A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed Texas to enforce a law requiring public schools to display posters of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. 
In a 9–8 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, marking a significant victory for conservatives who support a greater role for religion in public schools.
“S.B. 10 looks nothing like a historical religious establishment,” <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.226084/gov.uscourts.ca5.226084.507945887.1.pdf">the 5th Circuit’s opinion said.</a> “It does not tell churches or synagogues or mosques what to believe or how to worship or whom to employ as priests, rabbis, or imams. It punishes no one who rejects the Ten Commandments, no matter the reason. It levies no taxes to support any clergy. It does not co-opt churches to perform civic functions. These are the kinds of things “establishments of religion” did at the founding. S.B. 10 does none of them.” 
In June 2025, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) signed <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB00010I.pdf">Senate Bill 10</a>, which requires public elementary and secondary schools to display in each classroom a &#8220;durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments.&#8221; In December 2025, a coalition of parents filed suit and obtained preliminary injunctions blocking the law in certain parts of the state. 
Challengers of the law argued that they didn’t want their children to “be forced to observe and venerate a state-mandated version of the Ten Commandments” every day at school, <a href="https://www.aclutx.org/press-releases/judge-orders-texas-school-districts-remove-ten-commandments-displays-response-second/">according to the ACLU.  </a>
Judges on the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit disagreed, arguing the law does not mandate any religious exercise. 
&#8220;Students are neither catechized on the Commandments nor taught to adopt them. Nor are teachers commanded to proselytize students who ask about the displays or contradict students who disagree with them,” <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.226084/gov.uscourts.ca5.226084.507945887.1.pdf">the opinion said.</a> “It puts a poster on a classroom wall. Yes, Plaintiffs have sincere religious disagreements with its content. But that does not transform the poster into a summons to prayer.&#8221;
Republican Gov. Gregg Abbott hailed the ruling as a “HUGE WIN.” 
“The foundation of Western law &amp; morality belongs in our classrooms. Texas stands for faith, freedom, and the values that founded our great state,” he said on social media. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
HUGE WIN
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Ten Commandments can remain in Texas public school classrooms.
The foundation of Western law &amp; morality belongs in our classrooms. Texas stands for faith, freedom, and the values that founded our great state.…
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) <a href="https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/2046758634986590304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2026</a></blockquote>
Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-TX), who faces a contentious May 26 runoff with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), also took a victory lap. 
“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” Paxton said. “My office was proud to defend SB 10 and successfully ensure that the Ten Commandments will be displayed in classrooms across Texas. The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨WIN: This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values. My office was proud to defend SB 10 and successfully ensure that the Ten Commandments will be displayed in classrooms across Texas.
The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important… <a href="https://t.co/6sh3uLnFpI">https://t.co/6sh3uLnFpI</a>
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) <a href="https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/2046718781964378358?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 21, 2026</a></blockquote>
The ACLU expressed &#8220;disappointment&#8221; with the court’s ruling and vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
“The Court’s ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and binding U.S. Supreme Court authority,” <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/fifth-circuit-upholds-law-requiring-display-of-ten-commandments-in-public-school-classrooms">the ACLU said.</a> “This decision tramples those rights. We anticipate asking the Supreme Court to reverse this decision and uphold the religious-freedom rights of children and parents.”
Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama have passed laws requiring Ten Commandments posters in public schools, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/us/ten-commandments-schools-states.html">according to the New York Times</a>, with several other conservative-led states debating similar legislation.

