Supreme Court: Kids deserve protection from porn, period



The Supreme Court last week delivered not just a legal decision but a resounding moral affirmation: Children deserve protection from online pornography.

For decades, I’ve been told that “free speech” includes the right to exploit. I’ve watched Big Porn hide behind the First Amendment like a shield, as if this billion-dollar industry, built on addiction, abuse, and shattered innocence, was a sacred American institution. But on Friday, in upholding Texas’ pornography age-verification law, the court drew a line in the sand.

For children, exposure to pornographic material isn’t a neutral event. It reshapes the brain. It numbs empathy. It seeds confusion, fear, and addiction.

And I say: Thank God.

As the brother of a child survivor of sexual exploitation, I know firsthand the consequences of a culture that normalizes sexual harm. I know what it’s like when an industry like porn sees children as commodities. I’ve seen too many young people stumble into the world of violent, degrading content with nothing more than a click. No gatekeepers. No warnings. No protection.

That ended last week.

Texas’ age-verification law was never about silencing speech. It was about defending the voiceless and restoring the most basic responsibility we have as a society: to guard our children from harm.

That’s why my team at Jaco Booyens Ministries joined this case as a friend of the court. Our team submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that shared the lived experiences of survivors, the neurological science on childhood trauma, and the irrefutable consequences of exposure to online pornography.

As our brief stated in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: “There is no liberty in trauma. There is no freedom in addiction. When minors are exposed to pornography, they are not exercising constitutional rights, they are being wounded by the unchecked rights of others.”

Still, the porn industry screamed “censorship.” Companies sued, claiming this was a violation of their “rights.” But what about our children’s right not to be harmed? What about the parents fighting to keep predators out of their homes?

The court acknowledged what every honest parent already knows: Access to this kind of content isn’t harmless. It isn’t “education.” It is psychological, emotional, and spiritual violence. During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett captured the heart of the issue when she asked, “Why should it be so easy for a 12-year-old to access this kind of material online, when we all know it can be incredibly damaging?”

That wasn’t a rhetorical flourish; it was a recognition of truth.

For children, exposure to pornographic material isn’t a neutral event. It reshapes the brain. It numbs empathy. It seeds confusion, fear, and addiction. I can no longer pretend this is just about speech. This is about harm. Real harm. And the court, at long last, chose to see it.

RELATED: Supreme Court slaps down Big Porn — putting kids before profit

  Photo by Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

I can’t change what happened to my sister. But I can fight to make sure it doesn’t happen to someone else. I can help protect the next generation. I can work to make it harder for exploitation to find its way into our living rooms, our schools, our smartphones. I can help make justice more than just a word. I can help make it action.

To the justices who stood with us: Thank you. You did not bow to corporate pressure. You honored the Constitution as a document of liberty, not license. You remembered that freedom must be rooted in truth, and the truth is that unrestricted pornography destroys lives.

This victory isn’t just for Texas; it’s a win for every child in America. It sends a clear message to every state in this nation: You have the power to protect your children. You can draw the line. You don’t have to wait for permission. And beyond our borders, this ruling sends a powerful global signal: I still believe — and I know many others do too — that children are worth protecting, that their innocence is not up for sale, and their safety is not negotiable.

Let this ruling be a turning point — for our families, for our faith, for our future.

Jennifer Sey’s HR rebellion is just what America needs



Jennifer Sey struck a nerve when she declared that her company, XX-XY Athletics, operates without an HR department.

“They produce nothing,” Sey said at Freedom Fest earlier this month. “They monitor our words. They tell us what we can and cannot say. They inhibit creativity. It’s bad for business.”

The DEI bureaucracy has hijacked creativity and initiative across American institutions. The answer is more vision, more empowerment, and more responsibility.

That viral moment — now with more than 5 million views on Instagram — and her subsequent op-ed resonated for one simple reason: She’s right. HR’s bureaucratic grip is choking American innovation. The diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy is killing creativity. Worst of all, it’s draining the humanity from the workplace.

