Amid the problems facing the country today, President Trump filed a new lawsuit against the New York Times for articles in a book that he thinks was unfairly negative towards him. He claims there were deliberate falsehoods about him and that also they did not note his successes. As a company, the New York Times is worth about $9 billion.Trump's lawyers claim to be seeking the madeup number of $15 billion. That is, for context, larger than the largest liel ruling ever. But if they did win that number, it wou ...

Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action. >> We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle.Now, Attorney General Pam Bondi is going so far as to say that the Justice Department would go after anyone who engages in what she deemed hate speech. The attorney general later clarifying on social media that ...

Political Violence & Free Speech - The report condemns political violence as an attack on free speech and American democracy [1] - The report highlights multiple instances of political violence against individuals from both sides of the political spectrum [1] - The report criticizes those who condone or downplay political violence depending on the victim's political affiliation [2] Hypocrisy & Double Standards - The report accuses some individuals of hypocrisy for selectively condemning political violence [1][2] - The report points out the selective outrage regarding political violence, depending on the victim's political affiliation [1] Call for Consistency - The report calls for a consistent condemnation of political violence, regardless of the victim's or perpetrator's political affiliation [2] - The report emphasizes that celebrating political violence is unacceptable [2]

First Amendment & Free Speech - The discussion revolves around the First Amendment and its protection of speech, including the complexities of defining and prosecuting "hate speech" [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] - Legal precedents, such as the Brandenburgg case (1969), set specific limits on speech that isn't protected, primarily incitement to imminent lawless action [4][5][7] - Concerns are raised about creating new exceptions to the First Amendment, especially in the context of social media and mass media [5] - The definition of speech that incites violence requires specificity, imminence, and capability to carry out the threat [7][8] Political & Social Commentary - The White House is accused of targeting groups and institutions they blame for protests and violence, raising concerns about how they plan to restrict these groups and what laws they will use [11] - There's criticism of Republicans for potentially engaging in "cancel culture," despite previously condemning it [15][16] - Concerns are voiced about the government targeting people based on their ideology, drawing parallels to the IRS targeting conservative organizations [20][21] - The discussion highlights the emotional and politically charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of free speech and its limitations [17][26][27] Key Figures & Organizations - Pam Bondi's statements on hate speech are being clarified and walked back, indicating potential overreach [10][22][25] - George Soros and Open Society Foundations are mentioned as targets of potential RICO charges for allegedly funding protests and violence [13] - Charlie Kirk's past statements denying the existence of hate speech in America are referenced [2][24]

Free Speech and Hate Speech - The discussion revolves around the tension between free speech and hate speech, particularly in the context of recent events and the potential for government overreach [1][2][3] - Concerns are raised about the Attorney General's statement suggesting a crackdown on hate speech, with critics arguing that it could infringe upon First Amendment rights [1][2] - The argument is made that even hateful or disgusting speech should be protected to prevent the government from suppressing dissenting opinions or criticism of powerful figures [3][7] Political and Social Commentary - The conversation touches upon the broader issue of division within the country and the exploitation of extremes for political gain [11][12][19] - There's a sentiment that most Americans are horrified by tragic events and don't want to see the country further divided [12][18][20] - The discussion extends to the role of social media and the internet in potentially contributing to alienation and mental health issues, especially among young men [13][14][15] Government Overreach and Constitutional Rights - Concerns are voiced about the potential for the government to weaponize its power and suppress speech it deems hateful, drawing parallels to cancel culture and other forms of censorship [21][22] - The importance of upholding constitutional protections, even for political enemies, is emphasized, arguing against diminishing First Amendment rights in response to tragic events [6][7] - The discussion highlights the need to address societal problems, such as alienation and online radicalization, without infringing upon fundamental rights [15][16]

From @WSJopinion: While reasonable minds can differ on the best way to conduct elections, there’s no doubt that refusing to hire workers for expressing disfavored views is unconstitutional—a textbook First Amendment violation, writes @VivekGRamaswamy https://t.co/3vbeAxX5nE ...

This morning, I can tell you that we have recovered what we believe is the weapon to be that was used in yesterday's shooting. It is a high-powered bolt-action rifle. That rifle was was recovered in a wooded area where the shooter had fled.So, the FBI laboratory will be analyzing this weapon. Investigators have also collected footwear impression, a palm print, and forearm imprints for analysis. Now, I understand there are a lot of questions about motive.I assure you that all leads, tips, and tips are being ...

the political world processing we're on processing the assassination of 31-year-old conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Joining us now CNBC contributor Heidi Heidam. She's a former uh US senator and former speaker of the house uh Kevin McCarthy. Uh he is chairman of the uh the Alpha Institute. We you know we cover everything obviously. Um hasn't been 24 hours. I don't even know what uh we try to determine or discern about what happened yesterday. Ivy, you know, I look at it and this is what I do for a livin ...

Group 1 - Coventry First LLC has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit from Abacus Global Management, arguing that the lawsuit aims to suppress constitutionally protected free speech regarding critical issues in the life settlement industry [1][2] - The motion highlights that Abacus's key life expectancy forecasting supplier, Lapetus Solutions, Inc., has ceased operations as of August 31, 2025, raising concerns about Abacus's business model [1] - Coventry emphasizes the importance of transparent disclosures for investors and regulators, asserting that the First Amendment protects the right to express concerns on significant public issues [2] Group 2 - Coventry is a leader and pioneer in the secondary market for life insurance, having paid over $6 billion to policyholders who no longer need their policies [2]

Freedom of Speech - The report contrasts the state of free speech in America, where it is protected by the First Amendment, with that of the United Kingdom, where it is perceived as suppressed [1] - The report asserts that the erosion of free speech leads to the demise of truth and democracy, ultimately resulting in tyranny [2] - The report warns that the collapse of free speech in Britain and America could lead to a new Dark Age for the world [4] Call to Action - The report urges Americans to defend the First Amendment without compromise [3] - The report calls on British citizens to resist censorship and reclaim their nation's liberty [3]