Remarks
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP
AT THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST
February 6, 2025
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of Communications

For Immediate Release

U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C.

8:18 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. This is very beautiful, I must say. This is a beautiful place. And our country is starting to do very well again. It’s happening fast — a little faster than people thought.

Thank you especially to Senator Marshall for the beautiful introduction. Appreciate it very much. Thank you. Great senator you are. //

From the earliest days of our republic, faith in God has always been the ultimate source of the strength that beats in the hearts of our nation.

We have to bring religion back. We have to bring it back much stronger. It’s one of the biggest problems that we’ve had over the last fairly long period of time. We have to bring it back.

Thomas Jefferson himself once attended Sunday services held in the old House Chamber on the very ground where I stand today, so there could be nothing more beautiful than for us to gather in this majistic place — it is majestic — and reaffirm that America is and will always be “one nation under God.”

At every stage of the American story, our country has drawn hope and courage and inspiration from our trust in the Almighty. Deep in the soul of every patriot is the knowledge that God has a special plan and a glorious mission for America. And that plan is going to happen. It’s going to happen. I hope it happens sooner rather than later. It’s going to happen.

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh
·
Follow
RFK just gave a flawless answer to Bernie Sanders asking if health care is a human right.

Bet Sanders didn't expect an answer this intelligent... he interrupted RFK IMMEDIATELY.

SANDERS: Is it a human right? Yes or no?

RFK: In the way that free speech is? It's different, because free speech costs nothing. In health care - if you smoke cigs for 20 years, and you get cancer - you are now taking from the pool of resources..-

12:12 PM · Jan 29, 2025

But Sanders wasn't done. He went off on a crazy rant about baby onesies that were produced by an organization that Kennedy had been involved with that said, "Unvaxxed unafraid" and "No vax, no problem." But apparently Sanders didn't know or couldn't absorb that Kennedy said he was no longer part of the organization or on the board. He just started shrieking his head off. Kennedy started laughing, as did Megyn Kelly, who was sitting behind him in the audience.

"Are you supportive of these onesies?" Sanders screamed.

"I'm supportive of vaccines," Kennedy calmly replied.

Sanders continued to scream, "Are you supportive of this clothing which is militantly anti-vaccine?"

Kennedy and Kelly started laughing, because it was just so ridiculous. "I'm supportive of vaccines... I want good science." //

DK1969
4 hours ago
Healthcare is not a human right because it's product of someone's labor (scientists, doctors, administrators etc.). If one has a right to product of someone's labor, it's called slavery.

Imagine if a woman lost her right to vote, protected by the 19th Amendment, simply because she crossed into a state with different historical views on sex roles. Or consider if a journalist’s First Amendment protections were recognized in one state but ignored in another. Such infringements are unthinkable — and rightly so.

Yet this is precisely the reality facing law-abiding gun owners who travel with concealed-carry permits. Their constitutional right to self-defense, which has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is undermined by a patchwork of state laws.

Like other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to protect individuals from government overreach. Allowing states to restrict concealed-carry permits undermines the universality of these protections.

In states with left-leaning legislatures, such as New York and Illinois, gun rights are subjected to restrictions that would never be tolerated if applied to other constitutional rights. This double standard is deliberate. Unlike other amendments, the Second Amendment has been politicized to the point it is often treated as a second-class right. //

National reciprocity streamlines these inconsistencies by requiring states to honor permits other states have issued, similar to how driver’s licenses are universally recognized. Importantly, this legislation would not force states to change their permitting standards. It would simply ensure that permits granted in one state are respected in another, preserving the rights of permit holders while respecting state sovereignty.

Concealed-carry permit holders are statistically among the most law-abiding groups in the country. They commit crimes at rates significantly lower than the general population, including police officers. Allowing them to carry across state lines would not lead to chaos or increased crime. Instead, it would affirm their right to protect themselves and their families wherever they go.
A Matter of Equality and Justice

At its core, national concealed-carry reciprocity is about equality under the law. The current system effectively creates a two-tiered structure of Second Amendment rights, where citizens in some states enjoy full protections while others are without. This disparity is fundamentally at odds with the principles of equality before the law enshrined in the Constitution.

Leftists argue that national reciprocity would infringe on states’ rights. However, states’ rights cannot justify violating individual constitutional freedoms. Just as states cannot override the First or 14th Amendments, they should not be allowed to undermine the Second. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and its protections must apply equally to all Americans.

Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that Facebook pushed back on the Biden regime’s censorship demands. The Facebook Files say otherwise. //

Zuckerberg purported in his JRE [Joe Rogan Experience] appearance that Facebook resisted Biden administration bids like these. Instead, the Big Tech company’s censors fulfilled Flaherty’s dreams that it would “play ball” by “demoting” posts casting doubts on the Covid-19 jab. Covid content that couldn’t be easily or justifiably removed under Facebook’s terms and conditions would be “contained” and sent to the company’s third-party “fact-checkers” for further false impugnment.

Zuckerberg wants the millions of people who tuned into his conversation with Rogan to believe that Facebook was a heroic middle-man who told off the government when it tried to throttle dissenters. In reality, Facebook was a willing accomplice in the Democrat-fueled war on free speech. No amount of Zuckerberg’s revisionist retelling can erase the evidence that Facebook eagerly participated in the Biden administration’s scheme to silence its political enemies, dissenters, and publications like The Federalist.

Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.

There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”

The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights, actions like those promised by the Trump administration and some in Congress.

The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.

Plaintiffs in the case obtained and marshaled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior Biden White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded directly and indirectly with social media companies to purge disfavored news and views en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and Covid-19. The defendants did so on ostensible grounds of combatting dangerous “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” In deputizing non-governmental actors as its speech police, the plaintiffs argued, the feds engaged in a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment by proxy.

The case, alongside congressional investigations and reportage including the “Twitter Files,” helped expose the size, scope, and nature of the censorship-industrial complex. //

The defendants appealed. But Judge Doughty’s counterparts on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld his ruling.

So the feds took their argument to the Supreme Court. There, shockingly, as I observed while attending oral arguments, far too many of the justices showed they held a perversely narrow view of the First Amendment, and they gave substantial deference to the feds that had so imperiled it. Some also seemed remarkably ignorant of the expansive factual record supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.

Last summer, the high court dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns and Americans’ free speech rights on a technicality. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supremes held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, refusing to rule on the merits of the case.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, rebuked the court for straining to create “new” and “heightened” standards to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing and warned that the court’s refusal to rule on the merits of the case could result in dire consequences.

“[W]e are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito asserted. “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

The dissent concluded that what transpired in Murthy “was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”

By not ruling that the censorship-industrial complex’s acts were unconstitutional — by avoiding the question entirely — the Supremes signaled that it was open season on free speech in America. //

The courts simply cannot be seen as a reliable backstop for protecting our First Amendment rights against the censorship-industrial complex.

What’s more, if Republicans allow the fed-led censorship regime to persist, there will be no deterrent to Democrat efforts to create analogous regimes going forward, targeting rights beyond those enshrined in the First Amendment.

But what that Constitution means is being determined just east of the rotunda, in the marble halls of the Supreme Court, where a group of pornographers claiming the mantle of free speech are attempting to ensure that the president’s oath includes defending their ability to peddle obscene materials to children.

They call themselves the “Free Speech Coalition,” but they’re just a trade association created to lobby for the porn industry. This month, they took Texas to the Supreme Court because the Lone Star State passed a law requiring obscene platforms to verify the age of their users before providing access. In oral arguments before the court last Wednesday, they contested that this somehow violates free speech.

Their claim is a ridiculous, bad-faith argument made by those who stand to profit from selling sex. The notion of First Amendment protection for obscenity offends anyone with common sense and makes a mockery of the Constitution.

Free speech protections are exactly what they sound like: protections for speech. They are not designed for obscene videos that don’t have literary or political merit. That’s not what our Founding Fathers, or hundreds of years of common law tradition, intended to protect. Our ancestors fought and died so the American people could offer political opinions, even controversial ones, at town meetings, not so Americans could freely engage in obscene acts in the public square, much less put today’s hardcore pornography in front of children.

This view was held by almost everyone for 200 years of American history. In People v. Ruggles, a case before the New York Supreme Court in 1811, Chief Justice James Kent outlined this position clearly, writing: “Things which corrupt moral sentiment, as obscene actions, prints, and writings … are punishable because they strike at the root of moral obligation and weaken the security of the social ties.” //

This content is not only horrifying, but repeated exposure to pornography makes children far more likely to exhibit problematic and unhealthy sexual behaviors later in life. Our founders understood that obscenity like this is not just immoral but harmful to the formation of a civic society that aims to produce strong and stable families, loving husbands, and duly respected mothers.

To make America great again, we must be bold and brave enough to go on offense against obscenity. If Texas wins, Trump and conservative leaders across the country should work to make age verification a reality in every state. Additionally, Congress should take up similar legislation at the federal level.

The administration should also task the Department of Justice with prosecuting porn producers and distributors, starting with foreign porn producers that flout our laws. Finally, the federal government should fully enforce laws against obscenity that are already on the books and work diligently to remove obscenity from the internet altogether.