Ten Commandments Display in Texas

Court Hands Massive Win For Judeo-Christian Values in Public Schools

ACLU

Bible

Free Speech

Politics

Texas

A human rights tribunal in British Columbia recently <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/barry-neufeld-former-chilliwack-bc-trustee-pay-hate-speech-tribunal-2slgbtq-9.7098536">fined</a> a man $750,000 for public statements he made opposing a school board’s promotion of gender ideology. The tribunal found his comments, speeches, and social media posts brought &#8220;injury to their dignity, feelings, and self-respect.&#8221; The same tribunal <a href="https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/canadian-womans-former-landlady-fined-10000-for-saying-transphobic-things-to-her/">fined</a> a woman $10,000 for privately disagreeing with a friend’s gender transition.
In Canada, enforcing gender ideology comes at a steep cost: the suppression of free speech, the erosion of medical integrity, and harm to the wellbeing — perhaps even the future fertility — of young Canadians. And it is all justified as a necessary sacrifice for the “greater good” of a tolerant society, an ideal now woven into Canada’s national identity.
The scientific evidence against so-called gender transition, however, is mounting. Most countries around the world are beginning to realize it — except Canada.
In 2024, the United Kingdom moved to <a href="https://londondaily.com/the-indefinite-ban-on-puberty-blockers-for-minors">ban</a> puberty blockers outright. Australia’s state of Queensland <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/28/queenslands-controversial-puberty-blocker-ban-overturned-by-supreme-court">prohibited</a> puberty blockers in January, while New Zealand <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/regulation-legislation/puberty-blockers">imposed</a> strict controls in November. In February, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons <a href="https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/health-policy/positions/2026-gender-surgery-children-adolescents.pdf">released</a> a position statement on gender surgery, warning against its potential harms.
Yet every Canadian health agency claims affirmation is the default solution for gender dysphoria. The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends accepting one’s gender identity as valid — even <a href="https://nationalpost.com/health/canadas-pediatricians-advised-to-support-affirming-gender-questioning-six-year-olds">six-year-olds</a>. The same organization explicitly <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadian-paediatric-society-vows-to-continue-prescribing-puberty-blockers">dismissed</a> the findings of the Cass Review, a landmark <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/im-bloody-angry-j-k-rowling-scorches-critics-in-the-wake-of-cass-review-on-child-gender-transitions">study</a> that discovered the weak evidentiary basis for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
Such stark defiance of evidence-based care is nothing short of negligence — not surprising for a country that now includes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/movement-barrels-forward-to-euthanize-12-year-old-children-in-canada">death</a> in its definition of health care. But negligence alone is an insufficient explanation. Canada is not catching up with the rest of the world to dismiss medical transition because their commitment to it is rooted in ideology, not science. And it is propagated by elites through a centralized system of top-down planning.
First, legislation enforces affirmation of gender identity. Canada <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/8434497/conversion-therapy-ban-canada-royal-assent/">passed a ban</a> on so-called conversion therapy in 2021, defined as a practice designed to “change a person’s gender identity to cisgender.” But the “conversion therapy” of changing a person’s body to match their gender identity — which is defined in a circular way — is allowed. In fact, it’s effectively mandated. Those convicted under this law can receive up to five years in prison. There are no carve-outs for adults seeking sex-affirming therapy to help them with gender dysphoria.
Where there is no law directly prohibiting speech, Canadian courts create one. The latest examples both come from British Columbia: the man fined $750,000 for public statements and the woman fined $10,000 for a private conversation.
Such outrageous penalties have a chilling effect on speech. Absent any serious dissent, the monolithic worldview promoted in Canadian schools, hospitals, and traditional media will continue unchallenged. And the children don’t stand a chance.
Consider Julia Malbogat, a Toronto mom who <a href="https://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/opinion/stop-asking-me-if-my-eight-year-old-trans-kid-is-just-going-through-a-phase/">wrote</a> in 2021 about her daughter “coming out” as transgender. During a family trip to their cottage, her daughter said that she’s a boy, to which Julia replied with a simple “ok.” When asked how she knew, the child pointed to the school’s Rainbow Alliance, a grade 4-6 club teaching “sexual and gender diversity.” Julia dismissed the possibility her child was mistaken and noted that surgery wouldn’t be an option until 16. By then, she assumed the dysphoria would be “insistent, persistent, and consistent” enough to justify medical intervention.
But how could someone’s gender dysphoria be anything except persistent if they are affirmed from the moment it is expressed? Gender-confused children rarely hear a serious alternative from schools or clinicians — though some later wish they had. Ask the detransitioners.
The largest <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2025.2538744">study</a> of detransitioners in Canada and the United States suggests that many who reversed a gender transition wish doctors “took a more neutral approach to care.” The participants reported feelings of alienation, emphasizing the high social cost of detransition. One woman <a href="https://www.bing.com/search?q=detransitioners%20ghosted%20&amp;qs=n&amp;form=QBRE&amp;sp=-1&amp;ghc=1&amp;lq=0&amp;pq=detransitioners%20ghost&amp;sc=6-21&amp;sk=&amp;cvid=4BE657D5CF8D46BFA48C72A857DF33F8">said</a> she was “ghosted” by the doctor who did her mastectomy. Treating gender identity as immutable and patients as infallible leaves minors, who are already going through emotional and physical changes, at risk of serious harm.
Look no further than their chosen cultural symbols. Publicly funded spaces across the country are decked out in pride flags, including city halls, legislative assemblies, walkways, libraries. This imagery is so pervasive in places of cultural importance that a first-time visitor might mistake it for the national flag.
In the absence of their rich traditions, Canadians have united around a new vision of the good. This new orthodoxy is summed up well in Bill C-4’s preamble, which states that conversion therapy “propagates” the myth that “cisgender identity is to be preferred over other gender identities.” While Canada elevates the dubious idea of an inner, gendered essence, it denounces the view that our bodies are essential to who we are.
That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Science can’t disprove it.
Until Canada re-examines its commitment to this new orthodoxy, it will keep ignoring the warnings — until the damage is too widespread to dismiss.
* * *
Liana Graham is a research assistant in domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Close up of LGBT pin in the form of a flag with Canada pin is pinned on blue jeans jacket. LGBT rights in Canada concept.

He Spoke Out Against Gender Ideology. It Cost Him Nearly A Million Dollars.

How Pushing Back On Gender Ideology Cost One Man $750,000

Canada

Children

Gender

Gender Transition

Heritage Foundation

LGBTQ

Social Media Censorship

Teenagers

Transgender

American diplomats will push countries around the world to adopt policies that prioritize the online safety of kids while not jeopardizing free speech or digital privacy, according to an internal memo first obtained by The Daily Wire. 
The memo from the State Department directs diplomats to encourage their host countries to pursue policies that keep children safe from the dangers of online pornography and sexual abuse while not compromising fundamental freedoms. 
“The Trump Administration strongly prioritizes the protection of children online, advancing policies that combat exploitation while safeguarding privacy, free expression, and innovation,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott told The Daily Wire. “As countries explore frameworks to protect children online, we stand ready to engage and encourage approaches that are effective, balanced, and do not impose unintended consequences on fundamental freedoms or technological progress.”
The memo from the State Department says that it supports age verification technology if implemented within a scope that protects privacy, freedom of speech and digital innovation. In general the State Department said it favored an open internet, especially when it comes to political speech, with the exception to pornography and adult commercial activities such as gambling, tobacco, or alcohol. 
“The United States seeks to engage global partners to ensure that, if they implement or consider age assurance measures, they do so in close coordination with the U.S. government, tech companies, and civil society, including parents, to inform their approach,” the memo said. 
The memo added that its priority was prioritizing parental involvement. 
“The United States favors regulatory approaches that empower parents to prescribe access limitations for devices used by their child, rather than mandating one-size-fits-all access limitations imposed by the government.  The United States also favors digital-literacy campaigns that educate parents about how to manage relevant device settings,” the memo read.  
One form of age-verification the State Department said it favored was zero knowledge proof (ZKP) age verification systems. This approach is to be verified while precise personal details are kept private at the same time. 
“The United States encourages ZKP standards that are interoperable across platforms and regulatory regimes and encourages a diverse ecosystem of ZKP credentialing that includes relatively anonymous, low-friction options,” the memo added. 
It said it does not favor approaches that mandate the production of a driver&#8217;s license or a passport.
President Donald Trump has pushed for protections online for kids and signed “The Take It Down Act” in 2025, a law championed by First Lady Melania Trump requiring the removal of content featuring nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated deepfakes. 
Polling <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/where-americans-stand-on-forcing-age-checks-for-porn-sites">shows</a> that the vast majority of Americans support a federal law requiring age verification for app downloads or access to pornographic content online. A poll conducted by Cygnal in February found that 83% of likely voters support an age verification law for mobile app downloads, and 81% of likely voters support age verification for pornographic sites.

