Locked up for a joke. It can’t happen here ... can it?



A comedian lands at Heathrow and finds himself met by officers as though he posed a terrorist threat. His offense? A social media joke about trans people. He’s released on bail on the condition he doesn’t post on X.

Another man prays silently outside the “safe zone” of an abortion clinic and is hauled off, given a two-year conditional discharge, and fined £9,000 (just over $12,000).

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations.

A third man waves the Union Jack at a pro-Palestinian march in England — only to be arrested. Reuters quickly ran interference: not for the flag, they said, but for a “racially aggravated public order offence” and “homophobic abuse.” As if that makes it better.

And we’re still not mentioning the Islamic child-rape scandal that grows worse with every new revelation. The United States watches Britain collapse into a kind of Reformation-era persecution, this time in the name of Islam, paganism, and sexual license. Americans shake their heads, maybe reassure themselves: We fought a revolution to escape this. Charles II jailed Christians. Charles III praises Islam. And we have the First Amendment. Case closed.

Not so fast. We may be on the same road. Once you begin policing speech to protect feelings, the end point looks very much like the UK. And we have plenty of warning signs.

The university test case

Universities may be the clearest early indicator. Professors tell us every profession must “look like” society — except their own. If a field is 97% male, they call it systemic bias. But in the academy itself, where atheists and leftists dominate, they see no problem.

The numbers don’t lie. At Arizona State University, a December 2024 survey found just 19 Republicans among 544 faculty members. At the University of Arizona, only eight Republicans out of 369. Entire departments lacked a single Republican. A 2023 Harvard Crimson study found only 2.5% of Harvard faculty identify as conservative. If any other profession looked this skewed, professors would scream about bias. In their case, they call it “normal.”

And the consequences? They’ll defend freedom of speech for burning an American flag. Burn a trans flag, and suddenly you’ve committed a hate crime. That is one step removed from Graham Linehan’s arrest in the UK for an X post.

Censorship in practice

Students already know what this means. A 2022 FIRE survey found they self-censor in class. They parrot leftist slogans on gender and race, not because they believe them, but because they want the grade. We are teaching them to lie to advance. No one is being asked to confess Christ; they are being asked to confess Ibram Kendi and John Money.

I’ve seen it firsthand. At ASU’s Honors College, faculty blocked Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, and Robert Kiyosaki from speaking, smearing them as “white supremacists.” That label alone was enough to push the event off campus. These professors weren’t interested in argument. They wanted silence.

RELATED: Why the English flag now terrifies the regime

Blaze Media illustration

Truth vs. lies

How do they justify it? With “hate crimes.” Not crimes that incite violence, but crimes of opinion. Disagree with LGBTQ ideology? That’s hate. Straight to jail. Professors sleep well at night because we’ve accepted their framework: society divided into oppressors and oppressed. Bad outcomes aren’t the result of choices, but of systemic injustice. Victims must be coddled, even at the expense of truth.

Once you accept that, feelings erase the First Amendment.

We need a spine. Sexual sins are real and destructive. Abortion ends a life. A comedian may say this through jokes; a philosopher may say it through essays. Either way, it’s the truth. The mob can gnash its teeth, plug its ears, strip away free speech, and jail comedians, but reality doesn’t change.

We hope Britain pulls up from its nosedive, but let’s not delude ourselves. America faces the same temptations. We must pray for the end of abortion, speak plainly about the damage sexual ideology inflicts on children, and reject the false frame of “oppressors and oppressed.” The real categories are truth and lies. Choose wisely, while you still can.

Trump cracks down on anti-American flag-burners with potential jail time



President Donald Trump on Monday signed several executive orders to restore the rule of law across the nation, including action to protect America’s “most sacred and cherished symbol.”

Trump signed “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag” to prevent the desecration of the Stars and Stripes.

'The president is right to be concerned about the desecration of one of the proudest symbols of our nation.'

“Would you listen to this? This is very important,” Trump stated during Monday’s signing in the Oval Office.

“All over the country they’re burning flags.”

“Through a very sad court, I guess it was a five-to-four decision, they called it freedom of speech,” the president stated, referring to the Texas v. Johnson Supreme Court case in 1989.

