On Monday night, violence erupted at UC Berkeley. Again.

That sentence alone might not shock anyone. Berkeley and riots go together like gender studies and Marxist slogans — a tradition older than most of its students. But this time, the target was different.

Christians and conservatives should keep showing up. Every TPUSA Faith event, every lecture, every debate — attend them. The more witnesses, the less room for lies.

The mob didn’t come for a politician or a protest. It came for families.

The crowd surrounded a Turning Point USA Faith event hosted by an officially recognized student club, featuring Christian apologist Frank Turek and atheist Peter Boghossian, along with comedian Rob Schneider and British commentator and satirist Andrew Doyle. In one evening, TPUSA offered more intellectual diversity than the entire Berkeley humanities department has managed all year.

The riot that proved the stereotype

Picture families walking into a campus hall to hear a Christian and an atheist debate civilly. Now picture an angry crowd blocking the doors, throwing bottles, lighting fires, and chanting, “Punch a fascist in the face!”

Their only problem: No fascists were present. Unless, of course, you classify Turek, Boghossian, and a few Christian undergrads as Mussolini’s heirs. But that’s Berkeley logic — where “diversity” means everyone thinks the same and disagreement is treated like violence.

The radical left has no greater enemies than Christianity and free speech. Combine the two, and leftists melt down faster than a Berkeley sophomore trying to define the word “woman.”

How did we get here?

Berkeley has been the stage for riots since the 1960s. If campus unrest were Broadway, Berkeley would be “The Phantom of the Opera” — always running, always loud, always masked. But tradition doesn’t excuse terror.

The deeper problem is the culture feeding it. In today’s universities, students are marinated in ideology, not inquiry. The humanities have traded Socrates for slogans and replaced debate with denunciation.

This worldview breeds fragility and fanaticism: emotional dependence on outrage, intellectual intolerance, and the conviction that disagreement equals danger. It’s no wonder students' activism now mimics the very authoritarianism they claim to resist.

Antifa’s unofficial motto might as well be: “Accuse your opponents of what you plan to do.”

The media’s complicity

Right on cue, the Guardian rushed to describe the riot as “mostly peaceful.” That phrase should be Berkeley’s new marketing slogan: Mostly Peaceful Since 1964.

The truth is simpler. The TPUSA attendees were peaceful. The rioters were not. They screamed in people’s faces, hurled debris, blocked exits, and called it “defending democracy.” Apparently, democracy now means assaulting Christians.

The radical playbook

If you want to decode the left’s method, just reverse the leftists' accusations. They say, “Don’t demonize others,” while labeling everyone to the right of Lenin a fascist. They say, “All voices deserve to be heard,” while drowning opponents in primal screams.

They say, “Fight oppression,” while physically intimidating families trying to attend a faith event.

At Arizona State University, a colleague of mine once wrote, “I’m all for free speech — but not for bigots,” to justify banning Charlie Kirk from campus. Translation: I love freedom — as long as no one I dislike exercises it.

This is the moral logic of the modern left: Disagreement equals harm, and harm justifies censorship — or violence.

The 'radical' minority that isn’t

We keep calling these leftists radicals, but that implies rarity. Surveys say otherwise. The ideological monoculture dominates academia. The “moderate left” isn’t moderating anything; it’s supplying the radicals with silence, funding, and applause.

The tenured class that claims to value “diversity of thought” has created an institution where dissenters are treated like heretics.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

What must be done

First, Christians and conservatives should keep showing up. Every TPUSA Faith event, every lecture, every debate — attend them. The more witnesses, the less room for lies.

Second, tell your state legislators you don’t want tax dollars funding violent intolerance disguised as higher learning.

Third, warn every parent and student what really happens on college campuses. Prepare your kids to challenge the ideological orthodoxy behind DEI, critical theory, and the alphabet soup of new moral dogmas.

Finally, support alternatives. Seek out institutions that teach truth instead of propaganda — and organizations like TPUSA Faith that defend free inquiry.

That’s why I started my Substack: to expose the rot inside American universities before your children discover it the hard way.

The cure for intellectual darkness is light. The cure for ideological riots is courage. And the cure for the Berkeley disease begins with showing up, speaking truth, and refusing to bow.

The Antifa mob at Berkeley showed us what evil looks like

Something in America’s atmosphere has shifted. A chill has entered public life. The temperature of our moral climate has dropped, and too many pretend not to notice.

Just days ago, outside a Turning Point USA event at the University of California, Berkeley, a mob gathered to protest, riot, shout down students, and mock the death of Charlie Kirk, chanting about his assassination as if it were a punch line.