If Texas loses, it would be only a small setback. This movement is just getting started. The American people are with us on this issue. A recent American Principles Project poll found that 83 percent of registered voters favor common-sense age verification. They clearly want us to take a stand and go on offense. The well-being of our children and the destiny of our great nation depend on it.

Zuckerberg’s admission of a pressure campaign lays bare the truth: the government colluded with Big Tech to violate Americans’ First Amendment right and the Supreme Court squandered an opportunity to right a wrong.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky – Northern Division blocked President Joe Biden’s Title IX rewrite, known as the Final Rule. The ruling applies nationwide.

“Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and the Department’s motion for summary judgment will be denied,” wrote the Court. //

The Final Rule had gender identity, sexual orientation, and sex characteristics.

The Department refused to provide a narrow definition of “sex” “to avoid overbroad application of a prohibition on discrimination based on sex stereotypes.” //

The Court stressed that Title IX’s phrase “on the basis of sex” means exactly what it says when Title IX became law: Sex is female or male. Title IX protects human beings born female. Basic biology! //

The Department of Education also threatened to punish those who refuse to use a person’s preferred name or pronouns.

Well, the Court ruled that violated the First Amendment //

The Final Rule violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause since it threatened to withhold funds from schools that did not abide by the rewrite.

Legislation must satisfy a four-prong test to limit federal funds.

The Court found the Final Rule did not satisfy the fourth prong: “the conditions must not induce unconstitutional action.”. //

Bruce Hayden | January 9, 2025 at 3:34 pm
I find interesting the use of vacatur, which, by necessity, is nationwide. If a regulation violates the APA, and is thus void, it makes no sense for it to be void in just the ED of KY. Void is void, and that is what the APA calls for.

This is in contrast to nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court. How does a single district court, in a single district in a single state have the power to issue a nationwide injunction? It doesn’t typically have jurisdiction over most of the parties involved. The use of nationwide injunctions had grown enormously over the last decade or two, and became increasingly controversial by its overreach, esp in suits pushed by the left. Vacatur of regulations subject to the APA is more defensive in nature, merely preventing the government from imposing non-compliant regulations.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
The evil knuckleheads picked the wrong vehicle for a terrorist attack. Cybertruck actually contained the explosion and directed the blast upwards.

Not even the glass doors of the lobby were broken.

Nick Sortor @nicksortor
🚨 #BREAKING: Las Vegas Police release new video of the exploded Cybertruck outside of the Trump Hotel, showing explosive ordinances in the back

Police credited the lack of damage to the Trump Hotel to the strength of the Cybertruck, as it remained mostly intact.

“The explosion…
Embedded video
7:31 PM · Jan 1, 2025. //

(N)o.(B)ody.(C)ares
2 hours ago
Another reason ALL protections afforded the media, not listed “specifically” in the Constitution need to be removed, and allow for Slander and Libel suits to proceed with haste against the malicious Pravda Propagandists

Donald Trump has won again. ABC News and George Stephanopoulos have settled the defamation lawsuit brought by the incoming president, with the news network agreeing to pay $15 million in damages while also issuing an apology.

The lawsuit was first filed after Stephanopoulos claimed as a matter of fact that Trump had “raped” E. Jean Carroll. The comment came during an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace. [who is an actual rape victim]

Of course, the issue was that Trump has never been charged or convicted of rape criminally nor has he been found liable for rape in any civil suit. Stephanopoulos made it up in an attempt to bait Mace, and it ended up being the basis of the now-settled civil suit against he and ABC News.

“We are so very thankful for the opportunity to share the joyful and powerful message of Christmas at the steps of the United States Capitol,” Mahoney said. “In a hurting and wounded world, there is no more redemptive and healing message than the Christmas story. The hopeful declaration of ‘Peace on earth, goodwill toward man,’ is one that needs to be heard and embraced by all Americans.”

Mahoney then quoted Isaiah 9:6, where the prophet hails the Messiah as “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

“This is also a significant victory for religious freedom and the 1st Amendment,” Mahoney added. “This event has ended and won the war on Christmas in the public square.”

The Biden administration has indicted at least 37 individuals on charges under the Freedom of Access to Clinics (FACE) Act. In just over three years, the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) has accounted for more than a quarter of all FACE Act charges in the law's 30-year history. Notably, this includes the frequent use of a novel sentence enhancement, signaling a weaponization in the application of this law under the current administration.