“When you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we’ve never seen before. People go crazy,” he continued.

“If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exit. No nothing.”

The White House contended that burning the flag is “a statement of contempt, hostility, and violence against our Nation” that “may incite violence and riot.”

RELATED: Trump moves to end radical left’s cashless bail to restore law and order nationwide

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“American Flag burning is also used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth,” the administration added.

According to the EO, those who desecrate the American flag could face charges related to burning restrictions, disorderly conduct, or destruction of property.

Anti-immigration-enforcement protesters have held several demonstrations this year where they have burned American flags.

Trump’s latest executive action has sparked bipartisan debate about whether flag-burning should be protected under the First Amendment.

RELATED: White House hammers liberals for gaslighting about LA riots: Burning cities isn't justice — it's chaos

Photo by Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

“The president is right to be concerned about the desecration of one of the proudest symbols of our nation. This executive order will eventually allow the Justice Department to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit — and potentially overturn — a prior precedent saying that burning the American flag is constitutionally protected 'speech' under the First Amendment,” Zack Smith, a senior legal fellow and manager with the Heritage Foundation, told Blaze News.

Journalist Christopher Rufo highlighted how some individuals have been prosecuted for burning or damaging Pride flags.

“I'm sorry, but as long as this is the status quo, I'm not going to work myself into a state of hysteria about Trump's executive order on burning the American flag,” Rufo wrote in a post on social media.

He noted that he is “sympathetic to the argument that burning the American flag is protected speech.”

Trump also signed on Monday two executive orders that aim to eliminate cashless bail systems across the United States.

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

Rubio’s warning to UK: Persecuting Christians for prayer is an ‘egregious violation’ of free speech, religious liberty



Marco Rubio's State Department is standing up for free speech in the United Kingdom after the arrests of Christians participating in silent prayer.

Individuals in the U.K. can face unlimited fines for protesting or silently praying within 150 meters, just under 500 feet, of an abortion clinic. The buffer zones were introduced last year.

'The US State Department is right to call out this injustice.'

Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 64-year-old retired medical scientist, was convicted in April for holding a sign reading, "Here to talk, if you want to," near a facility offering abortion services. She was sentenced to a conditional discharge and fined £20,000.

Adam Smith-Connor, a veteran of the British Army Reserves, was fined £9,000 last year for silently praying near an abortion clinic.

Rose Docherty, a 75-year-old grandmother, was arrested in Scotland in February for holding a sign that read, "Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want." The case against her was dropped last week.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is under investigation for silently praying near a Birmingham abortion facility.

RELATED: Vance bashes UK censorship — this time with gaslighting prime minister just feet away

Livia Tossici-Bolt. Photo by Peter Nicholls/Getty Images

The Trump administration has been monitoring Tossici-Bolt's case and warns that individuals' fundamental rights are at risk in the U.K.

During the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President JD Vance accused European leaders of engaging in censorship. He later confronted U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer about this issue during a meeting at the Oval Office.

“We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies,” Vance told reporters. “But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens. So that is something we’ll talk about today at lunch.”

Starmer responded to Vance’s comments, stating, “Well, we’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.”

The State Department's 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released earlier this month, stated that "the human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom during the year."

"Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism," the report read.

The State Department issued a warning to the U.K. this week about its buffer zone policies.

RELATED: Abortion clinic ‘buffer zones’ turn the UK into a censor’s paradise

Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

A spokesperson for the State Department told the Telegraph, "The U.K.'s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin U.S.-U.K. relations."

"It is common sense that standing silently and offering consensual conversation does not constitute harm."

The spokesperson noted that the administration continues to monitor U.K. cases and "other acts of censorship throughout Europe."

The U.K. has rejected the Trump administration's claims that the buffer zone policies violate fundamental freedoms.

"Free speech is vital for democracy, including here in the UK, and we are proud to uphold freedoms while keeping citizens safe," a government official told the Telegraph.

Lorcan Price, Irish barrister and legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom International, stated, "The U.K.'s treatment of individuals like Livia, Adam, Isabel, and Rose for the false 'crimes' of praying silently or offering conversation shows just how far the country has strayed from its own proud traditions of liberty. The U.S. State Department is right to call out this injustice. It is time for the U.K. government to restore fundamental freedoms and repeal buffer zone legislation."