The world does not need more outrage. It needs more heroes — ordinary people who will stand, speak, and serve even when no one applauds.

It was not a peaceful political protest — it was cruelty on display, a glimpse of how numb parts of our culture have become to basic humanity. You can feel the shift in moments like that — not in policy debates or press releases, but in the tone of the crowd, in the hard edge of its laughter.

A nation in the cold

We all learned Newton’s third law in school: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is not just a rule of motion; it speaks truth about reality itself.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Every act, every choice, demands a response. When Charlie Kirk was killed, the impact of his assassin’s bullet rippled through the soul of a nation. Millions felt it at once, as if something beneath the surface had cracked.

But out of that shock came something extraordinary. Instead of despair, there was revival. People who had not prayed in years began to whisper to God again. Vital questions rose out of grief: What is truth? What is courage? What is my purpose?

The counterforce

What we are seeing now — from Berkeley’s riots to the venom spreading online — is that pushback. It is the equal and opposite force. The lies about Charlie’s death, the hatred masquerading as justice, the growing comfort with cruelty — they are all part of something older, something that has always despised awakening.

The eternal struggle between good and evil has stepped out from behind the curtain and taken center stage. Whether we wanted it or not, we have been written into this story where both light and darkness work through human hands. That means each one of us has a role to play.

What heroism really means

Heroism is not reserved for the famous or the fearless. It is not about applause or recognition. It is the quiet resolve to do what is right when it would be easier to stay silent.

Courage starts small — the parent who refuses to surrender her values, the student who speaks truth in a hostile classroom. These small acts are the foundation of moral civilization.

Courage is a muscle. If you wait for a grand moment to use it, you will find it lacking.

Heroism is giving something of yourself — your time, your voice, your loyalty. It may go unseen, but it is never wasted. The heroes who carry civilization forward are rarely remembered by name. But they are remembered in the lives they touch and in the good they preserve.

Photo by Ismael Adnan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Standing when it matters most

We live in an age when fear is constant — fear of loss, fear of exposure, fear of being alone. But fear is not destiny. It is a test. And courage is not the absence of fear; it is acting while afraid. When you tell the truth, when you remain loyal, when you choose what is right over what is safe — that is courage.

The world does not need more outrage. It needs more heroes — ordinary people who will stand, speak, and serve even when no one applauds. This is a dark time, yes. But we should be thankful for it, because in the darkness, we discover who we are meant to be.

You do not need to change the world. You only need to change what stands before you — your home, your community. That is where real heroism lives.

When you feel fear, act anyway. That is courage. That is faith. And that is how light triumphs over darkness.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

NATO Member’s Top Court Considers Whether Saying Men And Women Are Different Is A War Crime

Finland's Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday about whether quoting the Bible is illegal 'hate speech' under its war crimes laws.

Jay Jones proves Democrats will excuse anything for power

Jay Jones, the Democrats’ nominee for Virginia attorney general, has become a general travesty. Disqualified by his own words and actions, he keeps running while Democrats refuse to call him off. Apparently, they still think he deserves the office.

On Aug. 8, 2022, Jones, who had recently resigned from the Virginia House of Delegates after representing Norfolk, texted Republican state delegate Carrie Coyner about tributes to former legislator Joe Johnson Jr. One tribute came from then-Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert. Jones dismissed Johnson’s centrism and Gilbert’s praise with crude contempt. His texts quickly turned menacing.

Might Jones’ first prosecution be against himself? Doubtful. But how could he prosecute others for the same vile behavior he once celebrated?

Jones called Gilbert “that POS.” He wrote, “If those guys die before me, I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves.” He added that if he could shoot Hitler, Pol Pot, and Gilbert but had only two bullets, Gilbert would get “two bullets to the head” — “every time,” he said.

He accused Gilbert and his wife, Jennifer, of “breeding little fascists” and wished that Gilbert’s children would “die in their mother’s arms.” Coyner urged him to stop. He should have heeded her advice.

Half-hearted apologies

Jones has tried to apologize since his texts surfaced. At the time, he showed no hesitation or doubt about his vile remarks. For more than three years, he expressed no remorse until the prospect of consequences forced his hand — plenty of time to craft an apology and even longer to locate a conscience.

This episode isn’t Jones’ first disqualifying act. Coyner recalled Jones once saying that “if a few [policemen] died, that they would move on, not shooting people, not killing people.”

In January 2022, Jones was convicted of driving 116 mph — 46 mph over the limit. A court fined him $1,500 and ordered 1,000 hours of community service. He spent half of that time working for his own political action committee, Meet Our Moment.

