#IAmJaneDoe goes viral — but TikTok isn’t a courtroom



#IAmJaneDoe is trending after sexual assault allegations were levied against seven fraternity members at Cornell University by one woman, known as Jane Doe.

While TikTokers across the globe have picked up the story and have begun speaking out in defense of the young woman, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey points out that social media outrage is not a substitute for due process.

“You’ve met Jane Doe before,” one TikToker said, in protest of the accused. “You might not have realized it at the time, but you have. You may have passed her in the street. She could have poured the milk into your coffee or helped deliver your wife’s baby, read your kid a story.”

“You might have said good morning to her on a walk,” she continued. “There’s a chance that Jane Doe has smiled at you as you’ve held open the door. Jane could even live in your house. She could put the kettle on after a long day, always know where your keys are, but has never made it known that she is Jane Doe.”


Another TikToker said that it broke her heart that “the guy that invited her to the frat house that night was her friend.”

She went on to claim that Jane Doe was a “minor,” which Stuckey explains is not true.

“She wasn’t a minor. I just want to say that. She wasn’t a minor. She was under 21. She was illegally drinking,” she says.

“These men were not her friend,” she continues.

“None of these men were her friend, because this is not what friends do. This is not what people do who respect another human being, respect women, respect anyone. They should have helped her get a ride home. If they noticed that she was intoxicated, they shouldn’t have propositioned her for group sex.”

However, Stuckey notes that “she also shouldn’t have participated.”

“She shouldn’t have been there. She shouldn’t have been doing drugs. She shouldn’t have been drinking. She shouldn’t have consented to any of this,” she says.

“Am I saying that she is responsible for every bit of it? Am I saying for sure that there was never a time that she couldn’t consent? I don’t know,” she answers. “Am I saying that because she said once that is saying yes every single time and so there is no part of the night where she became a victim?”

Stuckey explains that while she’s “not saying that for sure,” you also “can’t say anything for sure.”

“That is the point that I am making, that it is her word against these men’s word,” she says.

“And I will not just assume that she is correct because she’s a woman or she is correct because she is an accuser,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

These Two Hyped-Up Things Definitely Don’t Matter In The ‘Cornell 7’ Allegations

Just because Doe's attorney wants to make every detail a scandal doesn't make it one. A lot of it doesn't matter at all.

America’s newest jail has no walls



Americans are looking for safety in an increasingly chaotic country. Mass immigration, collapsing social trust, and weakening civic bonds have transformed many communities from places where neighbors knew one another into anonymous zones governed by suspicion.

Technology promises an escape from the consequences of those political and cultural failures. Flock Safety cameras appear to offer law and order at the push of a button. In the hands of the ruling class that manufactured the crisis, however, they are more likely to produce tyranny for citizens.

Today’s stolen-car database can become tomorrow’s political enforcement system.

Municipalities are buying Flock’s automated license plate readers. The company did not invent plate cameras, but its artificial intelligence radically expands their reach.

Flock cameras photograph passing vehicles and record license plates, makes, colors, damage, bumper stickers, and identifiers. A single camera means little. A citywide network collecting thousands of images every day creates something powerful.

The cameras send their information to an AI database in real time. Police and other municipal employees can search for vehicles nearby. They can place cars on “hot lists” and receive alerts whenever those vehicles appear.

The system effectively places a GPS tracker on every moving car. Police ordinarily need a warrant to attach a tracker to your vehicle. Flock can reproduce the same surveillance through a network of cameras, often without probable cause, due process, or meaningful legal restraint.

The benefits are obvious. Perfect information about every vehicle makes suspects easier to find. Police can recover stolen cars, locate fleeing murderers, and respond faster to crimes.

In a high-trust town, every grandmother on the porch once knew which cars belonged and which did not. Flock offers a technological imitation of that lost social awareness.

But imitation carries a price. Grandma knew her neighbors and exercised human judgment. The database knows everyone and answers to government employees.