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

Meet The Man Suing To Stop No-Fault Divorce In Texas

A Texas man is suing to prevent his wife from divorcing him, citing violation of the 14th Amendment and more.

MAGA death post fuels a First Amendment court fight



The Alachua County (Florida) School Board’s attempt to silence local father Jeremy Clepper during a public meeting is a textbook violation of his First Amendment rights, and he has a rock-solid legal case against them.

On July 31, Clepper stood up during a school board meeting to criticize Chairwoman Sarah Rockwell’s vile social media post celebrating the death of Hulk Hogan. The board responded by ordering his removal.

The board’s attempt to shut him down must face consequences or the First Amendment becomes just words on paper.

The board’s actions aren’t merely an unconstitutional attack on free speech — they expose a dangerous disregard for the Constitution and demand accountability.

Censored and removed

The controversy began when Rockwell posted on social media: “Good. One less MAGA in the world,” celebrating the death of the pro-wrestling icon known later in life for his conservative leanings. The now-deleted post sparked outrage, and Rockwell’s half-hearted apology — while refusing to resign — only fanned the flames.

At the July 31 school board meeting, Clepper took the podium during public comment to demand accountability. “You cheered for the death of MAGA,” he said, before calling on her to resign.

His remarks were passionate but protected speech, well within the bounds of a public forum. Instead of engaging, a board member ordered deputies to remove Clepper. The board backtracked only after their attorney intervened.

But the damage was done. The order was issued, the deputy began the process, and Clepper’s right to speak was actively threatened. This action was a deliberate attempt to censor a parent for his viewpoint.

Not Alachua’s first violation

This isn’t the first time the Alachua County School Board has trampled on free speech. On September 21, 2021, Ty Appiah, a father and Republican candidate for office, was removed by an armed deputy during a public school board meeting after calling for the termination of then-Superintendent Dr. Carlee Simon.

Appiah simply said, “Terminate Dr. Simon. She’s more focused on politics than our children,” before board member Leanetta McNealy, who still serves on the board, cut him off and declared, “Deputy. Escort him out.” Notably, both McNealy and Tina Certain, who ordered Clepper’s removal, were on the board in 2021 and voted against firing Dr. Simon in 2022.

Appiah’s case, still within Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for civil rights claims, shows a disturbing pattern of the board violating parents’ First Amendment rights when they challenge the status quo.

Clepper also has a strong legal case against the board, grounded in well-established Supreme Court precedent. Public school board meetings are “limited public forums,” where the government cannot discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint.

Legal precedent

In Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, the Supreme Court clarified that in such forums, restrictions on speech must be viewpoint-neutral and narrowly tailored. Ordering Clepper’s removal because of his criticism of Rockwell’s political bias is textbook viewpoint discrimination, violating his First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert further strengthens Clepper’s case. The court held that content-based restrictions on speech — like targeting Clepper for his conservative-leaning critique — are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning the government must prove a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means.

The board’s attempt to eject Clepper fails this test. They had no compelling reason to silence him — his comments were within the scope of public comment, addressing a board member’s conduct that directly impacts the district’s trustworthiness.

Moreover, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2024 decision in Moms for Liberty v. Brevard Public Schools reinforces that school boards must protect free expression during public comment periods, regardless of the speaker’s perspective. The Alachua County School Board’s attempt to remove Clepper directly contradicts this precedent.

The First Amendment protects Jeremy Clepper’s right to respond in a public forum. School board meetings are designed for parents to voice concerns, especially about the conduct of elected officials. Clepper’s criticism of Rockwell was directly relevant to the board’s governance. Suppressing his speech because it challenged the chair’s actions is unfair and unconstitutional.

Florida fights back

Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas didn’t mince words in his August 1 letter to Rockwell. He found “probable cause” that the board violated state law and the First Amendment, writing:

Since the Alachua County School Board has publicly failed to ensure free expression of all viewpoints during public comment, I have found probable cause that a violation of state law has occurred.

