Former President Donald Trump promised during a recent campaign stop to put an end to bureaucrats &#8220;colluding&#8221; to suppress free speech, saying that he planned to fire anyone who had been engaged in such activities during the Biden-Harris administration.
Trump made the comments during a Wisconsin rally over the weekend, where he also suggested that the 25th Amendment should be expanded to include the vice president in certain instances.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Trump: &#8220;I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/TmgaidPqHK">pic.twitter.com/TmgaidPqHK</a>
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) <a href="https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1832493153569665532?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump was talking about the press and all the reasons that the American people have lost faith in major media outlets, when he pivoted to address the government&#8217;s role in quashing the First Amendment.
&#8220;I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who&#8217;s engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We will do that.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724361346607000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ZhyOQfEkxcMH_D1Ago3CQ">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
During the same rally, Trump addressed the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris had been party to President Joe Biden&#8217;s obvious cognitive decline — and had even said publicly that she had no regrets about helping the administration to hide that from the American people.
&#8220;I will support modifying the 25th amendment to make clear that if a vice president lies or engages in a conspiracy to cover up the incapacity of the president of the United States — if you do that with a cover-up of the president of the United States, it’s grounds for impeachment immediately and removal from office because that’s what they did,&#8221; he said. &#8220;That’s what they did.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I will support modifying the 25th Amendment to make clear that if a Vice President lies or engages in a conspiracy to cover up the incapacity of the President of the United States, it is grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
*Ahem* <a href="https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KamalaHarris</a> <a href="https://t.co/r3cFcA1cYe">pic.twitter.com/r3cFcA1cYe</a>
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1832496913624482070?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Donald Trump Speaks At The Economic Club Of New York

Trump Vows To Protect Free Speech, Fire Anyone Involved In ‘Domestic Censorship’ Under Biden-Harris

Trump Vows To Protect Free Speech, Fire Anyone Involved In 'Domestic Censorship' Under Biden-Harris

2024 Election

Donald Trump

First Amendment

Free Speech

Kamala Harris

Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ted-cruz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ted Cruz</a> (R-TX) warned this week that past remarks from Vice President Kamala Harris indicate that she would be a serious threat to America&#8217;s First Amendment rights if elected as president.
Cruz made the remarks during his &#8220;Verdict&#8221; podcast with co-host Ben Ferguson while talking about video clips that have recently gone viral that highlight remarks from Harris&#8217; 2019 presidential campaign where she advocated clamping down on free speech by going after social media companies for not censoring content.
&#8220;Kamala has a long, long history of calling for censorship, calling for silencing anyone who disagrees with her, of wanting to use government power to silence her critics,&#8221; Cruz said. &#8220;If Kamala Harris becomes president, I predict now she will try to muzzle X. She will try to ban X. She wants to follow Brazil&#8217;s path and ban X. She wants to use government power to go after big tech and force them to be her censors.&#8221;
Cruz said that Harris shows more disdain for the First Amendment than any other presidential candidate in more than two centuries.
&#8220;The last time we had a presidential candidate with this antipathy was John Adams, our second president, who had enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts and used them to persecute his political opponents,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It&#8217;s been two centuries since that has happened since then, and Kamala Harris displays an unprecedented willingness to use government power to silence you.&#8221;
He noted that Harris believes that free speech is &#8220;merely a privilege and a privilege that she, as the dictator, can revoke if you dare disagree with her.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1723831707612000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0pyrv88A5nsmWM2F2Wr9As">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
&#8220;It is not a privilege,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It&#8217;s not a privilege. It is a right protected in the Bill of Rights.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Kamala Harris pledged to weaponize the DOJ even more and use it to attack platforms for free speech like X.
Free speech is on the ballot this election. The only way to save free speech is to defeat Kamala Harris.<a href="https://t.co/vx6VDxPgIA">https://t.co/vx6VDxPgIA</a> <a href="https://t.co/B19HTHYSzr">pic.twitter.com/B19HTHYSzr</a>
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1832388350713725138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2024</a></blockquote>

Senate Republicans Hold News Conference To Discuss Debt Ceiling

Cruz: Harris Believes Free Speech Is ‘A Privilege That She Can Revoke’