At the Texas Public Policy Foundation, we’ve embraced a different path. We ditched the traditional HR model and built a self-governing culture grounded in vision, empowerment, and personal responsibility. And it works.

We’re a 100-person organization working across nearly every area of public policy. Every legislative session, we help pass dozens of reforms in Texas. We do this without the heavy hand of HR.

The typical HR regime — endless training sessions, speech policing, pronoun mandates, and risk-averse hiring filters — doesn’t just waste time. It demoralizes bold thinkers. It cultivates mediocrity.

Instead, we’ve built a culture on three pillars.

1. Vision

Every member of our team knows why we’re here: to advance liberty, opportunity, and prosperity through principled policy. We don’t need compliance officers to enforce that vision. It’s clear. It’s motivating. And it’s shared.

A 2016 study in the International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies backs this up. Researchers Gary S. Lynn and Faruk Kalay found that clarity of vision — meaning shared understanding and communication around goals — had a significant positive effect on performance.

In plain English: Clear goals drive real results. Ditch the hall monitors. Trust your people.

2. Empowerment

We replaced top-down control with radical trust. No mandatory seminars. No endless policy reminders. Just continuous mentorship, honest feedback, and the freedom to take risks — even fail.

This culture empowers innovation. We hire people with integrity, not compliance credentials. And we trust them to deliver.

RELATED: Trump deep-sixed DEI — but is it undead at major federal contractors like Lockheed Martin?

  Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

When someone missteps, we don’t need HR to issue a demerit. The team steps in — graciously but directly — with shared accountability.

As Sey put it, HR’s approach produces “mediocre people with no opinions.” We hire big thinkers with strong character. Then we let them run.

3. Personal responsibility

A self-governing culture demands ownership. No hall monitors or permission slips. Each person knows his or her role — and takes it seriously.

This attracts the kind of people who actually get things done. It’s the reason we’ve succeeded in passing bold, controversial policies despite heavy opposition. We don’t wait for permission. We build.

Jennifer Sey’s stand against HR’s dead weight is more than a media moment. It’s a call to action.

The DEI bureaucracy has hijacked creativity and initiative across American institutions. But the answer isn’t more rules. It’s more vision, more empowerment, and more responsibility.

At TPPF, that formula has unleashed our team’s potential — and it can do the same for any organization willing to stop cowering before rule-makers and start trusting risk-takers.

The soul of your business — and the soul of America — depends on it.

Rubio wages war on foreign free-speech tyrants with visa ban



President Donald Trump's State Department is leveraging the nation's visa program to protect Americans from foreign speech censors, marking a monumental shift for free expression.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Wednesday that the department would no longer grant visas for foreign nationals pushing to censor American speech.

'America has the world's strongest free-speech protections, but for years other countries have undermined those protections by globalizing their censorship regimes.'

He wrote in a post on X, "For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights."

"Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority," Rubio stated.

RELATED: Trump halts student visas to bolster national security vetting: Report

  Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

He added in a separate post, "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country. Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over."

Rubio's announcement followed Vice President JD Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, during which he expressed concern that American and European values are dangerously diverging. Vance specifically pointed to the erosion of freedom of speech protections in Europe.

"In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat," he stated. "So I come here today, not just with an observation, but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite."

Vance expressed interest in working with Europe to fortify free-speech protections and end censorship.

RELATED: Liberals freaked out over Vance's Munich speech. Just wait till they read the State Department's Substack.

  Photo by Johannes Simon/Getty Images

Nico Perrino, the executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Blaze News, "America has the world's strongest free-speech protections, but for years other countries have undermined those protections by globalizing their censorship regimes."

Perrino explained that in the past, the federal government has attempted to protect Americans from foreign censorship. He highlighted the 2010 SPEECH Act, which blocks foreign defamation rulings flouting First Amendment standards from being enforced in the U.S.

