This Week at a Glance 🔎

— 🇺🇲 Anthropic Pulls Plug on New AI Models after U.S. Order

— 🇨🇦 Canada Proposes Ban on Social Media for Under-16s

— 🇬🇧 UK Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s

— 🇮🇳 Mumbai Mayor Calls for Ban on Stand-Up Comedy

— 🇷🇺 Exiled Russian Artist Killed in Poland in Suspected Execution

First of All 🇺🇸

» FTC Sues Transgender Health Group for ‘Deceptive Claims’ on Youth Gender Medicine

• The Federal Trade Commission and four states have filed a lawsuit against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) over making “deceptive claims” in its health care guidelines for transgender children.

• Details:

  • WPATH is a nonprofit professional and educational organization whose members include psychiatrists, surgeons, pediatricians, endocrinologists, and primary care doctors. The organization does not provide direct medical care to patients.

  • “The FTC filed a lawsuit against WPATH alleging that the organization made false and unsubstantiated claims regarding the necessity, effectiveness and safety of puberty blockers, hormones and sex-change surgeries,” FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson said in a press release.

  • In a statement, WPATH said, “The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is not a medical provider and has no place interfering with the process of individualized medical decision-making.”

  • The suit comes after the FTC probed WPATH and other physician organizations that created guidelines for gender-affirming care earlier this year.

  • WPATH, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society sued the agency separately, arguing the probe was retaliatory. A federal judge ruled in their favor.

  • WPATH noted in its statement that a federal court has already ruled against this effort from the FTC when it blocked the investigation: “WPATH is in a strong position to prove that the FTC is acting out of pure retaliation as part of the federal government’s relentless and targeted campaign to undermine gender-affirming care by attacking the First Amendment rights and the independence of professional medical organizations.”

» Anthropic Pulls Plug on Top AI Models after US Order to Limit Foreign Nationals’ Use

• Anthropic has announced it will “abruptly disable” its most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, for all users, following a directive from the Trump administration to suspend access to the models for foreign nationals, claiming the order violates principles of fair and fact-based regulation.

• Context:

  • Earlier last week, Anthropic unveiled Claude Fable 5, which has a new tier of capability it calls “Mythos-class” that experts claim could accelerate sophisticated cyberattacks if in the wrong hands.

  • Anthropic claims it worked with the U.S. government, among others, on safety ahead of the model’s launch, and that rival models demonstrated similar capabilities.

  • Yet, on June 12, the company said it had received an export control directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all foreign nationals due to national security concerns, though specific details were not provided.

• Anthropic’s Response:

  • Anthropic claims the directive stems from the government’s belief that there is a method to bypass, or “jailbreak,” a safeguard that prevents Fable 5 from being used to identify software vulnerabilities and unearth minor bugs in code.

  • However, it argues that the U.S. has provided only “verbal evidence of a potential narrow, non-universal, jailbreak,” and that that should not “be cause for recalling a commercial model deployed to hundreds of millions of people.”

  • In response, the company announced it must terminate all customers’ access to the models to ensure compliance, and that it is working to restore access as soon as possible amid what it believes is a “misunderstanding.”

• The tension follows an earlier battle between the AI company and the government after Anthropic refused to allow the U.S. military to use its models for domestic surveillance and for fully autonomous weapons systems, as detailed in a previous Free Flow.

Our Take: “Software and the publication of model components are expression,” Ashkhen Kazaryan argued in an X thread. “When the state restricts a general purpose information tool by invoking national security without particular demonstrated harm, it is doing exactly what the First Amendment exists to stop — a prior restraint on expression justified by speculative risk.

» Supreme Court Declines High School Student’s ‘Defund Planned Parenthood’ Poster Case

• On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a free-speech appeal from a former Indiana high school student who was barred from hanging anti-abortion club flyers reading “Defund Planned Parenthood” on school walls, leaving in place a lower-court ruling that the school could restrict the content.

• Details:

  • The case began in 2021, when a freshman identified as E.D. founded a chapter of Students for Life of America at Noblesville High School.

  • An assistant principal refused to approve two proposed meeting flyers featuring the phrases “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “I am the Pro-Life Generation,” telling her the posters could list only the club’s name, meeting date, time, and location.

  • A federal district court ruled for the school in 2024, finding the flyers “could reasonably be perceived to bear the imprimatur of the school,” and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld that decision.

  • The Seventh Circuit agreed: “This is not a case about tolerating private student speech. To the contrary, E.D. was permitted to wear her pro-life shirt to school and hand out her flyers to students at the activities fair. Instead, it is a case about whether the school must lend its resources (here, literally its walls) — and, by extension, its authority — to disseminate student messages.”

  • The district court had applied a 1988 Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which held that a school can exercise “editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

  • Justice Samuel Alito criticized the denial, writing that the Court should “clarify the relationship between” the 1988 decision and its other government-speech rulings.

» Federal Judge Blocks Texas AG’s Lawsuit Against Fundraising Platform

• A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction halting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against ActBlue, a Democratic fundraising platform, over its donation practices, arguing Paxton infringed on its free speech rights.

• Context:

  • Paxton alleges that ActBlue told Congress in 2024 that it had stopped accepting donations via gift cards and foreign prepaid debit cards, and later quietly resumed accepting gift-card donations, thereby misleading consumers about its fundraising processes and violating state law.

  • The lawsuit argued that the group’s actions facilitated illegal campaign contributions by anonymous foreign nationals and that it should be forced to pay penalties and be barred from accepting gift card donations.

  • ActBlue filed a federal case, claiming Paxton was retaliating after the group had made fundraising announcements about James Talarico, Paxton’s opponent in the race for a U.S. Senate seat.

• In Court:

  • U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns issued a preliminary injunction, arguing that the lawsuit was an attempt to suppress ActBlue’s political speech.

  • “The truth is plain and captured in Paxton’s own declarations: The lawsuit was filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue’s efforts to fund Talarico’s campaign,” Stearns wrote.

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» Canada Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s, Expansion of Enforcement Powers

• Proposed Bill C-34 in Canada, also known as the Safe Social Media Act, would ban social media for kids under the age of 16, unless a social media company can prove that it has working safeguards in place for children.

• At the same time, the government has unveiled Bill C-36, also known as the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA), which would reform existing privacy laws to transfer authority from Canada’s privacy commissioner to an incoming Canadian Digital Safety Commission (CDSC).

• Bill C-34:

  • The law would require companies to block users under 16 from creating accounts, though they may seek an exemption if they can demonstrate guardrails in place to protect children from bullying or harmful content.

  • Companies would also be required to remove sexually explicit content that victimizes children and adults, including AI-generated deepfakes, within 24 hours.

  • Although AI chatbots are not included in the social media ban, they will face additional regulations, such as mandated notices directing users to help when prompts explore suicide ideation, self-harm, or criminal activity.

  • The bill would also create the Canadian Digital Safety Commission, which could take up to 18 months to establish after the bill becomes law, and have new powers under another recently proposed law, Bill C-36.

• Bill C-36:

  • Bill C-36 transfers the authority to oversee privacy in the private sector from Canada’s privacy commissioner to the CDSC, and grants it new powers, including the ability to issue platforms binding orders and monetary penalties of up to $10 million or 3% of companies’ global revenue.

  • Officials claim that a privacy and data commissioner will be appointed to the CDSC and will enforce both the PPDCA and the Safe Social Media Act.

  • Among a number of changes, Bill C-36 would allow individuals to request that companies delete their personal information and remove deepfake images or videos from commercial platforms such as social media.

» Florida Sues TikTok, Claiming It Flouts State’s Social-Media Law for Minors

• Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a civil lawsuit against TikTok, asking a state court to declare the company a public nuisance for failing to comply with a 2024 law requiring parental consent for teens aged 14-15 to use social media apps.

• Details:

  • Florida’s 2024 law, which took effect in November 2025, requires 14- and 15-year-olds to obtain a parent’s consent to have social media accounts and bars children 13 and under from apps with addictive features such as endless scrolling, push notifications, autoplay video, and live streaming.

  • Uthmeier, in a first lawsuit brought under the law, alleges that TikTok does not require the parental consent required by the law and misrepresents the maturity of its content.

  • Uthmeier said TikTok faces “potentially billions in damages” and asked the court to impose a $50,000 fine per violation.

» Illinois Governor Intends to Sign Social Media Age-Verification Law

• Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has said he intends to sign House Bill 5511, or the “Child Social Media Safety Act,” designed to protect children on online platforms — despite experts’ concerns about its constitutionality.

• Details:

  • State Rep. Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz, a sponsor of the bill, said she believes the law will allow parents to control the content shown to children through a one-time, device-level age verification.

  • Pritzker is slated to sign the legislation into law soon, and it could face challenges in federal court.

» NY Senate Passes Bill Requiring Publishers, Broadcasters to Label AI Content

• The New York State Senate and Assembly have passed companion bills as part of a legislative package called the FAIR News Act that would require publishers and broadcasters to disclose and label AI-generated content.

• Details:

  • The bill would require outlets to disclose content that is “substantially composed, authored, or otherwise created through the use of generative artificial intelligence.”