Elections

Politics

Ted Cruz

Podcaster <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/joe-rogan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Rogan</a> absolutely destroyed a recent New York Times headline that warned about the dangers of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that there’s no amount of “gaslighting” the news organization could do to make him see their side.
During “The Joe Rogan Experience” <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOQdjgdRcfA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">podcast</a>, Rogan and his guest evolutionary biologist, podcaster, and author Dr. Bret Weinstein talked about the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/31/books/review/constitution-secession-democracy-crisis.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headline</a> that read, “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?”
“One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document,” the subheadline added.
“This isn’t the Babylon Bee,” Rogan told his guest, referencing the satire news source. “This is an actual New York Times article.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Joe Rogan Experience #2198 - Bret Weinstein" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iOQdjgdRcfA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“This is so crazy. It&#8217;s really hard to believe that someone would print this and the New York Times would say ‘yeah we like it, put it out there,'&#8221; he added, reading the headline and subhead. “What the f*** are you talking about?”
“One of the biggest threats to America&#8217;s politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country was ever founded on if not the greatest ever,” Rogan continued. “That could be a threat to America&#8217;s politics? What politics are we talking about?”
Rogan asked how the NYT could “possibly gaslight me enough to go along with you on this?”
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1723831707612000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0pyrv88A5nsmWM2F2Wr9As">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
Weinstein called it “incredible,” noting how on one hand, it was “completely predictable” because “there&#8217;s obviously an authoritarian force there that just grinds its teeth at night over the Constitution and the fact that it prevents it from doing things that it just wants to do.”
“So, of course they&#8217;re, like, scratching their heads like, ‘can we come up with an argument for why it might be time to get rid of that thing?&#8217; And of course, if you&#8217;re a normal thinking person, this is complete insanity,” he added. “But if you&#8217;re a New York Times reader, I&#8217;m sure that fits with the kind of ethos that&#8217;s been cultivated.”
The podcast host then suggested this is why a person like former President Donald Trump is so important to the Left because they can claim his return to the White House is a so-called “imminent threat,&#8221; allowing them to justify headlines that claim the Constitution is “dangerous&#8221; or that it&#8217;s time to get rid of things like the First and Second Amendments.

Joe Rogan Questions Everything – Season 1

‘What The F***’: Joe Rogan Destroys NYT Headline Warning About Dangers Of Constitution

'What The F***': Joe Rogan Destroys NYT Headline Warning About Dangers Of Constitution

Celebrities

Constitution

Entertainment

Joe Rogan

New York Times

U.S.

Elon Musk said on Monday that the Democratic Party was attempting to destroy free speech after leftist Minnesota Democratic Attorney General <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/keith-ellison" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Keith Ellison</a> appeared to celebrate the ban of X, previously known as Twitter, in Brazil. 
On Labor Day, Ellison posted a message in Portuguese translated to &#8220;Thank you Brazil!&#8221; as the country blocked X at the orders of Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. De Moraes ruled that the social media company did not comply with his orders revolving around appointing a legal representative for the country or suspending several accounts. De Moraes said that Musk had &#8220;total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty.&#8221;
Musk, the CTO and executive chairman of X, ripped into Ellison over his apparent support for the block. 
“The Democratic Party – same one that used to defend the First Amendment –now wants to destroy the First Amendment,” Musk posted. 
&nbsp;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Democratic Party – same one that used to defend the First Amendment –now wants to destroy the First Amendment <a href="https://t.co/36KAhzA0la">https://t.co/36KAhzA0la</a>
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1830826870146727941?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 3, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Other conservatives also ripped into Ellison over his post. 
“Tim Walz&#8217;s attorney general in Minnesota &#8212; Keith Ellison &#8212; thanks Brasil for crushing free speech platform X,” <a href="https://x.com/MZHemingway/status/1830777820953362850" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway. 
“Tim Walz&#8217;s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, Celebrates Brazil Banning X,” <a href="https://x.com/SteveGuest/status/1830939872627957830">said</a> conservative communicator Steve Guest. “Take note: Keith Ellison is a ENEMY of free speech.”
In his decision last week, de Moraes said that X must be restricted in Brazil because the company refused to comply with several court orders. He also said that people who try to access the platform through other means, like a VPN, could face daily fines of nearly $9,000. 
X’s Global Government Affairs argued that de Moraes’ requests violated Brazilian law. 
“We are absolutely not insisting that other countries have the same free speech laws as the United States. The fundamental issue at stake here is that Judge de Moraes demands we break Brazil’s own laws. We simply won’t do that,” it said in a <a href="https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1829296715989414281">statement</a>.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724211156439000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2-L2DitSaIUj5wz8v0bgxx">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
The decision to suspend access to X was upheld on Monday by a panel of judges on the Brazilian Supreme Court. 
“Economic power and the size of a bank account do not give rise to outlandish immunity,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/02/world/americas/brazil-elon-musk-supreme-court.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Justice Flavio Dino, saying that X “seems to believe it’s above the law.”
De Moraes has long clashed with X, ordering the social media company earlier this year to censor certain X accounts, which Musk refused to do. 
“We believe that such orders are not in accordance with the Marco Civil da Internet or the Brazilian Federal Constitution, and we challenge the orders legally where possible,” the company <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/brazilian-judge-orders-suspension-of-x-social-media-platform-responds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at the time. “The people of Brazil, regardless of their political beliefs, are entitled to freedom of speech, due process, and transparency from their own authorities.”

