Core Viewpoint - ExxonMobil has filed a lawsuit against the state of California, claiming that two new climate change laws violate its right to free speech and force the company to adopt the state's perspective on climate change [1][6]. Summary by Relevant Sections Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Eastern District Court for California, asserting that the laws compel ExxonMobil to accept blame for climate change, particularly regarding oil and gas corporations [1][5]. - The company argues that the laws conflict with federal regulations on climate and financial risk disclosures [11]. Specific Laws - One law mandates large companies doing business with the state to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions annually [2]. - The second law requires businesses with over $500 million in state contracts to report biennially on how climate change may impact their operations [2]. Compliance Requirements - Both laws necessitate ExxonMobil's adherence to California's Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which the company contends unfairly assigns responsibility for global warming to it [5]. Company Position - ExxonMobil acknowledges the risks associated with climate change and supports efforts to address these risks but maintains that the First Amendment protects it from being compelled to endorse the state's viewpoint [6]. - The company is seeking a court order to prevent the implementation of these laws until 2026 [11].

Legacy media lies and maximizes for click bait profiting.𝕏 has become the most trusted source for news. It’s where news breaks first.Elon Musk saved free speech is 🇺🇸 https://t.co/6rOuST7kor ...

RT Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs)The New York Legislature passed S4505, mandating warning labels on social media platforms for all users, mirroring California's AB 56. This would compel companies to surveil users and deliver government-mandated messages, amounting to compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.X is deeply concerned that lawmakers in California and now New York —bound by oath to defend the Constitution—are advancing measures like AB 56 and S4505 that erode free speech pr ...

Content Suppression & Censorship - YouTube and Google are accused of systematically suppressing content [1] - The platforms are criticized for prioritizing paid propaganda over free speech [1] - The platforms are accused of aiding and abetting a "holocaust" by throttling truth and boosting killers [1] Ethical Concerns - The corporation running the platforms is perceived as having a "dim & twisted worldview" [1] - The platforms are accused of enabling genocide and profiting from war criminals' propaganda [1]

RT Sara Gonzales (@SaraGonzalesTX)If you care at all about free speech, you need to watch “God Complex,” a new film by @bigpictureusa.You can watch for free tomorrow but you have to sign up tonight! Click below to sign up👇🏼 https://t.co/j75Tkl4KSu ...

This is a very useful breakdown of The Blob’s current operations at the state, national & international level. I argue we are winning massively at the national level, but The Blob’s response has been to up the stakes & its aggression at the state level & international level 👇Danny Jones (@JonesDanny):Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) warns that we're in a crucial moment in the fight for free speech & information online.He explains the "Censorship Industrial Complex", and how the government is actively circumventin ...

RT Danny Jones (@JonesDanny)Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) warns that we're in a crucial moment in the fight for free speech & information online.He explains the "Censorship Industrial Complex", and how the government is actively circumventing our first amendment rights. https://t.co/m9mLeRz4YQ ...

RT David Sacks (@DavidSacks)Charlie Kirk should have been celebrating his 32nd birthday today. Instead he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was a martyr for free speech, silenced for speaking the truth. Leftists celebrated his assassination. We will never forget. ...

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]

It was an almost unimaginable number. More than 5 million Americans turned out in small towns and big cities all across the country for those No kings protests against the against the Trump administration back in June. That No Kings Day protest, that one day in June is considered to be one of the three largest days of peaceful protest ever in US history.There were so many demonstrations on No King's Day in June that when we covered them here on this show the following day, we had to show them in batches of ...