"The Trump administration appears to recognize the problem, and it's generally a good thing that the administration is seeking solutions to protect Americans from foreign efforts to erode their First Amendment rights," Perrino added. "How this new policy will be implemented, and whether it will have its desired effect, remains to be seen."

— (@)  
 

During February's Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vance criticized the EU's Digital Services Act for restricting speech on America-based technology platforms.

"Many of our most productive tech companies are forced to deal with the EU's Digital Services Act and the massive regulations it created about taking down content and policing so-called misinformation," Vance said. "For some, the easiest way to avoid the dilemma has been to simply block EU users in the first place."

Rubio's visa ban addresses Vance's warnings about global censorship, concerns that U.S.-based technology leaders have also echoed, with the EU's restrictions directly impacting American platforms, including Elon Musk's X and Chris Pavlovski's Rumble.

On Wednesday, Pavlovski praised Rubio for implementing the new visa restrictions against foreign censors, calling the move "an incredible win for free speech."

Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X, also expressed her support.

"We stand right alongside you, @SecRubio," she wrote in a post on the social media platform.

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

Conspiracy: Does rogue FBI agent put freedom of speech at risk?



FBI Special Agent Shay Talley-Bradley represented herself as doing an official investigation for the FBI, investigating Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.). She insisted she was digging into stolen-valor claims — before changing it to looking into his business dealings.

“This should shock the conscience of anybody who believes that the FBI should be, or in fact now has been, renovated into an objective force for good,” FBI whistleblower Steve Friend tells BlazeTV hosts Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson on “Blaze News | The Mandate.”

“The fact of the matter is that the conduct of this agent — the fact that she engaged in an either off-the-books or some sort of coercive investigative matter, a sensitive investigative matter, and involved herself in a deprivation of rights, a color of law violation — speaks volumes of the fact that the rot exists not just at the very tippy top of the FBI,” he continues.


Investigative journalist Steve Baker decided to look into Talley-Bradley’s investigation himself, after the Florida-based special agent interviewed three sources who contributed to recent Blaze News investigative stories on Mills.

Talley-Bradley initially told the sources that she was investigating the stolen-valor claims, before pivoting to his alleged business dealings. While the sources provided her with the contact information of at least five individuals who had direct knowledge of Mills’ military background, she did not follow up with those individuals.

“Are you aware that Blaze Media just came out with a story about you today and your relationship to Congressman Cory Mills?” Baker asked Talley-Bradley in a video captured by Blaze Media.

“I still have no idea what you’re talking about, sir,” Talley-Bradley responded.

“Is it true that you tried to recruit a source as an undercover operative to investigate a Blaze Media journalist?” Baker asked, before the special agent repeated that she had “no idea” what he was talking about.

Friend is disturbed by her conduct and believes it could result in criminal charges.

“The FBI furnishes you credentials,” he comments. “You’re not a secret agent as much as you might be working on things that you think are secret or classified. You’re supposed to furnish those credentials upon request to anyone. You’re supposed to be a public servant, and the fact that she’s denying that, I think, also speaks volumes again to her character.”

“Let’s say she ran background checks on anybody over at the Blaze for investigation of people, for engaging in their First Amendment protected activity — freedom of the press, freedom of speech. That, again, is a violation of database use. That’s another deprivation of rights,” Friend tells Savage and Peterson.

“So, it could be a multiple-count charge criminally against this agent,” he adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News | The Mandate'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Kill the Boer' song just a 'liberation chant' — not a call for violence, according to South African president



The South African president rejected President Donald Trump's assertion that the South African communist leader who leads chants about killing white farmers should be arrested.

President Cyril Ramaphosa met with President Trump last week in the White House, where he firmly denied the existence of a genocide or even targeted killings of white South African farmers known as the Boers.

'It's not meant to be a message that elicits or calls upon anyone to go and be killed.'