MixCollage-03-Sep-2024-12-01-PM-9595

Elon Musk Rips Into Democrat AG For Appearing To Celebrate Brazil’s X Ban

Brazil

Elon Musk

Keith Ellison

Minnesota

Twitter

George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley took aim at the 2024 Democratic presidential ticket — which now includes Vice President Kamala Harris for president and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) for vice president — saying that the pair showed a &#8220;shocking disregard for free speech.&#8221;
Turley shared his thoughts in an opinion piece for The Hill published Saturday, in which he warned that a Harris-Walz administration would be a &#8220;perfect nightmare for free speech advocates&#8221; and would likely lead to more censorship rather than less.
&#8220;Harris has long supported anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech but a shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Harris has long supported anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech but a shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment. <a href="https://t.co/Cll8BaoP3U">https://t.co/Cll8BaoP3U</a>
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1822346683981742582?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 10, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of speech, from supporting a massive censorship system (described by a federal court as an &#8216;Orwellian Ministry of Truth&#8217;) to funding blacklisting operations targeting groups and individuals with opposing views,&#8221; Turley wrote.
He went on to reference the Biden administration&#8217;s efforts to combat &#8220;disinformation&#8221; on social media by coordinating efforts to silence dissenting voices on those platforms.
&#8220;President Biden made censorship a central part of his legacy, even accusing social media companies of &#8216;killing people&#8217; for failing to increase levels of censorship,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;Democrats in Congress pushed that agenda by demanding censorship on subjects ranging from climate change to gender identity — even to banking policy — in the name of combatting &#8216;disinformation.'&#8221;
Turley pointed out the fact that Harris — who has often bragged about being in the room as Biden has made the biggest decisions of his presidency — appears to have been fully supportive of Biden&#8217;s efforts to curtail speech, and then noted that the addition of Walz only served to make things worse.
Walz, who claimed &#8220;there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,&#8221; completes &#8220;a perfect nightmare&#8221; for any American who values the protections guaranteed under the First Amendment.

US-POLITICS-HEARING-POLICE

‘A Perfect Nightmare’: Jonathan Turley Blasts Harris-Walz Ticket’s ‘Shocking Disregard For Free Speech’

'A Perfect Nightmare': Jonathan Turley Blasts Harris-Walz Ticket's 'Shocking Disregard For Free Speech'

Jonathan Turley

Tim Walz

Governor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tim-walz" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tim Walz</a> (D-MN) says that there is &#8220;no guarantee to free speech&#8221; when it comes to &#8220;misinformation or hate speech,&#8221; and argued on MSNBC that there needed to be some &#8220;pushback&#8221; on those things.
Walz made the comments during a December 2022 appearance on MSNBC&#8217;s &#8220;The Reidout,&#8221; where he spoke about possible repercussions for spreading &#8220;misinformation&#8221; with regard to elections in the United States.
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Walz Says &#039;There&#039;s No Guarantee to Free Speech&#039; for Misinformation, Hate Speech" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WxoH1fgEg9A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;I think we need to push back on this. There&#8217;s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,&#8221; Walz said in the clip that circulated on social media on Wednesday, just 24 hours after Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party&#8217;s 2024 presidential nominee, chose him to be her running mate.
Critics responded to Walz&#8217;s comment, noting that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution begged to differ.
&#8220;I&#8217;d probably die if a Democrat understood what our rights are and how they work,&#8221; Frank Fleming posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I&#8217;d probably die if a Democrat understood what our rights are and how they work. <a href="https://t.co/JEZIecx7sU">https://t.co/JEZIecx7sU</a>
— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) <a href="https://twitter.com/IMAO_/status/1821234133672325455?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;There is, actually, it’s called the First Amendment,&#8221; another posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
There is, actually, it’s called the First Amendment. <a href="https://t.co/eJxLnCoSKi">https://t.co/eJxLnCoSKi</a>
— Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) <a href="https://twitter.com/RameshPonnuru/status/1821251576914198588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Uh, yeah there is. Misinformation and hate speech are literally protected by the First Amendment,&#8221; Noah Smith pointed out.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/scamala-kamala-harris-unmasked" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH BEN SHAPIRO’S ‘SCAMALA: KAMALA HARRIS UNMASKED’ ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Uh, yeah there is. Misinformation and hate speech are literally protected by the First Amendment. <a href="https://t.co/YPhoG7ikXa">https://t.co/YPhoG7ikXa</a>
— Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@Noahpinion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1821247276800676328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Dude’s a straight up communist. An actual communist,&#8221; Trump adviser Stephen Miller commented.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Dude’s a straight up communist. An actual communist. <a href="https://t.co/LHJ6HGqmBE">https://t.co/LHJ6HGqmBE</a>
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) <a href="https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/1821226253388804191?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Walz couldn’t be more wrong in suggesting &#8216;there’s no guarantee to free speech&#8217; when it comes to anything progressive Democrats might label &#8216;misinformation&#8217; or &#8216;hate speech.&#8217; Don’t trust this man with power,&#8221; Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Walz couldn’t be more wrong in suggesting “there’s no guarantee to free speech” when it comes to anything progressive Democrats might label “misinformation” or “hate speech.”
Don’t trust this man with power. <a href="https://t.co/HWv5xdXKF9">https://t.co/HWv5xdXKF9</a>
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) <a href="https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1821231380443070590?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
During the same interview, Walz referenced previous instances in which &#8220;insidious&#8221; efforts at spreading &#8220;misinformation&#8221; had harmed the American people — namely during the COVID-19 pandemic and after January 6th — but he suggested that Democrats were fully engaged in stopping said &#8220;misinformation&#8221; rather than spreading it.
WATCH the full interview here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Minnesota Gov. Walz Asks Fellow Democrats To ‘Think Big’ When It Comes To Fixing Voting Issues" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/y8ns76RCmWs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