Flock is not alone in selling technological substitutes for social order. Cities have used gunshot-detection systems. Networks of acoustic sensors identify gunfire and triangulate its location, allowing police to respond faster.

The engineering may be impressive. The governing theory is primitive: If authorities watch and listen to everyone constantly, they can prevent more crimes and solve more cases.

RELATED: We’re winning the fight against Flock — but the surveillance isn’t going away that easily

Andrii Yalanskyi/iStock/Getty Images

A surveillance panopticon may work. People who know they are always being watched behave differently. Americans have resisted that bargain for good reason.

The Fourth Amendment exists because efficient policing is not the highest political good. Government must possess evidence and follow procedures before invading the privacy of citizens. New technology should not erase old constitutional limits.

Britain offers a warning. Closed-circuit television cameras have become ubiquitous across the United Kingdom. Some estimates suggest that the average British resident appears on camera dozens of times each day.

Britain has no written equivalent of the Fourth Amendment, and its political culture places fewer obstacles before constant public surveillance. Yet cameras did not prevent the Rotherham grooming-gang scandal or protect thousands of vulnerable girls from organized abuse.

Officials ignored or concealed the crimes for years because confronting them threatened the ruling class’s multicultural ideology. When public anger finally erupted, the surveillance state proved far more competent at identifying and punishing citizens who protested the cover-up.

That is the anarcho-tyranny trap.

Conservative thinker Samuel Francis used the term to describe a regime that tolerates disorder while imposing suffocating control on peaceful citizens. Authorities fail to punish criminals, then use the chaos created by that failure to justify new powers over everyone else.

Americans have already seen the pattern.

The government possessed enormous amounts of video from the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. Businesses burned, neighborhoods were looted, and citizens were assaulted. The system showed little appetite for using every available image to identify and prosecute everyone involved.

After January 6, the same government used surveillance footage, facial recognition, financial records, and digital communications to pursue participants with extraordinary intensity. Officials punished many who entered the Capitol and investigated people who merely stood nearby.

RELATED: Flock Safety CEO: It’s ‘terroristic’ to want to know where we put our spy cameras

Antranik Tavitian/Bloomberg/Getty Images

During the pandemic, technology companies yielded to government pressure, censored disfavored speech, and turned over user information. Neither the administrative state nor its corporate partners have earned the benefit of the doubt. They have repeatedly demonstrated that enforcement depends on the target.

I am less hostile to state power than many conservatives. A government that cannot control its borders, remove violent criminals, or maintain public order is not a serious government.

But power must be directed toward the common good. The officials asking for universal surveillance are the same officials who refuse to use ordinary authority against illegal immigration, organized crime, urban disorder, and politically favored mobs.

Giving them a database that tracks every American driver will not correct their priorities. It will magnify them.

Supporters will insist that only criminals need to worry. That argument assumes surveillance will remain limited to serious crime and that government will apply its powers impartially. Recent history destroys both assumptions.

Today’s stolen-car database can become tomorrow’s political enforcement system. A hot list can identify a murder suspect, an immigration protester, a gun owner, a church attendee, or anyone traveling to a disfavored rally.

The danger does not require a secret conspiracy. Bureaucracies naturally expand their missions. Politicians redefine threats. Private vendors seek new contracts. Once the infrastructure exists, every crisis supplies another justification for using it.

America’s disorder has obvious political causes. Elites imported cheap labor, weakened borders, excused criminality, and dissolved the social bonds that once allowed communities to police themselves informally. Citizens now feel like strangers in their own homeland.

Technology cannot repair that betrayal.

The difficult answers remain immigration restriction, deportation, competent policing, equal enforcement, and the restoration of families, neighborhoods, and civic trust. Cameras may assist legitimate police work, but they cannot substitute for political courage.

Flock promises safety without social repair. The bargain is tempting because rebuilding order is difficult.