He added, “Not only did you allow a parent’s constitutional rights to be violated under your leadership, but the rest of the board stood by silently, failing to stop it.”

Kamoutsas recommended withholding the board’s salaries until they comply with the law, a rare and serious rebuke that underscores the gravity of their actions. This letter bolsters Clepper’s legal standing.

RELATED: School censorship backfires in costly free speech beatdown

Photo by paci77 via Getty Images

The commissioner’s findings align with federal case law, signaling that the board’s conduct was not only wrong but actionable. Clepper could pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit, which would let him seek damages from officials for violating his constitutional rights.

Clepper’s legal case is straightforward. The board violated his First Amendment rights by attempting to suppress his speech based on its content. He can point to Perry, Reed, and Moms for Liberty to argue that the board’s actions were unconstitutional.

The commissioner’s letter adds weight, showing that even state officials recognize the violation. Clepper could seek injunctive relief to prevent future censorship, declaratory relief affirming his rights, and potentially damages for the harm caused by the board’s actions.

The Constitution doesn’t play favorites. Rockwell had her say, vile as it was. Clepper deserved his, too. The board’s attempt to shut him down must face consequences, or the First Amendment becomes just words on paper. Parents everywhere should take note: When government officials trample your rights, you have the power to fight back in court.

We asked for a syllabus. They called it a threat to democracy.



It’s good to be back in the Advocate — the self-described “world’s leading source of LGBTQ+ news and information.” The last time it covered me, it involved a spat with a group of criminal, gay furry hackers. It never published the follow-up when one of those hackers was arrested, just as I promised. This time, I’ve committed an even greater sin in the Advocate's eyes: I asked a woke, gay professor at a public university to share his syllabus.

That professor, Christopher Petsko, teaches at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And his reaction — along with the left’s coordinated meltdown — tells you everything you need to know about how deeply embedded DEI ideology remains in taxpayer-funded higher ed.

The Trump administration has made its position clear. Our job is to ensure it follows through.

Here’s what we’re doing. The Oversight Project submitted public records requests for syllabi from professors at public universities — institutions subject to state transparency laws. President Trump and his administration have made it a public priority to root out diversity, equity, and inclusion programs from the federal government and its beneficiaries, including universities. Our aim is to determine whether schools are complying with the law — or rebranding DEI under another name.

Because if they are, the administration should know. And act.

Follow-through matters. We’ve seen high-profile announcements on anti-DEI and anti-anti-Semitism efforts before, only to watch the implementation get outsourced or quietly neutered. Columbia University, for example, partnered with the far-left Anti-Defamation League to monitor itself for anti-Semitism — then gave itself a clean bill of health. That’s theater, not accountability.

It's the same story with the so-called crackdown on law firms weaponizing their influence. We contacted many of the firms that pledged pro bono support for conservative clients. Most didn’t respond. Most have done nothing. We’ll be publishing the receipts soon.

In that context, our university initiative is simple: Show us the syllabi. If DEI ideology is still embedded in coursework, the public deserves to know. Instead, some of these professors are losing their minds.

Petsko responded with a melodramatic LinkedIn post:

Keep doing the work you were trained to do. Keep educating others. Keep sharing your expertise. And don’t let vague references to executive orders make you question whether you have a right to be sharing your knowledge with the world.

He then declared he would not release his syllabus. (Too late.)

Other academics rallied to his side. Colin Carlson of Yale took to Bluesky to frame our request as “targeted harassment at scale.” Kate Starbird of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public responded, “Of course they are.”

RELATED: Harvard’s hypocrisy hits the courtroom

Harvard's hypocrisy hits the courtroomPhoto by Rick Friedman / Contributor via Getty Images

The irony, of course, is that these same people preach transparency when they’re not the ones being scrutinized. Why is it that transparency always seems to flow one way — targeting the right while the left hides behind tenure and taxpayer funding?

Next came a hit piece from Inside Higher Ed, which apparently objects to anyone trying to get inside higher ed. I told Inside Higher Ed:

UNC is a public school with a long track record of discrimination. Syllabi are public records and belong to the public. We intend to let the public know what is being taught at a public school. That’s not intimidation. It’s good governance and transparency. If a professor is too much of a wimp to let me read his syllabus, then he’s in the wrong business.