US-VOTE-POLITICS-HARRIS-WALZ

Tim Walz Says ‘There’s No Guarantee To Free Speech,’ Wants Government ‘Pushback’ On ‘Hate Speech’

Tim Walz Says 'There's No Guarantee To Free Speech,' Wants Government 'Pushback' On 'Hate Speech'

Hate Speech

Misinformation

A federal appeals court on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/tennessee" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee</a> law that protects children from viewing sexually explicit performances.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a group challenging a Tennessee law shielding kids from being exposed to sexually explicit drag shows lacked standing. A Memphis-based theater group called Friends of George’s had sued to overturn the law, claiming that it violated the First Amendment.
“But the law in this area is clear—there is no constitutional interest in exhibiting indecent material to minors,” wrote Judge John Nalbandian in the majority decision. “The only constitutionally protected expressions implicated by the [law] are adult-oriented performances that can be constitutionally restricted from minors but not from adults—a narrow slice of speech.”
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Andre Mathis said that the law was a restriction on the First Amendment.
The law was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature in 2023 and signed by GOP Governor Bill Lee. In June of 2023, a federal judge blocked the law from going into effect, saying that it was “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad.”
According to a <a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0003&amp;ga=113">summary</a> of the law, it “creates an offense for a person who engages in an adult cabaret performance on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.”
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the court’s ruling in a statement.
“Tennessee’s Adult Entertainment Act has been consistently misrepresented since its adoption,” said Skrmetti. “As a state overflowing with world-class artists and musicians, Tennessee respects the right to free expression. But as the Court noted, Tennessee’s ‘harmful to minors’ standard is constitutionally sound and Tennessee can absolutely prohibit the exhibition of obscene material to children. The Court of Appeals focused on what the law actually says and ordered the case dismissed.”
<a class="c-link" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2517">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Republican leadership in the state also weighed in, applauding the ruling.
“Children should never be exposed to strip shows. In TN, they won&#8217;t be,” <a href="https://x.com/WilliamLamberth/status/1814034187290394926">said</a> House Majority Leader William Lamberth.

USA, Tennessee, Nashville, State Capitol Building against blue sky

Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Tennessee Law Protecting Kids From Sexually Explicit Performances

Courts

Drag Shows

Tennessee

President Joe Biden and his administration have &#8220;made a mockery of the First Amendment,&#8221; according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, and the Supreme Court&#8217;s Wednesday decision in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-conservative-challenge-to-biden-admin-pressuring-social-media-companies-to-remove-content" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Murthy v. Missouri</a> failed to put a stop to it.
Turley made an appearance on Wednesday on Fox News&#8217; &#8220;America&#8217;s Newsroom,&#8221; where he broke down the ruling and the case for anchor Dana Perino.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating anti-free speech ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.
&#8220;The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate&#8230; they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/K2eKnJtloF">pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF</a>
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) <a href="https://twitter.com/theMRC/status/1805967876555178477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;You call yourself a free speech absolutist,&#8221; Perino began, asking Turley, &#8220;What does this mean?&#8221;
&#8220;Well, it&#8217;s very frustrating for the free speech community because standing is often used to block meritorious claims,&#8221; Turley replied. &#8220;This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing.&#8221;
&#8220;I wrote about this issue, this case, in my recent book,&#8221; Turley continued. &#8220;You have one of the largest censorship systems in our history — if not the largest — it&#8217;s been called Orwellian by lower court judges. And what the court is saying is that &#8216;we won&#8217;t hear you on this issue because you&#8217;re not the right litigant.'&#8221;
Turley went on to say that he wasn&#8217;t a fan of such decisions, arguing that they prevented the court from ruling when it should have a say on &#8220;such important constitutional questions.&#8221;
&#8220;This issue will have to wait for another day,&#8221; he added. &#8220;One of the things that many of us have been arguing — for years — is that the government is engaging in censorship by surrogate. I testified about this in Congress — that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they&#8217;re barred from doing directly.&#8221;
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1712932862202000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0plT8RRdMy9XUpIhocnjQS">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Two Republican state officials and five conservative social media users brought the challenge in Murthy v. Missouri, claiming that the White House’s pressure campaigns on social media companies to remove what the Biden administration deems &#8220;misinformation&#8221; amounted to censorship by proxy.
The Daily Wire is suing the Biden administration in a separate social media censorship case, alleging that the U.S. State Department is engaging with and promoting censorship technology designed to bankrupt domestic media outlets with disfavored political opinions. Last month, a federal judge <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-slaps-down-biden-administrations-attempt-to-dismiss-daily-wire-censorship-lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> the State Department’s attempt to get the censorship lawsuit dismissed. The Daily Wire is joined by The Federalist and the state of Texas as plaintiffs in the case.
Zach Jewell contributed to this report.