Girl lying on bed at night and using a mobile phone

Trump Admin Launches Global Crackdown To Shield Kids From Pornography, Online Abuse

Online porn

Pornography

State Department

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-hands-down-major-conservative-win-in-near-unanimous-decision">ruled</a> on March 31 in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/chiles-v-salazar/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Chiles v. Salazar</a> that voluntary conversations between a counselor and her young clients are protected under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. This monumental decision condemned the state’s unlawful and, according to the court, “egregious” attempt to censor discussions about biological reality in the counseling room.
In my role with Alliance Defending Freedom, I had the privilege of standing before the high court last fall and advocating on behalf of licensed Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged the state’s counseling censorship law.
Kaley wants to provide what so many children and families are desperate for: A listening ear and compassionate advice as kids talk through what it feels like to wrestle with their identity and body. As more and more young people across the country are becoming distressed about their gender or sexuality, they want a professional to talk to about their feelings and struggles. The young clients who seek out Kaley for advice do so because they want to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures.
<div id="attachment_1073215" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073215" class="size-large wp-image-1073215" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles14-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
Colorado’s law forbids Kaley from having those voluntary conversations with her clients under age 18. Indeed, the law violates her freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors like her from engaging in voluntary counseling conversations with minor clients who want to change some expression, behavior, identity, or feeling associated with their “sexual orientation or gender identity.”
On the issue of gender identity, the law only censors counseling conversations in one direction. It allows conversations that push young people toward a gender identity different from their sex but forbids conversations that help them grow comfortable with their body and realign their identity with their sex when they desire to do that. The law also threatens severe penalties, including thousands of dollars in fines, suspension from practice, and even revocation of the counselor’s license.
This one-sided censorship comes amidst a growing national mental-health crisis and prevents many Colorado children from obtaining the counseling that they desire and that could help them. Roughly 90% of children who experience gender dysphoria before puberty will regain comfort with their sex if not pushed toward harmful drugs and procedures.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained, “We do not doubt that the question ‘how best to help minors’ struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of ‘fierce public debate.’ But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.”
“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” the court continued. “Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
<div id="attachment_1073217" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1073217" class="size-large wp-image-1073217" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg" alt="Source: Alliance Defending Freedom" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/chiles17-scaled-1-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Source: Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
This is a massive win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children. The decision will help end the authoritarian days of Colorado inserting itself into the counseling room and silencing good counselors from speaking body-affirming messages their clients want to hear. It also takes us a long way down the road to ensuring that kids in Colorado, and around the country, who desire to embrace and live consistent with their sex are free to seek help by talking to licensed counselors like Kaley.
Significantly, the Supreme Court’s ruling will help protect counselors from similar laws in more than 20 states and over 100 localities across the country, giving them a path forward to help struggling youth seeking professional guidance.
From professional groups to medical malpractice verdicts, the tide is turning on how we as a society help young people struggling with gender issues. Those kids need quality counseling, not a one-way path to dangerous body-altering drugs and surgeries. All children deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The Supreme Court affirms that the First Amendment protects those messages in the counseling room.
* * *
Jim Campbell is chief legal counsel with <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>) and argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Kaley Chiles in Chiles v. Salazar.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy Gets Supreme Court Hearing

The Court Just Said The Government Can’t Control What Your Child’s Counselor Says