Americans should refuse it.

Rewarding the people who created the crisis with the power to monitor every movement will not restore a high-trust society. It will lock law-abiding citizens inside an open-air prison while the disorder continues beyond the cameras’ reach.

Supreme Court To Hear Major Case On Trump Admin’s Detention Of Illegal Aliens

In Genalo v. Black, the Supreme Court will address the federal government's indefinite detention of illegal aliens facing deportation.

Disgraced Democrat resigns over 'witch hunt' investigation to evade humiliating expulsion



A Democrat resigned from Congress Tuesday as her colleagues ramped up efforts to expel the lawmaker over her corruption scandal.

Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida avoided her imminent expulsion by simply resigning, claiming that the House Ethics Committee's investigation was a "witch hunt" that violated her "due process rights." The investigative subcommittee effectively found Cherfilus-McCormick guilty of dozens of campaign finance violations after she was accused of laundering millions of dollars worth of COVID-era FEMA funds into her campaign account.

'That is a dangerous path.'

"This was not a fair process," Cherfilus-McCormick said in a statement Tuesday. "The Ethics Committee refused my new attorney's reasonable request for time to prepare my defense. By going forward with this process while a criminal indictment is pending, the Committee prevented me from defending myself. I will not stand by and pretend that this has been anything other than a witch hunt."

"I simply cannot stand by and allow my due process rights to be trampled on, and my good name to be tarnished. Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away so that I can devote my time to fighting for my neighbors in Florida's 20th district."

RELATED: 'Mutually assured destruction': Another disgraced lawmaker to resign from Congress over sex scandal

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cherfilus-McCormick argued that the committee was setting a "dangerous precedent," claiming she was not treated fairly during the investigation.
"But let me say this plainly: we should be very careful about the precedent we are setting," Cherfilus-McCormick said in the statement. "In this country, we do not punish people before due process is complete. We do not allow allegations alone to override the will of the people. That is a dangerous path, and one that should concern every American, regardless of party."

Cherfilus-McCormick is the second Democrat and third lawmaker in recent weeks to resign from Congress. Former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California dropped out of his gubernatorial race and later resigned from Congress after multiple women, including former staffers, accused him of sexual misconduct.

Swalwell's resignation was accompanied by a resignation from former Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas, who also got caught in a sex scandal with one of his former staffers who tragically took her own life by setting herself on fire. Gonzales later admitted to the affair and dropped out of his re-election race before eventually resigning from Congress altogether.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH: Glenn Beck’s savage open letter torches Swalwell’s hypocrisy after sexual misconduct scandal forces campaign suspension



Last Sunday, Eric Swalwell suspended his California gubernatorial campaign after reports by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN detailed multiple allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies. He resigned from Congress the next day amid lost endorsements and staff departures.

Now Glenn Beck reads the open letter he wrote to Swalwell to illustrate the timeless law of reciprocity.

Glenn begins by rehashing Swalwell’s public opposition to Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018. Tweeting #BelieveSurvivors, Swalwell argued that multiple accusers meant the allegations were likely true (or Kavanaugh was the “unluckiest person in the world”) and said victims “deserve to be heard” and their allegations investigated.

“Congressman, do you feel the same way today?” Glenn asks. “Because now you have 50 women — 50 — from your office claiming the same thing. ... Should we bring them all in? Should we question them publicly, or is this time different?”

“At the time, you even pushed back on applying strict legal standards in public judgment, noting, ‘The testimony of a single witness can prove any fact,’” he continues.

“So perhaps we just bring in one woman out of the 50 and let her speak publicly and believe her because she, as you pointed out, is a survivor.”

Glenn accuses Swalwell of showing “little to no patience for caution,” putting “little emphasis on presumption of innocence,” and lending “little concern for due process in the court of public opinion” in Kavanaugh’s 2018 hearings.

“And what’s truly sad is, at the time — unlike today — you were not alone. But boy, I bet you feel alone today,” he sneers.