  • Labels of such content would be required to appear at the top of a print or digital story or at the beginning of audio or visual content.

  • The Attorney General is empowered to determine what content is “substantially created” by AI and requires labeling.

  • Failures to disclose could result in a $1,000 fine for the first infraction and $5,000 for subsequent violations.

  • State Sen. Patricia Fahy has claimed her bill is not aimed at mainstream news outlets or commercial television newsrooms, but rather targets “fly-by-night” digital outlets that distort, pirate, or misrepresent content from legitimate outlets using AI.

  • However, the press release issued by her office applies to “news organizations operating in New York” and makes no distinction between legitimate and rogue outlets.

  • The bill is now headed to Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk.

Subscribe now

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» UK Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s

• A proposed UK law would bar children under 16 from social media platforms and extend restrictions to gaming sites, to block children from accessing “harmful functions” such as livestreaming and the ability to communicate with strangers.

• Details:

  • The ban would apply to platforms including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X, though under-16s would still have access to messaging services like WhatsApp.

  • People under 18 would be banned from having AI “romantic companions,” though the details of the restriction and its enforcement are unclear.

  • Tech companies that fail to comply could face fines.

  • Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he hopes to have the regulations passed by lawmakers in late December and for them to take effect by the spring of 2027.

Our Take: “Although framed as a child-protection measure, the proposal would affect far more than teenagers,” Jeff Kosseff wrote at The Bedrock Principle. “By requiring intrusive age verification and limiting access to online platforms, it risks undermining privacy, anonymous speech, and freedom of expression for everyone.”

» UK Appeals Court Upholds Terrorism Ban on Protest Group Palestine Action

• Britain’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the government’s proscription of the activist group Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organization under the Terrorism Act 2000 was lawful, overturning a February High Court finding that the ban was unlawful and disproportionate.

• Context:

  • Since the group was banned in July 2025, more than 3,000 arrests have been made for displaying support for it.

  • Lawyers representing Britain’s Interior Minister, Shabana Mahmood, had argued at an April hearing that the claims the ban would significantly curtail free expression were “overstated and incorrect.”

  • Chief Justice Sue Carr cited the fact that the group’s activities have caused injury and property damage, and “at no stage has Palestine Action suggested that its terrorist activities were either a mistake or an aberration.”

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» Exiled Russian Artist Killed in Suspected Execution in Poland

• Semyon Skrepetsky, a 44-year-old Russian artist known for creating unflattering caricatures of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead in Poland in a parking lot near his home near Poland’s border with Belarus.

• Details:

  • Skrepetsky had lived in Poland for 5 years after escaping Russia, fearing arrest for his activism.

  • His paintings often depicted Putin with a bovine nose or hugging pigs, many times alongside Russian officials, world leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Xinping, and even Elon Musk.

  • Marcin Kozak, a spokesman for Poland’s prosecutors’ office, said that according to current information, Skrepetsky fell to the ground after an unidentified man fired two shots at him. Then, the perpetrator fired three more shots before fleeing the scene.

  • Police detained two Belarusian men near the Belarusian Consulate after the shooting for suspected execution.

» Tunisian Court Sentences Government-Critical Journalist To Prison In Absentia

• A Tunisian court has sentenced Khaoula Boukrim, journalist and founder of the news website TUMEDIA, to four years in prison in absentia under a 2022 cybercrime law.

• Details:

  • The ruling is the latest move against critical voices under President Kais Saied, following the jailing of several media figures earlier this year, including Zied Heni, Mourad Zghidi, and Borhen Bsaies.

  • Boukrim had fled to Paris in December 2025, after she was informed that two separate judgments had been issued against her under Decree-Law 54, a cybercrime law aimed at combating misinformation and online abuse.

  • According to Reuters, rights groups argue that the law has increasingly been used to prosecute critics and curb free speech.

» Mumbai Mayor Calls for Ban on Stand-Up Comedy Shows

• In Mumbai, India, Mayor Ritu Tawde has called for a ban on stand-up comedy shows after the Maharashtra Cyber, the state’s cybercrime and cybersecurity agency, launched an investigation into a comedy show that allegedly featured obscene and objectionable content circulating online.

• Details:

  • Content from the program, hosted by comedian Pranit More, began circulating on social media and allegedly contained offensive remarks concerning women, consent, and deceased persons.

  • Authorities claim the content was contrary to accepted societal norms and subject to provisions of criminal law.

  • The Maharashtra Cyber registered a First Information Report (FIR), which automatically initiates a formal police investigation, against comedians Pranit More, Himanshu Jangra, Sejal Pawar, and other individuals associated with the show.

  • Speaking about the show, Tawde said, “As the Mayor, I oppose this; it does not befit our Indian culture…Stand-up comedy shows should be banned. I will write a letter to the Chief Minister.”

» Azerbaijan Rearrests Exiled Journalist After Forced Return From Georgia

• Azerbaijan rearrested Afgan Sadigov, editor-in-chief of the online outlet Azel.TV, after he was arrested in Georgia in 2024 over an Azerbaijani extradition request alleging extortion, without evidence.

• Details:

  • Sadigov had applied to the European Court of Human Rights to halt his removal on the grounds that his rights in Azerbaijan would be violated, and the court suspended his transfer.

  • On April 1, Azerbaijani authorities terminated the criminal prosecution behind the extradition request. Georgian courts subsequently lifted the restrictions on Sadigov.

  • On April 4, Georgian authorities detained Sadigov on an administrative charge of “insulting a police officer on social media” and deported him to Azerbaijan.

  • Georgian authorities claimed that the ECtHR’s suspension of Sadigov’s transfer was no longer relevant since Azerbaijan had dropped the charges.

  • In Azerbaijan, authorities prevented him from leaving the country, telling him the case against him was active despite official documentation showing it had been closed.

  • Sadigov was detained on June 8, and his lawyer reports that an Azerbaijani court had ordered the case reopened.

» Pakistan Detains YouTube Journalist Over Kashmir Protest Coverage

• Pakistani authorities have arrested journalist Sohrab Barkat over his coverage of protests in Kashmir on his YouTube channel.

• Details:

  • The National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) accused Barkat of violating the country’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), which criminalized the dissemination of “fake or false” information.

  • The NNCIA cited a June 5 report by Barkat, which they say promoted the views of a local protest movement called the Jammu Kashmir Join Awami Action Committee (JAAC).

  • JAAC was banned by Pakistan-administered Kashmir under anti-terrorism laws on the same day.

  • Bakarat appeared in court and was remanded in custody for three days.

  • This follows his earlier detention from November 2025 to March this year, which carried no charges and is linked to his journalism, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

Audrey Campbell is a communications intern at The Future of Free Speech and an international relations major at American University.

Isabella Dail is a communications intern at The Future of Free Speech and a recent graduate from Princeton University with a bachelor’s in philosophy.

The United Kingdom announced this week that it plans to ban certain social media sites for all children under 16 years old. Although framed as a child-protection measure, the proposal would affect far more than teenagers. By requiring intrusive age verification and limiting access to online platforms, it risks undermining privacy, anonymous speech, and freedom of expression for everyone.

The UK is following in the footsteps of Australia, which enacted a similar ban last year. Both countries are imposing the bans out of concern for the impacts of social media on children’s mental health. “Parents want to keep their kids safe and happy, but the online world has made that harder than ever,” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement announcing the policy.

The UK plans to ban children under 16 from using social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, and YouTube, but it will not ban Signal, WhatsApp, and other messaging services. The government’s announcement did not sufficiently justify how a selective ban on only certain platforms would address its concerns about harms to children.

The government also plans to examine restrictions on certain social media features, such as infinite scrolling, for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The government justified its move in part on the basis of a consultation with more than 116,000 children, experts, and parents, who overwhelmingly said they want a social media ban. It’s worth noting how the government admits (on a webpage that is several clicks away from its announcement) that its consultation findings have a self-selection bias and are not representative:

“The consultation was open to anyone who chose to respond. The results reflect the views of parents and carers who were motivated to take part, and are not representative of parents and carers nationally. As with any open public consultation, respondents may differ systematically from the wider population in their views and characteristics.”

Regardless, the government did not explain why parents are unable to control the platforms that their children access. Nor did it articulate the strength of the data supporting its assumption that social media harms children under 16. In January, the UK government released a report authored by 14 scholars, which found a “small but consistent correlation” between adolescent social media use and poor mental health. But the report warned that “while longitudinal studies can demonstrate the sequence of events, they cannot confirm causality without the use of more robust causal methods.”

This is in line with research around the world, which is equivocal at best on the issue of whether social media harms teenage mental health. A 2024 report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that its “review of the literature did not support the conclusion that social media causes changes in adolescent health at the population level.”

Assuming that the UK government is correct to conclude that social media could harm teenagers’ mental health, it ignores the many potential benefits of social media in providing community and access to information. “Social media has the potential to connect friends and family. It may also be valuable to teens who otherwise feel excluded or lack offline support,” the National Academies report found. “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, questioning, and other (LGBTQ+) teenagers may find support online that they do not have in their offline world, as do young people coping with serious illness, bereavement, and mental health problems.”