The FACE Act itself is a prime example of federal overreach and an infringement on First Amendment rights. While the federal law applies both to conduct committed at abortion clinics and at pro-life facilities like pregnancy centers, enforcement has historically shown a focus on protecting access to abortion services. Thus, it has morphed into a tool for the selective persecution of pro-life advocates.

President-elect Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to correct this imbalance. In addition to his commendable promise to address the injustices faced by those involved in the January 6 protests, whom he rightly calls political prisoners, he should extend this mercy to these pro-life activists. Pardoning the twelve individuals currently imprisoned under the FACE Act would not only right a wrong but also send a strong message against the misuse of power by the Biden DOJ.

The repeal of the FACE Act is equally imperative. This law has no place in a society that values free speech, assembly, and the right to protest without fear of reprisal. It's an outdated piece of legislation that no longer serves its intended purpose in a post-Roe v. Wade America, where states are reclaiming their authority over abortion laws.

The federal government shouldn’t be involved, directly or indirectly, in the fact-checking industry. Nor should it engage in efforts designed to limit the speech of citizens, particularly when taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

But the cost and creation of these misinformation programs is just the tip of the iceberg. Open the Books conducted a detailed review of many of the programs, contracts and grants as part of its report, and I subsequently verified and expanded upon some of their findings.

What we found is clear evidence that the Biden-Harris White House used funds to support or develop Orwellian surveillance and propaganda strategies, create methods and tools to restrict speech online, and even to finance highly politicized reports critical of Trump.

This is the point where I usually suggest that if the above story were flipped; if the first Trump administration had spent more than a quarter billion dollars trying to restrict speech on the left and to finance highly politicized critical of, say, Kamala Harris, the histrionics on the left would have set off alarms on seismic detectors across America. //

Random US Citizen
41 minutes ago
Everything those who are no longer our countrymen do boils down to one of two things: a power grab or money laundering. Those hundreds of millions of dollars Obama gave out in green energy “loans” that were never repaid? Money that was laundered through those companies, a high percentage of which ended up back in the coffers of the DNC as corporate or personal donations. Most of the billion dollars Harris spent on “consultants” is a similar thing, and this “disinformation” spending is just another scheme to get money from the public purse into the pockets of people who really aren’t Americans in any meaningful sense.

Bash Ars Scholae Palatinae
20y
1,191

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite imminent lawless action.
  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, U.S. (2007).

What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.
www.uscourts.gov

Trump War Room @TrumpWarRoom
·
🚨Kamala Harris says that she does not believe in religious exemptions when it comes to abortion.

Christians, remember this when you go to Embedded video

5:45 PM · Oct 22, 2024 //

What is concerning is Harris' comments about not providing any religious exemptions for abortion, which proves that she will place the destruction of human life over the religious freedom protections provided in the Constitution. We've been down this road before, with leftists continuously pushing the boundaries on abortion, taking it from "safe, legal and rare" to murdering full-term babies at will, even if the baby is just days from birth.

Were she to be elected president, Kamala Harris would would take an oath promising to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Based on her own words, she would take that oath knowing that she had no intention of honoring it, and would charge forward with pursuing the most radical pro-abort agenda the United States has ever seen. //

Musicman
2 hours ago
She is so incredibly stupid. Even if abortion was an actual right—let’s assume that it was just added to the Bill of Rights—it would be a lesser right. There is a reason the freedoms of speech and religion come first, followed by the right to bear arms.

Furthermore, she continues to misstate the issue. It’s not about a woman’s body, it’s about her child’s. It just so happens that body happens to be inside hers. You can’t keep slaves in your home and claim the State has no right to tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home, and you can’t morally kill another human being just because it currently resides inside your own body. //

anon-201n
an hour ago
Several points need to be made about abortion and religion.

1. The foetus is not the mother's body. At most it is 1/2 genetically similar to the mother. After 6 weeks, it has a brain, feels pain, and is beginning to look like a little human.
2. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience (don't want another child, financial considerations, etc). Instances of rape or incest are very small (about 1%). Medical difficulties (life of mother, abnormalities of baby) are also very small. Pregnancy is the result of sex, not an additive in the drinking water.
3. Religion is a belief system ascribed to by an individual which governs his/her world view, from private actions to public actions. Everyone has some sort of religion, whether it's mainstream or not. Atheism is a religion in that it is a worldview which negates any god.
4. One could estimate that since Roe v Wade in 1973, some 80 million persons are missing from the U.S. population. A healthy growing young population supports the middle age and seniors, both socially and economically. A country with a declining population will begin to suffer economically.
5. The Dem obsession with abortion reminds me of the party's clinging to slavery in the 1850's. And we know where that went.
6. Choose life!