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Colorado

Conversion Therapy

Counseling

First Amendment

Opinion

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

I have <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/16/sixth-circuit/">previously written</a> about D.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, one of the worst free speech decisions to come out of the appellate courts in years. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a school ban on high school students wearing “Let’s Go Brandon!” sweatshirts. Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in a deeply flawed holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional. The Supreme Court needs to grant review in this case and reverse this obnoxious decision.
As previously discussed, “Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against media bias. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver <a href="https://thehill.com/person/brandon-brown">Brandon Brown</a> after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”
“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/05/yankee-doodling-the-media-how-lets-go-brandon-became-a-rallying-cry-against-news-bias/">“Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.</a>
In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to wear political apparel supporting other causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”
The district dress code states the following:
<blockquote>
Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.
</blockquote>
The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”
The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon!” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”
The district court showed an equally dismissive view of the free speech rights of these students, including that the phrase could “reasonably be interpreted” as profane. That was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in its 2-1 decision.
Judge John Bush offered an excellent dissent, stating:
<blockquote>
[T]he speech here—”Let’s Go Brandon!”—is neither vulgar nor profane on its face, and therefore does not fall into [the Fraser] exception. To the contrary, the phrase is purely political speech. It criticizes a political official—the type of expression that sits “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” No doubt, its euphemistic meaning was offensive to some, particularly those who supported President Biden. But offensive political speech is allowed in school, so long as it does not cause disruption under Tinker. As explained below, Tinker is the standard our circuit applied to cases involving Confederate flag T-shirts and a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle—depictions arguably more offensive than “Let’s Go Brandon!” …
The majority says the sweatshirts’ slogan is crude. But neither the phrase itself nor any word in it has ever been bleeped on television, radio, or other media. Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it . Instead, the phrase has been used to advance political arguments, primarily in opposition to President Biden’s policies and secondarily to complain about the way liberal-biased media treats conservatives. It serves as a coded critique—a sarcastic catchphrase meant to express frustration, resentment, and discontent with political opponents. The phrase has been used by members of Congress during debate. And even President Biden himself, attempting to deflect criticism, “agreed” with the phrase.
We cannot lose sight of a key fact: the students’ sweatshirts do not say “F*ck Joe Biden.” Instead, they bear a sanitized phrase made famous by sports reporter Kelli Stavast while interviewing NASCAR race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway. The reporter said the crowd behind them was yelling “Let’s go, Brandon!” She did not report the vulgar phrase that was actually being chanted. The Majority even concedes Stavast may have used the sanitized phrase to “put a fig leaf over the chant’s vulgarity.” That is telling….
</blockquote>
The Sixth Circuit opinion constitutes a significant infringement on the free speech rights of students. I readily admit that I am critical of some past cases, including Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Juneau-Douglas High School could suspend student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. In my view, the courts have honored Tinker largely in the breach in such cases.
FIRE has filed the petition below, and hopefully, the justices will add this case to the docket.
Here is the petition: <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-D.A.-v.-Tri-County-Area-Schools.pdf">Petition for Writ of Certiorari – D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools</a>.
 * * *
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He is a New York Times best-selling author of &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag=simonsayscom" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag%3Dsimonsayscom&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1775041193122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1yfRPM-SD7lTbUvS3kC_vo">The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage</a>&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FCDSN1KR/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RRwQP-jxib6FGPIATmKf_-qZ54EqdtHH96MILgFFNEu2d_chUIjFQbBNWZj6-YWIsRTxEeuGYCTw-gDvcdUE1puVoYeX2uBJyqcXA64EqxaA3kXW04dbyRE6t7mOEnrcSOf8BIA7KP47sQttP-6j4qWXwt_gUgP9AJ6jJ1HWnqU62QYxnVkcOQhwCaeyp8o8.-FQ90bYCtRhnfQk9vLhvb1kV2q0kmzaKPZqwWwUateA&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;qid=1749518291&amp;refinements=p_27%3AJonathan+Turley&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FCDSN1KR/ref%3Dsr_1_5?dib%3DeyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RRwQP-jxib6FGPIATmKf_-qZ54EqdtHH96MILgFFNEu2d_chUIjFQbBNWZj6-YWIsRTxEeuGYCTw-gDvcdUE1puVoYeX2uBJyqcXA64EqxaA3kXW04dbyRE6t7mOEnrcSOf8BIA7KP47sQttP-6j4qWXwt_gUgP9AJ6jJ1HWnqU62QYxnVkcOQhwCaeyp8o8.-FQ90bYCtRhnfQk9vLhvb1kV2q0kmzaKPZqwWwUateA%26dib_tag%3Dse%26qid%3D1749518291%26refinements%3Dp_27%253AJonathan%2BTurley%26s%3Dbooks%26sr%3D1-5&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1775041193122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0iutNbOSt_wYahJ5z1jjFD">Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution</a>&#8220;. 
This article is <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2026/03/31/supreme-court-asked-to-hear-lets-go-brandon-case/">republished for the Daily Wire</a> with the author’s permission from JonathanTurley.org.

Annual Pro Life Gathering, The March For Life Takes Place In Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court To Rule Whether Schools Can Ban ‘Let’s Go Brandon’

Supreme Court To Rule Whether Schools Can Ban 'Let’s Go Brandon'

Constitutional Law

Jonathan Turley

Let's Go Brandon

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Tuesday in favor of a Christian counselor who challenged a Colorado law she said could punish her for helping gender-confused children become comfortable with their own bodies instead of pursuing irreversible transgender medical procedures.
The case pitted the State of Colorado against counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged a Colorado law that <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1129_signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prohibited</a> counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Chiles said that the law violates her First Amendment rights and has prevented her from accepting several clients.
&#8220;We conclude that the courts below failed to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny in this case. Start with the most obvious point. While the First Amendment protects many and varied forms of expression, the spoken word is perhaps the quintessential form of protected speech. And that is exactly the kind of expression in which Ms. Chiles seeks to engage,&#8221; Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
Chiles, who was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argued that Colorado’s law, passed in 2019, is a direct attack on professional speech.
&#8220;I hope this win for free speech will fuel a greater pursuit of truth. Both amongst the professionals and in the counseling room,&#8221; Chiles said on Tuesday in a press briefing attended by The Daily Wire. &#8220;Our kids deserve it.  The law I&#8217;m challenging harms kids and silences speech. Kids deserve real help, affirming that their bodies are not a mistake, and that they are wonderfully made. I&#8217;m grateful that my speech is protected.&#8221;
Chiles said the ruling would preserve more options for families.
&#8220;I am thrilled that the ruling will help struggling kids and families who are seeking professional guidance consistent with biological reality,&#8221; she said.
The court agreed that Colorado&#8217;s law did not hold up to First Amendment scrutiny.
&#8220;Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,&#8221; the majority held.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.
Jackson said in her dissent that Colorado&#8217;s law was constitutional because it was the state regulating healthcare.
&#8220;In my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional,&#8221; she said. &#8220;In concluding otherwise, the Court’s opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable, and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long-recognized responsibility of States to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health.&#8221;
Jim Campbell, who argued the case for Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Wire that the 8-1 decision was a major affirmation of free speech.
&#8220;It sends a message that viewpoint discrimination is egregious,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It is a really significant vote of confidence for the First Amendment. It is a condemnation of viewpoint discrimination, and it is a recognition that counselors must be free to have voluntary conversations with clients who are seeking their help.&#8221;
The ruling is expected to have broad implications for similar laws, called &#8220;conversion therapy bans,&#8221; across the country. Over 20 states have passed similar statutes and could now be in legal jeopardy.
Conservative groups like the American Principles Project praised the ruling from the court.
&#8220;The Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for religious believers, parents, and, most importantly, vulnerable children,&#8221; said American Principles Project President Terry Schilling. &#8220;Colorado Democrats have shown they will stomp on the rights of anyone who stands in the way of the well-heeled gay and transgender lobby—whether it is bakers, doctors, or desperate families.&#8221;