And even if one were to discount these benefits and conclude that banning children from social media would be desirable in the abstract, it is unlikely that the UK policy would accomplish that goal. Six months after Australia’s ban went into effect, the government reported that about 70 percent of children continued to use social media. Children are well aware of how to circumvent age-assurance technology, such as facial recognition and ID checks. If the overwhelming majority of children continue to use social media despite the ban, the policy primarily succeeds in increasing surveillance rather than reducing access.

Starmer acknowledged that possibility but said it is not a reason to refrain from the social media ban. “They get around other laws, too, but we don’t say, ‘Oh, look, a teenager managed to get a drink somehow, so let’s not bother banning alcohol sales to children,’” Starmer said, according to the New York Times. “We don’t do that, that would be utterly ridiculous, and so I just don’t accept that argument.”

What Starmer failed to acknowledge is that underage drinking is quite different from the use of social media, which provides the ability to express and receive information and therefore carries many more potential social benefits and raises fundamentally different constitutional questions.

Starmer also fails to account for the policy’s impact on adults. The announcement said that the government would introduce “highly effective age assurance” measures, but it did not specify the required technology. This technology either estimates age from a facial scan or requires the user to upload a driver’s license or passport.

Indeed, the UK recently began requiring age verification for online “harmful” content such as pornography, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that the use of these technologies on platforms such as Reddit was “chaotic,” requiring people, including adults, to surrender their anonymity to continue to use platforms. EFF wrote that “users reported various bugs in the age-checking process, like being locked out or asked repeatedly for ID despite complying.”

Requiring sensitive information such as facial scans or photo IDs risks real privacy violations. This is not merely hypothetical. Last year, Discord’s age-verification provider suffered a data breach, compromising 70,000 users’ government identification cards.

The UK’s minimization of the severity of these problems is particularly ironic, as it has a long and proud history of anonymous speech. For instance, in the 1700s, a pseudonymous writer known only as Junius wrote dozens of letters to a London newspaper, criticizing King George III and many government officials. His letters had a great impact on public sentiment, and to this day, his identity is unknown.

Under the UK’s plans, the next potential Junius would be less likely to criticize the government on social media, as a third-party age assurance provider would have collected Junius’s face scan or photo ID.

Jeff Kosseff is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at The Future of Free Speech and the co-author (with Jacob Mchangama) of the new book The Future of Free Speech: Reversing the Global Decline of Democracy’s Most Essential Freedom (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2026).

Subscribe now

For the past few years, one of the most contentious issues in the online speech world is “jawboning,” or government pressure on companies to censor certain speech. Although jawboning has typically been associated with pressure on social media companies, we have more recently seen serious allegations of jawboning against broadcasters and artificial intelligence providers.

A new bipartisan bill seeks to prevent jawboning in all those contexts and to grant victims of jawboning the right to sue government employees who attempted to censor them. Introduced last week by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression Act (“JAWBONE Act”) defines impermissible government jawboning and provides much-needed transparency to government pressure on speech intermediaries.

The bill would make it illegal for a federal agency or federal employee to “coerce” an online service, AI provider, or broadcaster into changing or removing speech, or suspending or terminating individual users.

Central to the bill is its strong and broad coverage. It defines “coerce” as “to take a harmful, hostile, or unfavorable action, to imply the possibility of taking such action, or to threaten such action.” Among the factors that determine whether coercion exists are:

• “the word choice and tone of any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee,”

• “the existence of any federal regulatory or enforcement authority over the recipient of any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee,”

• “whether any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee referred to adverse consequences to the recipient,”

• “whether any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee was private or public,”

• “whether any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee included an affirmative disclaimer that the communication lacked legal force,”

• “whether any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee included a factual statement without legal force that could be useful to the decision-making of the recipient,”

• “whether any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee was for the purpose of aiding compliance with existing law,” and

• “whether any relevant communication from the agency, officer, or employee led the recipient to act contrary to its own policies.”

The bill’s test for coercion is more detailed than, but similar to, the four-part test for unconstitutional jawboning that the Supreme Court articulated in a 2024 First Amendment case, National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that opinion, the Court held that to determine whether a government communication constitutes a coercive threat, courts should consider “(1) word choice and tone; (2) the existence of regulatory authority; (3) whether the speech was perceived as a threat; and, perhaps most importantly, (4) whether the speech refers to adverse consequences.”

One might wonder why there is a need for a jawboning bill in light of that strong First Amendment precedent. The JAWBONE Act addresses a major shortcoming in the current legal framework: although the government might have violated the First Amendment, victims of jawboning often lack effective remedies. It is difficult to sue the federal government for constitutional violations. The Supreme Court only allows these suits, known as Bivens claims, in a few specific types of cases and has expressed an unwillingness to extend such lawsuits to First Amendment claims. In other words, even if a plaintiff has strong evidence that the federal government violated their First Amendment rights, there might not be a mechanism to sue for damages.

The JAWBONE Act addresses this problem by creating a private right of action, allowing jawboning victims, state attorneys general, and online services to bring a civil lawsuit against federal agencies or employees for violations of the law. The right of action allows compensatory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief.

The bill addresses another obstacle to jawboning cases: defendants often move to dismiss for failure to state a claim or lack of standing before any discovery has occurred. Without discovery, the plaintiff may not have alleged enough facts to survive a motion to dismiss. The bill allows the court to grant a limited 30-day discovery period before ruling on the motion to dismiss. This enables the plaintiff to gather sufficient evidence to allow the suit to proceed beyond the dismissal motion.

The bill allows a private right of action not only against federal agencies, but against federal employees in their individual capacities. The JAWBONE Act requires the federal government to indemnify those employees unless the court determines that the employee “acted in a willful and wanton manner in incurring liability.”

In addition to creating a private right of action, the JAWBONE Act would provide much-needed transparency to the federal government’s interactions with social media platforms, AI providers, and broadcasters. It would create a centralized, publicly available portal for federal agencies to report their communications with those companies regarding expression on their platforms.

Jeff Kosseff is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at The Future of Free Speech and the co-author (with Jacob Mchangama) of the new book The Future of Free Speech: Reversing the Global Decline of Democracy’s Most Essential Freedom (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2026).

Share

Originally published on my personal Substack.

Last week, a German man was fined 30 daily income units for calling Chancellor Friedrich Merz a “Lying Fritz” on Facebook. He was not alone. When the Heilbronn police published a Facebook post in October 2025 announcing the chancellor’s upcoming visit, some 400 comments rolled in — many mocking Merz, by then unpopular for breaking a string of campaign promises.

He was subjected to such indignities as “Ftzn Frieder” (roughly “c**t Freddie”), “Pinocchio,” and “Lackaffe” (”pompous fool”). Unfortunately for these keyboard warriors, Article 188 of the German Criminal Code punishes “Insult, malicious gossip and defamation directed at persons in political life” with fines or up to five years imprisonment.

Heilbronn police launched 39 investigations. The persons responsible for “Lying Fritz” and “Ftzn Frieder” were fined with 30 daily income units, “Lackaffe” escaped a formal conviction by paying a 100 Euro fine, while “Pinocchio” was deemed protected speech.

This was not an isolated incident. German newspaper Die Welt broke the story that Merz has used a private reputation firm to scan social media and report hundreds of insulting comments to the police since 2021, when Merz was the leader of the (then) opposition conservative CDU party in the Bundestag. Several of these complaints resulted in house searches with confiscations of phones and tablets, including one later deemed illegal and one of a severely disabled woman in a wheelchair.

Merz is not the only thin-skinned politician in Germany. From 2023 - 2025, the number of investigations for insults against politicians increased from 2,598 to 4,792, or roughly 85%. These cases often involve powerful government officials, such as the previous Vice-Chancellor and Interior Minister.

Article 188 was adopted in 2021 after the murder of a German politician by a white supremacist. Merz’s CDU colleague Carsten Müller defended the provision since “murderous acts followed bloodthirsty words.” But the idea behind punishing ordinary citizens for sarcastic, offensive, and insulting statements about their elected officials goes well beyond incitement and threats. Its purpose is to prevent “attacks on personal rights” as well as on “political discourse in the democratic and pluralist social order.”

Ironically, an unelected Roman emperor who held vastly more political power over his subjects than Germany’s democratic leaders hold over the citizens from whom they derive their power would have rejected Article 188 and its rationale as both unjust and unwise.

Almost 2,000 years ago, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote his famous “Meditations” (Hays translation), a timeless manual on how to apply Stoic philosophy to practical life. Aurelius is often referred to as a “philosopher king.”

But Meditations is not an abstract theoretical work of philosophy. It was written for an audience of one, Aurelius himself, as a form of philosophical self-help guide while he was fulfilling his duties on military campaigns, navigating treacherous revolts and trying to hold the empire together during deadly plagues.

Despite ruling the most powerful empire on earth and wielding unchecked power over millions of subjects, Marcus Aurelius has a lot to say about the value of free speech, criticism, and the tolerance of insults, mockery, and hatred, which contrasts sharply with the democratically adopted laws that protect elected government officials like Merz.

