.
That means calling balls and strikes, especially when President-elect Trump hangs a curve with a nominee like <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14154833/donald-trump-surgeon-general-dr-janette-nesheiwat-maga-fury-covid.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Janette Nesheiwat for Surgeon General</a>, who previously “commend[ed] Mark Zuckerberg for taking action” against so-called vaccine misinformation on Facebook.
It’s critical that the Republican party keeps its avowed commitment to free speech. The new administration has a great opportunity to lead the defense of our First Amendment rights. If the majority of current nominees do what they claim they want to do, there is reason to be hopeful.
Through pioneering legal strategy, ADF will tear down the Censorship Industrial Complex and preserve free speech in the new frontier of our digital age. We will ensure that ordinary people worldwide have full clarity on their free speech rights and are empowered, without fear, to expose any government or its agents attempting to undermine them.
* * *
Logan Spena serves as legal counsel at <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Censorship vs Free speech

Combating The Rising Threat Of Censorship In 2025

Brazil

Censorship

Federal Government

Misinformation

Opinion

Social Media Censorship

America First Legal on Wednesday launched an investigation into <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/fema" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FEMA</a> over guidance from an employee for relief workers in Florida to “avoid homes advertising Trump,” according to letters first shared with The Daily Wire. 
The conservative legal firm <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/FEMA-FOIA.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed</a> a Freedom of Information request demanding FEMA turn over records and communications involving fired FEMA supervisor Marn’i Washington, who instructed workers responding in Lake Placid, Florida to pass over homes with Trump flags or signs. America First Legal, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-fema-official-ordered-relief-workers-to-skip-houses-with-trump-signs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">citing reporting</a> from The Daily Wire, also requested that Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari open up a full investigation into the allegations of relief aid being withheld for political reasons. 
“For four years, the Deep State has waged war on Americans’ freedom of speech. This latest example may be one of the most cruel, abusive, and egregious yet—denying homeowners desperately needed hurricane relief assistance because of who they supported politically,&#8221; America First Lawyer Will Scolinos told The Daily Wire. &#8220;AFL will work tirelessly for accountability and to safeguard Americans’ constitutional rights.&#8221;
Since the news broke that workers bypassed at least 20 homes in Lake Placid because of their Trump signage, similar allegations have been made against FEMA officials in both Georgia and North Carolina. 
“Accordingly, we write to request that you investigate FEMA’s reported violations of the First Amendment by discriminating based on political affiliation and withholding of federal disaster aid following recent natural disasters,” AFL lawyer Scolinos <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/12/DHS-OIG-FEMA-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> on Wednesday. “In particular, we request that you investigate FEMA employees directing personnel to ‘avoid homes advertising Trump.’”
Scolinos wrote that the actions taken by Washington and alleged similar actions in North Carolina and Georgia violate the First Amendment. 
“FEMA’s blanket refusal to provide aid to these homes, and even entire neighborhoods, based on the political speech in the yards of some but not all homes is not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest,” he wrote. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Scolinos added that the actions of Washington and others who deprived people with Trump signs or flags constituted an illegal conspiracy to deprive Americans of aid based on their politics. 
“To ensure that federal disaster relief is being administered fairly in compliance with the law, AFL hereby requests that you exercise your statutory oversight authority and open an investigation to determine whether American citizens faced political discrimination or retaliation by FEMA in areas affected by Hurricanes Milton and Helene and elsewhere,” the letter added. “The dangers inherent in the undue politicization of FEMA’s disaster relief role should be evident.”
FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell has said the incident in Lake Placid was an isolated incident and said that she asked the inspector general to carry out an independent investigation. The inspector general&#8217;s office told The Daily Wire it cannot comment on any potential investigation.
In the FOIA request, AFL requested communications &#8220;sent to or received by, or mentioning&#8221; Washington, and all records that mention “Trump,” “Trump supporters,” “Trump signs,” or “isolated incident.” The Daily Wire has filed a similar request with FEMA over its handling of the situation.