House Judiciary Committee Holds First Impeachment Inquiry Hearing

Biden Admin Has ‘Made A Mockery’ Of 1st Amendment; Turley Responds To SCOTUS Ruling On Biden Censorship Case

Biden Admin Has Made ‘Mockery’ Of 1st Amendment; Turley Responds To SCOTUS Ruling On Biden Censorship Case

COVID-19

Joe Biden

Social Media

Social Media Censorship

Supreme Court

The Louisiana governor signed into law legislation that requires a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in all public classrooms. 
And the Left absolutely lost its mind. 
The ACLU, who used to stand for free speech but now stands for radical leftism, immediately announced this was unconstitutional and they were going to stand up against it. 
CNN&#8217;s Elie Honig was asked if the display violated the First Amendment. He replied: 
<blockquote>Yes, flagrantly, in my view. If you wanted a perfect example of what the First Amendment prohibits, I think this is it. The First Amendment says Congress, government, shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, meaning state entities can&#8217;t do things that endorse any particular religion or religiosity in general. 
 
And if you look at those 10, there are some — I know one of the defenses is, well, these are themes that are consistent throughout civilized society and throughout religion. Shall not kill, number six, I&#8217;m cheating, because I&#8217;m looking. But you know, don&#8217;t kill, don&#8217;t rob, don&#8217;t steal, that kind of thing. But there are some Commandments that are inherently religious. Observe the Sabbath day. I&#8217;m the only God that you may worship. So, it&#8217;s an inherently religious document.</blockquote>
Here is the problem with this particular argument: The United States is not a fundamentally secular country. 
The First Amendment was designed to guarantee the practice of religion against the federal government. The idea that there is a separation wall between church and state in the sense that religion was never supposed to impact people&#8217;s values in how they vote, or religion could never be promoted in the public square, or religion could never be promoted against irreligion generally by the government is also untrue. There is no historical basis for this. 
The First Amendment specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This was never originally supposed to be implemented in the states. It took all the way until the 1940s for the Supreme Court to declare that this was now going to be applied at the state level.
In fact, nine of the 13 colonies had established churches at the time of the Revolutionary War. Connecticut maintained its Congregationalist church, a state-sponsored church, until 1818. New Hampshire had one until 1819. Massachusetts had one until 1833.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1988-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
Well past the establishment of the First Amendment, there were states in the United States that established religions. Why? Because the goal here was to stop the federal government from establishing its own generalized religion that would prohibit people at the state level from having their own religions.
The idea that secularism was supposed to predominate in the United States is obviously untrue; none of the Founders believed that. Even the Founders who leaned toward atheism tended to believe religion had an extraordinarily positive effect on the body politic. The promotion of religion generally was considered a good thing by the Founding Fathers.
As President, John Adams wrote <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a letter</a> to the Massachusetts militia, saying: 
<blockquote>We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government for any other.</blockquote>
George Washington <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/george-washington-first-inaugural-address-1789" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in his first inaugural address: 
<blockquote>The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality … there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness. </blockquote>
Thomas Jefferson, the guy everyone talks about in terms of coining the phrase “separation between church and state,” <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jefferson/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recognized</a> “the moral branch of religion” as “how to live well and worthily in society.”
But for the last several decades, the courts have done something that is completely unprecedented and stupid: They have read the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as being opposed to one another.
The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There are two ways to read that, and the Supreme Court has read this in the dumbest possible way. One way is that Congress shall not prohibit you from freely exercising a religion. The second way is that Congress shall not establish any religion. And the Court has read them completely separately.
What that&#8217;s done is put them in conflict with one another because it turns out that if you express your religion freely in the public square, then the Supreme Court might say you&#8217;re violating the establishment clause.
But that&#8217;s never how these provisions were meant to be read. They were meant to be read in tandem. The basic idea was that you couldn&#8217;t establish any religion as the official religion of the United States, because in doing so, you would quash the free exercise of people of other religions via compulsion.
That is what the Constitution was designed to prohibit: compulsion in religion.
But there&#8217;s nothing compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall. If there were something compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall, there&#8217;d be all sorts of serious free speech issues in a classroom because it turns out classroom walls are filled with all sorts of stuff.
The argument is made that if I walk into a public school and there is a sign that quotes the Bible in a nondenominational way, it still violates my free speech. And the Ten Commandments are nondenominational because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all agree that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and they agree on the content of the Ten Commandments. 
In 1971, the Supreme Court took up the case Lemon v. Kurtzman. And they came up with an incredibly stupid test to determine whether some sort of government action violated the separation of church and state. They said that any law had to fulfill three conditions. One, it had to have a secular purpose. Two, it had to have a predominantly secular effect. And three, it had to not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.
When you read that, it is, on its face, nonsensical. It basically doesn&#8217;t set any standard at all because you can make an argument for virtually any religious display that it both violates the Lemon test and also does not violate the Lemon test.
In 1980, when the Supreme Court ruled in Stone v. Graham, there was a law that required classrooms to display the Ten Commandments, and the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional because it had no secular legislative purpose. They said the Ten Commandments convey a religious undertone because they include the religious duties of believers worshiping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord&#8217;s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath day. 
But that was based on a fundamental misreading that is enshrined in Lemon, that the government of the United States has to take no position between religion and irreligion, that the government of the United States has no interest in promoting public morality via generalized religion, that the government has to be absolutely agnostic about whether it is promoting the Ten Commandments or whether it is promoting paganism. 
In 2005, there was a similar case about a public display of the Ten Commandments. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in this case. He <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZD.html">wrote</a>, “What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.”
He was ripping the Lemon test. He was saying there&#8217;s no consistently applied principle. He continued:
<blockquote>That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that–thumbs up or thumbs down–as their personal preferences dictate. … the Court acknowledges that the “Establishment Clause doctrine” it purports to be applying “lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes.” What the Court means by this lovely euphemism is that sometimes the Court chooses to decide cases on the principle that government cannot favor religion, and sometimes it does not. …
Besides appealing to the demonstrably false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion, today’s opinion suggests that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another. That is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned, or where the free exercise of religion is at issue … but it necessarily applies in a more limited sense to public acknowledgment of the Creator. 
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.</blockquote>
In other words, every time Joe Biden finishes his speech and says, “God bless our troops,” why isn&#8217;t that an establishment of religion in the same way it would theoretically be an establishment religion to put the Ten Commandments in a public school classroom? 
The answer is because it&#8217;s not establishing religion. Biden isn&#8217;t forcing you to do anything, and neither is the sign on the public school classroom. It is encouraging you to abide by the central fundamental moral premises of the West.
The attempt to remove the Ten Commandments says more about the society than the attempt to replace them. All of Western civilization is based on a merger of Judeo-Christian ethics found in the Old and the New Testaments and Greek reason.
Here’s why the Ten Commandments are important: They take certain fundamental principles and put them beyond the scope of debate, which is good. You don&#8217;t want to live in a society where “thou shalt not kill” is a debatable proposition. How about “honor thy parents”? We&#8217;re now a society that does not honor our parents and scorns our parents as racists and bigots and white supremacist and vestiges of the past.
How about “do not bear false witness”? We live in a society in which you are allowed to bear false witness so long as the political motivations of the person against whom you are bearing the false witness are suspect.
A society that abides by the Ten Commandments is going to be better than a society that does not.
The centralizing philosophy of the United States used to be grounded in Judeo-Christian virtue. That is why it is good to put the Ten Commandments back up on the wall. Not everyone will abide by them, but they will remind people that a functional society has to have a functional philosophy.
And the most functional philosophy over the last several thousand years has sprung from those Ten Commandments.