During their meeting, Trump suggested to Ramaphosa that the South African government should arrest Julius Malema, a political leader who has led chants of "shoot the Boer" and "shoot to kill" to a stadium full of supporters.

Upon returning to South Africa, Ramaphosa spoke to reporters about the idea of arrests and asserted that his country is a sovereign nation with its own laws and processes. He also excused the racist chants as freedom of expression.

"We take into account what the constitutional court also decided when it said that, you know, that slogan, 'kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' is a liberation chant and slogan."

"It's not meant to be a message that elicits or calls upon anyone to go and be killed," the president claimed. "And that is what our court decided. ... We follow the dictates of our constitution because we are a constitutional state, and we are a country where freedom of expression is in the bedrock of our constitutional arrangement."

RELATED: South Africans deny 'white genocide': 'We call ourselves the rainbow nation'

  Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) President Julius Malema sings, 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' during a campaign on May 25, 2025. Photo by Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images

Ramaphosa's remarks did not tell the whole story, though. Malema, the leader of the black nationalist communist party Economic Freedom Fighters, was actually convicted of hate speech in 2011 for singing the very same songs.

However, in 2022, South Africa's Equality Court superseded the prior conviction and determined the hate speech charges to be unconstitutional. According to Ground Up, the judge declared "society has a duty to allow and be tolerant of both popular and unpopular views of its members."

At the same time, two white South Africans have been convicted of hate speech since Ramaphosa took office.

RELATED: How Trump broke the illusion of liberal Christian 'compassion'

  

In 2018, a woman named Vicky Momberg was sentenced to three years in prison, with one year suspended, for using a derogatory word against a black policeman 48 times.

According to the BBC, Momberg allegedly had her racist rant caught on video and shared to social media. On the video, she used the term "kaffir," which is seen as a slur against black South Africans. The term originates from a word for non-Muslims in Africa who were often slaves.

In 2022, Belinda Magor was arrested after she said black women should have their uteruses cut in a WhatsApp messaging group. She also wrote, "What I say is: ban the black man. They rape, they steal, they kill, worse than any pit bull could, and they get away with it."

Magor was fined and told to issue a "written apology to black South Africans for her hate speech and not repeat the racist utterance on social media and public platforms."

South Africa's human rights commission described the woman as a "defender of racial discrimination."

Neither of these convictions were overturned on freedom of speech grounds.

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

Forcing Lawyers To Join Leftist Bar Associations Violates Basic First Amendment Freedoms

This legal battle is about preserving the fundamental right of all Americans to choose which organizations and causes they support.

Is Saudi Arabia really worse than DEI-addled Western states?



Donald Trump’s glowingly successful efforts at building relations with Arab leaders have evoked criticism from neoconservative skeptics. One such example appears in Rich Lowry’s column on “the Trump doctrine,” prominently featured in Friday’s New York Post. Though the Post has relentlessly exposed hypocritical and dishonest attacks on Trump’s domestic policies, its editors never seem quite able to throw off their constricting neoconservative view of foreign affairs.

Lowry quips that while George W. Bush sought to spread democracy everywhere, “Trump wants to spread gleaming high buildings.” While Bush appealed to high ideals, Trump, in his address to the Saudis, called for nothing more than “peace and prosperity.” In a supposedly uninspiring speech, our president praised Riyadh for “becoming not just a seat of government but a major business, cultural, and high-tech capital of the entire world.”

Before we embark on a crusade to export our values, we might first reckon with our internal troubles.

Lowry reminds his readers that Trump delivered these remarks before unworthy monarchs and emirs rather than democratically elected heads of state. “Standing for democratic ideals is an enormous part of America’s appeal around the world,” Lowry writes, “and if we get into competition with China purely over who is richer and can cut more deals, we are kicking away one of our major advantages.”

Allow me to question that assumption.

Are we really ‘democratic’?

