A Christian evangelist&#8217;s battle with a Mississippi city over street preaching took center stage at the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices heard arguments that could have far-reaching consequences for Americans who want to defend their constitutional rights in federal court. 
The case <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00993qp.pdf">revolves</a> around whether 33-year-old Gabriel Olivier can challenge an ordinance from Brandon, Mississippi, that restricted street preaching in a public park outside of a local amphitheater. Olivier, who was convicted in 2021 of street preaching outside of the designated area, is now attempting to overturn the ordinance on First Amendment grounds. 
“This is a really important case,  for Christians specifically, because I noticed that all around the country, there&#8217;s always an exercise of free speech [that] does not seem to be cracked down on the way that Christians&#8217; free speech is nowadays,” Olivier told The Daily Wire in an interview. 
The city of Brandon argues that Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance in federal court because he has previously been convicted of violating it. Olivier says that he doesn’t want to revisit the 2021 conviction, for which he paid a fine, but wants to protect his right to share his faith in the future. 
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the justices seemed sympathetic to Olivier’s arguments that he should be able to seek relief in federal court despite his previous conviction. Nate Kellum, a lawyer with First Liberty Institute representing Olivier, told The Daily Wire that he was encouraged by the questions he heard from the justices. 
Kellum said that all he wants is for Olivier to have his day in court to argue against the ordinance and make an appeal for his First Amendment rights. 
“Everybody, regardless of their ideology and their belief, deserves their day in court,” Olivier said. “We&#8217;re just asking that people would continue to pray for us.”
The Trump administration is <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1414041/dl">supporting</a> Olivier’s petition, as are a number of other conservative organizations. 
The ordinance implemented by Brandon, a suburb east of Jackson, restricts protest activity in the park surrounding the city&#8217;s amphitheater to a designated area when events are being held. 
“What the ordinance does is it puts him in a place where no one can hear him,” Kellum told The Daily Wire. “You can&#8217;t have a conversation.  You can&#8217;t hand out literature. If he preaches, he cannot be heard, and if he held up a sign, no one could read it. And so that seemed to be the whole idea, is that the city wanted to pass a law that separated him from his would-be audience.”
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
The city and some legacy outlets have attempted to suggest that Olivier shouted rude or inappropriate things during his previous outings at the park. 
“It&#8217;s patently false. And it seems to be an attempt to try to malign Gabe, malign his character,” Kellum said. “But if Gabe or really anyone else would say anything that would amount to fighting words or could be something that could lead to an altercation, there&#8217;s disorderly conduct ordinances.”
Olivier first went to the park in 2019, where he had productive conversations about his faith with others. But when he returned in 2021, the city had passed an ordinance against such evangelism. His passion for street evangelism comes from his own conversion ten years ago when he encountered a street preacher. 
“I see it very clearly as a command in scripture,” he said. “And so I choose to do that and exercise the rights that we have enjoyed here in America. And we would like for an opportunity to continue to fight for those rights to be upheld.”
Todd Butler, the attorney representing Brandon, said in a statement to The Daily Wire: &#8220;The City of Brandon was excited to present its position to the Court. The case before the Supreme Court is not about the constitutionality of the ordinance or religious expression. It is about whether a person who has been found guilty in criminal court may undermine his conviction through a civil tort lawsuit. The importance of this case cannot be overstated as it will impact cities across the country.&#8221;

MixCollage-04-Dec-2025-02-39-PM-4809

Supreme Court To Weigh In On Christian Evangelist’s Street Preaching Battle With City

Street Preaching Heads To Court: Evangelist’s Battle With City Heard By Supreme Court

Christianity

First Amendment

Free Speech

Mississippi

Supreme Court

For all the hysterical claims that President Donald Trump is some sort of First Amendment supervillain, the reality is precisely the opposite. Trump has done more to defend constitutionally protected speech and to dismantle the most coordinated censorship regime in modern American history than any president in living memory.
But don’t tell that to the New York Times, NPR, or the ladies at The View. According to them, Trump is basically moments away from burning the Bill of Rights on live TV.
Why the disconnect? The modern Left has confused breaking norms with breaking laws, and those are two very different things.
Norms are unwritten rules, handshake agreements shaped by cultural institutions. Over decades, those institutions shifted left and rewrote the norms to ensure that public policy always bends in their direction. One glaring example is the “norm” that government spending must increase every year at rates higher than inflation, substantially higher.
Laws, by contrast, are enforceable with financial penalties or jail time.
Trump breaks norms. The Left breaks laws and then screams “authoritarian!” when someone tries to enforce those laws. That, in a nutshell, is the dynamic between Trump and the Democrat Party today.
To understand the elitist media’s role in all this, start with the epic collapse of journalism. The press still loves calling itself the “Fourth Estate,” bravely speaking truth to power. That may have been true once, back when reporters described reality instead of trying to socially engineer it. But over time, journalism mutated, first through ideologically uniform J-schools, then through newsroom monocultures, into something far more partisan.
Post-Watergate hero fantasies turned reporters into crusaders. Conservative viewpoints disappeared. Elitists replaced objectivity with “moral clarity” — their euphemism for political activism.
This has led to the death of journalism. The vapors emanating from its stinking corpse have made it nearly impossible for so-called “reporters” to understand basic constitutional law. So let’s clarify.
The First Amendment protects a broad range of speech, but not all speech. Speech in service of a crime? Not protected. Offer a bribe and try claiming “free speech.” See how that goes. Defamation? Also not protected. And when you take a government handout, whether as a defense contractor or a publicly funded media broadcaster, you accept the regulatory conditions that come with it.
NPR and PBS assumed otherwise. They took billions from taxpayers while repeatedly violating the law that required them to “ensure strict adherence to objectivity and balance.” They assumed the norm, that they’d always get our money through Congressional earmarks, even while breaking the law.
Trump did what no other president has ever done: he broke that norm and enforced the law. His Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Brendan Carr, has done something similar with broadcasters. That’s not censorship. That’s accountability.
The same principle applies to universities. For years, the norm was that campuses would tolerate and even encourage criminal behavior under the guise of “social activism.” Blocking highways, occupying buildings, vandalizing property, and assaulting students was perfectly fine, as long as the rioters chanted the right slogans. But the First Amendment doesn’t magically convert crime into protected speech. Trump ended that law-breaking norm, too.
None of this alone makes Trump the “greatest defender of free speech.” His words and his deeds earn him that gold model.
Just before taking the oath of office for the second time, Trump laid down the truth long forgotten by the left: “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country. … If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple, just like dominoes.” 
Trump’s actions followed suit. He and his administration have eviscerated the sprawling censorship apparatus built by President Joe Biden.
MRC Free Speech America has shown how the Biden administration operated the <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/biden-censorship-initiatives-tracker">most expansive government-driven censorship system in U.S. history</a>. Not metaphorically. Literally.
A few &#8220;lowlights” from the Biden censorship regime include: federal agencies pressuring social media platforms to suppress lawful political speech; agencies partnering with private entities to provide “plausible deniability” while carrying out government censorship goals, and government “switchboards” funneling thousands of takedown demands, creating lists of posts to hide, throttle, or erase.
Biden’s objective wasn’t about fighting “misinformation,” as he has claimed. It was about controlling and shaping narratives before an election. This was speech policing.
This was government censorship.
This was illegal.
Trump tore it apart.
Through executive orders, personnel changes, and directives barring government censorship, Trump dismantled Biden’s censorship machine. Platforms can no longer hide behind federal pressure, and bureaucrats can no longer run secret speech-surveillance pipelines.
That is what defending the First Amendment looks like. Not symbolic gestures. Not pretty rhetoric. Real action. Real results. Restoring the foundational principle that in America, the government does not decide which opinions are allowed.
No other president has done more to defend the First Amendment. Trump truly has made free speech great again.
* * *
Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
<h4>Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.</h4>