In Book I.14, Marcus pays respect to his mentors and teachers for instilling basic values in him, including the ideal of:

a society of equal laws, governed by equality of status and of speech, and of rulers who respect the liberty of their subjects above all else.

Marcus uses the Greek terms “parrhesia” — uninhibited or fearless speech — and “isegoria” — equality of (political) speech — concepts central to the Athenian democracy that was the epicenter of the very Greek philosophy that Marcus Aurelius consumed.

Contrast this with the German prosecutor who insisted that it was necessary to punish the Facebook post calling Merz a Lying Fritz because it was:

shaking confidence in the integrity of the victim, because it was capable of stirring up further negative prejudices or even aggression among like-minded individuals.

But for Aurelius, the values of free and equal speech were not so much about institutional safeguards or laws — the Roman empire had no bill of rights — as about ethics and cultivating the mental habits necessary for leading a virtuous life.

Marcus was surrounded by courtiers and flatterers, and many people he met would have been afraid to criticize him. There had traditionally been very good reasons for this, given the harsh treatment that Emperors like Tiberius dished out to people whose words and writings displeased them and who transformed Republican Rome’s relatively lenient attitude towards political criticism into the capital crime of “literary treason.”

Yet, Marcus entirely rejects the idea that he — or any other prominent figure — is different from other men, or in need of special protection. In fact, he welcomes criticism as set out in book VI.21:

If anyone can refute me—show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I’ll gladly change. It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance.

It’s no surprise that John Stuart Mill - who regarded Marcus Aurelius “the best and most enlightened among his contemporaries” - would adopt and elaborate this argument in On Liberty some 1,700 years later.

Merz and the German political establishment might retort: We too value debate and pluralism and will heed constructive criticism, yet we draw the line at gratuitous insults that contribute nothing to serious discussions and are solely aimed at degrading the dignity of public officials and undermining democratic institutions.

Yet, Marcus Aurelius’s ethics is much more demanding than merely embracing reasoned criticism. Again and again, he reminds himself that humans are imperfect and hold conflicting ideas about the highest good, with each person convinced that they are in the right and others wrong. Accordingly, insults and expressions of hatred are a natural consequence of ignorance and pluralism, which cannot be remedied by punishment or responding in kind with anger and hatred.

When possible, a virtuous person should try to reason and correct those who are misguided. When this is not possible, a virtuous person should strive to look at words for what they are: words. Aurelius’ central insight is that insults and hateful words only hurt if you allow them to. If you train your mind not to slavishly identify with others’ opinions about you, but evaluate them as objectively as possible, you’ll not be afflicted by feelings of rage, anger, hatred, or sorrow that offensive words can provoke in the reactive mind. This quote from Book VIII.48-49 is instructive:

The mind without passions is a fortress. No place is more secure. Once we take refuge there we are safe forever. Not to see this is ignorance. To see it and not seek safety means misery. Nothing but what you get from first impressions. That someone has insulted you, for instance. That—but not that it’s done you any harm.

And he goes further:

Someone despises me. That’s their problem. Mine: not to do or say anything despicable. Someone hates me. Their problem. Mine: to be patient and cheerful with everyone, including them. Ready to show them their mistake. Not spitefully, or to show off my own self-control, but in an honest, upright way.

In light of Marcus Aurelius’ wise insights, Merz’s reaction becomes almost laughable and pathetic. Should the Chancellor of Germany really be concerned about random insults on a Facebook post? In what concrete way can such comments hurt the most powerful man in Germany? Should the leader of a country struggling with a flagging economy, integration of immigrants, and a disintegrating NATO, not be robust enough to laugh at personal insults, rather than treat them as threats to the government he heads? If Merz believes that the people in whose name he governs are wrong about his policies, why not try to listen, understand, and correct their views, rather than have the police show up at their doors?

Marcus Aurelius also appreciates the benefits of tolerating the value of humor in the form of sharp and sarcastic personal attacks. He specifically praises the Old Comedy of Athens, often associated with Aristophanes, who ridiculed prominent Athenian politicians, intellectuals, and even the Gods. From Book XI.6 (Long translation):

After Tragedy the Old Comedy was introduced, with its magisterial freedom of speech, and by its very plain speaking reminding men not to be insolent.

In other words, the emperor of Rome actively embraced the value of satire in reminding the powerful that they, too, are mere humans and that arrogance and self-importance are vices to be kept in check, not to be indulged or protected through force.

It would be wrong and ahistorical to portray Marcus Aurelius as an early champion of liberal democracy or human rights. He was, after all, an emperor; there were persecutions of Christians during his reign, and he fought bloody campaigns to retain the empire that his predecessors had conquered through brutal wars. For these failings, Mill explicitly uses Marcus Aurelius as both an aspirational figure for cultivating an open and tolerant mindset and as a tragic warning against believing oneself to be beyond reproach:

Unless any one who approves of punishment for the promulgation of opinions, flatters himself that he is a wiser and better man than Marcus Aurelius--more deeply versed in the wisdom of his time, more elevated in his intellect above it--more earnest in his search for truth, or more single-minded in his devotion to it when found;--let him abstain from that assumption of the joint infallibility of himself and the multitude.

Mill’s challenge applies with full force to Germany’s prosecutors and legislators: do they flatter themselves wiser and better than Marcus Aurelius? However imperfect his rule, it is difficult not to conclude that the ethics this ancient emperor strove to live by were far more conducive to liberal democracy than the cognitive dissonance underlying modern Germany’s speech crimes, where the powerful enjoy special protection against criticism from their own citizens.

Several politicians have argued for the repeal of Article 188 and the end of mass investigations of citizens who throw rhetorical daggers at their politicians, but so far to no avail. Perhaps Germany needs a “philosopher Chancellor.”

Share

Jacob Mchangama is the Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech and a research professor at Vanderbilt University. He is also the author of Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media and The Future of Free Speech: Reversing the Global Decline of Democracy’s Most Essential Freedom (with Jeff Kosseff).

Subscribe now

This Week at a Glance 🔎

— 🇺🇸 Trump Seeks to Revive $475M Defamation Suit Against CNN

— 🇬🇧 White House Opposes UK Social Media Ban for Under-16s

— 🇨🇳 China Suppresses Tiananmen Square Anniversary Remembrance

— 🇩🇪 German Court Says Google Liable for AI Overviews

— 📱FCC Targets “Burner Phones”

First of All 🇺🇸

» Trump Tells Supreme Court He Will Seek to Revive $475 Million CNN Defamation Suit

• President Donald Trump has reportedly told the U.S. Supreme Court that he plans to ask the Justices to revive his $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN over the network’s use of the term “Big Lie” in reporting on his claim that the 2020 election was rigged against him.

• Context:

  • Trump sued CNN in 2022, accusing the network of smearing him by frequently using “Big Lie” to describe his theory that Joe Biden’s 2020 victory was the result of mass voter fraud, and of harming his reputation by hosting guests who compared him to Adolf Hitler.

  • The case was dismissed in July 2023 by U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal, who said that while the network’s statements were “repugnant,” they were not “defamatory.”

  • “This case involves political speech of the highest order,” Singhal wrote, “The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for public office.”

  • The ruling was upheld by a three-judge federal appeals court panel in November 2025.

  • According to a request docketed by the Justices, Trump’s lawyers have now asked the Court for a 60-day extension to August 15 to file his petition for a review of the lower court’s dismissal of the case.

  • The filing indicated Trump also wants the Justices to weigh in on when a jury, rather than a judge, should decide whether an allegedly defamatory statement would be viewed by the public as opinion or fact.

» Press-Freedom Groups Demand Charges Be Dropped Against Journalists Arrested at Newark ICE Protests

• More than a dozen national and statewide press organizations have demanded that authorities drop charges against at least three journalists arrested while covering protests outside Newark, New Jersey’s Delaney Hall immigration detention center.

• Details:

  • Protests at Delaney Hall, the state’s largest immigration detention center, have been ongoing since May 22.

  • After authorities enforced an emergency curfew around the facility, they began “kettling” crowds, or surrounding and containing groups before making arrests.

  • Despite state guidelines that exempt journalists from the curfew, three were arrested on May 31, and one was reportedly charged with felony rioting and resisting arrest.

  • The allegations directly challenge state officials’ statements that journalists at Delaney Hall were not arrested, detained, or injured during operations.

• Broader Context:

  • According to the organizations, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker is investigating at least three arrests, 38 assaults, and five incidents of equipment damage involving journalists covering the Delaney Hall protests.

  • The Tracker is also investigating an Essex County Prosecutor’s Office sergeant after they were charged with stealing an injured photojournalist’s gear.

  • Photographers report being pepper-sprayed and struck with batons by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while reporting.

  • A WNBC television crew claims state police removed them from their marked news vehicle and directed them into an area where tear gas was deployed.

» Hawaiian Think-Tank Sues Over State’s Corporate Political Spending Law

• Grassroot Institute of Hawai’i (GIH), a public policy think tank, has filed a lawsuit against “Act 11,” which establishes new restrictions on political spending by incorporated entities, including nonprofits, trade associations, corporations, and unions, arguing that the law violates organizations’ First Amendment rights.

