Governments That Despise Your Freedoms Will Also Despise You

Once you’re so intent on pushing your own agenda that you’re willing to arrest people for praying silently in their homes, it’s only a matter of time before you’re willing to silence them completely.

The Media Is Having Another ‘Fiery But Mostly Peaceful’ Moment

Contrast the media’s outrage at the President’s censure with their gleeful rush to classify free speech as “literal violence.”

Yes, The Trump Administration Has The Power To Deport Mahmoud Khalil

Mahmoud Khalil's arrest and the revocation of his green card are constitutional actions well within the powers granted to the federal government.

Texas Republican who tried to impeach Ken Paxton now trying to criminalize political memes



Texas state Rep. Dade Phelan (R), the at-times incomprehensible former state House speaker who led the unsuccessful impeachment effort against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is pushing a bill that would criminalize the publication, distribution, or broadcast of certain political memes or altered media.

Critics have suggested that Phelan's House Bill 366 is unconstitutional, stressing that it would run afoul of the First Amendment.

Phelan's bill would require "political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech or conduct that did not occur in reality," including media manipulated with generative artificial intelligence, to include a disclosure accounting for the meme's creative deviations from reality.

Under the proposed law, the Texas Ethics Commission would determine what form that disclosure takes, including "the font, size, and color of the disclosure."

Failure to include a disclosure could land Texans in jail with a Class A misdemeanor charge.

Fort Worth attorney Tony McDonald, a specialist in First Amendment litigation, told Texas Scorecard, "It's amazing that this ridiculous bill is the top priority of the Texas House's most powerful committee. This bill is obviously unconstitutional. It would criminalize protected speech on the basis of its content."

'Tryin to bolster my outlaw cred.'

When presiding over a 14-hour state House session in 2023, Phelan appeared to slur his words and have difficulty identifying a colleague. This prompted Paxton and others to allege that he was "in an obviously intoxicated state," and to call for his resignation. Phelan dodged questions about the allegations. In the years since, criticism of Phelan has in some cases incorporated mockery of the incident.

Texas Scorecard suggested that the "Drunk Dade" call-ins to Michael Berry's talk radio show — consisting of an impression of a supposedly inebriated Phelan — might, for instance, qualify as verboten speech under House Bill 366.

Berry noted on Monday, "DrunkDade tryin to bolster my outlaw cred," suggesting that the parodies make Phelan "so mad he's tryin to make it illegal."

Phelan's inspiration to push the bill might instead be the so-called deepfake political advertisement that targeted him ahead of the Republican primary runoff election last year.

The Texas Tribune reported that the offending political mailer, which was paid for by the Club for Growth Action PAC, featured two photoshops: one that swapped House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) out of a photograph and instead depicted Phelan hugging Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.); and another falsely depicting Phelan giving a speech at a Texas House Democratic Caucus news conference.

The mailer stated, "Texas Republicans deserve better than Democrat puppet Dade Phelan!"

Under the proposed legislation, such doctored images would require disclosures "indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality."

Texas Scorecard indicated that Phelan did not respond to a request for comment.

The Texas Legislature's state affairs committee will hold a public hearing on the bill on Wednesday. In the meantime, critics are sharing memes and photoshops to social media of Phelan without disclosures, demonstrating what might qualify as criminal should he get his way.

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

SCOTUS To Consider Whether Government Can Strangle Therapists’ Speech

Chiles v. Salazar could prove a landmark Supreme Court ruling that prevents the government from forcing counselors to endorse gender ideology.

UK speech lords back down as US tariffs loom



The U.K.'s Online Safety Act has been the source of a lot of controversy in recent months, but recent tariff threats from the Trump administration have forced the U.K. to reconsider its role in online censorship.

Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party and prime minister of the U.K., has reportedly “signaled to Washington that [the U.K.] is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act.”

Setting aside the obvious threat to free speech that this act poses, the potential financial burden on US companies has strained trade relations between the UK and the US.

While trade and free speech may not immediately seem to be connected, opponents of the Online Safety Act have argued that tech platforms may face potentially heavy financial burdens in order to comply with the law. Companies would face “substantial financial penalties” for failing to take down “harmful content” on their platforms.

One of the major points of criticism of the act, which claims to seek to “keep everyone safe online,” is that the language used is hopelessly vague. Critics have claimed that this vagueness would lead to over-enforcement, among other issues.

In order to avoid these penalties, companies would likely be forced to adopt new strategies for monitoring content on their platforms. For example, some have warned that companies will be forced to pre-emptively censor speech in order to comply. This strategy has been dubbed the “when in doubt, cut it out” approach by critics.

Setting aside the obvious threat to free speech that this act poses, the potential financial burden on U.S. companies has strained trade relations between the U.K. and the U.S.

The punitive measures of the act are potentially very harmful to U.S. tech companies. Companies that fail to comply with the moderation rules made by Ofcom may be “fined up to £18 million or 10 per cent of their global revenue.”

Andrew Hale, a trade policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, noted that this conflict has strained the possibility of the U.S. and the U.K. striking a trade deal: “Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or in Congress ... they always [say], ‘This is a huge roadblock.’”

Elon Musk, the owner of X and a vocal opponent of the Online Safety Act for both of these reasons, has “recently welcomed Trump’s presidency as a potential counterweight to the U.K.’s regulatory crackdown.”

Trump’s tariff threats against the U.K. have forced this reconsideration of the enforcement of the Online Safety Act.

Some people saw the results of this inevitable standoff in advance. For example, Lord Toby Young of Acton, the founder of Free Speech Union, reportedly said, “If [this confrontation] happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”

The fight is far from over, however. Labour and the Online Safety Act’s proponents have created a repressive regime that stifles free speech. The Online Safety Act is simply the boldest attempt to censor free expression. A source close to the Trump administration reportedly said, “To many people in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable.”