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

By Dismantling Biden’s Censorship Machine, Trump Made Free Speech Great Again

Biden Administration

Donald Trump

Journalism

Media Research Center

Opinion

President Trump

Social Media Bias

Social Media Censorship

The European Commission “ignored” censorship concerns as it moved forward with the implementation of a sweeping digital platform law that free speech advocates say could impact everyone from Christian preachers to TikTokers.
On Monday, the European Commission <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/report-application-article-33-regulation-eu-20222065-dsa-and-interaction-regulation-other-legal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> its first-ever review of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a law that empowers it to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies that it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation or take down “illegal content.” Alliance Defending Freedom International, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has warned</a> that the Digital Services Act could bring about a “global censorship regime,”  told The Daily Wire that it was disappointed with the commission’s report.
“I think the concerns on free speech are very substantive, and they need a robust response, and we feel that the European Commission has not actually conducted a robust review in the sense of actually inviting all voices and all partners to the table,” Dr. Adina Portaru, a senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International, told The Daily Wire in a phone interview from London.
“The DSA can impact anyone, can impact content creators and influencers and preachers and political dissidents and any kind of content online can be regulated by the DSA through its architecture,” she added.
The act relies on cooperation from non-governmental organizations that advise lawmakers whether someone’s online writings would be considered illegal. There would also be a high burden for reporting violations on tech companies. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions.
The Monday assessment from the European Commission asserts that the act is in accordance with the “fundamental rights” recognized in the commission’s charter and that the act is “content agnostic.”
“It does not define what should be considered illegal or harmful content, it only establishes procedural obligations and safeguards where such content appears online,” the assessment said.
Portaru said that the “content agnostic” claim was a smokescreen and that the definition of illegal content in the act was broad enough to have global implications.
“Illegal content is defined in such a loose way as anything that is not in accordance with EU law or any law of any member state at any time. It can be today or in one week, depending on how the national laws change,” she said.
The Alliance Defending Freedom International led a letter signed by over 100 free speech experts in October urging the European Commission to address their concerns with the act. Another 50 non-governmental organizations signed a letter in September expressing concerns about the act.
Instead of bringing them to the table, the commission claimed to have broad consensus around the act when it was actually interpreted unilaterally, Portaru said.
“The European Commission had the opportunity to step into this space and constructively engage with these concerns coming from the U.S, as well as Europeans,&#8221; she said. &#8220;It failed to do so.&#8221;
<div id="message-list_1763648784.748159" class="c-virtual_list__item" tabindex="0" role="listitem" aria-setsize="-1" data-qa="virtual-list-item" data-item-key="1763648784.748159">
<div class="c-message_kit__background c-message_kit__background--hovered p-message_pane_message__message c-message_kit__message" role="presentation" data-qa="message_container" data-qa-unprocessed="false" data-qa-placeholder="false">
<div class="c-message_kit__hover c-message_kit__hover--hovered" role="document" aria-roledescription="message" data-qa-hover="true">
<div class="c-message_kit__actions c-message_kit__actions--default">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter">
<div class="c-message_kit__gutter__right" role="presentation" data-qa="message_content">
<div class="c-message_kit__blocks c-message_kit__blocks--rich_text">
<div class="c-message__message_blocks c-message__message_blocks--rich_text" data-qa="message-text">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer" data-qa="block-kit-renderer">
<div class="p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper--first">
<div class="p-rich_text_block" dir="auto">
<div class="p-rich_text_section">Asked about whether the commission was concerned about free speech, Portaru said &#8220;they just simply ignored it.&#8221;</div>
<div></div>
<div class="p-rich_text_section">The commission did respond to Alliance Defending Freedom International in a November 14 letter viewed by The Daily Wire that claimed it was committed to “upholding the right to freedom of expression and information” and asserting that the act was content neutral.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
“The DSA ensures that lawful content protected by the fundamental right of freedom of expression, is safeguarded by establishing due process and transparency online. The DSA clarifies what online platforms are required to do when they moderate content to prevent the arbitrary removal of lawful content,” the commission wrote.
In a statement to The Daily Wire, a spokesman for the European Commission claimed that concerns about censorship were “completely unfounded.”
“The aim of our digital legislation, including the DSA, is to ensure that the Internet is a safe place. One that protects our fundamental rights. One where illegal content like terrorism or child abuse have no place,” the spokesman said, adding that online platforms have a role to “assess and mitigate risks to the freedom of expression.”
The spokesman added that the act provided a mechanism for people to challenge if their content has been removed.
Despite the European Commission’s claims, American officials have raised concerns about how the Digital Services Act could impact the United States. The State Department told The Daily Wire that it was reviewing the report on the Digital Services Act with &#8220;great interest.&#8221;
&#8220;Current EU laws, like the Digital Services Act, exacerbate concerning member-state speech laws that use vague language such as “harmful content” to target disfavored political and religious speech and can impose onerous financial burdens on U.S. companies seeking to do business in European markets,&#8221; a State Department spokesman told The Daily Wire. &#8220;European regulations such as the DSA can have outsized extraterritorial effects and place a disproportionate burden on major American technology platforms.&#8221;
&#8220;The United States believes that protecting freedom of expression is critical, particularly for any democratic, self-governing nation – this includes protecting voices that challenge the status quo or criticize the government,&#8221; the spokesman added. 
In September, European Union Ambassador Andrew Puzder said that he would be making formal submissions to the commission for changes to the act.
“The Europeans believe that [the rules] are less restrictive and less targeted than the U.S. believes, and I think we’re going to need to sit down and go through these acts with some care,” he <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b6d9fb9c-901e-42e3-9610-5a449247fd49" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the Financial Times.
That followed reports in August that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/rubio-orders-us-diplomats-launch-lobbying-blitz-against-europes-tech-law-2025-08-07/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">directed</a> diplomats to lobby against the Digital Services Act.
&#8220;Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online,&#8221; Rubio wrote in a cable obtained by Reuters.
Apart from broader censorship concerns, many European countries have already become notorious for restrictions placed on political and religious speech. For example, Finnish parliamentarian <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-bible-on-trial-christian-politician-goes-back-to-court-over-religious-beliefs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Päivi Räsänen</a> has faced a six-year-long legal battle for conveying her beliefs in Christian views of sexuality online. Pro-life advocates have been punished in Britain for silently praying and German citizens <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/02/21/world-news/germans-cant-insult-politicians-which-is-why-we-need-to-protect-free-speech-in-the-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can</a> be punished for insulting politicians.

BELGIUM-EU-POLITICS

Europe Union ‘Ignored’ Free Speech Concerns, Plows Ahead With ‘Global Censorship Regime’