• Act 11:

  • Act 11 directly challenges the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which affirmed independent spending by third parties on political advertisements as protected speech.

  • Existing campaign finance statutes allow organizations to make such contributions as long as they register “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications” and disclose them to donors.

  • Act 11 prohibits incorporated entities, including nonprofits, from engaging in “election activity” and “ballot-issue activity,” which could potentially include any spending to speak out for or against candidates, ballot measures, or political parties.

  • Entities can face a range of penalties from suspension of authority to operate, revocation of tax exemptions, to involuntary dissolution.

  • According to the Institute for Free Speech (IFS), GIH’s legal representation, by prohibiting any spending to “directly or indirectly … support or oppose” a candidate, the law risks prohibiting routine legislative education and advocacy that may mention elected officials.

• The Lawsuit:

  • Keli’i Anika, President of GIH, said in a statement that Act 11 “prevents citizens from organizing and pooling resources, time, and effort to speak on topics of public concern.”

  • Owen Yeates, the lead IFS litigator on behalf of GIH, argued, “Americans have a constitutional right to join together through nonprofits and other associations to advocate for the causes that matter to them and their communities. Moreover, Americans have a right to decide for themselves which voices they want to hear. Act 11 strips those rights from the residents of Hawai‘i.”

  • The Act is set to take effect in July 2027.

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» White House Urges UK Not to Ban Social Media for Under-16s

• In a submission to the UK government’s consultation on online safety, the White House has urged the country not to impose a social media ban for children under 16.

• Details:

  • The submission argues that age-gating content will not work and instead calls on the UK to give parents “robust tools” to manage children’s privacy settings and account controls, and to mandate that platforms offer a safe online experience.

  • It also explains, “We have concerns about regulations that impose disproportionate compliance burdens on American companies or that apply to one platform but not similar services.”

• Context:

  • Meta, whose platforms will be affected by the outcome of the consultation, has already launched a legal challenge against Ofcom, the UK’s media regulator, regarding the fees and fines it is enforcing under the Act, as included in a previous Free Flow.

  • The news comes as the country’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to unveil a package of online restrictions that includes a ban on “harmful” social media apps and potential blocks on conversations with strangers on gaming platforms.

  • The “harmful” apps subject to the ban are unknown, though reports that YouTube Kids could be exempt indicate there may be exceptions for “educational” platforms.”

» FCC Proposes Telecom Providers Collect Identifying Information About Phone Customers

• A recent proposal from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would legally require telecommunications companies to store identifying personal information of all phone customers to prevent people from buying “burner phones.”

• Details:

  • “Burner phones” are phones that are not linked to your identity at the point of purchase, and can be important technology for journalists, domestic abuse survivors, or privacy-conscious people.

  • The proposed changes would require telecom providers to obtain the “name, physical address, government issued identification number, and an alternate telephone number of any new and renewing customer before granting access to its services.”

  • The agency claims the goal of collecting the data is to deter scammers and to allow enforcers to better identify them, but it also lists other ways the data could help authorities.

  • Authorities note that the data could help identify people involved in investigations into “fraud, espionage, or influence operations that undermine national security” as well as “abuse in text messaging networks.”

  • One section adds, ‘criminals continue to leverage the anonymity provided by phone calls and texts to defraud Americans and exploit communications networks…”

  • The proposal is open to public comment until June 25.

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» German Court Holds Google Liable Over AI-Generated Overview Results

• The Regional Court of Munich has ruled that Google is directly liable for what its AI search overviews say, and that prior case law shielding search engine operators from liability does not apply to such overviews.

• Context:

  • The case was brought by two Munich-based publishing companies that Google’s AI overviews had falsely linked to scams, subscription traps, and shady business practices in certain search queries.

  • The publishers had sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, but even though specific texts were no longer being displayed, Google had not properly complied with the letter, nor had it implemented safeguards to prevent the algorithm from generating the same statements again.

  • The Munich Court issued a temporary injunction against the company, barring it from spreading false claims about the publishers in AI overviews.

• In Court:

  • Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled that search engine operators are only subject to limited liability over third parties that they merely made findable.

  • The Munich court determined that such liability protections do not apply to AI overviews, which it found are a generation of “independent, new, and substantive statements,” made by evaluating and combining content.

  • It said that Google’s AI overviews differ from traditional search results because it rewrites information “in its own words and according to its own structure,” and that the claims against the publishers, which did not appear in search results, were the “defendant’s own statements.”

  • Google argued at the hearing that users could fact-check the AI overview using the linked sources themselves, but the Court rejected this, saying the possibility of disproving a statement doesn’t exempt its maker from liability.

Subscribe now

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» China Represses Tiananmen Square Remembrance Activities

• According to an anonymous source who spoke with the Associated Press, Chinese police told the relatives of victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre that they would not be allowed to visit a Beijing cemetery on the 37th anniversary of the tragedy.

• Details:

  • Police increased security measures on the anniversary in a park where candlelight vigils have been held every year since the massacre, until a clampdown in 2019 following anti-government protests.

  • A handful of people showed up, and officers stopped and searched seven of them on suspicion of being disorderly in public.

  • The police said the individuals were taken for further investigation before being allowed to leave.

• Context:

  • The police presence is the latest in a yearslong campaign to erase the tragedy from public memory.

  • Authorities in Hong Kong have banned the vigil since 2020, citing the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Three of the vigil’s organizers have been charged under a 2020 national security law.

» Two Men Convicted in London of Stabbing Iranian Journalist in Attack Linked to Iran

• A jury at Woolwich Crown Court has convicted two Romanian men of stabbing Pouria Zeraati, a journalist from a Farsi-language television station, allegedly at the behest of Tehranian authorities.

• Details:

  • Zeraati, a presenter at London-based Iran International, was stabbed in the leg in March 2024.

  • Nandito Badea and George Stana were arrested in Romania in December 2024 for the attack and extradited to the U.K., while the third suspect, David Andrei, remains the subject of criminal proceedings in Romania.

  • The jury’s verdict does not conclude that the attack was executed on behalf of Iran, though the judge may determine that when the pair is sentenced in July.

  • Iran’s senior diplomat in England has denied it was behind the attack, though the broadcaster has previously received threats over its coverage of the country.

  • In 2023, the broadcaster temporarily moved to studios in Washington, D.C., citing an escalation of “state-backed threats from Iran,” before later resuming operations at a new location in London.

  • U.K. security officials claim Iran is behind a growing number of plans in the country targeting opposition Farsi-language media outlets and the Jewish community in the country, with reports that more than 20 lethal plots were disrupted by the country’s MI5 domestic intelligence service between October 2024 and ‘25.

» Surge in Arrests Over False News & Offensive Speech in Ghana

• The Media Foundation for West Africa has reported a sharp uptick in arrests linked to false news and offensive speech in Ghana as authorities increasingly enforce the country’s Criminal Code and Electronic Communications Act.

• Details:

  • 14 such arrests have occurred in less than 16 months, nearly double the number documented during the previous administration’s eight-year tenure.

  • Opposition minority leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has criticized enforcement efforts, arguing, “Arresting citizens for words that do not constitute genuine threats is not justice. It is intimidation.”

  • Meanwhile, the government has rejected allegations of a crackdown, and a National Democratic Congress (NDC) Party communicator said: “Ghana’s laws, Section 208 of the Criminal Code and Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, have been on the books for decades.”

  • “What has changed,” he added, “is the sheer volume of reckless, anonymous, and sometimes dangerous content on social media. There is no systematic crackdown. There is simply enforcement of existing law.”

  • A legal consultant told Al Jazeera that after reviewing recent cases, Section 208 of the Criminal Code was misapplied at least 16 times in the past 18 months.

» Journalists Arrested in Mali for ‘Undermining the State’

• Malian authorities have arrested two journalists in the past two days as part of a crackdown on dissent, as a security crisis escalates.

• The Arrests:

  • The main press association in Mali, the “Maison de La Presse,” said that journalist Abderhmane Keita was arrested on charges of “undermining national unity and the credibility of the state” and “dissemination of false and misleading information.”

  • Chahana Takiou, a television presenter and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper 22 Septembre, was arrested on charges of “undermining the credibility of the State through the judicial system.”

  • Takiou had criticized the authorities’ application of a cybercrime law, which he argued was weaponized against press freedom.

• Context:

  • Public statements suggesting that Mali’s military leadership is losing ground to jihadist groups often lead to charges in the country.

  • The arrests come as reports of Islamic extremists attacking the country reach record numbers and government forces face accusations of killing civilians with suspected ties to militants.

  • The security crisis has been used as justification for the crackdown on dissent, with authorities banning magazines, French media outlets, and imprisoning opposition leaders.

» Amnesty International Report Shows Inadequate Protest Protections in Greece, Leading Demonstrations to Become Violent

• A report from Amnesty International finds that protest legislation in Greece, which fails to meet international standards, is underpinning an increase in the use of unnecessary or excessive police force against peaceful protesters in the country.

• Excessive Force:

  • The report is based on two years of research, video footage analysis, and interviews with protesters, journalists, and lawyers.