Trump and his “tech bros” are giving Labour a final opportunity to step away from these free speech attacks. With new powers set to be granted to Ofcom in March of this year, now is the time to put continuous pressure on the U.K. government to ease off its draconian speech laws.

'Things are going to get weird': Alex Stein's free-speech case against Dallas Democrats goes to trial



BlazeTV host Alex Stein filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in 2022 against Dallas County Commissioner John Price (D), Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins (D), and a trio of county marshals after he was forcibly removed from a meeting of the Dallas County Commissioners Court.

Price had Stein kicked out for seeking clarification about troubling allegations regarding his Democratic compatriot, Jenkins, who was running for re-election at the time.

Stein accused the Democratic duo and the county by extension of violating his constitutional right to free speech as well as the court’s own rules and the Texas Open Meetings Act.

The case is headed to trial next week, which could have ramifications for free-speech rights and spell trouble for the defendants, one of whom is up for re-election next year.

"This case is not about me as an individual but about all of our rights to publicly criticize our politicians," Stein told Blaze News.

While Stein has a talent for getting under politicians' skin at all levels of government, his apparent bread and butter is confronting officials at local government meetings.

There have been a number of instances where the comedian has donned provocative costumes and engaged in a style of commentary that has discomfited officials and onlookers alike.

For instance, Stein approached the microphone at a January 2022 Dallas City Council meeting dressed in surgical scrubs and mockingly rapped about giving the novel COVID-19 vaccine to virtually everyone and everything, singing, "Vaccinate your mom, vaccinate your dad, vaccinate the happy, vaccinate the sad. Vaccinate your babies, vaccinate them, even if they got rabies. Vaccinate my life, vaccinate my wife."

Later that year, Stein addressed Plano City Council wearing a women's swimsuit and pink swim cap, comically highlighting the absurdity of gender ideologues' arguments in favor of men competing in women's sports.

'I'm just asking.'

Stein took a far more subdued approach when addressing the Dallas County Commissioners Court on May 17, 2022.

Dressed in a suit and tie, Stein — one of three members of the public permitted to speak at the livestreamed meeting —swapped out his customary theatrics for a straight read of an excerpt from a Sept. 23, 2014, article in D magazine about Clay Jenkins, which stated:

In college at Baylor, Jenkins continued to distinguish himself dubiously. He was arrested twice, once for reckless driving after he led Baylor security and Waco police on a car chase he’d planned and a second time for criminal trespassing in a women’s dorm during a panty raid. Strangely enough, he was never arrested for his role as the famous Baylor Pie Man, a hit man for a student-organized ring that offered to throw pies in people’s faces — professors, ex-boyfriends — for a fee.

Neither Price nor Jenkins, whose term ends in December 2026, responded to Blaze News' request for comment.

'You're finished! You’re finished!'

Before Stein could finish reading the excerpt, Price — who was acquitted on seven of 11 counts of criminal wrongdoing in a corruption trial in 2017 — angrily rapped his gavel and stated, "You're not allowed to admonish members of this court."

Price's interruption took place less than a minute into Stein's time. The previous speakers were allotted three uninterrupted minutes each.

"Yeah. I'm asking, I'm just asking," said Stein. "I would like to get some clarification."

When the BlazeTV host attempted to continue reading from the article, Price directed Dallas County marshals to drag Stein out of the court, noting, "You're not allowed to attack members of this court."

Before marshals Robert De Los Santos, Zack Masri, and Charles Johnson descended on him, Stein stressed that he was asking "a simple question." Prompted to articulate his query in full, the comedian said, "What was the panty raid about?"

"You're finished! You're finished!" responded Price, who suggested once again that Stein was attacking a member of the court. "Marshal, move him out. You're finished. You're finished."

The following month, Stein filed suit.

'The First Amendment was meant for exactly this.'

Stein's original complaint included a statement from then-Dallas County Commissioner Justin Koch claiming that Price was in the wrong when ejecting the comedian from the courtroom, reported the Dallas Express.

"Commissioner Price, I believe unlawfully, had Alex Stein removed. Alex Stein started to read about Judge Jenkins in an article about some of his past bad behavior," stated Koch, now chief judge of the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals. "The statute that someone can be removed under is basically someone who is profane, slanderous, or boisterous."

Koch suggested further that if the D magazine article had indeed been defamatory, Jenkins would have sued the publication sometime in the previous eight years, which he had not bothered to do.

Stein's attorney Jonathan Gross noted around the time of the lawsuit's filing, "Politicians have to remember that they serve the public, not the other way around."

"Criticizing the government is the highest form of protected speech," continued Gross. "It's the right of Stein and every American."

Stein originally claimed that his forceful ejection from the meeting violated his First, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights. However, in 2023, senior U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater, the judge presiding over Stein's case, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss Stein's claim that they violated his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.

When asked about the upcoming trial and the current state of play, Stein expressed hope that "this will be a smooth, open-and-shut trial," but told Blaze News that "things are going to get weird since [he and the defense] both have submitted a lot of my craziest speeches at government meetings."

"I think the defendants hope that the jury is made up of people who don't like me, and they will try and paint me as a bad person only doing this for clicks," said Stein. "They will probably argue that I was being disruptive or slanderous and not trying to participate in good faith, which is the farthest thing from the truth."

"The First Amendment was meant for exactly this — to protect our right to criticize our politicians," said Stein. "Limiting the First Amendment is a violation of the Constitution, and that's why this federal lawsuit is so important."

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

Vermont And Massachusetts Schools Punish Students For ‘Only 2 Genders’ Shirts

Students have been disciplined for wearing shirts saying 'There are only 2 genders,' with one case pending before the Supreme Court.