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Censorship

European Union

Marco Rubio

State Department

There was a time not so long ago when Americans debated ideas around dinner tables, not timelines. We wrestled with differences in living rooms, classrooms, and church halls. But now? We live in the age of &#8220;I don’t believe you. Prove me wrong.&#8221; The default mode of curious conversation has turned into combat.
Scroll through any comment section and you’ll see it: people don’t log on to learn, they log on to win. They enter digital arenas, not classrooms. Social media has turned intellectual inquiry into an Olympic sport of outrage where every disagreement demands a takedown, every nuance is flattened into a meme, and every opponent becomes an enemy. That shift—from curiosity to cynicism—is quietly dismantling the very foundation of a free society: Trust.
Once upon a time, conservatism—and really, American discourse as a whole—was built on questions. Our Founders argued fiercely, but the goal was understanding. Debate was an act of discovery, not destruction. “Teach me” was the posture of a citizen who loved truth more than tribe.
Today, that posture is rare. We’ve mistaken being informed for being inflexible. We say, “I’ve done my research,” but really mean “I’ve read five posts that agree with me.” We talk about “owning the libs” or “crushing the cons,” but what we’ve really destroyed is the middle ground where reason used to live. This new culture doesn’t seek understanding. Rather, it seeks affirmation. The tragedy is that the tools meant to connect us have been weaponized to divide us.
Let’s be honest: social media isn’t a modern-day marketplace of ideas. It’s a slot machine that rewards outrage. Every swipe and tap feeds a machine designed to give you more of what you already like. It’s not expanding your mind; it’s tightening your echo chamber.
As a capitalist, I have no problem with profit. Platforms are businesses, not ministries. Their product is attention—and they’ve mastered the art of keeping it. But when the free market of attention becomes the only market that matters, ideas become entertainment, and truth becomes whatever gets the most clicks. The algorithm doesn’t care if you’re right—it cares if you’re riled up. It feeds you more of what you think you want instead of what you might need. It’s like a spiritual diet of junk food: easy to consume, but hard on the soul.
And look, I get it. I have social media, too. (<a href="https://x.com/GatesGarciaFL">Please follow me</a> before I sound too self-righteous.) But it’s time we’re honest about what these platforms are and what they aren’t. They aren’t designed to elevate ideas; they’re designed to amplify emotion.
At 40 years old, I still remember what life looked like before all this—before the dopamine hits, before algorithms knew our habits better than our parents did. I remember when you actually had to call someone to argue about politics, when disagreement came with a voice, a tone, a relationship. But we’re now raising entire generations that only know a world filtered through social media. And the ramifications of that are enormous. Kids are learning to form their identities in front of an audience instead of within a family. They’re measuring truth in likes, not logic.
The answer, though, isn’t to abandon social media altogether. Like any tool, it can build or destroy depending on who’s holding it. Used well, it’s the most powerful communications platform in human history. It can spread truth faster than tyranny, unify movements for good, and give a voice to people long ignored by legacy media.
That’s the paradox of our age: we have the means to hold the world’s largest conversation, yet we’ve reduced it to a shouting match. Free markets are supposed to thrive on innovation and exchange, but our digital marketplace has become a monopoly of emotion. And that’s not capitalism. That’s chaos.
As conservatives, we should be leading the charge to reclaim these platforms for dialogue, not diatribe. Free speech is more than the right to speak. It’s the responsibility to listen. We should want social media to be the world’s public square, not its virtual food fight.
Imagine if, instead of “prove me wrong,” we started from “help me understand.” Imagine a culture where humility was a virtue again, not a weakness. That’s not naïve—it’s necessary.
Before social media, you couldn’t just parachute into a conversation armed with rage and a Wi-Fi connection. You had to engage face-to-face. There were natural filters: manners, context, tone. You couldn’t just drop a bomb and vanish into anonymity. Those days weren’t perfect, but our debates had weight. They demanded patience, presence, and perspective. Today, our political culture is built for the opposite. Speed over thought. Visibility over virtue. Snark over substance.
We used to shake hands after arguments. Now we block people. That’s not progress. That’s paralysis.
The challenge before us isn’t simply to win elections; it’s to win back curiosity. To remind a cynical culture that disagreement isn’t dangerous—it’s democratic and that the purpose of argument is not annihilation but illumination.
If conservatives want to shape the next generation, we have to model what it means to seek truth, not just victory. We can defend principles and still learn from people. We can hold convictions without closing our minds.
There’s nothing “soft” about humility. Jesus Himself—who held the ultimate truth—still asked questions, still taught through dialogue, still invited people to understand. Maybe that’s the model we need again.
So, here’s my modest proposal: the next time someone says something you disagree with online, try answering with, “I don’t understand, teach me.” It won’t always work. Some people will still argue in bad faith. But if enough of us adopt that posture, we might just start rebuilding the bridges that algorithms have burned.
Because at the end of the day, a nation built on freedom depends on the free exchange of ideas. Not just the loud ones. The honest ones.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go post this on social media. And please—prove me wrong by following me there.
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast We The People. Follow him on IG and X @GatesGarciaFL
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Social Media And Messaging Apps

From ‘Teach Me’ To ‘Prove Me Wrong’: How Social Media Killed Curiosity

America

Conservatives

Division

Freedom

Liberals

Social Media

A bipartisan coalition of former Federal Communications Commission officials is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fcc-chair-trump-kimmel-60-minutes-policy-abc-disney-distortion-cbs-rcna243495">demanding</a> that the agency scrap a long‑standing rule they say has become a political weapon — the FCC’s so‑called “news distortion” policy.
The petition, submitted by the liberal activist group Protect Democracy, is signed by seven former commissioners — five Republicans and two Democrats — and multiple senior staffers, all warning that the agency has crossed into dangerous territory by threatening broadcasters over editorial decisions. The policy, dating back decades, authorizes the FCC to penalize stations that “deliberately distort” factual news reports. For years, it was mostly dormant — until Trump‑appointed FCC Chair Brendan Carr began citing it in fights with television networks.
In February, Carr <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fcc-chairman-brendan-carr-continues-013226663.html">invoked</a> the rule when his agency investigated CBS’ “60 Minutes” for allegedly misleading viewers in an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris — a flap that coincided with Trump’s separate $20 billion lawsuit against CBS’ parent company, Paramount, which later settled for $16 million.
Then came the Jimmy Kimmel episode. After the comedian mocked conservatives for supposedly politicizing the murder of activist Charlie Kirk, Carr suggested that ABC affiliates airing “Jimmy Kimmel Live” could face fines or license revocation under the distortion policy. ABC later suspended Kimmel, only to reinstate him a week later after blowback ensued.
In the petition, former FCC heads — including Obama‑era Democrat Tom Wheeler and Reagan‑era Republican Mark Fowler — warn that the agency has “no legitimate interest” in policing speech and is courting lawfare by meddling in content. Gigi Sohn, a longtime media reform advocate who advised Wheeler, argued the rule has morphed from a safeguard against fabrication into “a cudgel,” and that the FCC already possesses other mechanisms to address intentional deception.
Carr insists critics are distorting his words, saying he issued no threat and that stations acted on “business decisions.” Democratic commissioner Anna Gomez claims that Carr’s comments amount to intimidation designed to chill speech before any court challenge.
At stake is whether the FCC, an agency barred from censoring content under the First Amendment, should retain a discretionary rule.