  • Of the 67 people interviewed specifically about unlawful use of force in policing demonstrations, 30 described authorities throwing stun grenades above peaceful protesters and journalists’ heads, or at their feet, or into dense crowds.

  • Verified video shows police using stun grenades next to a cafe where bystanders were sitting, and documents officers striking peaceful demonstrators with batons, chasing them, and beating people already under police control.

  • The report also covers incidents involving the use of chemical irritants, water cannons, and force during arrest and or detention.

• Broad Police Powers:

  • Police are empowered to stop protesters and bring them into stations for identity checks, which has resulted in people being subject to arbitrary detentions, body searches, and use of force despite no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

  • Peaceful protesters have been criminalized, including individuals charged for participating in demonstrations or engaging in civil disobedience.

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

Audrey Campbell is a communications intern at The Future of Free Speech and an international relations major at American University.

Isabella Dail is a communications intern at The Future of Free Speech and a recent graduate from Princeton University with a bachelor's in philosophy.

For most of human history, gatekeepers determined what information reached the public — first the church, then the press, then broadcasters. Today, that power belongs to algorithms. Recommendation systems now decide what news people see – or don’t. Regulating those systems is, therefore, no longer a matter of market competition exclusively. It is a question of free speech.

And the next decisive move in the global campaign to tame Big Tech companies may come not from Brussels, Washington, or Beijing — but from Brasília.

For years, Europe has set the tone in digital regulation. The Digital Markets Act established the principle that some platforms are so large and so strategically placed that regulators need not wait for proven misconduct before imposing restrictions.

That idea is now spreading. Brazil’s proposed Digital Markets Bill, PL 4675/2025 (expected to be voted on in May or June), does more than borrow Europe’s template. In important respects, it improves upon Europe’s political ambition while discarding some of its restraint.

That should concern anyone interested in who will wield the power to shape the architecture of the digital public square.

The bill, introduced by President Lula’s administration and pushed rapidly through the legislative process, would allow Brazil’s antitrust authority, CADE, to designate certain firms as systemically relevant and subject them to special obligations through a new digital markets unit. The broad rationale is familiar: large platforms occupy bottleneck positions, and governments should be able to intervene before damage is done.

That case deserves serious debate. But Brazil’s proposal goes well beyond a narrow ex-ante framework aimed at preventing anti-competitive conduct. It creates something more elastic: a regime in which the practical scope of intervention will depend less on clear statutory limits than on administrative interpretation. This is the bill’s defining feature as well as its greatest danger.

Europe’s DMA is interventionist, but it is also relatively specific. It sets out an identifiable list of dos and don’ts for designated gatekeepers. Brazil’s bill is more open-ended. The obligations it contemplates are illustrative rather than exhaustive, giving regulators room to broaden the scope of intervention over time without returning to Congress. In other words, lawmakers would authorize a model whose real content may be determined later by bureaucratic discretion.

That is not a minor drafting choice, but a transfer of power.

The bill is also broader in operational reach than some of its foreign counterparts. Rather than targeting only a particular service or market where a concern arises, it appears to allow obligations to spill over into entire corporate groups and integrated ecosystems.

In digital markets, that matters enormously. Platforms do not operate as isolated products. They operate as systems: of search, advertising, communications, app distribution, cloud infrastructure, payments, logistics, and data. A regulator empowered to reach across that web is not merely correcting abuses, but acquiring leverage over how digital ecosystems are designed and governed.

And Brazil’s bill says that part out loud.

Most antitrust laws concern conduct: exclusionary contracts, self-preferencing, tying, discriminatory access, and predatory behavior. This proposal moves further upstream. It explicitly permits interventions in algorithms, ranking systems, interoperability structures, and data flows — the internal mechanics through which platforms determine visibility, prioritize services, and shape user choice.

That is the real story. In digital markets, design is not cosmetic. Design is power.

Recommendation systems and integrated services affect more than prices and convenience. They affect what people see and how information circulates — and these are the raw materials of public debate. When regulators can reshape these by decree, the implications extend well beyond market efficiency. Users have a right to receive information, and a regulatory regime empowered to rewrite the mechanics of visibility can also quietly suppress ideas that those in power find inconvenient. The line between correcting an algorithmic bias and imposing one is thinner than it appears.

This is why the old distinction between competition policy and information policy is becoming harder to sustain. Once regulators are empowered to redesign the mechanisms that organize visibility and access, they are no longer acting only as market referees. They are helping shape the environment through which economic and informational life flows.

The geopolitical implications are equally important. The companies most likely to be designated under PL 4675/2025 are not Brazilian firms. They are overwhelmingly American. The bill is not openly protectionist; it does not impose tariffs or formal barriers to entry. But it would give a domestic authority in one of the world’s largest democracies continuing power over the design and operation of foreign platforms that function as essential infrastructure in the local economy.

Share

That is a subtler, more modern form of power. It works not by excluding foreign firms, but by governing the conditions under which they may operate.

Europe pioneered this model. The so-called Brussels effect showed that regulatory decisions taken in one large jurisdiction can become de facto global rules, because firms often find it easier to adapt products broadly than maintain different systems for different markets. Brazil may now be pointing to a next stage: not only the international diffusion of digital regulation, but the spread of a more discretionary and interventionist version of it. And if discretionary control over platform design diffuses across democracies, so does discretionary influence over what citizens see and read.

The Brasília effect, if it takes hold, would not only export a regulatory model — it would export a new architecture of speech. This matters especially because Brazil is not China or Russia. It is a large Western democracy. Its choices, therefore, carry a kind of legitimacy that authoritarian regulatory models do not. If Brazil normalizes a regime of open-ended authority over platform conduct and design, other democracies may find it easier to do the same.

Defenders of the bill will say that extraordinary market concentration demands extraordinary tools. Perhaps. But Brazil already has competition laws that allow preventive and corrective action based on evidence, including remedies and interim measures. The move toward a structural designation regime is not simply a technical necessity but a political choice to expand the timing, scope, and flexibility of state intervention.

That choice may prove costly. For firms, it means compliance under uncertainty, where the rules are less fixed than continually interpreted. For markets, it means greater fragmentation and slower innovation. For users, it means decisions about visibility, access, and integration moving further away from open competition and closer to bureaucratic management.

The deeper issue is not whether digital platforms should be regulated. They already are, and they will be more so. The real question is who will write the rules of the global internet and how much discretion they will claim in doing it.

Silicon Valley still builds many of the world’s most important platforms. But increasingly, others, including governments, are deciding how those platforms must work. And the rules that govern how platforms work are, ultimately, the rules that govern what billions of people can say, see, and share. Whoever holds open-ended power over platform design holds power over the architecture of global expression.

That is the Brasília effect.

Jamil Assis is the Institutional Relations director at Sivis Institute. He has an Engineering degree and an MA in Catholic Studies, and is the author of Democracy on Hold (free translation of Democracia em Modo Suspenso, available in Portuguese).

— 🇺🇲 Pentagon Bars Journalists From Press Office

— 🤖 Meta Expands Teen Account Safety Restrictions Globally

— 🇲🇾 Malaysia Begins Enforcing Social Media Ban for Users Under 16

— 🇬🇧 UK Bars American Commentators Entry Ahead of SXSW Appearance

— 🇪🇺 EU Watchdog Moves to Strip European Political Party of Status and Funding

First of All 🇺🇸

» Pentagon Bars Journalists From Press Office, Designating It a Classified Space

• In its latest move to restrict media access to the Pentagon, the Defense Department barred reporters from its press office, designating the space as classified.

• Details:

  • Pentagon reporters have long held press credentials granting them wide movement in the building to interact with press officials.

  • Now, Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez said the office has been redesignated as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility because speechwriters who “routinely handle classified material” now occupy the space.

• The Bigger Picture:

  • The decision comes after major news outlets surrendered their access badges in October, following a refusal to agree to a new policy requiring journalists to pledge not to gather information not expressly authorized for release, as reported in a previous Free Flow.

  • In a lawsuit brought by The New York Times, U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman blocked the policy in March, and the Pentagon responded by mandating that all reporters be escorted through the Pentagon grounds.

  • The following month, Friedman ruled that the interim policy violated his March order, but an appeals court stayed part of his ruling, keeping the policy in place while the government appeals.

  • The Times filed a second lawsuit against the escort requirement last month, as reported in a previous Free Flow.

» DOJ Subpoenas Reddit and X to Unmask Anonymous Critics of ICE

• Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., subpoenaed Reddit and X seeking the names, addresses, and banking information of users who have criticized the government’s deportation efforts on social media.

• Details:

  • Previous court records show the Trump administration had abandoned the use of administrative summonses to unmask critics, which don’t require a judge or court process to proceed, following legal challenges.

  • Now, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has reportedly issued grand jury subpoenas to social media companies in which two anonymous posters criticized immigration enforcement efforts as part of criminal investigations.

  • Reddit and X have notified some users that they can oppose the data requests, giving them a brief window to intervene.

  • Users claim they remain unaware of the possible offenses under investigation, the posts that caught the government’s attention, or the laws allegedly broken.