MixCollage-31-Mar-2026-09-29-AM-4011

Supreme Court Hands Down Major Conservative Win In Near-Unanimous Decision

The Supreme Court of Finland held that Päivi Räsänen, a longtime member of the Finnish Parliament, was guilty of the “hate crime” of “insulting” a group based on sexual orientation for publishing a church pamphlet over twenty years ago. A Lutheran bishop, Juhana Pohjola, was similarly convicted for publishing the pamphlet for the church.
Chillingly, Räsänen and Pohjola are now criminals for peacefully expressing their views in the public square.
The details that led up to this outrageous conviction are truly Orwellian.
Räsänen published her pamphlet, “Male and Female He Created Them,” in 2004, when Finland, like much of the world, was debating same-sex marriage. The pamphlet was meant to help others navigate those debates.
Years later, Finland amended its “War Crimes” statute, expanding the scope of criminal “hate speech” laws to include many new protected categories, resulting in this verdict where the court ruled it is illegal to publish “insulting” content.
Räsänen is a member of the Finnish Lutheran Church. In 2019, her church announced it would join the Helsinki Pride Parade. Räsänen gained international attention with a now-famous X post in which she criticized her church’s involvement in the pride parade and shared an image of a Bible verse.
<div id="attachment_652929" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-652929" class="size-large wp-image-652929" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1024x573.png" alt="Päivi Räsänen" width="1024" height="573" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1024x573.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-300x168.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-768x430.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM-1536x859.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/Screen-Shot-2023-11-14-at-7.01.23-AM.png 1573w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom International</div>
A progressive prosecutor in Helsinki could not stand such an “affront” and commenced what would become an almost seven-year legal battle. She immediately launched and announced an investigation into Räsänen for criminal “hate speech.” During that investigation, she seemingly reviewed every statement that Räsänen had made on the subject of sexuality and dredged up the 15-year-old 20-page pamphlet, along with a single radio interview. She later charged Räsänen and Bishop Pohjola with hate crimes based on the Bible tweet, the pamphlet, and the interview.
Räsänen defended herself publicly by sharing links to the allegedly “offensive” material so people could see for themselves what, exactly, she was on trial for.
A Finnish lower court unanimously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola on all counts, finding that posting Bible verses was not a crime. The case should have ended there. In the United States, if the prosecution loses, the case is closed. But in Finland, the prosecutors can keep appealing even a clear loss, which they did. The Court of Appeals again fully and unanimously acquitted Räsänen and Pohjola.
The prosecutors took one more shot, appealing to the Supreme Court. And now, in a split 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court has found Räsänen and Pohjola guilty of “insult” under the “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code.
The logic of the decision is mind-bending. The Court, thankfully, upheld the acquittal for the Bible tweet, finding it did not meet the threshold for incitement. That’s good. But how the Court found Räsänen guilty for publishing the pamphlet is straight out of George Orwell&#8217;s 1984.
The Court argued that simply because the prosecution started an investigation in 2019 — about a tweet that the Court itself says is allowed — Räsänen should have known that her early-2000s pamphlet might now be seen as “insulting&#8221; under a law enacted years later. The Court concluded that Räsänen should have removed the allegedly insulting statements before reposting a link to them — even before any charges were filed.
So it was the very fact that she was being publicly investigated and sought to defend herself that made her a criminal and her statements ipso facto illegal.
This is not justice. This is Year Zero thinking, where an official accusation can turn someone into a thought-criminal, and any defense is used against them. It is the upside-down world.
The Court, doubling down on Orwellian reasoning, has demanded that Räsänen and Pohjola remove and “destroy” the “offending” statements from the pamphlet. This is simply the mandatory erasure of history and thought.
How many books, articles, and posts available online “might be” considered “insulting” to a group? Must publishers and authors scour their online libraries and remove anything others might find offensive? Does a mere accusation of offense now mandate people pull their beliefs and statements offline? The Court’s twisted logic points toward all these dystopian outcomes.
Päivi Räsänen has shown immense Christlike grace throughout this whole ordeal, and I pray that she receives justice soon, through an appeal or otherwise.
But the decision in her case goes far beyond just one individual. How many people will refuse to speak up if there is even the hint of controversy in their views, religious or otherwise, especially if the powers-that-be clearly disfavor those views?
Is this how Europe will use mechanisms like the Digital Services Act to silence alleged “hate speech” and export censorship online and globally?
The Finnish Supreme Court’s decision against Räsänen is an outrage against her and against the most fundamental principles of free speech. It is more obvious than ever that &#8220;hate speech&#8221; laws are inherently abusive and must be repealed. This decision should be widely condemned by people worldwide who value freedom.
***
Sean Nelson is an international human rights lawyer serving as Senior Counsel for Global Religious Freedom with ADF International.

Germany: nationwide demonstrations against NSA spying and in solidarity with Edward Snowden