Brendan Carr

Ex-FCC Officials Claim Carr’s ‘News Distortion’ Crackdown Threatens Free Speech

General

Politics

Two months after the assassination of Charlie Kirk on a college campus in Utah, a Turning Point USA event at the University of California, Berkeley, erupted in violence. <a href="https://calmatters.org/education/2025/11/uc-berkeley-turning-point-fights-arrests/">Over the course of several hours</a>, protesters tried to shut down the event, launched projectiles at attendees, engaged in physical altercations, and sent one attendee to the hospital. While this rightfully prompted an investigation by the Department of Justice’s <a href="https://x.com/AAGDhillon/status/1988272046741111268">Civil Rights Division</a>, the Berkeley riot, and indeed, Kirk’s assassination itself, point to a broader problem: the utter failure of American universities to foster intellectual diversity and a culture of free speech on their campuses.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We saw all of this at Berkeley back in 2017. <a href="https://twitter.com/UCBerkeley?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UCBerkeley</a> was sued, and settled the case.
The <a href="https://twitter.com/CivilRights?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CivilRights</a> will investigate what happened here, and I see several issues of serious concern regarding campus and local security and Antifa’s ability to operate with impunity in CA. <a href="https://t.co/aN7JzouXwl">https://t.co/aN7JzouXwl</a>
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) <a href="https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/1988272046741111268?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 11, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One reason Turning Point USA events and other events featuring conservative speakers turn violent is that college students are accustomed to living in ideological echo chambers. A <a href="https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/12/Faculty-Report-2024-Final.pdf">2024 report</a> by the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) demonstrates with raw numbers just how bad the problem is. 55% of conservative faculty (compared to just 17% of liberal faculty) hide their political views to protect their jobs. Just 20% of respondents indicated that a conservative individual would be a somewhat or very positive fit in their department, compared to 71% agreeing that a liberal individual would be a positive addition. 47% of conservative faculty feel they cannot express their opinion on a subject because of how other faculty, students, or administrators would respond. While conservative students may be attending and even teaching classes, often unbeknownst to others, a Turning Point USA event may be the first time many students are exposed to the ideas they have learned to perceive as unacceptable or even evil.
Allowing Turning Point USA to hold events — only after imposing exorbitant security fees and forcing organizers through a Byzantine permitting process — is nowhere near enough. The First Amendment requires as much. Universities have an obligation to their students, and indeed, to the country, to expose students to a broad range of ideas. Rather than let racial diversity drive hiring decisions, universities should strive to ensure that conservative views are represented in social studies and humanities departments. Students should be exposed to the ideas of conservative philosophers, economists, and historians, just as they will invariably be exposed to those of liberal (and even Marxist) thinkers. Universities should cultivate debating societies where participants must advocate positions that differ from their own, and audiences are exposed to competing ideas. And when organizations like Turning Point USA host events, university leaders need not endorse the viewpoints their speakers express, but they should make clear that the speaker is welcome on campus. While a university president attending a Turning Point USA event would likely inflame controversy in the short term, it would send a strong signal that the university’s commitment to intellectual diversity is real.
Fostering open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas is only half the battle. University administrators should adopt zero-tolerance policies for efforts to interfere with others’ speech and learning on college campuses, violent and non-violent alike. Students who engage in violence must be disciplined, up to and including expulsion. Too many universities give students a free pass when their violence relates to a conservative speaker rather than some interpersonal squabble. But engaging in violence to shut down speech makes the conduct worse, not better, as it is inimical to the purpose of a university. Administrators should craft course evaluations that assess whether the instructor fostered a free exchange of ideas and take it seriously when instructors flunk this critical test. Professors who shut down speech or foster self-censorship should adapt to the new norms or find a different profession.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination should have served as a wake-up call to American universities. While the suspect was not a Utah Valley University student, the shooting nonetheless spoke to a broader failure in American higher education. Too many students see conservative viewpoints as tantamount to violence, and those viewpoints are thus seldom expressed. And when they are, such as at Turning Point USA’s recent event in Berkeley, a violent response is all too common. Universities must take action to reverse this erosion of free speech by prioritizing the robust exchange of opposing views and disciplining, rather than coddling, those who exercise a heckler’s veto against conservative speech.
* * *
Jesse Franklin-Murdock is the Miles Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Liberty and a counsel at Dhillon Law Group Inc., where his practice areas include political law and civil rights.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Turning Point USA Tour Event Held At University Of California, Berkeley

The Violence At Berkeley Exposes A Broader Failure In Higher Education

Berkeley, California

California

Charlie Kirk

Leftists

Political Violence

Rob Schneider

Turning Point USA

University of California Berkeley

Do you agree with the Apostle Paul?
That was the question police asked Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen repeatedly over the course of 13 hours of interrogation over a social media post she made featuring a Bible verse. 
Six years ago, Räsänen found herself in a small room being questioned after she <a href="https://x.com/PaiviRasanen/status/1140693636176384011">shared</a> a Bible verse from the book of Romans detailing the Christian understanding of sexuality. After she shared the verse, she was charged with hate speech and dragged to the police station for numerous rounds of questions about her beliefs. 
“It was a very, very absurd and surreal experience,” Räsänen said on Thursday when asked by The Daily Wire to describe her experience. “I was sitting in a small room in a police station. I had the Bible on the table and the police were asking me very theological questions.”
She said that she was asked about the meaning of Romans and about the concepts of sin and shame in the Bible. Räsänen said she was brought in for questioning three times for a total of 13 hours, leading to a joke that she was “going to have a Bible study” at the police station, she said. 
Räsänen said her experience reminded her of stories she heard about Christians being persecuted by the Soviet Union. 
“Those stories that I had heard from these communist countries,” she said. “So I was so shocked that something like that could happen in Finland, in a country that has long roots in Christianity and rule of law and freedom of speech and faith.”
After each interrogation, she was given two weeks to delete her social media post and apologize. She refused each time. 
“I said that I do not apologize… because it&#8217;s not my opinion, it is what the Word of God says,” Räsänen said. 
She is a member of the Lutheran Church and was previously Finland’s Ministry of the Interior, meaning she once oversaw the police who interrogated her. Her case is now before Finland’s top court and comes after she was unanimously acquitted in 2022 and 2023 by lower courts. She faces two criminal charges for “agitation against a minority group.”
Räsänen’s case was heard on Thursday by the Finnish Supreme Court. She was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom International and criminal defense lawyer Matti Sankamo. 
<div id="attachment_993749" style="width: 1674px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-993749" class="size-full wp-image-993749" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM.png" alt="" width="1664" height="1106" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM.png 1664w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-300x199.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-867x576.png 867w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-768x510.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.20.01-PM-1536x1021.png 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1664px) 100vw, 1664px" />Räsänen outside the Supreme Court/ Alliance Defending Freedom International.</div>
In a press call after Thursday’s hearing, Sankamo said that it appeared that prosecutors had changed the primary focus of their case against Räsänen.
Also on trial is Bishop Juhana Pohjola, a Lutheran church leader who published a pamphlet in 2004 written by Räsänen defending the Christian view of marriage as between one man and one woman. Prosecutors have called for Pohjola to pull the pamphlet from circulation. 
“The Christian message of marriage and sexuality has been taught for two millennia, and it should never be considered a crime to speak what Christians have always believed,” he said ahead of the hearing. 
Both Pohjola and Räsänen face a hefty fine if they lose their case. The charges they face could come with prison time, though prosecutors have not requested that punishment. 
Paul Coleman, the executive director of Alliance Defending Freedom International, said that losing the case could make countless other Christian materials considered criminal. 
“We&#8217;ve not yet seen a case reach the highest court of a land where actual theological concepts like sin are considered hate speech, or where the words of the Bible are being put on trial,” he said Thursday. “And so again, if the prosecutor is successful, then that will set a new low, really, for freedom of expression in Europe and specifically for Christians.”
A verdict in the case is not expected until spring 2026, but Räsänen is hopeful that the result will be a resounding win for freedom of religion and speech. 
“The main question in this whole process is, the heart of this trial, is the question of whether teachings related to the Bible can be presented and whether it is still permissible to agree with the Bible, even when they contradict the main ideology of the society,” she said.