Ten Commandments Standing In The Desert

Bring Back The Ten Commandments

Ben Shapiro

Bill of Rights

Judeo-Christian Values

Louisiana

Opinion

Secularism

A judge appeared to back off threats to hold a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/conservative-journalist-says-first-amendment-in-jeopardy-as-he-faces-punishment-over-articles-on-covenant-shooter">Tennessee news executive in contempt</a> of court for publishing articles on the writings of a transgender-identifying shooter who killed six people at a Christian school in Nashville last year. 
Tennessee Star Executive Michael Patrick Leahy was ordered to appear on Monday for a contempt of court hearing over his publication of the articles that quote from the writings of the Covenant School shooter. But at the start of the highly anticipated hearing, Davidson County Judge I’Ashea Myles said she was just trying to “understand the landscape” of developments surrounding the case, and that contempt proceedings would not commence. 
Daniel Horowitz, a lawyer representing Leahy, said after the hearing that he was confused about the point of the hearing, but was glad that there was no initiation of contempt proceedings against Leahy, who has sued the city of Nashville seeking a full release of their report on the Covenant School shooting. 
“I don’t know how this evolved or why, but I&#8217;m glad the press isn&#8217;t being threatened with jail time today. That&#8217;s a welcome development,” Horowitz told reporters, including The Daily Wire, after the hearing. “I don’t want reporters going to jail for lawful reporting. That’s why we were here today.” 
Horowitz added that he was encouraged that it seemed like “we have veered off a very dangerous road threatening reporters for lawful reporting.” 
The hearing was the latest in the legal back-and-forth over the writings of the shooter who killed three children and three adults in a March 27, 2023 attack on the Covenant School. The city of Nashville has so far blocked any release of the shooter’s documents, while a group of parents from the school have also sought to have the writings sealed from public view. 
The Tennessee Star began publishing a series of articles earlier this month quoting from the shooter’s writings, noting that it had obtained images of roughly eighty pages of one of the shooter’s journals. Last week, Myles suggested that Leahy might be held in contempt over the articles for violating an unspecified court order. However, Myles said on Monday that the hearing&#8217;s purpose was for her to determine whether the publication of articles on some of the shooter&#8217;s writings should impact her ruling regarding the full release. 
Myles initial order last week said that Leahy must demonstrate why the “publication of certain purported documents” does not “violate the Orders of this Court subjecting them to contempt proceedings and sanctions.” Leahy was not given the opportunity to make this case. 
In a statement after the hearing, Leahy said that he would continue to practice his First Amendment rights. 
“We started The Tennessee Star so I could exercise my First Amendment rights. I think we have served the public well, and we are delighted to have the opportunity to continue to exercise our First Amendment rights,” Leahy <a href="https://x.com/BrentScher/status/1802757079087657432" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> reporters. 
In a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lrGLFz2cz8hF5rjKUgf7njiD_kC4nyn-/view" target="_blank" rel="noopener">follow up order</a> on Friday denying an appeal from Leahy to dismiss the contempt hearing, Myles amended her order for Monday’s hearing, saying that it would be for the court to “ascertain the veracity of any alleged leak which may have occurred in this matter and if true, any effect on the status of these proceedings.”
At the end of Monday&#8217;s hearing, Myles said that she now “understood” what she needed to know about the case, and that she would issue a ruling. It is unclear if this ruling will be about whether there will be a future contempt hearing for Leahy or if it will pertain to the lawsuit against Nashville. 
Last week, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/covenant-journal-revealed-my-imaginary-penis?topStoryPosition=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published photos</a> of the attacker’s journal obtained by a source familiar with the Covenant investigation. The pages showed a woman who had been consumed by transgender ideology and conveyed her anger at Christianity and her parents over their traditional views.

US-SHOOTING-SCHOOL-WEAPONS

‘Veered Off A Very Dangerous Road’: Judge Backs Off From Threat To Punish Journalist Over Covenant Reporting

Nashville

School Shooting

The Covenant School

Transgender