The attorney general serves as Virginia’s top cop and prosecutor. According to the commonwealth’s website:

The Office of the Attorney General provides legal services to the Commonwealth’s agencies, boards, commissions, colleges and universities. They are the Commonwealth’s law firm, defending the interests of Virginians and Virginia government and also work with law enforcement throughout the Commonwealth to prepare for emerging public safety threats and to promote successful, secure communities.

Jones’ record conflicts directly with the job he seeks. Voters might ask how Jones can protect Virginians from crimes he’s committed himself? The statute of limitations on threats is one year for a misdemeanor. But Virginia has no statute of limitations on felonies.

Might his first prosecution be against himself? Doubtful. But how could he prosecute others for the same vile behavior he once celebrated — or those who endanger police officers, as he once suggested was necessary?

Unaccountable stupidity

A state legislator’s role differs sharply from that of the attorney general. A legislator’s foolishness, however damaging, remains limited to the district that elected him and can be tempered by the rest of the General Assembly. The attorney general, by contrast, represents all Virginians — including law enforcement and the entire state government. His mistakes ripple through every level of public service and civic life.

Trevor Metcalfe/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Virginians pay the price

But Jones and his army of Virginia Democrats think otherwise. Their refusal to remove him from the ticket speaks volumes. It shows they believe, just as Jones does, that he’s entitled to be attorney general — a stance as damning as his own text messages.

Jones’ desire to be attorney general and his support from Democrats has outweighed his lack of objective qualifications for the job. Virginians should not have to bear the price of their vile partisan game.

God doesn't make anyone gay: The case against banning 'conversion therapy'

In response to to a recent Supreme Court case, last week Fr. James Martin posted on X that so-called “conversion therapy” should be banned.

That’s not compassion. That’s censorship dressed up as virtue. And as a Catholic priest, he should know better.

When a young man says, 'I want help living chastely,' telling him his request is unrealistic and maybe even illegal — that’s cruelty.

This case, Chiles v. Salazar, isn’t forcing anyone to change. It’s about the freedom of young people, their parents, and counselors to even talk about faith, identity, and healing.

Refuting 'born this way'

Early this summer, my Ruth Institute colleague Fr. Paul Sullins and I submitted an amicus brief to the court concerning the Chiles case. Fr. Sullins is a former sociology professor at Catholic University of America. I am a former economics professor at Yale University. In our brief, we summarized research on sexual orientation and on change therapy.

Fr. James Martin’s core argument actually comes at the end of his post, where he says:

“Like it or not, understand it or not, this is how God made them. Accepting the way God made them is part of the 'respect, compassion and sensitivity' that the Catechism calls for.”

Notice that he treats the “born this way” idea as something so obvious that it doesn’t even need to be defended. However, this is factually incorrect.

In 2019, a massive study of the human genome clearly showed there is no “gay gene.” The genetic contribution to self-identification as “gay” is roughly the same as a genetic contribution to other complex behavioral systems, such as the tendency to alcoholism or other kinds of addictions.

Even before 2019, studies of identical twins cast serious doubt on the claim that people are born gay. These studies examine the concordance between twins. If it were really true that "gay is the new black," then concordance between twins should be 100%. The actual number is closer to 30%.

As a matter of fact, even the American Psychological Association admits:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Bad science, bad theology

The APA is correct when it says that many possible factors contribute to the development of persistent same-sex attraction or a gay identity. A set of contributing factors is not at all the same as one cause, as if one and only one thing were in play. The Ruth Institute’s report “Refuting the Top 5 Gay Myths” explains this in more detail. You can obtain this report at no charge by subscribing to our newsletter.

For now, let us state plainly: The claim that “this is how God made them” is bad science. It is certainly bad theology, as Fr. Martin ought to know. God doesn’t make anybody gay.

And God certainly doesn’t put anybody in the “wrong body.” That idea is physical nonsense and metaphysical nonsense. Your body is you!

Fr. Martin says there’s “no evidence” that counseling like this helps. No evidence? Seriously? That’s simply false.

Photo by Dendron via Getty Images

Flawed 'evidence'

Our own research at the Ruth Institute shows that talk therapy — not shock therapy or any other aversive techniques, but the talk therapy that is really at stake in this case — has helped many people find peace and stability in the face of unwanted same-sex attraction.

And the so-called “evidence” used to ban therapy that helps people reduce their feelings of unwanted same-sex attraction? There are a lot of problems with those studies, which we cover thoroughly in our amicus brief.