MixCollage-30-Oct-2025-01-20-PM-5744

The Bible On Trial: Christian Politician Goes Back To Court Over Religious Beliefs

Europe

Finland

Marriage

Religious Freedom

From State Rep. Melissa Hortman’s murder to Luigi Mangione’s manifesto to Charlie Kirk’s assassination to whatever fresh horror will have meteor-impacted the news cycle between my typing these words and their publication, it has never been clearer that online radicalization is leading to real-world consequences.
My team at <a href="https://usthestory.org/">US the Story</a> last year analyzed just a handful of the most vile posts from 14 of the top full-blown hate accounts on one platform. These 14 posts showed a combined view count of over 50 million. The accounts themselves had a reach of 6,450,000,000 impressions. Engagement — the number of times people actually interacted with the content in total to like, quote, or share — crossed 448 million over the course of roughly 10 months.
These posts, their volume, and their reach create a permission structure for more and more hatred. It’s a quickening descent into violence and chaos; the more it becomes fair game to denigrate and threaten “the other group,” the more blaming and attacking that group becomes normalized.
One way of looking at this is as a network contagion issue. Debates around social-media-facilitated social contagions have raged in the culture wars for years. Young women in particular have been targeted by bots and accounts promoting anorexia, gender dysphoria, and more. Viral events such as the 2023 explosion of bin Laden’s “Letter to America” and widespread <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-20/tiktok-effects-on-mental-health-in-focus-after-teen-suicide">messaging encouraging suicidality</a> caused immediate concern in the broader culture. At this point, we shouldn’t be surprised that algos designed to maximize virality for profit at any cost fuel the most toxic, contagious, and sticky topics.
Studies have consistently shown that violent crime follows a Pareto distribution, with 1% of criminals committing up to 60% of crimes. The same is true of hateful content strategically riding the algos in the service of encouraging real-world violence. Do we really want our social media platforms taken over by psychopaths in a full-blown network contagion? And more importantly, what happens if we do?
Most contagions left unimpeded spread enough to damage and threaten the entire system. That’s why many such cases are fueled by foreign PSYOPs.
<div id="attachment_992051" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-992051" class="size-large wp-image-992051" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-864x576.jpg" alt="cream_ph. Getty Images. Young hacker working in the dark room and using laptops to steal private information" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1171004713-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />cream_ph. Getty Images.</div>
The aim of these contagions is never the stated topic at hand. They aren’t actually about trans rights or Jews or vaccinations or immigration. They’re about, first, setting Americans against one another in radicalized tribal conflicts, and, second, making these topics impossible or even dangerous to discuss productively (eliminating sane discussion, an obvious precondition for solving problems). During the Cold War, for instance, the KGB provided financial and logistical support to the Black Panthers while also sending forged menacing letters from the Ku Klux Klan to black leaders in order to stoke racial tensions.
The point is to poison both sides in order to sow maximum chaos to undermine and destroy Western democracies.
It’s nearly impossible to withstand algorithmically-driven content engineered to maximize rage, fear, and anxiety in the service of keeping people glued to their screens. It is indeed a type of mind control. This level of nervous-system hacking and the deluge of toxic messaging can trigger terrible instincts and behavior, especially in young people whose prefrontal cortexes are literally not yet fully developed.
On top of hostile regime influence and outrage algorithms maximized for profit, there are also bad-faith domestic players urging America along its path of destruction. Most of these behind-the-scenes manipulators exhibit the Dark Tetrad traits of sadism, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These nefarious individuals are using sophisticated and furtive onboarding techniques to hijack the platforms.
Earlier this year, our team recorded a live conversation on a prominent social media platform between self-avowed neo-Nazis, one of whom has a sizable account with millions of views and reach. The conversation was a strategy session about how to manipulate larger non-ideologically aligned influencer accounts to share Nazi content. The strategy entails using carefully selected words, phrasing, and arguments that may be polarizing but aren’t explicitly antisemitic or racist. They target certain specific influencers and thought leaders’ interests that are political but outside the “Nazi diet.” When another large account interacts with a seemingly benign post by these Nazi accounts, it boosts that account algorithmically so the Nazi account gains followers, views, and increased power to change the culture on the platform and elsewhere. It’s the Nazi equivalent of algorithmic grooming.
The same holds true with radical leftist techniques. An April study by our partner group, <a href="https://networkcontagion.us/">NCRI</a>, found that more than 50% of self-identified people on the left of the political spectrum believed it at least somewhat acceptable to assassinate President Trump. And a whopping 78% of BlueSky users expressed some level of support for Luigi Mangione’s cold-blooded assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The biggest predictor of Mangione support? BlueSky usage.
Heavy social media use is indeed the one constant. Increasingly, when we dissect the social media diet and posts of those onboarded to radicalism, we are finding a toxic blend of ideologies. This is because the aim is not to support liberal or conservative politics. The aim is to get as many (especially young Americans) to arrive where far left and far right meet at the horseshoe of nihilism: the No Lives Matter cohort. Once the conditions are set for, say, a young man’s radicalization, it doesn’t matter to our hostile foreign adversaries whether the next bus he boards is filled with violent trans-Antifa-types or your-body-my-choice groypers.
We have no intention of vilifying the social media platforms (aside from those purposefully running full-blown foreign PSYOPs) or undermining free speech. In our informal engagements with leaders at these platforms, we have found them concerned and receptive to discussing ways to counter this. Vilifying CEOs, big tech, and the workers within these corporations not only forecloses on cooperative progress, but will likely shove them into a defensive posture. There are plenty of good people in tech leadership who have expressed a willingness to address this problem.
<div id="attachment_992053" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-992053" class="size-large wp-image-992053" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1024x576.jpg" alt="Outflow Designs. Getty Images. Technology icons transfer data through programming codes, artificial intelligence concept." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-1383963898-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Outflow Designs. Getty Images.</div>
So how might we approach this?
Here are five concrete recommendations to turn down the temperature on destructive social media trends while protecting freedom of speech and steering clear of government overreach and censorship.
<h3>1. Make algorithms transparent.</h3>
Citizens, parents, and the free market (advertisers and content producers) have a right to know if they or their children are participating in platforms feeding suicidality, hate-mongering, violent pornography, anti-American propaganda, or anything else damaging. This is not about control or censorship but about allowing people to know what they are engaging with so they can make informed choices for themselves, their companies, and their children. We aren’t making a demand that the platforms publish their proprietary trade secrets in terms of the algorithms. Rather, we are suggesting to allow independent researchers access to the data required to assess algo impacts in relation to illegal activity and whether the platforms are enforcing their own rules as defined in their terms of service. That is indeed the contract with the user—and the free market.
There is a valid argument too for the right of Americans to explore fringe and even perilous ideas and viewpoints. The world is a dangerous place and neither the government nor corporations should foreclose on the rights of citizens to explore beyond the bounds of what is considered widely acceptable (excluding, of course, illicit materials). But contact with the terrible and extreme should be done knowingly, not as a result of covert algorithms that are optimized for profit and forced into your feed. Ideally, dipping into dangerous arenas should be inoculating, not poisoning.  

<h3>2. Reward those on social media who identify themselves as verified users and stand behind their words in the public square.</h3>
Social media participants who use their real identities deserve to have their opinions elevated above those who post anonymously and have zero accountability. A free marketplace of ideas should privilege a modicum of courage, transparency, and responsibility.
There are certainly arguments to be made for anonymous accounts, with whistleblowers being oft-cited. That’s fair enough. They can still post their information in a second tier of engagement below verified users. It just won’t be elevated to the top along with every anonymously cited conspiracy theory. 

<h3>3. Differentiate freedom of speech from freedom of reach for profit.</h3>
As a vehement free speech advocate, I believe in the right for people to explore what they want and express themselves how they wish. But algorithms pushing hatred, lies, and violence are waging an asymmetric war on the truth. Freedom of speech is one thing. Distortion of speech and covert manipulation of the free marketplace of ideas is another.
Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant for bad ideas but light of day is insufficient to combat targeted deep-machine-learning computing power designed to elevate lies above all else and compounded by the machinations of psychopathic actors. This level of skew on the playing field makes a competition of ideas nearly impossible. Why hide the truth at the bottom of a cesspool? A hierarchy of values and a hierarchy of information is necessary for any endeavor that hopes to produce anything beyond chaos and ruin. 

