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].

Political Activism & Protest - The protest is described as peaceful and nonviolent, protected by the First Amendment and the US Constitution [1] - The speaker accuses Governor Abbott and Donald Trump of prioritizing intimidation over the rule of law and peaceful protest [1] - The speaker highlights the historical significance of overcoming long odds, referencing independence, defeating the Confederacy, stopping fascism, and winning civil rights [2][3] - The speaker expresses pride in marching with fellow Texans in the movement [3] Government Response & Authority - Governor Abbott is mobilizing the National Guard to monitor the protest for potential unrest [1] - The speaker alleges that Abbott and Trump are attempting to cement authoritarian power in Texas and nationally [2] Protest Size & Location - The protest has attracted 20 to 30 thousand people who are marching to auditorium shores [2]

RT Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger)For the first time, the UK is seeking to censor a US web site with no physical presence in the UK. @Keir_Starmer has thus broken the promise he made to @realDonaldTrump in July. If Trump & Congress don't stand up to foreign censorship, the First Amendment will become worthless. https://t.co/3dLVLAnfky ...

Political Climate & Social Issues - The report highlights a polarized political environment characterized by an "us vs them" mentality, reminiscent of the Trump administration's worldview [1][2] - The report discusses the controversy surrounding the denial of communion to priests and the perceived hypocrisy of some administration officials who publicly display their religious beliefs but allegedly contradict church teachings [3][4][5][6] - The report mentions instances of ICE raids and the moral dilemmas faced by everyday Americans in deciding whether to shelter undocumented immigrants [22][23][24] Resistance & Opposition - The report notes the emergence of resistance against certain policies, including the Catholic Church's increased involvement and Pope Francis's call for a more aggressive stance on social issues [11][12][13] - The report mentions a "No Kings" rally, framed as an opportunity to reclaim American values and Christianity from MAGA [12][13] - The report highlights instances of collective action, such as news organizations rejecting restrictions on Pentagon access and airports refusing to play a politically charged video [25][26][27][14][15][16][17][18] Government Actions & Ethical Concerns - The report raises concerns about the use of government resources for political purposes, citing a video from DHS Secretary Christy Gnome played at airports [14][15][16][17][18] - The report questions the accountability of government officials regarding potential violations of the Hatch Act [20][21]

Freedom of the Press & First Amendment - The report highlights concerns that 97% of news stories are negative, impacting free speech [1] - The core issue revolves around the Pentagon's new policy restricting journalists, potentially punishing them for reporting unclassified information without authorization [1][12][13] - The policy is viewed as a violation of the First Amendment, with most news outlets refusing to sign on [1] - The Pentagon's actions are seen as cutting off the American public from information not pre-approved, limiting transparency [1] - The restrictions could lead to a lack of answers to vital questions about the Department of Defense's daily activities [2] Hypocrisy & Paranoia - The report suggests hypocrisy, as the official pushing the policy previously criticized liberals for seeking "safe spaces" [9] - Paranoia about leaks is cited as a potential motivation behind the policy [11] Potential Consequences & Historical Context - The policy may aim to expel news organizations, granting exclusive access to ideologically approved outlets [16][17] - The situation is compared to autocratic regimes where only one official news outlet is allowed [19] - Concerns are raised about the potential weakening of the relationship between the military and the civilian population [19] - The policy could lead the military in a new and dangerous direction, potentially unknown to the public [21]

RT Big Picture Originals (@bigpictureusa)For generations, Americans believed the First Amendment was untouchable — the cornerstone of our Republic.But today, freedom is under attack. Behind closed doors, government agencies, Big Tech, universities, and NGOs built a powerful system to control what citizens can say, hear, and believe.This is not speculation. It is a documented reality.“God Complex: The Rise of America’s Censorship Machine” is a Big Picture Originals documentary that reveals how this system ca ...

If the Supreme Court decides that "conversion therapy" is speech protected by the First Amendment, it could open the door to upending regulation of other professions, @NoahRFeldman says (via @opinion) https://t.co/d3ZZaRTrFg ...