The response? A pile of quotes from leftists accusing us of “chilling free speech” and “intimidation.” Apparently, basic accountability is now oppression.

As for Petsko — he didn’t get the last word.

We now have his syllabus. And surprise: It’s loaded with DEI propaganda. Required reading includes “Dear White Boss,” which claims white executives should be forced to read it. Another entry, “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” criticizes corporate DEI efforts for not going far enough. Students are also instructed to listen to “How to Bust Bias at Work,” which promotes race-based promotion practices.

This is what passes for education at a public university.

The University of North Carolina is out of compliance with federal policy. The Trump administration has made its position clear. Our job is to ensure it follows through.

And we intend to do exactly that.

Goodbye, anons? Radical transparency is about to upend the internet



In June, Texas Patriot, a prominent anonymous account supportive of President Donald Trump, announced during the height of tensions with Iran:

F**k it. If Trump takes us to war, I’m done with him and his administration.
I voted for:
NO WARS
No taxes
Cheap gas
Cheap groceries
MAHA.
What of these things has actually happened?
I’m pissed.

This message from a popular pro-Trump account seemed significant. Was Trump’s populist base turning on him?

In our current world, however, where plausible fake engagement can be created at an almost limitless scale, true anons will lose a great deal of their power.

But shortly thereafter, Right Angle News, another popular anonymous account, asserted that Texas Patriot was actually based in Pakistan. Yet another popular anon account contested this, saying that Texas Patriot is really an American originally from Texas who now lives in Georgia. Notably, most other major accounts weighing in on the controversy, from Proud Elephant to Evil Texan, are themselves anonymous, adding further to the hall of mirrors.

Either way, Texas Patriot deleted its own account shortly thereafter, perhaps suggesting that he or she had something to hide — or at least didn’t want the scrutiny.

The question of whether Texas Patriot is, in fact, a patriot from Texas or a bad actor in Islamabad is ultimately beside the point. As Newsweek wrote of the incident:

Social media has proved useful for galvanizing the MAGA movement, with popular accounts often reacting to political developments from Trump’s feud with X owner Elon Musk to Trump’s policy agenda. If it emerged that an account alleged to be American was actually based in another country, it would impact users’ trust.

And such trust is rapidly eroding, which will accelerate as ever more sophisticated fake accounts and bot farms are exposed.

The incident was just one of many in which major social media accounts were discovered — or at least suggested — to be run by someone far different from who they were purported to be. And it previews a shift that is just now beginning, which will fundamentally change how we interact with social media content.

Bots indistinguishable from humans

When it comes to who will rule social media, the age of the anon is ending. The age of radical transparency is beginning — and yet, if designed well, radical transparency can still include a substantial and valuable space for a large degree of online anonymity.

Several reasons explain the shift. Increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence models and bots generate outputs that, in many cases, are already almost indistinguishable from humans. For most users, they will soon become fully indistinguishable (a fact confirmed by multiple studies that have shown that most people have a poor ability to tell the difference between the two). And almost certainly, bots guided with even a minimum of human interaction will become indistinguishable from actual humans.

Many of my best friends have had anon accounts. A few are still prominent anons. It’s also noteworthy that almost every prominent ex-anon I know personally, whether doxxed or self-outed, dramatically improved their profile and professional opportunities once they were no longer anonymous.

I am not anti-anon, however. I understand why some people, especially those expressing opinions well outside of the mainstream, need to be anonymous. I also acknowledge that anonymity has been a crucial part of the American political tradition since the revolutionary era. An internet that banned anons would be an internet that is much poorer. This is why the biggest current anon accounts will be grandfathered into the coming system of radical transparency, as they have actual operators who are known to enough people that they are recognized as genuine.

I know several big anon accounts like this. I don’t know who is running them, but I have multiple offline friends I trust who do know the account holders and vouch for them. Accounts of this kind, with credible, real-world validation, will continue to have influence. But increasingly, new big anon accounts will be ignored, even if they amass a large number of followers (many of whom are fake).