• Grand Jury Subpoenas:

  • Grand jury subpoenas allow federal prosecutors to demand documents or testimony to present to grand jurors, who decide whether to indict the defendant. They indicate a criminal investigation, while administrative summons do not.

  • These subpoenas also do not receive judicial review unless they are challenged, and failure to comply can lead to fines and jail time.

  • The bar to quash a subpoena is high, and the challenger must prove that the request is unreasonable or oppressive.

Our Take: “For more than a quarter century, state and federal courts have held that the First Amendment protects the ability to speak anonymously on the internet. Despite this longstanding precedent, the Reddit and X subpoenas arise in a context that will be more challenging for the posters. Courts generally are more deferential to prosecutors seeking grand jury subpoenas than they are to plaintiffs’ lawyers in civil discovery, so it will be an uphill battle.”

» Judge Blocks National Park Service From Removing Anti-Trump ‘8647’ Flag From the National Mall

• A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against the National Park Service after a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) alleged a Park Police officer asked a protester to take down an “8647” flag, arguing it suggested a threat against President Trump.

• Details:

  • “86” is a common shorthand for “get rid of” or “throw out.” The phrase “8647” gained heightened scrutiny after two federal indictments were issued against former FBI Director James Comey over an Instagram post of seashells spelling out the digits on a beach, as reported in a previous Free Flow.

  • In April, the ACLU filed a complaint on behalf of Accountability NOW USA, a protest organization, alleging that the National Park Service violated the group’s First Amendment rights by threatening to revoke their protest permit over signs critical of Trump.

  • The ACLU requested a preliminary injunction to bar the revocation of the group’s permit on May 26, and submitted a request for a temporary restraining order the day after, alleging Accountability NOW USA was asked to take down the “8647” flag.

  • The judge rejected the government’s argument that the flag display amounted to incitement and said the evidence shows that the group’s purpose was “to urge that Congress impeach and remove President Trump from office.”

  • The temporary restraining order bars the government from ordering that the flag not be displayed and from revoking the group’s permit because of the flag.

» Judge Overturns West Point’s Prior Restraint on Civilian Faculty Speech

• A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Military Academy at West Point from enforcing a February 2025 policy requiring its civilian faculty to obtain advance approval for “engagements” with external audiences on their academic disciplines.

• Context:

  • The policy applied to faculty “while on duty or when using any USMA affiliation or branding,” and included, but was not limited to, journal articles, conference presentations, media interviews, op-eds, and social media posts.

  • It followed an executive order from the month prior that banned West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the U.S. Air Force Academy from “promoting, advancing, or otherwise inculcating…un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist, and irrational theories.”

  • The theories listed in the executive order included “divisive concepts,” “gender ideology,” race or sex “stereotyping,” and “scapegoating,” and the idea that “America’s founding documents are racist or sexist.”

  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had also commanded the service academies to ban instruction on critical race theory and DEI.

• In Court:

  • West Point law professor Tim Bakken sued the academy and six of its leaders in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in September 2025 over the policy and comments from the West Point Academic Board dean advising faculty not to “advocate for a particular position or ideology” in the classroom.

  • The court found the preapproval policy likely violates the First Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction barring its enforcement against any civilian faculty.

  • The ruling also forbade the academy from restraining Bakken “from expressing or offering his opinions, beliefs, or views to his students on the subjects he teaches.”

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» Fifth Circuit Allows Texas App-Store Age Verification Law to Take Effect During Appeal

• A federal appeals court has ruled that Texas’s App Store Accountability Act, which requires app marketplace operators to verify users’ ages and mandates parental consent before minors under 18 download apps or make in-app purchases, can take effect.

• Details:

  • The law also requires app developers to indicate whether their apps are appropriate for children in four tiers: under 13, teens aged 13-15, older teens aged 16-17, or adults aged 18 or older.

  • In a case brought by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a tech trade group, and the advocacy group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, federal district judge Robert Pitman issued a temporary injunction in December 2025, arguing that the law likely violated the First Amendment.

  • “The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book,” Pitman wrote.

  • Upon appeal by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the injunction on the Act while it continues to review the case, without explaining its reasoning.

» Florida Sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, Seeking Personal Liability for Harms to Users

• Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman over the company’s design and safety, claiming that its systems present a “great danger of addiction, cognitive decline, suicide, violence, and related harms” to users.

• Context:

  • The civil action is separate from Uthmeier’s criminal investigation into the company, launched in late April of this year.

  • Uthmeier said he seeks civil penalties and a court order “to hold Altman personally liable.”

• The Lawsuit:

  • OpenAI is accused of four counts of deceptive and unfair trade practices, two counts of negligence, two counts of violating product liability laws, and one count each of fraudulent misrepresentation and causing a public nuisance.

  • A wide array of commonly cited risks from AI are cited, including that advertisements don’t display warnings about hallucinations or falsities, that ChatGPT’s sycophancy can cause dangerous psychological attachment, and the illicit provision of medical and legal advice.

  • The company maintains that it has integrated safety measures into its systems and that it has “safeguards in place to help people, especially teens, when conversations turn sensitive.”

» Meta Expands Teen Account Safety Restrictions Globally Following Court Losses

• Meta has expanded its content settings for teen accounts across Instagram, Facebook, and Messenger globally, as part of an initiative launched last October in select countries to prevent children from accessing inappropriate content.

• The company has also announced an Instagram feature aimed at diversifying the content teens see to prevent repetitive exposure to certain themes.

• Details:

  • “We recognize that some content— like posts about nutrition, weightlifting, or how to cope with anxiety— can be helpful, but it should be balanced with other types of content rather than shown repeatedly,” the company said.

  • Meta has also said that a “limited content” setting will be made available on Facebook and Messenger this year to further restrict potentially harmful content.

  • The new features come after a Los Angeles jury found Meta negligent in designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people in March, as reported in a previous Free Flow.

» Malaysia Begins Enforcing Social Media Ban for Children Under 16

• Malaysia has begun enforcing a ban on social media accounts for children under 16, requiring social media platforms with at least 8 million users in the country to implement age-verification systems and block children from creating accounts.

• Details:

  • The country’s Communications and Multimedia Commission said that age-verification will be rolled out over the next six months, and current users under 16 will have a month to download or transfer any data before restrictions are applied.

  • Companies that violate the ban could face penalties of up to $2.5 million, though parents whose children manage to circumvent the rule will not be penalized.

  • Platforms have yet to describe how they will comply, though Clara Koh, Meta’s director of public policy for Southeast Asia, has cautioned that the ban could drive teenagers away from protected apps to unregulated corners of the internet.

» California Bill Barring Teens Under 16 From Social Media Passes the State Assembly

• The California Assembly has passed a bill that would ban minors under 16 from using social media platforms with “addictive features,” including notifications, endless scroll, and autoplay.

• Details:

  • The bill would require social media platforms with addictive features to verify users’ ages and delete the accounts of minors under 16, or face financial civil penalties.

  • An e-safety commission would also be established to oversee the legislation’s implementation.

  • The bill now heads to the state Senate.

Subscribe now

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» UK Bars American Commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker, Citing ‘Public Good’

• The British Home Office has canceled the electronic travel authorizations of American political commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker because “their presence in the U.K. may not be conducive to the public good.”

• Details:

  • Uygur, co-host of “The Young Turks” on YouTube, draws over 200 million views per month. Piker, his nephew, has a daily audience of 30,000 on Twitch.

  • The pair claim they’ve been “banned for criticizing Israel.”

  • The statement from the Home Office did not mention Israel, and said that decisions to “refuse or cancel” people’s electronic authorization “on these grounds are based solely on an assessment of the potential risk an individual may pose ot U.K society.”

  • Both men had been scheduled to speak at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival in London this week and at the University of Oxford.

  • Piker’s SXSW talk was titled “How the American Left Learned to Speak the Internet”; Uygur’s was “Techno-Feudalism is Here. Who Are the Lords?” Piker had also been scheduled to appear at the University of Oxford.

  • The UK previously blocked 11 people described as “foreign far-right agitators” in May who had been scheduled to speak at an event organized by Tommy Robinson, an anti-Islam activist.

» Germany Fines Facebook User for Calling Chancellor Merz ‘Lügenfritz’

• A German court has imposed a criminal fine on a Facebook user for calling Chancellor Friedrich Merz “Lügenfritz” (“Lying Fritz”), ruling that the remark constituted a criminal insult under Section 188 of Germany’s Criminal Code.

• Background:

  • The case arose after Merz visited the city of Heilbronn in October 2024. Local police posted a notice on Facebook about a temporary ban on drone flights during the visit, prompting dozens of comments criticizing the chancellor.

  • Prosecutors reviewed 38 comments for possible violations of Section 188, a controversial provision that grants enhanced protection against insults directed at public figures involved in political life.

  • The Öhringen District Court issued a penalty order of 30 daily income-based fines against a user who referred to Merz as “Lügenfritz.” The penalty has already become final.

  • Other cases produced mixed outcomes. Prosecutors dropped investigations into comments calling Merz “Pinocchio” or a “Lügen-Kasper” (“lying clown”), while courts also issued penalty orders against users who referred to him as “Ftzn Frieder” or “Fo****Fritz.”