The most important objection is that these studies do not take account of pre-counseling distress. We found evidence that the people who are the most distressed and the most suicidal are also the most likely to seek therapy. If you correlate “lifetime suicide attempts” with “did you ever go for therapy,” some of the people were suicidal before they ever went to a counselor. It is not correct to blame the counseling for something that happened before the counseling took place!

Fr. Sullins found that taking account of the before and after basically obliterated the results of one of the most commonly cited studies that supposedly shows that “conversion therapy causes suicide.”

The truth will set you free

Besides, the claim that there is “no evidence” is a recklessly strong one. What about all the people who have Left Pride Behind, some with the help of therapy, some without? Each one of them counters the claim that “no one can change” and “therapy never works.” Even a single counter-example is enough to disprove these strong claims. And at the Ruth Institute, we’ve got a lot of cases! Don’t their stories deserve to be heard? These are real people whose stories are being systematically silenced in the public square.

I’ve listened to many of these stories. My friends who have Left Pride Behind consistently tell me that what they needed was people to walk with them, in genuine compassion.

Fr. Martin says, “It’s not a Christian value to do harm.” I agree.

But denying someone the freedom to live by his or her faith is harm.

When a young man says, “I want help living chastely,” telling him his request is unrealistic and maybe even illegal — that’s cruelty. My friends tell me how much they valued their friends and family members who stood by them as they struggled with temptation or with relapses or with discouragement. They cherish those friends as true brothers and sisters in Christ

Christian love always points to truth. The Ruth Institute stands for the freedom to heal — the freedom to live your faith fully, even when it’s unpopular or challenging.

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the state can control what you’re allowed to say in the privacy of a counseling room. Let us hope the justices opt for freedom of speech and religion. That’s something every Catholic — including priests — should defend.

I invite Fr. Martin, and anyone who shares his views, to look again at the gospel and the science. Jesus never banned the truth — because truth sets us free.

‘Must Stay Gay’ laws face their overdue reckoning

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could reshape counseling freedom across America. The law at issue is one of several so-called “conversion therapy bans” that restrict what therapists may say to their clients.

The Ruth Institute calls them what they are: “Must Stay Gay” laws.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

These laws silence counselors and harm families, especially young people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and sexual confusion. The question before the court is simple: Does the First Amendment allow a state to dictate which viewpoints a licensed therapist may express?

A strong signal from the court

The central issue in Chiles is viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s law allows therapists to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction or gender confusion — but forbids them from helping a client resist or change those feelings.

Justice Samuel Alito captured the absurdity in one hypothetical, which I paraphrase (the whole argument is here):

An adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist; he feels uneasy and guilty about feeling attracted to other boys. He asks the therapist to help him feel better as a gay man. Colorado law permits this. Another adolescent male goes to a licensed therapist and asks him to help him feel less attracted to other boys. Colorado law forbids this.

That’s government picking sides in a moral debate, not equality under the law.

When pressed, Colorado’s attorney stumbled badly. Alito then asked whether “medical consensus” has ever been wrong. She hesitated, and he reminded her of Buck v. Bell,the notorious 1927 decision that upheld forced sterilization based on “progressive” science. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed the common progressive opinion at the time: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In closing, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell, who represents therapist Kaley Chiles, delivered the knockout line:

The state of Colorado allows a 12-year-old girl to seek counseling to affirm her so-called gender identity as a boy without parental consent — but forbids her, even with her parents, from seeking help to accept herself as female.

That’s blatant viewpoint discrimination. On this point, the justices seemed receptive.

Junk science and the ‘born this way’ myth

The state also claimed that no one has ever changed their sexual attractions — a claim as false as it is arrogant. One counterexample disproves it, and there are thousands. Our amicus brief cites studies and testimonies from men and women who experienced real change, often through talk therapy.

Colorado’s attorney dug herself in deeper, asserting that all theories linking abuse or family dynamics to sexual identity have been “debunked.” They haven’t. The research she relies on doesn’t distinguish between minors and adults, licensed and unlicensed therapists, or talk therapy and coercive “aversion” practices.

That’s ideology, not science. And the justices noticed.

Photo by Sakorn Sukkasemsakorn via Getty Images

The state’s lawyer also leaned on the claim that being gay is innate and immutable. She presented no evidence for that assertion, only the assumption that it must be true. But twin and genetic studies contradict it. Many people once identified as LGBT and no longer do. They exist, they matter, and they expose the lie behind the “born this way” narrative.

What comes next

The court offered no hints about how it will rule on the immutability question. But the justices heard enough to know that Colorado’s law enforces one approved orthodoxy and punishes dissent. That’s unconstitutional — and morally indefensible.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

Here at the Ruth Institute, we’ll keep pressing the truth: “Must Stay Gay” is not OK.

Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

stellalevi via iStock/Getty Images

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

YouTube offers 'second chances' to banned creators — but with huge asterisks

YouTube announced in an official blog post on Thursday that it will give second chances to some users who had their channels terminated.

In late September, banned creators got the impression that they would be reinstated on YouTube after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote on X that Google had committed to allowing "ALL creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations to return to the platform."

When controversial commentators Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes tested out the claim by starting new YouTube channels, they were promptly removed from the platform.

'We may take action to protect the community.'

YouTube quickly responded by saying it had not yet rolled out the new pilot program, while a spokesman for Rep. Jordan told Blaze News that the new program would only "extend at a minimum to any users banned for policies no longer in effect," such as policies pertaining to alleged misinformation about COVID-19 and elections.

In YouTube's new blog post, the company wrote that it has heard from creators "loud and clear" that they want more options to return to the platform.

"So we’re happy to share that we’re introducing a pilot program to offer some qualified creators an opportunity to rebuild their presence on YouTube," the blog stated. "Starting today, some previously terminated creators will have the opportunity to request a new YouTube channel."

The platform noted that "not every type of channel termination" will be eligible, however, starting with only those who have been banned from the platform for at least one year.

— (@)

YouTube went on to say it would "consider several factors" when evaluating which excommunicated creators could apply for a new channel.

This included whether or not the creator has "committed particularly severe or persistent violations" of YouTube's community guidelines, or whether the creator's "on- or off-platform activity harmed or may continue to harm the YouTube community, like channels that endanger kids' safety."

YouTube also revealed that the latest pilot program would not be available to anyone banned for copyright infringement, or those who have violated the "creator responsibility" policies.

This area is likely the most contentious portion of the new program rules, as it covers a wide swath of undefined activity that extends to the content creator's personal life and conduct outside of YouTube.

YouTube states that a creator could be in violation of the responsibility code if his or her behavior "harms" YouTube's "users, community, employees or ecosystem."

"We may take action to protect the community," YouTube explains. An attached video added that conduct that loses the platform ad revenue can also be considered a violation.

"YouTube and advertisers don't want to be associated with that level of craziness," the video host said sternly. "And when advertisers pull their spend, everybody loses."

"Inappropriate" behavior can also include the intention to cause malicious harm to others, or "participating in abuse or violence, demonstrating cruelty."

- YouTube

By now, creators know that such vague terminology can and will be used against them in the court of YouTube appeals, with the appeal process throwing up a whole other barrier within the new program.

If banned creators lose an appeal, they will also have to endure the mandatory one-year period before applying through the second chances program.

Another hurdle arises if a creator deleted his or her own channel. "Creators who deleted their YouTube channel/Google account will not be able to see the ‘request a new channel’ option at this time," YouTube wrote.

Creators will know they are eligible for the second chances program simply by seeing an option to request a new channel when they log into the YouTube Studio on their computer through their previously deleted channel.

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

Free speech is a core American value

Freedom of speech on university campuses has collapsed. Left-leaning college administrators, faculty, and students have been silencing conservative voices, and conservative students are increasingly adopting the left’s errant ways. The Trump administration has launched a strong counterattack that also seems poised to suppress speech.

The First Amendment’s free speech guarantees are at the core of our liberties. As Justice Louis Brandeis explained in Whitney v. California(1927), “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.

Though set out in a concurring opinion, Justice Brandeis’ counter-speech doctrine has become the bedrock of free speech jurisprudence. In the milestone First Amendment case of United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Justice Brandeis, opining, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”

Many in Gen Z and younger Millennials would beg to differ. To many of these students and recent graduates, particularly — but not only — on the left, offensive speech is violence that should be silenced — and with physical violence, if necessary.

A telling survey

For the last six years, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has surveyed tens of thousands of students at hundreds of American universities to evaluate the status of free speech on campuses. Its most recent survey, in collaboration with pollster College Pulse and RealClearEducation, included 68,510 students at 257 universities.

The results are troubling. Together with other surveys, campus activism, and social media invective, a considerable decline in support for free speech is manifest, particularly among younger Americans on the left.

FIRE’s scores are based on 12 components, including student perceptions of six factors, three areas of campus speech policies, and three types of speech controversies. FIRE generates a blended score on a 100-point scale, which it converts to letter grades. Claremont McKenna College (not affiliated with Claremont Institute) received the highest score, 79.86, and Columbia University’s Barnard College the lowest, 40.74. My alma mater, Columbia College, was next lowest at 42.89.