Michigan Holds Its Primary Election

EXCLUSIVE: America First Legal Takes Aim At FEMA Over ‘Egregious’ First Amendment Violations

Department of Homeland Security

FEMA

Hurricane Milton

Peter Vlaming lost his job teaching high school French because he could not refer to a transgender student according to the student’s preferred pronouns without violating his sincerely-held religious beliefs. Now, his lawsuit against the <a href="https://vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1211061.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">West Point school board</a> is a prime example of why Americans must pay closer attention to religious freedom protections at the local and state level.
Thankfully, Napa Legal Institute’s 2nd inaugural <a href="https://www.napalegalinstitute.org/map" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“Faith and Freedom Index</a>” shows which states are lacking in religious freedom protections. It also provides a roadmap as to how state governments can strengthen these protections and best allow their citizens to flourish.
Vlaming represents countless Americans who have been unlawfully punished for exercising their First Amendment rights, and who remain fearful about the future of the nation – especially in an uncertain election year. From preferred pronouns, abortion, and transgenderism to burdensome tax regimes and regulations, there are countless ways that people of faith are essentially being told to renounce their beliefs or step away from the public sphere altogether.
Properly addressing these attacks goes far beyond federal elections and policies, however. Local and state governments often make the decisions that have the most direct consequences on American’s daily lives, from zoning and land use regulations to tax laws. And local institutions – churches, schools, charities – often make a greater impact on the lives of ordinary Americans than the White House and Congress.
This means that those seeking to protect religious Americans from discrimination must focus more of their time and attention on the laws that help local institutions thrive, particularly the faith-based nonprofit organizations that do so much to benefit society.
This is why this week, the <a href="https://www.napalegalinstitute.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Napa Legal Institute</a> released the second annual <a href="https://www.napalegalinstitute.org/map">Faith and Freedom Index,</a> an unprecedented state law analysis. The Index looks at 14 types of state laws – from religious freedom restoration acts and employment laws to charitable registration laws and tax exemptions – and ranks all 50 states (plus Washington, D.C.) on their friendliness (or lack of friendliness) towards faith-based nonprofits.
There are some results that are not surprising: Alabama and Indiana receive the highest overall scores in the country; Kansas, Texas, and Mississippi round out the top 5. But there are other results that do not quite fit the political narrative. Red states like South Dakota and West Virginia score in the bottom 10 for overall scores, while Oregon and California are both in the top 10 for regulatory freedom for faith-based nonprofits. The results do not fall on purely partisan lines.
Some laws have changed for the better since Napa Legal first released the Index in June 2023. For example, several states (including Nebraska, Iowa, and Utah) have passed religious freedom restoration acts. These crucial laws, which are now in place in 28 states, protect the free exercise of religion against intrusions by “neutral” laws that may not directly target religion but that can seriously affect religious exercise in practice.
Additionally, a major development took place in Virginia in December 2023, when the Virginia Supreme Court decided the <a href="https://vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1211061.pdf">Vlaming</a> case. Vlaming’s case ultimately clarified that, under the Virginia Constitution, the free exercise of religion receives much stronger protection than the minimum required by the First Amendment.
The Vlaming decision is an encouraging reminder that states have the ability to strengthen religious freedom protections and better support the work of faith-based nonprofits. Yet while it is encouraging to be able to highlight positive changes in state law, the fact that no state in the nation scores above a 72% on the Napa Legal Faith and Freedom Index means there is much more work to be done, even in states friendly to religion and to faith-based nonprofits.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28</a></h3>
State legislatures can do much to allow faith-based nonprofits to flourish within their states. They can create just employment and public accommodation laws that respect the beliefs and work of faith-based nonprofits. They can ensure that state of emergency laws do not violate the freedom of worship and religious exercise. They can enact corporate governance laws that respect the internal autonomy of religious organizations.
And they can pass charitable registration laws and tax laws with proper exemptions for religious organizations, so that these nonprofits that do so much good for society can be free from unnecessary taxes, fees, paperwork, and administrative burdens that prevent them from accomplishing their missions.
Local institutions in general and faith-based nonprofits in particular are a foundational part of a healthy society. While these institutions are formed privately by citizens of good will, the government plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the laws help rather than hinder the work of faith-based nonprofits.
By reviewing the Faith and Freedom Index, passing laws that respect religious freedom, and eliminating burdensome regulations, state governments can do their part to achieve the common good and help our society to flourish.
No American should be forced to lose his job because of his religious beliefs like Peter Vlaming did. Through a better understanding of where state religious freedom protections are lacking and the ways to address them, the Napa Legal Institute hopes to create an America where no one is prevented from or punished for living his faith.
* * *
Frank DeVito serves as Counsel at Napa Legal. Prior to his position at Napa Legal, he served as the full-time solicitor for the Carbon County, PA Children &amp; Youth Services Agency and as an associate at the law firm of Lesavoy Butz &amp; Seitz LLC. His written work has been published in the Penn State Online Law Review, The American Conservative, The Federalist, First Things Online, The Public Discourse, and several other publications.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