Greg Price @greg_price11
·
Wow.

Kamala Harris says that she does not believe in any religious exemptions for abortion.

5:47 PM · Oct 22, 2024

And there you have it. Kamala Harris would force Christian hospitals to perform abortions. There's no other way to read her answer, which specifically said there will be no concessions made regarding the issue.

There is a compelling reason that the Supreme Court has regularly ruled that falsehoods are protected speech. The Court openly recognizes that falsehoods can be harmful and may sometimes be quite harmful, but the Court also recognizes that efforts to determine which information is true and which is false are far more harmful to our democracy. The line between whether content can be labeled true or false, or whether it is simply viewpoint disagreement can be blurry and very much in the eye of the beholder. This is especially true of political content and policy debates. This is also the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, which protects free speech and free press. //

Those who wish for regulatory power to ensure “politically correct” content moderation need to answer these fundamental questions: Should the political party who temporarily runs the government be allowed to act as arbiter of what’s true or false, ... //

How will such regulatory power work if the governing political party in the White House switches every four or eight years and the rules dramatically change when a new political party wins? Today, private companies acting as news organizations have their own free speech rights to publish and label their own opinions as true and opposing opinions as false. This works as long as there are multiple competing news companies... //

Rather than attempting to legislate definitions of online safety and viewpoint neutrality, which seems exceedingly difficult in the current deeply divided partisan environment of Washington, D.C., there is another simpler solution.

The simple solution is to mandate full and detailed transparency of:

1. All enforcement actions taken by the online platforms...
   ... //

Such transparency would allow the online platforms to be compared on a peer-to-peer basis for online safety and viewpoint neutrality. Such transparency would also shine the harsh light of publicity on all government efforts to influence online platforms, ...

Specifically, Judge John Bush said that judges should discern the original understanding of free speech in “linguistical meaning” and “evidence of how Americans ordered their lives” in the 1790s.

The Second Amendment case to which the authors referred was New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court ruled that, among other considerations, gun control laws must be consistent with the “historical” standard of restrictions on firearms.

The primary argument the authors made is that relying solely, or mostly, on historical interpretations of the law to define the scope of free speech is problematic. They contend that taking such an approach could lead to inconsistent, regressive, and ultimately tyrannical rulings that would roll back protections on speech.

“If rules from the 1790s were enforced today, citizens could be jailed for criticizing politicians, public figures could freely use defamation law to punish critics, and schoolchildren would have few if any free speech rights,” the authors stated.

The authors also noted court cases that expanded the right to free speech, specifically a 1943 case where a court “held that the government could not compel students to salute the flag because ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.’”

They also brought up a 1971 case that “held that the government could not ban vulgar or offensive speech.”

Yet, in the 17th and 19th centuries, the government had no problem with restricting speech in a way that seems foreign to us today:

Historically, the wrong kind of speech could land you in jail. Laws criminalizing blasphemy, government criticism, tepid sexual content, and other speech viewed to be bad or harmful were commonplace at the country’s founding.

Another historical example the authors offer is the prohibition of abolitionist speech in Southern states, showing how restrictions on speech were used to uphold oppressive institutions such as slavery. //

any court decision should be made through the lens of liberty, seeking to ensure the state does not infringe on any of our rights without an exceedingly good reason. The Framers sought to create a system of governance that would make it difficult for the state to impose laws or policies that make it more intrusive in our lives. The goal was to cultivate a society free from oppressive and unnecessary restrictions imposed with the threat of government violence.

The north star for any court should be liberty, regardless of whether it is in line with historical precedent. Otherwise, those seeking to violate our rights will find it far easier to do so.

🚨BREAKING: Hillary Clinton went to CNN to announce that they are losing control and that Social Media companies should increase their censorship on Conservative misinformation.

Hillary Clinton: "we lose total control." pic.twitter.com/k9VEhegFP7

— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) October 5, 2024 //

This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law. //

CyberChick @warriors_mom
·
Can you smell the sulphur from here? 😈

Tom Elliott @tomselliott
Hillary: “We should be in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity … Whether it‘s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don‘t moderate & monitor the content we lose total control”
Embedded video
8:21 PM · Oct 5, 2024

California’s “deepfake” law shows, once again, that progressive authoritarians seek to ruin everything fun.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s legislature recently went full Karen and passed a law banning political deepfakes and placing restrictions on satire. Now, one of the nation’s leading satirical outlets is fighting back.

The Babylon Bee and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit against the state of California on Monday, challenging new laws that the satire site claims target political parody and free speech, according to a Daily Wire exclusive.