Just 11 of the 257 schools surveyed received a grade of C or higher; 14 received a C-minus; 63 ranged from D-minus to D-plus; and 168 institutions — nearly two-thirds —received an F. Of the top-10 schools, only Claremont McKenna did better than a C grade, scraping by with a B-minus, though FIRE observed that but for rounding scores, the college would have received a C-plus. Each of the other nine top-ranked schools received a C.

According to FIRE, the lowest-ranked schools are home to restrictive speech policies, threats to student press freedom, speaker cancellations, and the quashing of student protests. Only 36% of students said that their school’s administration protects free speech. To the contrary, the great majority of campuses are inhospitable to faculty and students who oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion, observe religious tenets, are pro-life, favor Israel in its struggle with Hamas, or otherwise fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Top-down indoctrination

The most troubling result of FIRE’s survey and other recent studies is that educators in both K-12 and higher education are indoctrinating students in ideologies that are completely adverse to free speech.

FIRE warned that there has been a “steady erosion of free expression at colleges and universities,” adding that “the atmosphere isn’t just cautious — it’s hostile.” To stop speakers with whom they disagree, at least 71% of students surveyed (a high) support shouting; 54% (a high) endorse blocking other students from attending a speech on campus; and 34% (also a high) support the use of violence at least some of the time.

The FIRE survey found that 76% of students would stop someone from saying that Black Lives Matter is a hate group; 74% would stop a speaker from saying that transgender people have a mental disorder; and 60% would not allow a speaker to say that abortion should be completely illegal. These numbers suggest almost universal support from left-leaning students to bar speakers with whom they disagree, and at least some support from conservatives. American liberals used to champion free speech, which was the message of those angered by Disney’s suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.

Smaller majorities, comprised chiefly of conservative students, would bar speakers from advocating that the Catholic Church is a pedophilic institution (62%), that the police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan (62%), or that children should be allowed to transition without parental consent (51%). While I disagree with these perspectives, it is not conservative doctrine to bar speakers who have bad ideas.

Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.

A more careful review of Claremont McKenna’s scores and the national data demonstrates the fervor of left-leaning students to suppress speech with which they disagree. Claremont McKenna ranked only 24th for tolerance of conservative speakers and 186th in the closely correlated category of tolerating differences. Overall, most campuses received higher marks for tolerating controversial liberal speakers than for tolerating controversial conservative speakers.

On a positive note, 79% of respondents thought their college protects free speech, and about half would feel comfortable disagreeing with their professors on controversial political topics. However, anecdotal evidence and surveys suggest that conservative students would feel less secure in speaking candidly than liberals.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

One-sided censorship

A decline in support for free speech and an increase in support for violence to suppress opposing views go hand in hand in authoritarian regimes. According to a recent report from Vanderbilt University’s the Future of Free Speech project, over the past decade, the number of countries limiting speech has far outnumbered those expanding it. Of the countries surveyed, the United States had the third-largest decline in support for free speech since the last study was published in 2021.

According to Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech, the decline in the U.S. represents fundamental shifts in values within a short period. While older Americans (ages 55 and over) have maintained relatively stable attitudes, showing only single-digit declines in most categories, the steep drops among younger cohorts raise profound questions about the future of free expression in America. College-educated Americans show another surprising shift. This group, traditionally associated with openness to diverse viewpoints, has markedly decreased its support for controversial speech since 2021.

The Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups. Only 57% say such speech should be permitted, a result driven by those on the left. Tolerance for religiously offensive speech declined from 71% in 2021 to 57% this year, a result driven by those on the right.

In a recent YouGov poll, 25% of those who are very liberal agreed that violence is acceptable to achieve political goals, as did 17% of liberals, but only 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who are very conservative approved. Eleven percent of adults said that political violence can be justified, while 72% disagreed. By contrast, for those ages 18 to 29, 19% believe violence can be justified, and just 51% disagreed. Ironically, while 65% of all adults believe violence is justified for self-defense, just 60% of those ages 19 to 20 agree. Their views may be associated with sympathy for criminals as perceived victims of systemic oppression.

Justifying violence

In April, the nonpartisan Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University issued a report based on its extensive polling that concluded “widespread justiﬁcation for lethal violence — including assassination — among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users.” NCRI reported that these “attitudes are not fringe — they reﬂect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse. Cyber-social platforms — particularly Bluesky — play a strong predictive role in amplifying this culture.”

More than 2,100 students were arrested during campus protests last year. Though demonstrations continue, they have been smaller in 2025 since the Trump administration’s crackdown on universities that have enabled anti-Semitic demonstrations.