The Finnish Supreme Court’s ‘1984’ Playbook

The Finnish Supreme Court's '1984' Playbook

Finland

Religious Freedom

Western Civilization

A European politician has been found guilty by Finland’s top court of “hate speech” for sharing her Christian views on marriage in a 2004 church pamphlet. 
The Supreme Court of Finland voted 3-2 on Thursday to find Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group.” The “text” she was charged over was a pamphlet explaining the Bible’s position on marriage and sexual ethics, written with Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. 
“I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognize my basic human right to freedom of expression,” Räsänen said Thursday. “I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith, and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square.”
Räsänen’s case has drawn the attention of United States lawmakers, who have said it demonstrates the perilous status of free speech in Europe. Lower courts previously unanimously acquitted her in 2022 and 2023, before prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court. 
The court said that the pair “made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation.” 
The court ordered Räsänen to remove 11 statements from the 25-page pamphlet, saying they should be removed from “public access” and “destroyed.” Pohjola was also convicted alongside Räsänen for his role in distributing the pamphlet. Räsänen will be fined around $2079, and Pohjola will be fined $1270. The foundation that published the marriage pamphlet will be fined $5775. 
The high court did acquit her of sharing a Bible verse from the book of Romans detailing the Christian understanding of sexuality. 
Räsänen was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom International and criminal defense lawyer Matti Sankamo. 
“By convicting me for expressing beliefs in a different context, the court has drawn an unclear, and I believe, dangerous line. This creates uncertainty, not only for me, but for every citizen who wishes to express their beliefs, or even more concerning for anyone who has expressed their opinions in the past,” Räsänen said during a press conference after the verdict attended by The Daily Wire. 
Räsänen, a member of the Lutheran church and Finland’s former Ministry of the Interior, said she was considering an appeal to the European Union. 
“I am taking legal advice on a possible appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. This is not about my free speech alone, but that of every person in Finland,” she said. “A positive ruling would help to prevent other innocent people from experiencing the same ordeal for simply sharing their beliefs.”
Paul Coleman, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom International, said the case showed the danger of how “vaguely worded and highly subjective hate speech laws can be interpreted and misinterpreted by anyone who looks at them.”
Räsänen said Thursday she has received thousands of messages from people around the world through the ordeal, which began over seven years ago, and said that “the process has not been in vain” and has given her an opportunity to share her faith with others. 
“I believe that this process has been in God&#8217;s hands, and even though I&#8217;m disappointed and even shocked about this conviction that I got today,” she said. “I believe that this is also in God&#8217;s hands, what happened. There is some purpose also for this situation where we are now. I trust in God.”

MixCollage-26-Mar-2026-09-50-AM-3986

A Politician Shared Traditional Christian Values. Now She Stands Convicted Of ‘Hate Speech.’

Politician Convicted Of 'Hate Speech' In Shocking Case Over Basic Christian Beliefs

Christianity

European Union

WASHINGTON—A civil rights group this week reached a sweeping settlement with the federal government, which will stop agencies from pressuring social media companies to remove or suppress lawful speech.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance announced Tuesday that it had reached a consent decree on behalf of its clients in the case Missouri v. Biden, a long-running case in which the plaintiffs alleged the Biden administration worked with big tech platforms to censor users with opinions it viewed as disagreeable — largely conservatives who deviated from the accepted orthodoxy on the COVID-19 pandemic.
Under the consent decree, federal entities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Office of the Surgeon General, are prohibited from threatening or coercing platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube over content moderation decisions. The agreement also bars officials from directing or vetoing those decisions. 
The settlement is awaiting final approval from U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty. 
The case centers on claims that federal officials coordinated with social media companies to suppress viewpoints that conflicted with government messaging on COVID-19 and other politically sensitive topics. Plaintiffs, including Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and activist Jill Hines, argued that such actions amounted to unconstitutional government censorship carried out through private intermediaries.
NCLA attorneys said discovery in the case revealed what they described as a broad effort spanning multiple agencies and senior officials.
 “This case began with a suspicion that blossomed into fact,” said John Vecchione, a senior litigation counsel with the group. “Freedom of speech has been powerfully preserved by our clients.”
The legal fight has taken multiple turns over the past several years. <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/">In 2024</a>, the Supreme Court vacated a lower court injunction that had restricted government contacts with social media companies, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing at that stage of the case. Despite that setback, the lawsuit continued in district court, ultimately leading to the current agreement.
The settlement also reflects a broader policy shift under the Trump administration, which had previously condemned federal involvement in content moderation. In an early executive order, President Donald Trump criticized what he described as government infringement on Americans’ speech rights. As part of the agreement, the administration acknowledges that labeling speech as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation” does not remove First Amendment protections.
NCLA President Mark Chenoweth said the outcome reinforces a core constitutional principle.
“Federal officials may police the line between lawful and unlawful speech,” Chenoweth said, “but they have no role in deciding if speech is true or false.” The plaintiffs are granted authority to enforce the consent decree if violations occur, giving the agreement ongoing legal weight beyond the initial ruling.
The settlement marks one of the most significant legal developments to date in the ongoing debate over the government’s role in moderating online speech, an issue that has drawn increasing scrutiny from courts, lawmakers, and the public as social media platforms have become central to political discourse.
NCLA said related lawsuits targeting federal agencies and officials over similar allegations remain ongoing.

President Biden Holds NATO Summit News Conference As Questions Surround His Candidacy

Biden’s Social Media Censorship Campaign Is Finally Dead

Biden Administration

COVID-19

Surgeon General

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration&#8217;s restrictive Pentagon press access policy, which threatens journalists with being ​branded security risks if they seek information not authorized for public release.
The lawsuit by the New York Times in Washington, D.C., federal court alleged that policy changes by the Defense Department last year gave it free rein to freeze out reporters and news outlets over coverage the department did not like, in violation of the Constitution&#8217;s protections for free speech and due process. The government disputed that characterization and said the policy is reasonable and necessary for national security.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his ruling that he recognized the importance of protecting troops and war plans but that it was &#8220;more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing&#8221; in light of President Donald Trump&#8217;s recent &#8220;incursion&#8221; into Venezuela and war with Iran.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the government disagrees with the decision and will seek an immediate appeal.
New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the ruling enforces constitutionally protected rights for the free press and &#8220;reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public&#8217;s behalf.&#8221;
&#8220;Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,&#8221; Stadtlander said in a statement on Friday.
The changes approved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in October 2025 state that journalists can be deemed security risks and have their press badges revoked if they solicit unauthorized military personnel to disclose classified, and in some cases unclassified, information.
Of the 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign an acknowledgment of the new policy, according to the Times&#8217; lawsuit. Reporters who did not sign surrendered their press passes.
The Pentagon assembled a new press corps consisting of pro-Trump outlets and media personalities after the exodus of reporters, which the Times said was evidence that the policy was aimed at stifling unflattering coverage.
The policy states that publishing sensitive information &#8220;is generally protected by the First Amendment&#8221; but says soliciting that information could be considered by officials when determining whether a reporter poses a &#8220;security or safety risk.&#8221;
In its lawsuit, the Times said the policy unlawfully restricts essential newsgathering techniques and gives the Pentagon &#8220;unfettered&#8221; discretion to revoke passes, permitting it to impose the type of &#8220;viewpoint-based&#8221; press restrictions forbidden by the Constitution.
Justice Department lawyers acknowledged the policy was partly subjective but said press credentialing decisions were still governed by neutral, objective criteria. The government also said soliciting military personnel to commit a crime by disclosing unauthorized information was not legally protected speech.
In his ruling on Friday, Friedman said the policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments because it was vague, overly expansive and &#8220;makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department&#8221; a possible basis for revocation of a journalist&#8217;s pass.
He also rejected the government&#8217;s argument that the policy is aimed at preventing criminal solicitation of defense secrets by journalists, saying it was impossible for reporters to know whether information they seek is authorized for release.
Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy chief Seth Stern praised Friday&#8217;s ruling in a statement, saying it was &#8220;shocking&#8221; that the government had argued that &#8220;journalists asking questions of the government is criminal.&#8221;
The Associated Press has a pending lawsuit against Trump administration officials over its removal from the White House press corps after the news agency decided to continue using the Gulf of Mexico&#8217;s established ​name, while acknowledging Trump&#8217;s executive order calling on U.S. institutions to refer to it as the Gulf of America.
The AP said the decision was illegal viewpoint-based discrimination, while the government countered that it had wide discretion over press access decisions for non-public spaces.
(Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Kate Mayberry and Rosalba O&#8217;Brien)