“Isn’t it weird and a bitter symmetry that is happening here?” he asks. “You once argued that accusations carried its own moral force, that patterns of claims pointed towards truth no matter what, and that the accused should open themselves fully to prove their innocence.”

But now, Swalwell asks for “time,” “fairness, and “restraint.”

“The very principles you minimalized are the ones you now invoke,” Glenn says.

Calling him a “destructive, dishonest, selfish, slimy ... force” who “never seemed to care about anything other than [his] own personal agenda,” Glenn grants Swalwell what he was unwilling to grant to others: “The allegations against you, however serious, however numerous, remain allegations.”

However, Glenn isn’t the least bit sorry that Swalwell’s career, ambitions, and reputation have been destroyed.

“There’s no one who deserves to feel that pain more than you,” he says.

He then points out the irony of the progressive Marxist apparatus Swalwell has been instrumental in.

“You were destroying the progressive enemies, and so they protected you. And in that, your arrogance grew. ... You were untouchable. You were invincible — until you become an inconvenience,” he says. “And then Marxists and progressives do what they always do. Ends justify the means. You are expendable.”

The rise and fall of Swalwell, Glenn says, is a perfect example of God’s eternal law: “As you judge, so shall you be judged.”

To hear more of Glenn’s savage open letter to Eric Swalwell, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

SCOTUS Finally Cracks Down On The Schools Secretly Transing Kids

The Supreme Court has reminded the country that no school bureaucracy can override parents' fundamental rights.

Deportation Is The Only ‘Due Process’ Illegal Aliens Deserve

How can there be a legal injury in removing a citizen of Somalia, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Mexico, or any other country, from the U.S.?

When Bernie Sanders and I agree on AI, America had better pay attention



Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned recently in the London Guardian that artificial intelligence “is getting far too little discussion in Congress, the media, and within the general population” despite the speed at which it is developing. “That has got to change.”

To my surprise, as a conservative advocate of limited government and free markets, I agree completely.

AI is neither a left nor a right issue. It is a human issue that will decide who holds power in the decades ahead and whether individuals retain sovereignty.

As I read Sanders’ piece, I kept thinking, “This sounds like something I could have written!” That alone should tell us something. If two people who disagree on almost everything else see the same dangers emerging from artificial intelligence, then maybe we can set aside the usual partisan divides and confront a problem that will touch every American.

Different policies, same fears

I’ve worked in the policy world for more than a decade, and it’s fair to say Bernie Sanders and I have opposed each other in nearly every major fight. I’ve pushed back against his single-payer health care plans. I’ve worked to stop his Green New Deal agenda. On economic policy, Sanders has long stood for the exact opposite of the free-market principles I believe make prosperity possible.

That’s why reading his AI op-ed felt almost jarring. Time after time, his concerns mirrored my own.

Sanders warned about the unprecedented power Silicon Valley elites now wield over this transformational technology. As someone who spent years battling Big Tech censorship, I share his alarm over unaccountable tech oligarchs shaping information, culture, and political discourse.

He points to forecasts showing AI-driven automation could displace nearly 100 million American jobs in the coming decade. I helped Glenn Beck write “Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s Terrifying Next Phase” in 2023, where we raised the exact same red flag, that rapid automation could destabilize the workforce faster than society can adapt.

Sanders highlights how AI threatens privacy, civil liberties, and personal autonomy. These are concerns I write and speak about constantly. Sanders notes that AI isn’t just changing industry; it’s reshaping the human condition, foreign policy, and even the structure of democratic life. On all of this, he is correct.

When a Democratic Socialist and a free-market conservative diagnose the same disease, it usually means the symptoms are too obvious to ignore.

Where we might differ

While Sanders and I share almost identical fears about AI, I suspect we would quickly diverge on the solutions. In his op-ed, he offers no real policy prescriptions at all. Instead, he simply says, “Congress must act now.” Act how? Sanders never says. And to be fair, that ambiguity is a dilemma I recognize.

