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

Free Speech

Jonathan Turley

Let's Go Brandon

SCOTUS

Supreme Court

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

Colorado

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

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Bible

Finland

Religious Freedom

Social Media Censorship

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

Politics

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

Opinion

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.

SWITZERLAND-POLITICS-ECONOMY-DIPLOMACY

Elon Musk Escalates Fight With Europe Over ‘Speech Controls’

Censorship

Elon Musk

World

Republican lawmakers will consider legislation that would allow American citizens to sue foreign entities that censor and violate their First Amendment rights.
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Thursday that lawmakers were looking into proposals that would protect Americans from foreign censorship. The legislation would mirror proposals introduced in states like Wyoming that would protect Americans from being penalized for their opinions. 
“We are definitely looking at that,” Jordan responded when asked by journalist Michael Shellenberger if Congress would consider proposals similar to the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act <a href="https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2026/HB0070">introduced</a> on February 5 in Wyoming. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: Congress is considering stripping sovereign immunity of EU censorship officials, prohibiting social media from enforcing censorship orders, and enabling private lawsuits against foreign entities, says <a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Jim_Jordan</a> echoing remarks made by <a href="https://twitter.com/UnderSecPD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UnderSecPD</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DarrellIssa</a> <a href="https://t.co/AKjfbBJql9">pic.twitter.com/AKjfbBJql9</a>
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) <a href="https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/2019456842997338152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jordan added that lawmakers were trying to find a “remedy” for foreign censorship, saying that “we&#8217;re taking a good look at that and seeing if there&#8217;s something we can do” regarding the GRANITE Act. 
The GRANITE Act would create a cause of action against foreign states and international organizations that implement censorship laws that violate the free speech rights of Americans, according to a summary of the bill. It would also prevent the state from working with entities that implement foreign censorship. 
Both Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) have already suggested that the United States should take action to protect Americans from being prosecuted under foreign censorship laws. 
Jordan’s comments come after the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/2018683758006665352">released</a> documents showing that tech companies were restricting the speech of Americans under Europe’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime">Digital Services Act</a> and other measures. 
The act empowers the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies, which it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions of the act.
According to the House Judiciary Committee, the European Union pressured tech companies to create guidelines on what was acceptable speech on topics from mass migration to men participating in women’s sports on the basis of their transgender identity. 
Americans&#8217; speech online has not just been censored by foreign bureaucrats, but also by the State Department. 
In February 2024, The Daily Wire, along with The Federalist and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-texas-ag-ask-court-to-block-state-departments-domestic-misinformation-efforts">sued the State Department</a> over its Global Engagement Center’s relationship with anti-“misinformation” outfits like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The suit alleges that those outfits were focused on suppressing American conservative media, and the Global Engagement Center’s support of these groups violated the First Amendment.

