And this is why we have the first and second amendments in America@amuse (@amuse):UK: A Brit posted photo of him holding a shotgun while on holiday in Florida, when he returned home UK police arrested him, seized his devices, jailed him overnight for violating the 1986 Public Order Act. The process was the punishment.After sharing a photo of himself posing https://t.co/jWdz3kxKtJ ...

This week, we learned that the FBI has opened an inquiry into six Democratic lawmakers whom Donald Trump accused of sedicious behavior punishable by death. Their alleged defense was releasing a short video reminding members of the military that they must follow lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones. In a statement Tuesday, four House members said the FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to arrange interviews with the lawmakers.Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced Monday that it's reviewing misc ...

We turn now to the FBI's highly unusual investigation of Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Those lawmakers made a video urging US troops to defy illegal orders. The FBI now contacting them for interviews.Senator Alisa Slotkin confirming the inquiry on social media, writing, quote, "The president directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place." The Pentagon saying it is investigating retired Navy officer Senator Mark Kelly for that video. Kelly condemning the move as an a ...

Political Climate & Free Speech - The report highlights concerns that lawmakers are worried about potential military deployment against them due to the president's response to free speech [3][4] - The analysis draws parallels between current events and the Reconstruction era, noting the use of language to justify violence against political opponents [2] - The report emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and the Constitution, especially when these principles are perceived to be under threat [7][14] Military & Legal Concerns - The report indicates that members of the military are seeking outside legal counsel, raising concerns about the legality of orders they are receiving [5] - The report mentions US military actions off the coast of Venezuela with a "dubious rationale," suggesting potential legal liability for service members carrying out these missions [11][12] - The report underscores the importance of clarity and a clear legal rationale for military actions to ensure service members are not exposed to legal liability [6][13] Congressional Dynamics & Fear - The report suggests a pervasive atmosphere of fear within the United States Congress, where members are afraid of stepping out of line or becoming targets [20] - The report criticizes Republican members for downplaying the impact of the president's rhetoric and trivializing concerns about threats [16][18] - The report mentions a lack of agreement and differing perspectives among members of Congress regarding service to the country [18]

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 ...

Core Points - California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed bill SB-771, which aimed to hold social media companies liable for "recklessly" allowing hate speech, replacing the current requirement of "knowingly" aiding violations of civil rights law [1][3] - The bill's intent was to address the challenges of proving that social media companies knowingly facilitated civil rights violations, while also attempting to avoid First Amendment challenges [1][3] - Despite the veto, Newsom expressed a willingness to revisit the issue if existing civil rights laws are deemed inadequate to address violations through algorithms [3] Legal Context - Holding tech companies liable for "recklessly" allowing hate speech conflicts with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content [2] - The Supreme Court's ruling in Twitter, Inc v. Taamneh established that platforms can only be held liable for aiding and abetting if they engage in "conscious, voluntary, and culpable participation" in wrongdoing [2] Political Reactions - The passage of SB-771 in the California legislature was met with objections, but Newsom's veto indicated a division within political circles regarding the balance between free speech and hate speech regulation [3] - Attorney General Pam Bondi's comments on targeting hate speech sparked backlash from conservatives, highlighting the ongoing debate about the definition and regulation of hate speech [3] Judicial Precedents - The Supreme Court's decision in Matal v. Tam emphasized the protection of free speech, including speech that may be considered hateful, reinforcing the principle that all speech, regardless of its nature, is protected under the First Amendment [4] - Comments from political figures like Charlie Kirk further underline the legal stance that hate speech does not exist as a separate category under U.S. law, emphasizing the broad protections afforded by the First Amendment [4]

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 ...