landscape of church tower in autumn mountain forest during sunset

Why Americans Must Fight For Religious Freedom At The Local Level

Blue States

Christians

Churches

Faith

Red States

Religious Freedom

This is the fifth in a series of articles from Alliance Defending Freedom on the state of free speech in America today. October 21 to 27 is National Free Speech Week.
* * *
For more than a decade now, activists and government officials have been threatening to separate something indivisible: artistic expression from the artists who create it.
These relentless threats to artistic freedom have been grounded on the idea that artists, whatever their chosen milieu, can be compelled to express messages that violate their personal beliefs. Those who refuse to do so — no matter how courteous, kind, compassionate, or respectful they are to those demanding their expression — are regarded by those activists and officials as fair game to haul in to court for judgment.
This coercion forces artists to create deeply personal works based on an ideologically prescribed script — or else.
Or else … what?
Ask Jack Phillips, the cake artist from Colorado whose polite decision 12 years ago not to create a custom cake expressing a view of marriage he doesn’t believe has precipitated death threats to himself, protests and boycotts, the loss of most of his staff, and continuous legal proceedings.
Phillips is hardly the only cake artist in Colorado; he’s not even the only cake artist in his Denver suburb. And like many Americans, he holds to certain sincere biblical beliefs about marriage that have been — and continue to be — the consensus of countless people around the world.
But they are not the chosen beliefs of a coterie of activists and state officials, who for more than a decade have used the power of the courts to pressure Phillips and other Colorado artists to either rethink or set aside their convictions – or face punishment.
Last week though, the Colorado Supreme Court <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/latest-harassment-jack-phillips-ends-colorado-supreme-court?sourcecode=11034408_r200?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> in Phillips’ favor. The court dismissed another case against Phillips that threatened his freedom to create consistent with his beliefs because the attorney who filed the case did not follow the right process. Phillips is now an undefeated, three-for-three, in defending his free-speech rights.
Phillips’ most recent victory comes a little more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling last year in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">303 Creative v. Elenis</a>. In that case, Colorado threatened the First Amendment rights of Denver graphic artist Lorie Smith and her design studio, 303 Creative — under the same law the state and others have used to target Phillips — by compelling her to create custom websites that celebrated a view of marriage she disagrees with. The Supreme Court said that compulsion violated the First Amendment and reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot force Americans to express views that conflict with their own.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28</a></h3>
Smith and Phillips share another crucial principle: they serve and collaborate with anyone — including people who hold different views and beliefs from their own. But there is, and always has been, a difference between treating every individual with respect, and promoting everything they request to be said. Being part of a community means showing one another genuine courtesy and compassion. Being part of a free society means letting others decide for themselves what they will believe and express.
That’s why, as Smith says, her win is a win for all Americans — those who share her faith convictions, and those who don’t. It’s a win, especially, for artists whose gifts are inseparable from their individuality, and whose artistic skills cannot be, and should not be, conformed to any governmental mandate.
* * *
Jake Warner is senior counsel for appellate advocacy with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The view expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Three tiered white wedding cake with floral decoration and bride and groom figurines on the top.