<h3>4. Preserve human judgment at social media companies.</h3>
Of course, humans have biases and can fall victim to corruption. But that doesn’t mean that we should eliminate human good from the decision-making process. Shouldn’t we encourage and reward that which moves us toward greater truth and health? Rather than encouraging and rewarding the opposite? Every playing field needs a referee and every company should have stewards of common sense and common decency who assess the automated content moderation systems to ensure they’re not being gamed and to help enforce the agreed-upon rules of the game. Corporations are certainly equipped to encourage free speech, social engagement, and network health while ensuring that the tiny percentage of psychopathic accounts are not rocket-fueled by algos to infect the entire platform.
<h3>5. Identify and combat bot swarms and inauthentic coordinated material.</h3>
Users, advertisers, and the platforms themselves should know whether they are engaging with real accounts and ideas or with manipulative bad actors and swarms of bots from a Saint Petersburg troll farm. Independent research access to the data can bring additional resources to the table when it comes to identifying these threats to users and the platforms themselves. A bigger ecosystem of transparency is to our collective benefit. 
These five concrete recommendations will go a long way toward tamping down chaos, lies, and sadism online and in the real world.
* * *
Gregg Hurwitz is the New York Times #1 internationally bestselling author of 26 thrillers including the Orphan X series. His novels have won numerous literary awards and have been published in 33 languages. Gregg currently serves as the Co-President of International Thriller Writers (ITW). Additionally, he’s written screenplays and television scripts for many of the major studios and networks, and is an award-winning documentary producer. Gregg also wrote comics for AWA (including the critically acclaimed anthology NewThink), DC, and Marvel, and poetry. Currently, Gregg is working against polarization in politics and culture. To that end, he’s penned dozens of Op/Eds and pieces for The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Bulwark, Salon, and others, and pieces of creative content which have won numerous industry awards and achieved several hundred million views on digital TV platforms. He also helped write the opening ceremony of the 2022 World Cup.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Computer hacker coding on keyboard on a background of monitors.

When Algorithms Turn Deadly: Five Fixes For Preserving Free Speech In A System Out Of Control

algorithm

Big Tech

Parents rights

Propaganda

Silicon Valley

Technology

Charlie Kirk was a tireless champion of the First Amendment and the sacred right to free speech it protects. He led the charge for every American to speak freely, believe openly, and challenge authority without fear. In standing up to a ruthless faction that despised those freedoms, Charlie paid the ultimate price. He became a martyr for the first protection in the Bill of Rights.
To honor his courage and his life’s work, the Media Research Center (MRC) is proud to award the annual MRC Free Speech Award exclusively to Charlie Kirk.
In 2024, the MRC recognized 35 individuals and groups for their defense of free expression. There are again many worthy champions this year. But Charlie’s leadership, clarity, and sacrifice deserve singular recognition.
The MRC presents this award during Free Speech Week, a national celebration that reminds Americans what separates us from every other nation on earth. Without the right to speak freely, there can be no democracy, no Republic, no America. Yet we now live in a time when many citizens no longer believe in that right. Some even view the First Amendment as a danger to the nation itself.
Charlie saw that storm coming. He warned that the Left’s growing intolerance would not stop at censorship, but would escalate into the criminalization of “wrongthink.” He said, “Leftists in the Western world want to criminalize wrongthink&#8230; This can only end badly if we don’t stop it first.” Those words were not rhetoric. They were prophecy.
Charlie understood the connection between speech and civilization. He knew that free expression is not a privilege granted by government but a moral necessity that allows truth to prevail over power. He also recognized that the modern threat did not come from a single politician or newsroom, but from a coordinated network of tech companies, bureaucrats, and cultural elites seeking to control the flow of information.
Through MRC’s Free Speech America division, we exposed 57 censorship programs operating across 93 federal agencies during the Biden years. Some of those programs targeted Charlie and Turning Point USA directly. He fought back not with anger, but with reason and courage. He saw that Big Tech platforms such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, and X were no longer neutral conduits but ideological gatekeepers. He demanded that these corporations be treated as the publishers they had become, accountable for their choices and stripped of the immunity that shields their censorship.
Charlie was not motivated by partisanship. He was motivated by principle. As a man of faith, he saw free speech as an extension of free will — the God-given ability to think, speak, and act according to conscience. He knew that once a society loses the right to express truth, it soon loses the capacity to recognize it.
There are many who have continued this fight. President Donald Trump deserves special credit for reversing the Biden administration’s censorship directives and appointing officials who are restoring the First Amendment within government. Members of Congress, judges, and state leaders are carrying that same torch. But this year, one name stands above them all.
Charlie’s example must inspire our next steps. Congress should define the limits of Section 230 and end Big Tech’s abuse of it. The Trump administration should complete the work of dismantling every remaining censorship initiative. And states should act to protect consumers and elections from the tyranny of information control.
Charlie’s voice may be gone, but his conviction endures. The cause he gave his life for remains the cornerstone of the American experiment. It will only end if we fail to defend it.
Let’s not disappoint him.
* * *
David Bozell is president of the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Addresses Turning Point USA Summit