As someone who argues consistently for limited government, I’m reluctant to call for new regulations. History shows that sweeping, top-down interventions usually create more problems than they solve. Yet AI poses a challenge unlike anything we’ve seen before — one that neither the market nor Congress can responsibly ignore.

RELATED: Shock poll: America’s youth want socialism on autopilot — literally

Photo by Cesc Maymo/Getty Images

When Sanders says, “Congress must act,” does he want sweeping, heavy-handed regulations that freeze innovation? Does he envision embedding ESG-style subjective metrics into AI systems, politicizing them further? Does he want to codify conformity to European Union AI regulations?

We cannot allow a handful of corporations or governments to embed their subjective values into systems that increasingly manipulate our decisions, influence our communications, and deter our autonomy.

The nonnegotiables

Instead of vague calls for Congress to “do something,” we need a clear framework rooted in enduring American principles.

AI systems (especially those deployed across major sectors) must be built with hard, nonnegotiable safeguards that protect the individual from both corporate and governmental overreach.

This means embedding constitutional values into AI design, enshrining guarantees for free speech, due process, privacy, and equal treatment. It means ensuring transparency around how these systems operate and what data they collect.

This also means preventing ideological influence, whether from Beijing, Silicon Valley, or Washington, D.C., by insisting on objectivity, neutrality, and accountability.

These principles should not be considered partisan. They are the guardrails, rooted in the Constitution, which protect us from any institution, public or private, that seeks too much power.

And that is why the overlap between Sanders’ concerns and mine matters so much. AI is neither a left nor a right issue. It is a human issue that will decide who holds power in the decades ahead and whether individuals retain sovereignty.

If Bernie Sanders and I both see the same storm gathering on the horizon, perhaps it’s time the rest of the country looks up and recognizes the clouds for what they are.

Now is the moment for Americans, across parties and philosophies, to insist that AI strengthen liberty rather than erode it. If we fail to set those boundaries today, we may soon find that the most important choices about our future are no longer made by people at all.

The UK is now cracking down on ... words? England edges toward full-blown speech police state



Before the Magna Carta, the King of England was the law. After, he was under the law. It created the principle of due process, habeas corpus protection from arbitrary arrest, and limited taxation without consent.

“Rule of law, jury trials, rights of the accused, limits on government, protection of property, accountability of leaders — all of that comes from the Magna Carta,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“That gave birth, 500 years later, to us and our ideas,” he says.

However, now all of that is changing.


“The birthplace of the Magna Carta is now thinking about getting rid of jury trials and arresting more than 12,000 people every year for what they call speech crimes — 12,000,” Glenn says.

“In 2023, Russia arrested 4,000 people for speech crimes against the Russian military for Ukraine — 4,000 in Russia, 12,000 in England. The number I saw, and we don’t have all the numbers, but the number I saw that were arrested for speech crimes in China was 120,” he continues.

“Not for violence, not for theft, not for treason — 12,000 in England for words,” he adds.

But it gets worse, as the prime minister is “floating the idea of eliminating” most jury trials.

“It’ll only be for murder, manslaughter, oh, and something else like that,” Glenn says.

“This goes against the Magna Carta, the lawful judgment of your peers. OK? That is the safeguard that stands between you and an out-of-control state. This is the first and ancient firewall against tyranny. It is what makes England, England,” he continues.

“And if England, of all places, tosses that aside, what does the word ‘free’ mean anymore? OK? What does it mean? You can’t speak, and you have no jury trial of your peers. Wait, what?” he says.

“First of all, understand this: A nation that polices speech is not free. A nation that dissolves juries is not just unfree; it’s prepping for something worse, because the entire architecture of the Western world, the liberty that we have, rests on a single radical belief,” he says, adding, “The truth does not need a king.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.