The administration is pressuring universities to end anti-Semitism and take down barriers to free speech by revoking visas for foreign students who have endorsed Hamas or used violence to support Palestinian causes, and by suspending funding for leading universities that fail to defend the rights of Jewish students and faculty, including Columbia, Harvard, Brown, UCLA, and the University of Pennsylvania. At least 60 colleges and universities are being investigated by the Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their handling of anti-Semitic discrimination.

The Washington Postrecently reported that the Trump administration is developing a plan that would give an advantage for research grants to schools that pledge to adhere to administration policies on DEI and combating anti-Semitism. According to the Post, universities could be asked to affirm that admissions and hiring decisions are based on merit, that specified factors are taken into account when considering foreign student applications, and that college costs are not out of line with the value students receive.

Photo by Heather Diehl/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

While a requirement that universities adhere to the law to receive funding is sound, a requirement that they adopt discretionary policies preferred by the administration, or avoid criticizing its objectives, is not. Much as I would likely support the administration’s policies, the time will come when Democrats reclaim the presidency.

I don’t want them to impose a radical left agenda on universities as a condition of funding. Particularly because Democrats would encounter a sympathetic audience, their effectiveness would be far greater than any benefits that the Trump administration might achieve by suppressing dissent.

Numerous educators have been suspended or terminated for blaming Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Kirk or MAGA, or even openly endorsing Kirk’s murder. A Washington Post columnist was fired, Jimmy Kimmel was suspended for four nights, and investigations are proceeding against members of the military and federal agents who posted intemperate thoughts on X and Bluesky.

Root out the rot

I have written extensively on loyalty tests, cancel culture, and radical left bias at American universities, as well as the Biden administration’s collaboration with, and coercion of, social media platforms to silence conservative views. I opposed those actions not because of my agreement with those who were censored but rather because I support the First Amendment.

For many years, the rot on American campuses has spread as the radical left has pummeled and marginalized conservative voices. Under intensive indoctrination about safe spaces, intersectionality, and oppressor ideology, too many Americans under 35 have lost track of American exceptionalism and the beauty and meaning of free speech.

Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on the American Mind.

Liberty cannot survive a culture that cheers assassins

When 20-year-old loner Thomas Matthew Crooks ascended a sloped roof in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and opened fire, he unleashed a torrent of clichés. Commentators and public figures avoided the term “assassination attempt,” even if the AR-15 was trained on the head of the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Instead, they condemned “political violence.”

“There is absolutely no place for political violence in our democracy,” former President Barack Obama said. One year later, he added the word “despicable” to his condemnation of the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. That was an upgrade from two weeks prior, when he described the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School by a transgender person as merely “unnecessary.”

Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

Anyone fluent in post-9/11 rhetoric knows that political violence is the domain of terrorists and lone wolf ideologues, whose manifestos will soon be unearthed by federal investigators, deciphered by the high priests of our therapeutic age, and debated by partisans on cable TV.

The attempt to reduce it to the mere atomized individual, however, is a modern novelty. From the American Revolution to the Civil War, from the 1863 draft riots to the 1968 MLK riots, from the spring of Rodney King to the summer of George Floyd, the United States has a long history of people resorting to violence to achieve political ends by way of the mob.

Since the January 6 riot that followed the 2020 election, the left has persistently attempted to paint the right as particularly prone to mob action. But as the online response to the murder of Charlie Kirk demonstrates — with thousands of leftists openly celebrating the gory, public assassination of a young father — the vitriol that drives mob violence is endemic to American political discourse and a perpetual threat to order.

America’s founders understood this all too well.

In August 1786, a violent insurrection ripped through the peaceful Massachusetts countryside. After the end of the Revolutionary War, many American soldiers found themselves caught in a vise, with debt collectors on one side and a government unable to make good on back pay on the other. A disgruntled former officer in the Continental Army named Daniel Shays led a violent rebellion aimed at breaking the vise at gunpoint.

“Commotions of this sort, like snow-balls, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them,” George Washington wrote in a letter, striking a serene tone in the face of an insurrection. James Madison was less forgiving: “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob,” he wrote inFederalist 55. Inspired by Shays’ Rebellion and seeking to rein in the excesses of democracy, lawmakers called for the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787.

Our current moment of chaos

If the United States Constitution was borne out of political chaos, why does the current moment strike so many as distinctly perilous? Classical political philosophy offers us a clearer answer to this question than modern psychoanalysis. The most pointed debate among philosophers throughout the centuries has centered on how to prevent mob violence and ensure that most unnatural of things: political order.