Former US Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee

Bill Would Give American Victims Of Foreign Censorship Power To Sue

House May Empower Americans To Sue Foreign Entities That Censor Them

First Amendment

House Judiciary Committee

Jim Jordan

Belgian authorities have opened an investigation into the 2025 arrest of Lois McLatchie Miller and &#8220;Billboard&#8221; Chris Elston, one year after the activists were detained while conducting interviews on the street.
Miller, a British citizen, and Elston, a Canadian, were in Brussels interviewing passersby about radical gender ideology in June. Miller was holding a sign that read “Children are never born in the wrong body” and Elston — known for debating people on the streets while wearing sandwich boards — held one reading “Children cannot consent to puberty blockers.”
When a threatening crowd began to form, Miller called the police. Four police vans and fourteen officers arrived on the scene, only to arrest and strip-search Miller and Elston, who were held in custody for four hours.
“Opening up a criminal investigation into what happened is a major development,” Miller said. “It’s clear by any measure that our right to free speech was violated when we were put in jail cells for speaking about puberty blockers.&#8221;
Belgian authorities have not yet disclosed the scope of the criminal investigation, leaving open the key question of whether the inquiry is focused on potential misconduct by the police officers involved in the arrests or the conduct of the campaigners themselves. Miller and Elston have spent the past year petitioning the government to offer an apology and financial settlement for what they call an unlawful detention.
The scope of Brussels’s criminal investigation could signal a shift in Europe’s approach to free speech, which American officials warn is under attack on the continent.
“Free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” Vice President JD Vance said last year. “I look to Brussels, where EU Commission commissars warned citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest: the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be ‘hateful content’. Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of ‘combating misogyny’ on the internet.”
The vice president added that he believes Europe will rise to the occasion, and expressed his confidence that Europe’s democracies “are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear.”
&#8220;We should be able to speak freely about one of the greatest medical scandals in modern history,” Elston said. “Children are being maimed, chemically castrated, and sterilized for an ideology which teaches they were born wrong.”
Elston is no stranger to brushing up against foreign speech codes and hostile crowds. In 2023, he was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/canadian-cops-watch-as-radical-trans-activists-assault-lone-man-defending-kids" target="_blank" rel="noopener">assaulted</a> during an event in Canada, an attack police did nothing to stop. The following year, he was put on trial in Australia <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/he-shared-a-link-on-x-now-hes-in-an-australian-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">simply</a> for sharing a link on X.
Months after his arrest in Belgium, Elston <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/billboard-chris-launches-global-nonprofit-to-fight-child-gender-exploitation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">launched</a> a nonprofit dedicated to fighting “medical malpractice of child transition” and defending free speech worldwide.
&#8220;We’re formalizing a grassroots movement to educate, activate, and equip people to protect children,&#8221; Elston told The Daily Wire in an exclusive interview after the organization&#8217;s launch.“We will always endeavor to follow the law, while at the same time challenge abuses of authority.”

Screenshot 2026-01-31 at 1.54.02 PM

Belgium Investigating Arrest And Detention Of ‘Billboard Chris’ And British Activist