As these ersatz accounts become increasingly sophisticated every day, engaging with the truly real becomes ever more important. Fake videos and photos proliferating on social media merely add to the potential for deception.

Age of radical transparency

Even accounts run by real people will not be immune to the age of radical transparency. Some are partially or wholly automated — a way for a “content creator” to maintain a cheap 24-hour revenue stream. In the future, if you want to have influence, mechanisms will be in place to prove not only that it is you who are posting but that you are posting content that is authentic, with a proven real-world point of origin. Some have even suggested using the blockchain as a method of validation.

There should be a simple way of blocking the worst AI slop accounts, foreign bad actors who post highly packaged clickbait, or those who shamelessly steal content made by others. Most Americans would probably prefer not to engage with unverified foreign accounts when discussing U.S. politics. Certainly, I would be willing to pay for a feed that only showed me real, verified accounts from America, along with a limited list of paid, verified, and non-anonymous accounts from other parts of the world.

I am interested in having discussions with real people about real content and the real opinions they have. I want accounts mercilessly downrated if they produce inauthentic content presented as real. I want accounts downrated that regularly retweet unverified slop. If X, or any other online platform, can’t consistently provide that, I’ll look elsewhere — and so will many others.

Anonymity breeds toxicity

My desire for authenticity is not a left-wing attempt to police “disinformation” — that is, whatever the left doesn’t want said. It’s far more serious. It’s not about getting “true” facts but a feed that is filled with actual people producing their own content representing their own views — with clear links to the sources for their claims.

Anonymity has, naturally, always been accompanied by a slew of problems: It can lead to echo chambers or aggressive exchanges, as users feel less pressure to engage rationally.

The lack of personal stakes can escalate conflict, which is amplified by AI. Modern AI can generate thousands of unique, human-like posts in seconds, overwhelming feeds with propaganda or fake news. The increasing influence of state actors in this fake news ecosystem makes it even riskier.

RELATED: Slop and spam, bots and scams: Can personalized algorithms fix the internet?

Vertigo3d via iStock/Getty Images

Anonymity also emboldens individuals to act without fear of repercussions, which often has downsides. The online disinhibition effect, a psychological phenomenon first described by psychologist John Suler in 2004, suggests that anonymity reduces social inhibitions, leading to behaviors individuals might avoid in face-to-face settings.

Everyone has met the toxic anon online personality who turns out to be quite meek and agreeable in person. One friend of mine who had an edgy online persona eventually closed her anon account (with tens of thousands of followers) and recreated her online presence from scratch as a “face” account. Her tweets are no longer as fun or spicy as they had been, but her persona is real — and presents who she really is. And she eventually landed a great public-facing job, partly based on the quality of her tweets.

Dwindling era of anon accounts

Anons could play a leading role in the old social media world where bots were mostly obvious, and meaningful provocations were, in large part, created by real people through anonymous accounts. In our current world, however, where plausible fake engagement can be created on an almost limitless scale, true anons will lose a great deal of their power. They will be replaced as top influencers by those who are willing to be radically transparent.

Truly transparent identities should include verifiable information, such as email addresses, phone numbers, or government-issued IDs for account creation. While such information does not need to be publicly shared, it should be given to the social media company connected to the account.

Raising the barrier for AI-driven impersonation, while not foolproof, deters malicious actors, who must invest significant resources to create credible fake identities.

For anons unwilling to trust their private information to one of the major online platforms, third-party identity verifiers dedicated to protecting user privacy could carefully validate their identities while keeping them anonymous from social media companies. Such third-party brokers themselves would have their prestige checked by the accuracy of their verification procedures. This method would still allow for a high degree of public anonymity, bolstered by a backend that guarantees authenticity.

A new internet age

In the future, pure online anonymity will not be banned — nor should it be. But in the coming age of radical transparency, a truly anonymous account — one whose owner’s real-world identity is neither known within i own trusted circles nor verified by a reliable third party — will have little to no value.

The next internet age will value not just what you say, but more importantly, that others know you are the one who is saying it.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally in The American Mind.

School censorship backfires in costly free speech beatdown



Last year, I took a stand against the Pulaski County School District in Kentucky when the district tried to silence me for speaking out against its unlawful political advocacy. Today, I’m proud to announce a resounding victory for free speech.