It’s not clear why Western “democracies” in their present denatured state should be holding themselves up as a model for other societies. Before we embark on a crusade to export our values, we might first reckon with our internal troubles: the war launched by our media, educators, judges, and government bureaucrats against gender distinctions, white men, and free speech. Moreover, the deep state and its European and Canadian counterparts pose a significant threat to constitutional government — most notably, the judicial campaigns against conservative parties in Europe, particularly Germany, and the open-door immigration policies importing criminal gangs and unassimilable voters. Perhaps, we should address these matters before trying to make others more like us.

Moreover, what qualifies as a “sufficiently democratic” society in the eyes of Lowry and like-minded zealots? Is democracy compatible with gender restrictions on voting? If so, then the United States was not democratic until the passage of the 19th Amendment — or perhaps not until the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which established federal supervision of voting procedures to prevent racial discrimination. Presumably, Lowry would want us to bestow on Arab nations the exact version of democracy that suits him: American democracy in its latest manifestation — perhaps without diversity, equity, and inclusivity mandates.

To his credit, Trump is focused on addressing many of the internal problems I’ve mentioned. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has called attention to the glaringly undemocratic practices in other members of the “free world.” Trump and Vance are interested in restoring what used to be our political traditions in the West instead of engaging in regime changes elsewhere.

President Trump also understands the benefits of peace and good relations in the Middle East. If he can de-escalate conflict by negotiating with monarchs in Saudi Arabia or parliamentary leaders elsewhere, he will. While neoconservatives may grumble about Trump’s unwillingness to proclaim their preferred ideals, even Democratic politicians have praised his efforts in advancing “peace and prosperity” in the Middle East. Trump also returned from the region with more than $1 trillion in commercial deals — hardly a failure by any measure.

I also fail to see how launching a global democracy crusade will help the United States gain the upper hand in its strategic rivalry with China. Such a mission might win applause from neoconservative think tanks and editorial boards, but it would do little to shift geopolitical realities. European “democracies” may decide to buy their energy from the United States rather than Russia, but the motivation for such a decision would be material interest or fear of Trump’s reprisals rather than membership in some vestigial value community. Even if governments cloaked such decisions in democratic rhetoric, their real motivation would be something other than ideology.

Are democracies more reliable?

This brings us to another one of Lowry’s canonical teachings: “Liberal societies are, as a general matter, more reliably our friends and more reliably achieve prosperity because it is less likely that they will be interrupted by civil war or revolution.” An America run by Kamala Harris and her party might quickly disprove Lowry’s rule about democracy bringing tranquility and prosperity. Constitutional democracies can degenerate into something less palatable, and looking at the parlous state of freedom in some Western countries, I wouldn’t rely any longer on what Lowry considers “reliable.”

While Lowry clearly does not approve of monarchical, theocratic Saudi Arabia, that non-democracy has not had a revolution or civil war for centuries. Is that “reliable” enough?

Rule by the people? Not anymore in the Western world



On Friday, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency officially labeled Alternative for Germany — the country’s most popular conservative party — as a “right-wing extremist” organization. The nationalist party surged to second place in February’s federal election, winning 20.8% of the vote. This new designation grants the ruling government expanded powers to surveil Alternative for Germany leaders and supporters and sets the stage for an outright ban.

Germany has now joined a growing list of Western governments that delay elections, disqualify candidates, and ban opposition parties — all in the name of defending democracy.

Democracy has become a marketing slogan — useful for justifying war and globalist expansion, but disposable when it interferes with ruling-class priorities.

To call Germany’s relationship with authoritarianism “complicated” understates the case. The country’s historical memory fixates on Nazism as the ultimate expression of right-wing extremism and mass atrocity. But that singular focus conveniently ignores the fact that the Soviet Union, which helped defeat the Third Reich, imposed its own brutal regime across East Germany until the Berlin Wall fell.