Why MRC’s Free Speech Award Belongs To Charlie Kirk Alone

Awards

University of Maryland administrators told its Turning Point USA chapter that it may not be able to host a Daily Wire journalist on Wednesday, unless the chapter pays for extensive additional security.
The event, featuring Daily Wire Senior Editor Cabot Phillips, is virtually identical to the classes that occur every day on college campuses — except with an affable, center-right journalist at the head of the room instead of a cantankerous leftist professor.
That The Daily Wire has exposed not one, but two University of Maryland presidents for plagiarism — including the president of its flagship College Park campus, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-president-copied-rocket-science-paper-from-aussie-student" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Darryll Pines</a>, whose capitulation to Hamas supporters this publication has also chronicled — suggests that the college’s motives for the security requirement may be less than honorable.
Turning Point isn&#8217;t being charged for security because its members might be unruly. It&#8217;s because the university believes that its own students will commit ideologically motivated violence — and, instead of addressing that, it&#8217;s punishing their prospective victims. The group&#8217;s founder, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated on a college campus six weeks ago, ending a career dedicated to facilitating ideological diversity and open debate at universities.
Maryland has taken the wrong lesson from that assassination.
Conservatives make up the majority of the voting public, as evidenced by the most recent national popular vote. If being exposed to center-right ideas is so unusual for college students that it would trigger violent rage, that&#8217;s the issue. Coming across someone like Phillips on campus shouldn&#8217;t be cause for violence. It should be just another Wednesday.
The move continues a pattern of selective commitment to free speech for Pines, who vociferously defended an anti-Israel group&#8217;s right to mark the first anniversary of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, then threatened to<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-president-copied-rocket-science-paper-from-aussie-student" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> call the police</a> on a Jewish woman for complaining about it.
Jewish parents asked Pines, who is Black, to engage in a thought experiment: would he be as supportive if the KKK were burning crosses on campus? The analogy went right over his head, and in a twist of unfathomable irony, Pines banned all events that day because of what he suggested were anti-black threats and the prospect of violence by Jews. Then he paid the school&#8217;s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, which proudly says it supports &#8220;armed struggle,&#8221; a<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-will-pay-100000-to-anti-israel-group-that-held-campus-rally-on-october-7" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> $100,000 settlement</a> when they filed suit over the cancellation.
His latest move suggests that it was a payoff to his allies, not a recognition of the need to preserve free speech.
Campus police told TPUSA that because of an &#8220;increase in threats related to Turning Point events,&#8221; police would staff the event, while TPUSA would be required to hire a security firm at its own expense to &#8220;conduct metal/weapons detection and bags checks upon entry.&#8221;
Lawyers from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) told the university that if increased security is required, &#8220;the law does not allow public institutions to shift this increased burden to the targeted group.&#8221;
“Doing so gives those most willing to engage in political violence the ability to silence or burden their opponents through the agency of the state. Raising costs on TPUSA in the wake of its leader&#8217;s assassination is a stark reminder of how literally deadly such a perverse incentive can be.&#8221;
In other words, UMD would be carrying water for terrorists.
&#8220;With the precedent UMD has set here, any student or community member could announce plans to disrupt a group&#8217;s campus event, and encourage others to do so, in the hope that UMD would respond by financially burdening the group,&#8221; FIRE wrote.
University of Maryland Associate General Counsel Christopher Lord replied with a denial that the fee was based on viewpoint. He said one of the factors the university uses to determine required security is &#8220;the history of similar events and/or of performer/speakers at other locations,&#8221; and invoked &#8220;the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk.&#8221;
Lord also acknowledged that earlier this month, on October 7, the university bore the cost for hundreds of thousands of dollars for a &#8220;Boycott Israel fest,&#8221; as well as pro-Israel counter-protesters.
He said the university is more likely to cover costs for outdoor events due to a Fourth Circuit Court ruling deeming outdoor spaces &#8220;limited public forums.&#8221; That suggests that if the university has a commitment to free speech, it&#8217;s to the extent that a court forced it to, and that, ironically, it doesn&#8217;t apply in classrooms themselves. If a group like Turning Point wants to avoid fees, it can hold an event outdoors — like the sort at which Kirk was assassinated.
Making the situation all the more outlandish is that the Daily Wire personality at the center of this controversy, Cabot Phillips, is unaccustomed to being the center of controversy. Phillips is not an opinion commentator like Ben Shapiro or Michael Knowles; he is the genial and cheery personality at the center of news broadcasts like Morning Wire.
As Conor Clayton of the Maryland Turning Point chapter told us, Phillips is “not controversial.”
“It&#8217;s very strange that they would make this determination that there would be massive protests or threats,&#8221; Clayton said. Representatives for the University of Maryland and its parent organization didn&#8217;t respond when we asked if they could identify a single inflammatory statement by Phillips.
Given that Clayton told us that his chapter hosted another indoor event at a campus chapel, a vigil for Kirk, without being charged for security, that suggests that the Daily Wire’s involvement may be the critical wrinkle in this already sorry state of affairs.
Pines is currently under investigation for blatant plagiarism, which was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-president-copied-rocket-science-paper-from-aussie-student" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exposed</a> by The Daily Wire’s Luke Rosiak. It has been more than a year since Pines admitted <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-president-copied-rocket-science-paper-from-aussie-student" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;recurrent language&#8221;</a> in an academic paper after it was unearthed by what he<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-president-acknowledges-recurrent-language-submits-to-plagiarism-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> called</a> &#8220;a blogger,&#8221; and he has faced no accountability.
This month, The Daily Wire<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/maryland-college-president-heidi-anderson-plagiarized-dissertation?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=8&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Another+College+President+Plagiarized+Her+Dissertation.+That%E2%80%99s+Just+The+Tip+Of+The+Iceberg." target="_blank" rel="noopener"> exposed a second president</a> of a Maryland campus, University of Maryland Eastern Shore&#8217;s Heidi Anderson, for massive plagiarism. All of this suggests a significant moral rot under the leadership of Jay Perman, the chancellor of the state&#8217;s public university system.
The security fee in question is minimal, just $150. But as Clayton lays out, that’s not the point.
&#8220;It&#8217;s really not about the monetary amount, it&#8217;s about ensuring that the university commits itself to the First Amendment,” Clayton told us. “This is a prior restraint on our free speech, because if we don&#8217;t pay this fee we can&#8217;t have the event.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s really a slap in the face. Charlie Kirk, literally all he did is talk with people and share a conservative message, and they killed him for it. The university sees that and instead of trying to encourage conservative speech, they&#8217;re doing everything they can to restrict our speech.”

Charlie Kirk and UMD President Darryll Pines

Revenge Of The Plagiarists? University Of Maryland Interferes With Turning Point USA Event

Education

Maryland

Terrorism

Universities

Few Hollywood stars loathed President Donald Trump quite like Michael Rapaport. Think Robert De Niro-level rage, with more colorful language.
The “Beautiful Girls” alum routinely hurled words against Trump that can’t be repeated here. The first word of a common Rapaport epithet? Pig.
Rapaport, touring the country as a stand-up comedian, views the President differently today.
The veteran actor/comic is a loud and proud defender of Israel. He has used his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcW_OJMsc2o">eponymous podcast</a>, social media accounts, and media interviews to let people know he hasn’t forgotten about them … even if his Hollywood peers have been shockingly silent on the matter. It’s given him a strange, and well-earned, new respect for the Commander-in-Chief.
“My views have changed,” <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/michael-rapaport-on-standing-up-for-the-israeli-hostages/id1740762722?i=1000731058479">Rapaport told this reporter</a> and the host of Denver’s “Ryan Schuiling Live” October 8 on 630 KHOW. The star recalled meeting several freed hostages along with the family members of some killed by Hamas terrorists.
“Knowing in my heart, in my guts, in my soul that that’s why I was able to meet them, it’s because of Trump … I can’t make fun of him anymore. I can make fun in a fun, loving way, but I can’t be disrespectful knowing what I know … and I’m good with that.
“He deserves my respect, and he deserves Jews’ respect. I’m proud that I’ve changed,” said Rapaport, days after the President struck a tentative peace deal that includes the release of all remaining hostages.
<div id="attachment_877391" style="width: 875px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-877391" class="size-large wp-image-877391" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-2036403442-865x576.jpg" alt="TEL AVIV, ISRAEL - FEBRUARY 24: Michael Rapaport speaks to the crowd as people gather outside the HaKirya base which serves as the IDF’s headquarters to demand the return of the hostages held by Hamas on February 24, 2024 in Tel Aviv, Israel.” Frustrations with the government have grown as over 100 hostages remain captive in Gaza, after more than four months of war between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7. (Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images)" width="865" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-2036403442-865x576.jpg 865w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-2036403442-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-2036403442-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-2036403442.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 865px) 100vw, 865px" />Roy Rochlin/Getty Images</div>
Rapaport has worked steadily in Hollywood for years, including on films directed by industry giants such as Spike Lee, Clint Eastwood, and James Mangold. He’s understandably frustrated that so few stars have spoken up on the hostages’ behalf.
“It’s very, very, very, very one-sided,” he said of the industry regarding the Israel/Palestinian divide. “I would accept [actors saying] ‘bring the hostages home and free Palestine,’” he said. “We’ve had two Oscars, two Grammys, two Emmys [ceremonies] in the two years, and not one person said it … These are my peers. It’s been very frustrating and disappointing.”
Rapaport spots a hypocrisy beyond the surface regarding the matter.
“This is a group that will scream and yell about everything … If there had been one, just one African-American from, let’s say, Miami, the entire perspective on this whole thing would be changed … or five college students from, say, Spellman or Clark or traditionally black universities.”
Rapaport, along with Debra Messing, Patricia Heaton, Five for Fighting’s John Ondrasik, and David Schwimmer, has been among the very few stars to either defend Israel, demand the hostages be released, or both.
And while he refuses to play the Victim Card, the “Atypical” star hints it has cost him professionally.
“I’m a proud Jewish man, of course, I’m gonna stand up and fight vigorously. What I’ve dealt with, the sacrifices I’ve made &#8230; doesn’t compare to people whose lives have been lost … the agony and the trauma and the terror [hostage families have] faced.”
“I’m built and ready for every little bit of ramifications … I wouldn’t change a thing,” he said. “I’ve been blessed to have the means and the forum and platform … I’ve been to Israel seven times. I’ve heard so many stories … I’ve gained far more than I’ve lost.”
<div id="attachment_986297" style="width: 748px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-986297" class="size-large wp-image-986297" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2237062025-738x576.jpg" alt="NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ - SEPTEMBER 25: Michael Rapaport performs at The Stress Factory Comedy Club on September 25, 2025 in New Brunswick, New Jersey. (Photo by Bobby Bank/Getty Images)" width="738" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2237062025-738x576.jpg 738w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2237062025-300x234.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2237062025-768x599.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-2237062025.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 738px) 100vw, 738px" />NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ &#8211; SEPTEMBER 25: Michael Rapaport performs at The Stress Factory Comedy Club on September 25, 2025, in New Brunswick, New Jersey. (Photo by Bobby Bank/Getty Images)</div>
The latter refers to potential acting roles and stand-up gigs. Pro-Palestinian protesters previously coaxed clubs in Michigan and Alabama to cancel his stand-up shows. A Portland-based effort featured a poster of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/antifa-michael-rapaport-portland-protest/">Rapaport with X’s over his eyes.</a>
His Denver appearances at Comedy Works from October 9-11 had workers wanding patrons to make sure no weapons entered the club.
And while many stars publicly supported late-night host Jimmy Kimmel following his controversial, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kimmel-claims-his-comments-on-charlie-kirks-assassination-were-maliciously-mischaracterized">week-long suspension</a>, artists haven’t rallied behind Rapaport’s free speech rights.
Why? “Because they agree,” he said bluntly. “Not all of them, <a href="https://variety.com/2025/film/global/stars-sign-pledge-complicit-israeli-film-companies-1236511010/">but 3,900 of them</a>,” he said, referencing a recent open letter signed by some of the industry’s biggest stars, including Javier Bardem, Joaquin Phoenix, and Emma Stone, who won’t work with Israeli-based groups on film projects.
“But what about me? I’m an individual &#8230; what happens when my name comes up?” he asked.
Rapaport holds no grudge against Kimmel. Just the opposite. He spoke glowingly of the far-left talker, saying he couldn’t be “nicer” or “sweeter” in real life. Rapaport still bristled at <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-really-got-kimmel-suspended-i-hear-that-that-monologue-was-very-hot">the infamous comments Kimmel made</a> following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
“I don’t think there’s anything funny four days after somebody getting killed in cold blood,” Rapaport said of Kimmel’s monologue snippet. “I don’t care if [Kirk is] pro this, pro that &#8230; nothing to me is funny less than a week later about someone getting shot in front of the entire world in 4K for all of us to have to watch it, watch it, watch it.”
He still defended Kimmel’s right to say what he said.
“I’m a trash talker. I fully believe in free speech,” he added.
* * *
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic, and editor of <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