The district has agreed to a consent decree admitting it blocked me from its social media page and censored my voice. The district has also been ordered to pay $30,000 in attorneys’ fees to cover the costs of my legal battle and must train staff on First Amendment principles to prevent future violations.

When government entities like school districts use social media platforms to push their agendas while silencing critics, they erode the foundation of free expression.

This win, secured with the help of the Liberty Justice Center, sends a clear message: Government entities, including public school districts, cannot suppress dissent without consequences.

Taxpayer-funded censorship

The trouble began on August 11, 2024, when Pulaski County Schools used its official social media pages and website to lobby against Amendment 2, a ballot measure to advance school choice in Kentucky. As an advocate for educational freedom, I criticized the district for using taxpayer-funded platforms to engage in political advocacy — something clearly prohibited under Kentucky law.

In response, the district froze comments on its posts and temporarily blocked me from its social media page. It was a blatant attempt to silence criticism and stifle debate — a textbook violation of the First Amendment.

Sadly, Amendment 2 was defeated at the ballot box in November, denying Kentucky families greater educational options — at least for now. School districts like Pulaski County, by breaking state law to campaign against the measure and silence critics like me, put their thumbs on the scale to sway the outcome. Their actions may have undermined the democratic process in 2024, but this legal victory ensures they won’t get away with such tactics in the future.

I wasn’t about to let their censorship slide. With support from the Liberty Justice Center, we sent demand letters to the district on August 14 and August 26, 2024. The pressure worked. The district removed the offending posts and unblocked me. But it stopped short of promising not to censor others in the future.

That’s when we decided to take the district to court. On January 15, we filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging that Pulaski County Schools violated my First Amendment rights by punishing me for my views.

RELATED: Canada declares independence from Liberal censorship — with Donald Trump’s help

Eightshot Studio via iStock/Getty Images

This case was never just about me. It was about every American silenced by a government official for speaking the truth.

Public school districts don’t belong to superintendents or school boards. They’re funded by taxpayers and accountable to the public. When officials censor dissent or block critics, they violate the core principles that make self-government possible.

The First Amendment protects free and open debate. It doesn’t exist to shield bureaucrats from scrutiny.

Our legal strategy centered on a 2024 Supreme Court ruling — Lindke v. Freed — which made clear that public officials using social media in their official capacity cannot block users based on viewpoint without violating the Constitution.

That ruling changed everything. It gave us the legal leverage to hold Pulaski County accountable.

A win for free speech

While this victory may be personal, its implications are far-reaching. Social media has become a public square, where ideas are debated and policies are scrutinized. When government entities like school districts use these platforms to push their agendas while silencing critics, they erode the foundation of free expression.

My case sets a precedent that other districts across the country should heed: You cannot hide behind a “block” button to avoid accountability. The First Amendment applies online just as it does offline.

I’ve spent years fighting for educational freedom, advocating policies that empower parents and students. The defeat of Amendment 2 was a setback, but the fight for school choice continues. None of this work is possible without the freedom to speak out. Pulaski County Schools thought it could shut me up. Instead, the district amplified the message that censorship won’t be tolerated.

The $30,000 in attorneys’ fees is a signal that those who violate free speech will pay a price. The mandatory First Amendment training ensures the district’s staff will think twice before trying to silence anyone else. And the consent decree puts them under a judge’s watchful eye, ensuring compliance.

Don’t be afraid

This win wouldn’t have been possible without the Liberty Justice Center, whose legal team fought tirelessly to defend my rights and the rights of every American to speak freely. The center's work, grounded in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, shows that the law is catching up to the realities of the digital age. Government officials can no longer hide behind vague policies or technicalities to suppress dissent.

The Constitution is clear, and so is the message from this case: Free speech is non-negotiable.

To my fellow advocates, parents, and citizens: Don’t be afraid to speak out. When you see a school district or any government entity overstepping its bounds, call it out. The First Amendment is your shield, and cases like mine show that it still has teeth. Pulaski County Schools learned that lesson the hard way. Let’s make sure others don’t have to.

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.