Free Speech: Colorado Cakeshop Case Is A Win For Artists Of All Stripes

Cake

Since 2020, every candidate the Democratic Party has nominated for president since 2000 has actively backed restrictions on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">free speech</a> online, according to a new analysis from the Media Research Center shared with The Daily Wire. 
“Since the 2020 election cycle, no less than seven of the most recent 10 presidential nominees have called for censorship and/or government regulation of political speech,” MRC researcher Luis Cornelio found wrote in his analysis.
MRC Free Speech For America analyzed the comments and positions of every presidential candidate since 2000. The group found that every Democrat — and just one Republican — who ran for office in that time frame has backed some kind of restriction on speech since 2020, whether banning &#8220;misinformation&#8221; or pushing for the government to crack down on free expression.
That includes former President Barack Obama, President Joe Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris, the last of whom has advocated censorship for years. Harris has <a href="https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1829651058269806658" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushed</a> for social media companies to remove posts from former President Donald Trump and demanded more government oversight and regulation for social media companies. 
“They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop,” Harris told CNN in 2019. 
The report found that former President Donald Trump had taken steps to promote free speech, citing his efforts in 2020 to define Section 230 — a provision that largely gives tech companies immunity for what third parties allow on their platforms — in a way that protected the First Amendment.
Mitt Romney, who ran for president in 2012, is the only Republican the MRC found to have “voiced support for censorship and against the American principles of free speech online.” 
The Biden-Harris administration <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/gabriela-pariseau-christian-baldwin/2024/06/25/mrc-free-speech-america-exposes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">used</a> several federal agencies to censor speech related to the COVID-19 vaccine, MRC previously documented. This came as Biden claimed that Facebook was “killing people” by allowing posts critical of the COVID vaccine.
“They’re killing people — I mean they’re really, look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated,” Biden <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2021/07/17/networks-promote-biden-claiming-facebook-killing-people-covid">said</a> on July 16, 2021. “And they’re killing people.”
Hillary Clinton, who has long blamed her 2016 loss to Trump on so-called Russian disinformation, has proposed arresting Americans for spreading “propaganda.” 
“I think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda, and whether they should be civilly or even in some cases, criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence,” Clinton <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxrngjBER3E">said</a> on MSNBC last month.
Earlier this month, Clinton urged for social media companies to “moderate” posts, <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/donald-perkins/2024/10/07/hillary-clinton-pushes-censorship-expresses-fear-losing">saying</a> on CNN that if “they don’t moderate and monitor content, we lose total control.”
“We should be, in my view, appealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be pass-throughs that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted—but we now know that was an overly simple view,” she said.
Obama <a href="https://archive.is/k29vX">said</a> back on April 21, 2022 that protecting “democracy” meant more government regulations for online speech.
“Each of us, whether we work at a tech company or consume social media, whether we are a parent, a legislator, an advertiser on one of these platforms, now’s the time to pick a side,” Obama said at Stanford&#8217;s Cyber Policy Center. “We have a choice right now. Do we allow our democracy to wither or do we make it better?”
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28</a></h3>
Last month, John Kerry, who lost the White House to George W. Bush in 2004, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/john-kerry-if-democrats-win-we-can-change-first-amendment-to-fight-disinformation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asserted</a> that the First Amendment was a major impediment to fighting alleged online misinformation.
“But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence,” he said during a World Economic Forum meeting.
Vice President Al Gore, who has made a fortune pushing fear about climate change, compared social media algorithms to AR-15 rifles in December 2023 and called for them to be banned if they lead people in a certain direction.
“If you have social media that is dominated by algorithms that pull people down these rabbit holes that are a bit like pitcher plants, these algorithms, they are the digital equivalent of AR-15s,” Gore said. “They ought to be banned, they really ought to be banned. It’s an abuse of the public forum.”
Romney, the only Republican on the list, was included because of comments he made during a congressional hearing in July 2023 where he seemed to endorse federal government employees pressuring tech companies to restrict certain posts.
“Employees of the federal government have First Amendment rights, too,” Romney said. “Censorship is when the government shuts something off. This is arguing to try to convince somebody else to shut it off and that’s the right people have whether they’re in government or outside of government.”

MixCollage-23-Oct-2024-12-19-PM-7030

Every 21st Century Democratic Presidential Nominee Supports Restricting Free Speech

Menu