In Plato’s “Republic," the work that stands at the headwaters of the Western tradition of political philosophy, Socrates argues that the only truly just society is one in which philosophers are kings and kings are philosophers. As a rule, democracy devolves into tyranny, for mob rule inevitably breeds impulsive citizens who become focused on petty pleasures. The resulting disorder eventually becomes so unbearable that a demagogue arises, promising to restore order and peace.

The classically educated founders picked up on these ideas — mediated through Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and Montesquieu, among others — as they developed the structure of the new American government. The Constitution’s mixed government was explicitly designed to establish a political order that would take into consideration the sentiments and interests of the people without yielding to mob rule at the expense of order. The founders took for granted that powerful elites would necessarily be interested in upholding the regime from which they derived their authority.

Terror from the top

History has often seen disaffected elites stoke insurrections to defenestrate a ruling class that shut them out of public life. The famous case of the Catilinarian Conspiracy in late republican Rome, in which a disgruntled aristocrat named Catiline attempted to overthrow the republic during the consulship of Cicero, serves as a striking example.

In the 21st century, we face a different phenomenon: Those in power are not only failing to enforce order, but also excusing and even actively promoting the conditions that undermine a peaceful, stable, and orderly regime.

The points of erosion are numerous. The public cheerleading of assassinations can be dismissed as noise from the rabble, but it is more difficult to ignore the numerous calls from elites for civic conflagration. Newspapers are promoting historically dubious revisionism that undermines the moral legitimacy of the Constitution. Billionaire-backed prosecutors decline to prosecute violent crime.

For years, those in power at best ignored — and at worst encouraged — mob-driven chaos in American social life, resulting in declining trust in institutions, lowered expectations for basic public order, coarsened or altogether discarded social mores, and a general sense on all sides that Western civilization is breaking down.

Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible.

The United States has, of course, faced more robust political violence than what we are witnessing today. But even during the Civil War — brutal by any standard — a certain civility tended to obtain between the combatants. As Abraham Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God.” Even in the midst of a horrific war, a shared sense of ultimate things somewhat tempered the disorder and destruction — and crucially promoted a semblance of reconciliation once the war ended.

Our modern disorder runs deeper. The shattering of fundamental shared assumptions about virtually anything leaves political opponents looking less like fellow citizens to be persuaded and more like enemies to be subdued.

Charlie Kirk, despite his relative political moderation and his persistent willingness to engage in attempts at persuasion, continues to be smeared by many as a “Nazi propagandist.” The willful refusal to distinguish between mostly run-of-the-mill American conservatism and the murderous foreign ideology known as National Socialism is telling. The implication is not subtle: If you disagree with me, you are my enemy — and I am justified in cheering your murder.

Fellow citizens who persistently view their political opponents as enemies and existential threats cannot long exist in a shared political community.

“Democracy is on the ballot,” the popular refrain goes, but rarely is democracy undermined by a single election. It is instead undermined by a gradual decline in public spiritedness and private virtue, as well as the loss of social trust and good faith necessary to avoid violence.

The chief prosecutors against institutional authority are not disaffected Catalines but the ruling class itself. This arrangement may work for a while, but both political theory and common sense suggest that it is volatile and unlikely to last for long.

The conditions of liberty

Political order, in general, requires a degree of virtue, public-spiritedness, and good will among the citizenry. James Madison in Federalist 55 remarks that, of all the possible permutations of government that have yet been conceived, republican government is uniquely dependent upon order and institutional legitimacy:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

In short, republican government requires citizens who can govern themselves, an antidote to the passions that precede mayhem and assassination. Without a populace capable of self-control, liberty becomes impossible. Under such conditions, the releasing of restraints never liberates — it only promotes mob-like behavior.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The disorder of Shays’ Rebellion prompted the drafting of the Constitution, initiating what has sometimes been called an “experiment in ordered liberty.” That experiment was put to the test beginning in 1791 in Western Pennsylvania. The Whiskey Rebellion reached a crisis in Bower Hill, Pennsylvania, about 50 miles south of modern-day Butler, when a mob of 600 disgruntled residents laid siege to a federal tax collector. With the blessing of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Federalistco-author John Jay, President George Washington assembled troops to put down the rebellion.

Washington wrote in a proclamation:

I have accordingly determined [to call the militia], feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit.

Washington left Philadelphia to march thousands of state militiamen into the rebel haven of Western Pennsylvania. The insurrectionists surrendered without firing a shot.

Our new era of political violence rolls on, with Charlie Kirk’s murder being only the latest and most prominent example. Our leaders assure us they will ride out into the field just as Washington once did. Whether they will use their presence and influence to suppress or encourage “so fatal a spirit” remains an open question.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.