Modern Germany has seen tyranny from both the far right and the far left. Yet its national identity now orbits entirely around a rejection of right-wing politics. Anti-fascism has become something like a state religion. But when a country builds its identity on shame and self-repudiation, it risks cultural collapse. We’ve seen the same pathology infect America, where elite institutions push a national narrative defined entirely by slavery and racial guilt.

Every nation has dark chapters. A mature society learns from them. It doesn’t define itself by them forever.

While German history explains some of its deep aversion to nationalism, the trend of suppressing populist movements in the name of democracy has spread far beyond Berlin.

Brazil’s Supreme Court banned former President Jair Bolsonaro from seeking office until 2030. Romania’s Constitutional Court voided its 2024 election, citing supposed Russian influence in the rise of populist candidate Călin Georgescu. And in the United States, courts came dangerously close to removing Donald Trump from the ballot — while the president now fights legal battles over whether he can exercise executive power at all under Article II of the Constitution.

This isn’t democracy defending itself. It’s ruling elites trying to outlaw their opposition.

Western elites justify their dominance by invoking democracy and individual liberty. That wasn’t always the case. The West once called itself Christendom — a civilizational identity grounded in faith, tradition, and truth. But it abandoned that foundation in favor of secular platitudes.

The United States has waged entire wars in the name of exporting democracy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan — nations that never wanted it and were never going to keep it. These projects were doomed from the start. Yet at least they wrapped American power in the language of benevolence.

Today, even that fig leaf has disappeared.

The modern West treats democracy as a branding exercise, not a principle. Leaders like Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, and Keir Starmer love lecturing the world about “liberal norms,” even as they jail political dissidents, censor speech, and turn domestic intelligence services against their own citizens. They condemn Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism while staying silent as NATO allies crush dissent at home.

Democracy has become a marketing slogan — useful for justifying war and globalist expansion, but disposable when it interferes with ruling-class priorities.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio both slammed the German government for labeling Alternative for Germany as extremist. On social media, Rubio went further, blaming Germany’s open-border policies for the Alternative for Germany rise and calling the state’s surveillance powers tyranny in disguise.

Germany’s Foreign Office issued a formal reply, insisting the decision stemmed from an “independent” and “thorough” investigation.

The claim is absurd on its face.

No government can “independently” investigate and condemn its most prominent political opposition — especially not when the accusation is “extremism,” a term that now means little more than holding views the ruling class finds inconvenient.

I’ve made no secret of my dislike of modern mass democracy. But the original concept, at least, had merit. Democracy once meant rule by the demos — the people of a particular nation, rooted in shared history, culture, and civic identity. Its legitimacy came not from procedure or process but from the bonds between citizens and their country.

Today’s ruling class has twisted that definition beyond recognition. As I’ve written before, globalist elites now use the word “democracy” to describe a system governed by unaccountable institutions they alone control. Populism, they say, is dangerous. Democracy, they insist, must be preserved. But in practice, they oppose the popular will and protect only the process they’ve captured.

Elections have become sacraments — rituals that legitimize the rule of bureaucracies, not expressions of the people’s will. The process is sacred, not the outcome. That’s why Western politicians now speak of “our sacred democracy,” which must be defended not from tyranny, but from actual democratic movements.

Western leaders still try to justify their global power by invoking freedom and liberty. But their credibility has collapsed. It’s farcical to hear men like Justin Trudeau or Keir Starmer preach about “shared Western values” while jailing political opponents and silencing dissent at home.

The moral authority of liberal democracy is crumbling. And the cause isn’t Putin or China. It’s Western leaders who’ve gutted the electoral process and replaced it with rule by managerial elites.

The Trump administration should continue to expose this hypocrisy. But it also must act. That means offering political asylum to dissidents facing persecution in places like Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Americans rightly recoil at repression in Russia. They should feel the same revulsion when it comes from our “allies” in Berlin, Ottawa, or London.

Why is the New York Times carrying water for the CCP?



In a prior article, I exposed the tangled web of the New York Times’ obsessive propaganda series, which attempted to discredit Shen Yun Performing Arts.

