If there's nothing incriminating in the boxing, >> wow, >> quiet said quiet. >> I mean, it look at what point do you write the stuff off or say, "Hey, this is actually kind of dangerous to a free press, right? We don't want to take advantage of the fact that we actually have a first amendment that guarantees the freedom of the press and that that press does not work for the government." You can have whatever views you want in in the press, but you don't work for the government. Through the history of newspa ...

Now, my next guest knows all about artistic disscent and the power of art. Jennifer Egan is a Pulitzer Prizewinning novelist. She's won many awards, books you've probably heard of or seen people reading on the subway or in the park.One of my favorites, A Visit from the Goon Squad, The Candy House was top of the bestseller list. Manhattan Beach was beloved. And over in the artistic political universe, she led Pen America in the first Trump term in 2018.They even filed cases against Trump trying to defend fre ...

Joining us now is Leah Litman, University of Michigan law professor and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer for Slate and the co-host of the Amicus Podcast. Mark, fill in the gaps here. Why is the same-sex marriage issue back before the Supreme Court today.Well, the court will be considering a petition by Kim Davis. Uh, you may remember she was the Kentucky clerk who refused to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple shortly after the Supreme Court issued its d ...

California Governor (and potential 2028 presidential candidate) Gavin Newsom recently vetoed a bill, SB-771, which would hold social media companies liable for violating California’s civil rights law if they “recklessly aided and abetted” the posting of hate speech. “Recklessly” replaces the California civil rights law’s current requirement that someone “knowingly” aided and abetted a violation of the law. The reason for this change is it is almost impossible to prove that a social media company knowingly a ...

Investigative reporter @JasonLeopold and First Amendment attorney @mvtopic trade tales from the FOIA trenches, revealing how the US government really works.Listen to Disclosure, now available on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts https://t.co/kNtUSUT59b https://t.co/NfMkFM6Ctb ...

Investigative reporter @JasonLeopold and First Amendment attorney @mvtopic trade tales from the FOIA trenches, revealing how the US government really works.Listen to Disclosure, now available on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts https://t.co/kNtUSUT59b https://t.co/oUbkWNPWli ...

RT Joseph D. McBride, Esq. (@McBrideLawNYC)Tucker Carlson’s decision to interview Nick Fuentes is a masterclass in the First Amendment. The right to speak was never meant to protect the popular or the polite. It exists to defend dissent, discomfort, and the brutal truths that free men must be willing to face.Free speech protects every citizen’s right to criticize, challenge, praise, or condemn government, including the Israeli government, which is openly and fiercely criticized by its own citizens every sin ...

Political Commentary & Free Speech Concerns - The document expresses strong criticism towards Barack Obama, alleging his initiatives aim to undermine the First Amendment and free speech in America [1] - Accusations include coordinating with foreign governments and employing deceptive tactics [1] - The document highlights Obama's call for "experimenting" with "new forms of journalism" under "government regulatory constraints," raising concerns about potential censorship [1]

The Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment protects coordination between candidates and their parties. @StepCarter explains how the JD Vance case could change campaign finance law (via @opinion) https://t.co/30ydkrG8Ph ...

Core Viewpoint - ExxonMobil Corp. has filed a lawsuit against California, claiming that two new state laws infringe upon its First Amendment rights and conflict with federal regulations [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Sections Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, filed on Friday, argues that the new laws compel ExxonMobil to publicly endorse climate change opinions that it does not agree with [2]. - One law mandates large companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue to measure and disclose their greenhouse gas emissions annually [3]. - The second law requires companies with over $500 million in annual revenue to publish a biennial report on how climate change could impact their financial performance and their risk management strategies [3]. Compliance and Responsibility - The laws require adherence to California's Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which ExxonMobil claims imposes a responsibility for global warming, equating to government-compelled speech [4]. - The lawsuit states that California is singling out large corporations, which are perceived as most likely to oppose climate policies, thereby targeting those deemed "most responsible" for climate change [4]. Regulatory Conflicts - ExxonMobil asserts that California's regulations attempt to govern conduct and speech beyond its borders, as much of the reporting pertains to emissions and risks from global operations [5]. - The company argues that the new law SB 261 conflicts with federal securities laws, which already dictate disclosure requirements for publicly traded companies regarding financial and environmental risks [7].