“Jeff Ross: Take A Banana For The Ride” Broadway Opening Night

‘I Can’t Make Fun of Him Anymore’: Michael Rapaport On Trump, Israel, And Redemption

'I Can’t Make Fun of Him Anymore': Michael Rapaport On Trump, Israel, And Redemption

actors

comedian

Comedy

Entertainment

Hostages

Israel

Middle East

This week, more than 100 leading free speech experts <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">warned</a> that the Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of European Union legislation, threatens to impose online censorship across the world. The letter was addressed to the European Commission, the architect of the censorial law.
The DSA gives the EU authority to enforce “content moderation” on platforms and search engines with over 45 million monthly users. It is one of the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age, enabling bureaucrats to control online speech at scale under the guise of online “safety” and “protecting democracy.”
This, however, is far from just a European issue. Restrictive speech rules made in Brussels are increasingly shaping the global internet, including on platforms used by Americans.
The letter follows the recently expressed concerns of the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, <a href="https://x.com/US2EU/status/1973100030249640355">Andrew Puzder</a>, that the DSA threatens to censor American citizens online. As the Ambassador stated, President Trump will not “tolerate a foreign government restricting the First Amendment fundamental free speech, free expression rights of American citizens.”
Ambassador Puzder’s statement came shortly after Google’s startling admission that Europe’s censorship laws target American companies and threaten American speech.
Signatories of this week’s letter to the European Commission, which was coordinated by ADF International, include a former U.S. Senator, a former VP of Yahoo Europe, cross-party members of the European Parliament, award-winning journalist and author Michael Shellenberger, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union Nadine Strossen, and academics, lawyers, and experts from around the globe.
The letter urges the Commission to consult with free speech experts and address their concerns as part of the Commission’s formal review of the DSA, which will occur by November 17.
But how could European legislation affect the First Amendment rights of Americans online?
The DSA and its codes of conduct require online platforms, such as X, YouTube, and Facebook, to address “hate speech” and “disinformation” online. These are vague and subjective terms that lack clear legal definitions and, in practice, are used to justify the censorship of disfavored views.
The definition of “illegal content,” which platforms must remove under the DSA, is any content that breaches EU or any EU member state law. This means the most restrictive anti-free speech laws in any individual EU country — of which there are unfortunately many across Europe — will now be applied across the bloc, introducing a lowest-common-denominator of censorship across the EU.
The shocking case of Finnish parliamentarian <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/paivi">Päivi Räsänen</a> gives an example of what this censorship could look like in practice. For nearly seven years, Päivi has been dragged through the courts in her country for alleged “hate speech”, for a Twitter post, in which she peacefully expressed her faith-based views and included a picture of Bible text.
With legal support from ADF International, on October 30, she faces her third trial at the Finnish Supreme Court, despite being unanimously acquitted in two previous trials. Under the DSA, draconian “hate speech” legislation, like that used to prosecute Päivi, could be applied across the EU.
<div id="attachment_981733" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-981733" class="size-large wp-image-981733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg" alt="Chairwoman Päivi Räsänen of the Christian Democrats campaigns in Helsinki, Finland on April 18, 2015 ahead of the parliamentary elections to take place on Sunday, April 19, 2015. Finns go to the polls on Sunday in legislative elections widely expected to oust the country's left-right coalition amid growing discontent over a floundering economy undergoing a painful restructuring. AFP PHOTO / LEHTIKUVA / RONI REKOMAA *** FINLAND OUT *** (Photo credit should read" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Päivi Räsänen/ Credit: Roni Rekomaa,Roni Rekomaa/AFP via Getty Images.</div>
What has emerged from the DSA is a vast censorship infrastructure with coercive enforcement tools and an opaque network of EU-approved NGOs and “trusted flaggers,” which identify content for removal. If platforms fail to quickly remove flagged content, they face enormous fines — up to 6% of global revenue — and even EU-wide suspension. Individuals can also be suspended from platforms if they “persistently” post “illegal content.”
Although nominally restricted to the European Union, the DSA’s restrictive approach to online speech will be exported across the world, including to the United States. Keep in mind that GDPR exported EU data privacy standards worldwide, and the DSA could do just that for European speech controls. Platforms will be incentivized to adopt a single global content moderation policy, which could now be made to comply with the DSA’s restrictive approach.
French Member of the European Parliament Virginie Joron, a signatory of this week’s letter to the Commission, has added to these concerns of global censorship from the DSA, saying: “The French digital regulator ARCOM told me they believe the DSA allows them to censor any post anywhere in the world using the DSA. That means even an American citizen posting in Alabama could potentially have their online post taken down, even if the publication would be legal in the US”.
These threats put European legislation on a direct collision course with the First Amendment, in what is perhaps the greatest threat to American online free speech today.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress has consistently warned that the DSA is coming for American speech. A July <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-censorship-threat-how-european-unions-digital-services-act-compels">report</a> detailed how the DSA is a censorship tool that requires the world’s largest social media platforms to engage in the censorship of core political discourse in Europe, the United States, and around the world.
If the DSA is left unchecked, Brussels could well become the world’s speech police. Let all concerned with the protection of free speech be on alert about the DSA. 
The European Commission must urgently engage with the free speech concerns outlined in this week’s letter and act now to ensure that the free speech rights of people across the world are respected on the internet.
* * *
Paul Coleman (@Paul_B_Coleman) is Executive Director of free speech legal advocacy organization ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>

EU sets Out Its International Digital Strategy

EU’s Digital Services Act Is The Biggest Threat To Free Speech Yet, Experts Warn

Apple

Google

Snapchat

Menu