The Pentagon

Pentagon Pushes Back After Judge Rules Press Access Limits Unconstitutional

Courts

Media

Pentagon

Pete Hegseth

When Islamists on horseback can intimidate and chase down anti-regime protesters on British streets without consequence, it raises a question no modern Briton ever expected to ask: is this still a country confident enough to protect dissent?
That is the question behind the startling <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/67f5fe6bb82cd78e3cd235719ccff719148d83a7?u=11850803">suggestion</a> from U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers to the Telegraph — Britons may soon be justified in seeking asylum in America. She was not being casually provocative for effect. She was serious — and each passing day strengthens her case.
With war now raging between the United States, Israel, and Iran, Britain is confronting a humiliating question: what does it say about our country when anti-Ayatollah Iranians can be harassed on British streets while police stand idly by? In Manchester, rival demonstrations erupted after the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and reports circulated — alongside <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/da2384697c47993ad15de8bdc876420559a23a03?u=11850803">widely shared footage</a> — that pro-regime Islamists on horseback were intimidating and chasing away Iranians near the Islamic Centre.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
UK: Pro-regime Iranian enforcers chased anti-Ayatollah Iranians near the Islamic Centre in Manchester. The police declined to intervene. <a href="https://t.co/HNkOOLH75p">pic.twitter.com/HNkOOLH75p</a>
— @amuse (@amuse) <a href="https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2030231214171255001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Source: @amuse/X.com
To the shock of bystanders, police made no arrests. The astounded man filming the giant steeds and their bearded Islamic riders pleaded with police to know why the men weren’t being “nicked” (that’s arrested, in Northern parlance). “They’ve just chased people with their ‘orses!” he shouts; his broad Manchester accent starkly at odds with the Middle Eastern politics playing out on his streets.
“What are we supposed to do?” shrugs the short, young police officer, “Pull him off his horse?”
“Yes!” exclaimed the terrified onlooker.
This is the state of affairs in Britain: if your safety, social norms, or free speech are being compromised by Islamic agitators, the police stand by. Our accidental documentary-maker behind the cell phone summed it up nicely, “If he had a Union Jack on, he’d be off the horse.” He’s right.
Over the past thirty years, the United Kingdom has <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/c4330ffdf28b092bd3a9ded3c05868fc52d57f3f?u=11850803">quietly</a> redefined the social contract that underpinned British society. But even those of us who have watched a stream of Trojan horses sneak in cultural change didn’t foresee it morphing into actual horses on our streets.
And as Rogers correctly identifies, it is all underpinned by the demise of free speech. This has fallen off a cliff: not through dramatic constitutional rupture, but via bureaucratic growth under both Left and Right-wing governments. Millions of Brits, many of whom are my viewers on GB News, are relieved that the Trump Administration has been ringing the alarm bell on our behalf.
A growing number of ordinary citizens are being swept into the criminal justice system for social media posts, venting frustration on WhatsApp groups, and even uttering <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/c2bceac0258a441bd433e922797e28875d0bf888?u=11850803">unkind</a> words at protests. There were more than 12,000 <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/62470ed4abde1015105311facb04948e43d91009?u=11850803">arrests</a> in 2023 under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 — laws that criminalize posting messages deemed &#8220;grossly offensive,&#8221; &#8220;indecent, obscene,&#8221; or causing &#8220;annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety.&#8221;
That&#8217;s roughly 33 arrests <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/a979482f8ee61bcacaa182549ce7da9ecb858cf5?u=11850803">per day</a> in a country where shoplifting is practically decriminalized, and less than 5% of home burglaries are solved.
While the laws curtailing speech were originally intended to deal with serious threats and targeted harassment, in practice, they can be applied far more broadly. Civil liberties groups <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/1cf9edb8541540b412d62c86505cf0d8ee16552f?u=11850803">argue</a> that the vagueness of what constitutes &#8220;offensive&#8221; content allows authorities to monitor or detain people for expressing controversial political opinions, satire, or clumsy humor.
Things became more extreme with the 2023 Online Safety Act, one of the most significant legal changes of the decade, granting the communications regulator (Ofcom) wide authority to compel platforms to remove content. It also creates new criminal offenses for incidents of &#8220;false and threatening communications.&#8221; But the act&#8217;s overly broad, subjective definitions and heavy penalties will lead to the censorship of lawful and harmless speech by tech firms trying to avoid multi-million dollar fines. Hundreds of people have already been <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/8bcf7660c7ddc8842b69fe45491a3fd9daa62bc6?u=11850803">charged</a> under the new regime for &#8220;illegal fake news&#8221; and &#8220;threatening communications,&#8221; with dozens convicted just months after it came into force.
Rogers is right to observe that this environment has produced something historically novel: a liberal democracy in which citizens increasingly self-censor not out of politeness, but out of fear.
Comedy writer Graham Linehan was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/irish-comedian-recounts-shocking-arrest-over-anti-trans-social-media-posts">arrested</a> last September at London&#8217;s Heathrow Airport after traveling from America, where he had <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/ed17a91d8bdab33570b575f3018e8c7d96f65a97?u=11850803">posted</a> on X about protecting women&#8217;s spaces from trans-identified males.
2023 also saw the arrival of enforcement <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/e1d16dc331f341b4db26779377550dfa0d97d162?u=11850803">against</a> &#8220;non-crime hate incidents,&#8221; a uniquely British invention that allowed police to record speech as hateful even when no law had been broken. The message is unmistakable: speech is tolerated only so long as it causes no discomfort to those empowered to define harm.
Contrast this with the American approach Rogers implicitly praises — the First Amendment as the cultural spine of American life. It protects speech precisely because it is offensive, destabilizing, or unpopular. American courts do not ask whether speech might cause emotional unease; they ask whether the state has any business interfering at all.
Critics will argue that Britain&#8217;s model is merely more &#8220;civilized&#8221; and that Americans fetishize absolutism. But balance presumes a neutral arbiter, and Britain no longer has one. When regulators, universities, employers, and police all share the same ideological assumptions, moderation becomes enforcement by another name.
What Rogers understands — and what many in Britain still resist — is that free speech is not primarily about manners: it is about power and control. Once the power to determine acceptable opinion shifts decisively to institutions, citizens become subjects in all but name. You may still speak, but only at your own risk.
This is why talk of asylum, literal or not, resonates deeply.
Asylum is sought not only when bombs fall, but when rights erode so completely that dissent becomes untenable. We are not quite there yet — but the trajectory is headed nowhere good. How could it? The British government is currently <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/93424203e35ae34cb4276d0c03f8932f0045fee0?u=11850803">proposing</a> the abolition of jury trials for all but the most heinous crimes.
America&#8217;s free-speech culture survives not because Americans are uniquely virtuous or diplomatic but because their system assumes fallibility — of governments, of majorities, of individual morality. Britain, by contrast, increasingly assumes moral consensus and builds enforcement mechanisms around it.
Sarah Rogers has done the UK a service by saying the quiet part aloud. If Britain wishes to remain a nation of free speakers rather than shy whisperers, it must relearn a lesson America never forgot: the price of liberty is not silence, but tolerance of speech we would rather not hear.
* * *
Bev Turner is a host of &#8220;The Late Show Live&#8221; for Great Britain&#8217;s GBNews, based out of Washington, D.C. Follow her on X <a href="https://l.gourl.es/l/6a872d0bbc65de7ea63572b544b18a7c29887860?u=11850803">@BeverleyTurner</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Anti-migrant Hotel Protest And Counter-Protests Take Place In Newcastle

Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud About Britain’s Free Speech Crisis

Great Britain

Manchester

United Kingdom

X announced Friday that it is challenging a $140 million fine imposed by the European Commission under what critics call the bloc&#8217;s digital “censorship” law. 
The social media company was hit with a fine in December 2025 for alleged non-compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping speech-regulation law that allows authorities to penalize companies for failing to remove so-called misinformation or other content deemed illegal. X filed an appeal on Monday in the E.U.&#8217;s General Court, arguing it was denied due process and faced a biased enforcement process. 
“This EU Decision resulted from an incomplete and superficial investigation, grave procedural errors, a tortured interpretation of the obligations under the DSA, and systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process requirements suggesting prosecutorial bias,” X’s Global Government Affairs team <a href="https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/2024803983093629298">said</a>. “X remains committed to user safety and transparency while defending our users&#8217; access to the only global town square.”
X&#8217;s move marks the first legal challenge to the Digital Services Act, which critics say enables political censorship and punishment of disfavored viewpoints. The law allows the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies it claims are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation.
The act relies on non-governmental organizations that advise regulators on whether online content may be deemed illegal for violating E.U. standards. It places significant reporting and compliance burdens on tech companies. In certain cases, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions. 
The legal challenge is being supported by Alliance Defending Freedom International, which has spoken out extensively against the Digital Services Act. 
“X is where millions of people go to freely express their views. This is a crackdown on X by authorities who view a free speech platform as a serious threat to their total control of online narratives,” said Adina Portaru, a senior European counsel for ADF International. “By targeting X, they are targeting the free speech of individuals across the world who simply want to share ideas online free from censorship.”
Portaru said the legal challenge confronts what she described as the enormous power the European Commission wields to define the content moderation rules, launch investigations, and levy fines.
“If the Commission’s concentration of power goes unchallenged, it will further cement a highly problematic standard for speech control across the EU and beyond,” she said. 
In October, ADF International led a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime">letter</a> signed by more than 100 free speech advocates urging the European Commission to reconsider the law. In a November review, the commission claimed that the act was content-neutral. 
X owner Elon Musk called the fine against his company “bullsh*t” and, one day after it was issued, <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719">said</a> the European Union should be &#8220;abolished.&#8221;
Both the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have voiced opposition to the law.
“Look, Europe has to be very careful,” Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-has-to-be-very-careful-trump-issues-stern-warning-after-eu-fines-elon-musks-x">said</a> while commenting on the fine back in December. “They’re doing a lot of things. … Europe is going in some bad directions. It’s very bad for the people.”
Last week, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-would-give-american-victims-of-foreign-censorship-power-to-sue?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Bill+Would+Give+American+Victims+Of+Foreign+Censorship+Power+To+Sue">said</a> lawmakers are exploring legislation to protect American companies from penalties under foreign laws that regulate speech. The committee has released documents it says show the European Union pressured tech companies to create guidelines defining acceptable speech on topics ranging from mass migration to men competing in women’s sports.

Menu