Billboard

gender ideology

The State Department sanctioned five European figures in the &#8220;global censorship-industrial complex&#8221; on Tuesday, barring them from entering the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the move is in response to European &#8220;ideologues&#8221; who have sought to clamp down on Americans&#8217; free speech. He added that the list could be expanded to other European leaders if they continue their censorship actions.
&#8220;For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship,&#8221; Rubio <a href="https://x.com/SecRubio/status/2003547575580815814">said</a>. &#8220;Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States. We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.&#8221;
The sanctions do not include financial penalties, but the five individuals targeted have had their U.S. visas denied. They are European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton, a Frenchman; Imran Ahmed, a British chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate; British businesswoman Clare Melford, who leads the Global Disinformation Index; and Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, who both lead the German group HateAid.
Breton helped create the European Commission&#8217;s Digital Services Act, which establishes regulations requiring social media companies to prevent what the European Union deems illegal content and misinformation. The Digital Services Act was recently used to punish Elon Musk&#8217;s X, a move condemned by the Trump administration.
Ahmed&#8217;s Center for Countering Digital Hate has been accused of colluding with the Biden administration and social media companies to censor Americans, especially during the COVID pandemic. The Biden administration referred to the British nonprofit&#8217;s &#8220;disinformation dozen&#8221; list, which called out 12 accounts on Facebook that it accused of producing 65% of anti-vaccine &#8220;misinformation&#8221; on the platform, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/us/politics/biden-facebook-social-media-covid.html">reported</a>. One of those 12 accounts belonged to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now President Donald Trump&#8217;s Health and Human Services secretary, <a href="https://x.com/UnderSecPD/status/2003567950541058394">according</a> to Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers.
The Global Disinformation Index, led by Melford, was funded through a program used by the Biden administration to target &#8220;misinformation&#8221; until Rubio shuttered it earlier this year. It placed American media outlets on a “Dynamic Exclusion List” that was distributed to advertisers and named mainstream publications like the New York Post, Reason Magazine, The Daily Wire, and the Federalist as &#8220;risky,&#8221; The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-department-shutters-misinformation-censorship-agency-salts-the-earth">reported</a>. The Daily Wire has an active lawsuit against the State Department, alleging that it suppressed conservative media outlets on social media under former President Joe Biden.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25&amp;_gl=1*5t4t5l*_gcl_au*MTYzODg4ODI4OS4xNzY1ODA4NTE2*_ga*NDM4MjI1MTA1LjE3NTc5NTYzMzI.*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NjY0MTg4MTgkbzM1MCRnMSR0MTc2NjQyMjYwNyRqNjAkbDAkaDA." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Ballon and Hodenberg&#8217;s HateAid is considered a &#8220;trusted&#8221; censor under the Digital Services Act and has routinely targeted Right-wing voices, according to the State Department. Earlier this year, Ballon was interviewed on &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/60Minutes/status/1891284163845628348">60 Minutes</a>&#8221; and said, &#8220;Free speech needs boundaries … Without boundaries, a very small group of people can rely on endless freedom to say anything that they want, while everyone else is scared and intimidated.&#8221;
French President Emmanuel Macron <a href="https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/2003781877165879782">condemned</a> the United States over the travel bans, saying, &#8220;These measures amount to intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty.&#8221;
Trump and Rubio have recently called out Europe over its social media censorship and its targeting of American social media companies. Rubio <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rubio-issues-stark-warning-about-europes-free-speech-erosion-and-how-it-could-affect-americans">told</a> The Daily Wire last week that he is “concerned” that “freedom of expression” is “eroding” in Europe.
“Are we going to live in a world where some American puts up a social media post and then gets to some airport somewhere and is arrested? We’re also concerned about the impact that some of their policies are having on our social media platforms,” he said.
Trump, meanwhile, issued a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-has-to-be-very-careful-trump-issues-stern-warning-after-eu-fines-elon-musks-x">warning</a> to Europe after the European Commission fined X earlier this month.
“Look, Europe has to be very careful,” Trump said. “They’re doing a lot of things. … Europe is going in some bad directions. It’s very bad for the people.”

Marco Rubio

State Department Bans Five Europeans From Entering U.S. After They Helped Censor Americans

Europe

Social Media

State Department

Trump Administration

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio is “concerned” that “freedom of expression” is “eroding” in Europe, he told The Daily Wire at his year-end press conference on Friday.
Rubio said that his top priority is situations where “American free speech could be implicated.”
“Are we going to live in a world where some American puts up a social media post and then gets to some airport somewhere and is arrested? We&#8217;re also concerned about the impact that some of their policies are having on our social media platforms,” he said.
Freedom of speech concerns in Europe have garnered the attention of the United States under the Trump administration, as the State Department said in a post on X in July, “In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticizing their own governments. This Orwellian message won&#8217;t fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom.” The post was in response to the French Mission of United Nations said that in Europe, people are &#8220;free to speak, not free to spread illegal content.”
In the United Kingdom, roughly 30 people a day are arrested over “offensive online messages,” according to <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Times</a>. In addition, groups across the political spectrum like the Alliance Defending Freedom and Amnesty International, have sounded the alarm for years over free speech woes, including in countries like France.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“As you recently saw, you know, X is facing this massive multi-million dollar fine that they&#8217;re going to have to pay, I guess, because they want to continue to operate,&#8221; Rubio continued.
The secretary then dived into the importance of working with nations in Europe because of shared “values and principles,” including freedom of speech, which is what makes the concerns paramount.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-union-ignored-free-speech-concerns-plows-ahead-with-global-censorship-regime" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Wire</a> reported last month on how the European Commission did not factor in censorship risks when it came to the Digital Services Act, which has tech companies pay up for allowing “illegal content” or disinformation to not be effectively counteracted.
“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 an interview at the time.
“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.

US-POLITICS-DIPLOMACY-RUBIO

Rubio Issues Stark Warning About Europe’s Free Speech Erosion And How It Could Affect Americans

Menu