A Tennessee news executive says his First Amendment and due process rights are in jeopardy as he faces punishment over his publication of articles on the writings of the transgender-identifying shooter who killed six people at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville in March 2023. 
Tennessee Star Editor-in-Chief Michael Patrick Leahy was <a href="https://fox17.com/resources/pdf/bb104926-e6a1-4964-90ef-87a89ca72f0a-61024CHANCERYCOURTCOVENANTCASE.pdf.crdownload.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordered</a> to show up in Davidson County court on Monday for a contempt hearing after his outlet <a href="https://tennesseestar.com/covenant-school-shooting-investigation/">published multiple articles</a> quoting from the writings of the woman who killed three children and three adults at The Covenant School on March 27, 2023. The articles quoted from the writings of the shooter, disclosing that it had obtained images of the full journal that was recovered by police at the scene of the shooting. 
In her order, Judge I&#8217;Ashea Myles said that Leahy must demonstrate why the “publication of certain purported documents” does not “violate the Orders of this Court subjecting them to contempt proceedings and sanctions.”
On Wednesday, Leahy’s legal team filed an emergency appeal in response arguing that Myles&#8217; order endangers freedom of the press and violates his right to due process. The appeal, which has since <a href="https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-judge-denies-motion-by-star-news-ceo-in-covenant-killer-writings-case-raises-possibility-of-prosecution-as-leahy-files-emergency-appeal/tpappert/2024/06/13/">been denied</a>, argued that the hearing should be set aside because it violates Tennessee laws protecting reporters and rules on contempt proceedings. 
“Tennessee has enacted a robust media ‘shield law’ that protects reporters from being compelled to reveal any information—or the source of any information—procured for publication or broadcast,” the court filing says. “Such compulsion would also seriously undermine freedom of the press and news gathering generally.”
The Tennessee Star has not disclosed the details of how it obtained the documents, which is standard practice in the journalism profession.
On Friday, Axios <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/nashville/2024/06/14/filing-singles-out-mnpd-whistleblower-in-covenant-records-leak">reported</a> that a retired Nashville police lieutenant has been singled out regarding the leak of records regarding the shooting investigation. Those records have been kept hidden from the public for more than a year. The lieutenant, Garet Davidson, has filed a <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/nashville/2024/06/03/investigation-nashville-police-complaint">whistleblower complaint</a> regarding mismanagement at the department, and has <a href="https://tennesseestar.com/justice/retired-mnpd-lt-garet-davidson-claims-fbi-told-nashville-police-not-to-release-documents-from-covenant-school-killer-audrey-elizabeth-hale-investigation-pointed-to-precedent-for-document-destruction/tpappert/2024/06/04/">appeared</a> on Leahy&#8217;s Tennessee Star show in recent weeks.
Myles did not specify in her order what specific court orders she was referring to that might lead to Leahy and Star Digital Media being held in contempt. 
“By failing to identify the previous orders — or the provisions within them —  that this Court believes Mr. Leahy may have violated, though, this  Court’s Show Cause Order does not afford Mr. Leahy meaningful notice of the concerns that he is being ordered to address,” Leahy’s legal filing says. 
If Myles&#8217; order did restrict Leahy &#8220;from publishing lawfully obtained documents to his readership,” that order is constitutionally suspect, the filing says. 
“None of this Court’s earlier orders appears — at least to the undersigned — to contemplate such a drastic restriction,” the filing says. “If this Court  interprets one of its earlier orders that way, though, then the order is a  prior restraint that suffers from serious constitutional infirmities and is  presumptively unconstitutional.”
For well over a year, Nashville police have refused to release the writings of the shooter arguing that the investigation into the shooting is ongoing. In response, there are two ongoing lawsuits, one against the FBI and the other against the city, pushing for the release of all the shooter&#8217;s writings.
On Wednesday, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/covenant-journal-revealed-my-imaginary-penis?topStoryPosition=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> photos of the attacker&#8217;s journal obtained by a source familiar with the Covenant investigation. The entries show that she had a deep-seated hatred for Christianity and her parents for pushing back against her desire to identify as a male.