As it turned out, the lead author of the series, Nicole Hong, is only a degree of separation away from the Chinese Communist Party, which has launched a global propaganda campaign against the group and Falun Gong, the spiritual movement that founded Shen Yun. The CCP has targeted Falun Gong for extermination since 1999. Hong’s father has worked at two CCP-backed universities and was an honorary overseas director for a group with ties to high-ranking CCP officials.

The New York Times began a spree of desperate articles attempting to defend communism.

Though this may explain why Hong was motivated to do the CCP’s bidding, why did the New York Times allow it?

A walk through the paper’s history with communism leaves no doubt that its recent attacks on Shen Yun are consistent with its past willingness to carry water for authoritarian regimes.

Whitewashing communism

Perhaps the most infamous example of the Times doing the bidding for a communist regime was its coverage of Josef Stalin, who was responsible for more deaths through mass killings than Nazi Germany.

Walter Duranty, the Times’ Moscow bureau chief, wrote 13 propaganda articles, winning him a Pulitzer Prize in 1932. The articles gave a favorable view of Soviet communist policies, downplayed Stalin’s brutality, and claimed that the wealthy weren’t being physically exterminated but instead “liquidated as a class.”

In short, Duranty was doing the 1930s equivalent of clicking “copy and paste” on the very same Soviet propaganda he was being presented — without performing the due diligence expected of a journalist.

In 1933, Duranty outright denied the famine that was visible before his very eyes. He called reports of starvation “exaggeration or malignant propaganda,” despite evidence to the contrary from other journalists.

Hollywood got it right — for once

The Times’ reporting was so misleading that even liberal Hollywood pushed back. The 2019 film “Mr. Jones” tells the true story of Gareth Jones, the journalist who first reported on the Soviet famine of 1930 to 1933. That famine killed as many as 8.7 million people, including up to 5 million during the Holodomor in Ukraine and 2.5 million during the Asharshylyk in Kazakhstan.

In 2017, the Times began a spree of desperate articles attempting to defend communism. Its “Red Century” series, launched to mark the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, included several opinion pieces accused of romanticizing or downplaying the horrors of communism.

In one example, the Times ran an article headlined “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism,” written by Kristen R. Ghodsee, who later published a book with the same title. The piece typified the paper’s vain effort to find redeeming qualities in socialist and communist systems.

From the headline alone, the piece became one of history’s most mercilessly mocked New York Times articles. But those who read past the headline found even more to laugh at.

Among the “evidence” Ghodsee presented was an interview she conducted with a 65-year-old Bulgarian woman who had lived under communism for 43 years. The woman claimed that the free market — rather than aging out of her 20s — hampered her “ability to develop healthy amorous relationships.”

The millions of women who starved under the communist regime could not be reached for comment.

Bias laid bare

That was just one of the absurd articles the Times published that year defending communism. Other doozies included an article portraying Vladimir Lenin as an environmentalist whose love for nature led to conservation efforts in Russia — while ignoring the environmental destruction under his successors.

Another piece argued that the American Communist Party in the mid-20th century gave people a sense of moral authority and purpose in fighting social injustice while downplaying its complicity in covering up or supporting Soviet atrocities. Yet another article argued that Bolsheviks raised their children with “world literature” and communal values, suggesting a sophisticated cultural upbringing under communism — an ideology that destroys culture.

A number of reasons could explain why the New York Times might amplify an anti-Shen Yun narrative beyond a supposed journalistic duty. For one, the paper has a well-documented anti-religious bias. It may also be waging a proxy battle due to Shen Yun’s ties to the Epoch Times — a competitor that heavily criticizes the Times.

The reality is that Shen Yun is growing, and a juicy exposé on a “mysterious” financially successful dance troupe will drive clicks and subscriptions, especially amid the Times’ desperate bid to maintain the relevance it deservedly lost.