3 children, 3 teachers fatally shot in US city of Nashville school shooting

Journalist Says First Amendment In Jeopardy As He Faces Punishment Over Reporting On Covenant Shooter

A parental rights group filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday accusing a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/new-york" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a> school district of establishing “speech codes” that violate the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/first-amendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">First Amendment</a> rights of conservative students, according to documents first shared with The Daily Wire.
The suit was filed by Parents Defending Education against Croton-Harmon Union Free School District north of New York City over its harassment and discrimination policies. It argues that the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of students have been violated by the policies, which include requirements for students to use the “preferred pronouns&#8221; of others.
“The District has adopted multiple ‘harassment’ policies that prohibit a broad swath of controversial speech at the heart of the First Amendment,” the <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1_Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> says. “In so doing, the District unconstitutionally discriminates based on viewpoint, requires a student to affirm another student’s gender identity when inconsistent with that student’s sex, prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech, and uses vague terms that an average student cannot understand.”
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is asking for the judge to rule that the <a href="https://defendinged.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/PDEvCHExhibits.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">district policies</a> 0110, 0110-R, 0115, 0115-R, 0115-E, 5300, 4526, and 4526-R are unconstitutional. These policies “punish students for their speech and compel them to mouth support for the District’s preferred views at all times of day, whether at school or not,” according to the suit.
In the suit, Parents Defending Education noted that its members included multiple parents who had students in the district who felt like their ability to speak freely had been restricted.
The challenged policies describe discrimination as including “restrictions on the use of names or pronouns,” and include an acceptable use policy for electronics about the sending of “hate mail.” Additionally, the policies restrict speech determined to be “offensive,” “disparaging,” “degrading,” “derogatory,” &#8220;intimidating,” or “demeaning.”
According to Parents Defending Education, the policies are overly broad and allow students to be punished for their conservative opinions.
“Speech codes punish students for unpopular speech labeled as ‘harassment,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘hate speech,’ or ‘incivility’ — categories so broad that school officials can use them to ban speech based on one’s firmly held views including religious views, or to compel speech contrary to those views,” the suit says. “When these policies impose vague, overbroad, or viewpoint-based restrictions on speech, they are unconstitutional.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Parents Defending Education has been active across the country in efforts to push for accountability and transparency at public schools.
“Over the past century, the Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that students have robust First Amendment rights – and that education officials may not trample on these rights at their pleasure,” Parents Defending Education President Nicole Neily said in a statement to The Daily Wire. “Silencing unpopular viewpoints and compelling the speech of students in a public school system is fundamentally un-American.”
Croton-Harmon Union Free School District did not respond to a request for comment.

Transgender Symbol and Pencils With The Color of Lgbt Flag

EXCLUSIVE: Parents Group Challenges New York School District Over ‘Speech Codes’ On Pronouns

Education

Gender Pronouns

New York

Parents rights

Menu