  • Section 188 has long been criticized for its potential chilling effect on political debate. The law permits heightened penalties when speech directed at political figures is deemed capable of significantly hindering their public work.

  • Prosecutors argued that calling Merz “Lügenfritz” could undermine public confidence in the chancellor’s integrity and encourage further hostility among like-minded individuals, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 188.

» German Police Detain Right-Wing Activist at Airport to Block Remigration Summit Attendance

• German federal border police detained Generation Identity activist Maximilian Märkl at the Munich Airport, where he was traveling to Porto, Portugal, to attend the Remigration Summit 2026.

• Details:

  • Märkl is one of the national spokesmen for Identitäre Bewegung Deutschland (IBD), a right-wing youth movement that seeks to preserve the cultural identity of European countries, and was scheduled to speak at the Remigration Summit, where leaders associated with anti-migration / remigration campaigns gather.

  • Märkl was taken into custody at the airport and banned from traveling to Portugal until the end of the event. He must report to his local police station twice a day in the interim, or risk a €500 penalty for each absence.

  • Authorities cited that Märkl’s participation in the event “threatens the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany” as justification for the ban, while a federal police citation also argued that the concept of “remigration” violates the German constitution.

  • A year prior, German police had arrested a group that had been similarly banned from attending the Summit after they circumvented the ban and drove to Italy, where the Summit was taking place.

» EU Watchdog Moves to Strip European Political Party of Status and Funding

• The Authority for European Political Parties and Foundations, the watchdog that oversees European parties, has initiated a process that could result in the Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) party being banned and losing its funding for failing to uphold EU values.

• Details:

  • The watchdog monitors whether political parties and foundations comply with EU rules requiring them to uphold core values, including “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities.”

  • The ESN party is separate from the ESN political group in the European Parliament, which comprises 27 MEPs. The group and party were founded by Alternative for Germany (AfD) in 2024, and comprise alliances of national parties funded by the EU budget.

  • The watchdog argued that certain evidence, including court rulings, screenshots, and social media posts from MEPs and party lawmakers that display anti-immigration, antisemitic, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, “cast doubt on the compliance” of the ESN party with EU values.

  • In a statement to POLITICO, the Authority said it had “provided facts…to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission” to allow them to decide whether to lodge a request for verification of compliance with Union values with the Authority.

Our Take: At the Bedrock Principle, Natalie Alkiviadou and Justin Hayes warn that banning or sanctioning political parties can backfire, “fueling narratives of martyrdom and persecution and weakening the legitimacy of democratic pluralism.”

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» The U.S. Revokes Visa of Chinese State Media Journalist After Beijing Expels NYT Reporter

• China expelled New York Times correspondent Vivian Wang in February over a Times event in December, in which Taiwan’s president appeared on video, though wang played no role in the event.

• In a diplomatic tit-for-tat, the Trump administration has revoked the visa of a U.S.-based Chinese state media journalist.

• Context:

  • Chinese officials had complained for months about Wang’s coverage, which often tackled topics related to censorship, Beijing’s response to COVID-19, and the expansion of China’s security state.

  • A couple of dozen foreign journalists employed by American news organizations are believed to be based in China after Mr. Xi assumed power; the Times now has one correspondent, and The Washington Post has not had one for several years.

  • China’s foreign ministry has reduced the number of long-term visas issued to American journalists, and short-term visas are less likely to be renewed if Beijing officials dislike the journalists’ coverage.

• Ongoing Feud:

  • In February 2020, three Wall Street Journal correspondents were expelled after the publication released an opinion essay critical of Beijing, despite having no role in the essay’s publication.

  • Around the same time, the Trump administration announced that five state-run Chinese news organizations operating within the U.S., including Xinhua, the outlet of the journalist whose visa it revoked, would be subject to regulations similar to those that apply to foreign diplomats.

  • The number of journalists allowed to work for those organizations in the U.S. was also capped at 100.

  • China retaliated by expelling a dozen more American journalists working for The Times, The Journal, and The Post, demanding detailed information about their activities.

  • Ms. Wang was admitted into China after the Biden administration struck an agreement with Beijing in 2021 that granted visas to several journalists.

» Israeli Police Compile Dossiers on Critical Foreign Journalists to Support Entry Bans

• Court documents released in a legal challenge by Italian freelance photojournalist Alessandro Stefanelli reveal that Israeli police have established a police body to review foreign journalists’ work and recommend entry bans against those whose coverage is deemed critical of Israel.

• Details:

  • Stefanelli, a contributor to Le Soir, La Stampa, and other publications, had, with Israeli government press credentials, made 13 reporting trips to Israel and the West Bank over two and a half years and was banned in June 2025.

  • Police documents found his coverage to be “one-sided,” citing articles he had photographed for but had not written, and including a tweet authored by someone else as evidence.

  • The police document on Stefanelli stated that the police had recommended that population control authorities ban other foreign journalists based on a review of their work, but the names of the journalists in question were not released.

  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF) referenced a ban on Spanish freelancer Queralt Castillo, which authorities justified by arguing that entry to the country “will not be permitted for those who act against Israel.”

  • documents specified that police had recommended entry bans against other unnamed foreign journalists based on similar reviews. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) referenced a ban on Spanish freelancer Queralt Castillo, justified by authorities “as part of its fight against antisemitism and the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement.”

  • Israeli Interior Ministry spokesperson Sabine Haddad confirmed to Index on Censorship that the Government Press Office (GPO) — which had fully accredited Stefanelli for each of his reporting trips — “did not object” to his ban.

» Bolsonaro Family Allies Target Intercept Brasil Reporters Over Corruption Coverage

• A lawmaker in Brazil, Helio Lopez, has sent letters to the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) requesting an investigation into The Intercept over “selective leaks.”

• Details:

  • The letters came a day after the outlet published an investigation into the relationship between Senator and current presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, an ally of Lopez, and jailed banker Daniel Vorcaro.

  • The investigation showed that Flávio negotiated with the banker to finance the film “Dark Horse,” about his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro.

  • Dallas-based freelance reporter Steven Monacelli also faced harassment and threats after attempting to get a comment from Flávio’s brother, Eduardo Bolsonaro, who is currently residing in Texas.

  • When Monacelli rang Bolsonaro’s doorbell, Bolsonaro called local Southlake, Texas, police and posted a social media video saying that “people in Texas have firearms at home.”

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

Australia might appear rather isolated when looking at a world map, but recent tragic events, such as the antisemitic Bondi Beach shooting, shatter the illusion of the country’s insulation from the world’s instability and conflict. Barbaric terror attacks like those that occurred at Bondi demand a government response, but it should not cause collateral damage to civil liberties. This, however, has been the case in New South Wales (NSW) and in Australia more broadly.

Sydney law professor and UN Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism, Ben Saul, put it bluntly: a 2025 NSW protest law made the state one of the most draconian anti-protest jurisdictions in the democratic world. In April, the NSW Court of Appeal struck down this protest law (“PARD scheme”) on the grounds that it impermissibly burdens the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. In recent weeks, NSW police have begun withdrawing charges made under the PARD scheme.

The Jarrett v. New South Wales constitutional challenge might seem like robust rights protection in action in Australia’s most populous state. However, I would argue it’s a symptom of the weakness of NSW’s human rights system and the state’s creeping illiberalism, especially regarding freedom of expression and assembly.

This stems both from the lack of a NSW (or federal) human rights act, and from the form of free speech protection under the Australian constitution (more on this below). Perhaps as a result, of all Australian states, NSW enacted the highest number of anti-protest laws between 2004 and 2024.

Australian Exceptionalism?

For context, Australia has traditionally viewed the common law and legislatures as the main guarantors of civil liberties. Instead of individual rights, its constitution deals largely with the structure and relationship of government. This might be surprising to international readers — especially in the U.S. — but similar systems operated in several British Commonwealth countries until the late 20^th century.

However, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and some Australian states have since enacted human rights acts/charters, having concluded that the old model of Commonwealth constitutionalism did not sufficiently protect rights. Nevertheless, important democratic concerns have been raised about granting judges greater power on human rights questions.

Unlike in many democracies, Australians have an implied freedom of political communication, not a personal, constitutional right to free speech (explained in Brown v. Tasmania). The implied freedom is a limit on legislative and executive power, not a right someone can assert directly or sue for damages over its violation. It applies to a narrower range of speech than expression rights in the US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand.

The NSW government’s disregard of protest rights when enacting the PARD scheme arguably created a pressure cooker that boiled over during the February 2026 visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Using the PARD scheme, police restricted protests throughout Greater Sydney, including on the day of Herzog’s visit.

This “blunt tool” (Jarrett) not only ripped through the rights of expression and assembly, but it also seemingly emboldened the police to use disproportionate violence (currently under investigation) against protestors. One Sydney financier – a.k.a. “white shirt guy” – is now suing, alleging assault by police. More generally, this blanket ban removed the safety valve that peaceful protest provides in a democracy.

Social cohesion and Jewish safety were invoked to justify the PARD scheme and a new hate speech law in the state of Queensland. The Queensland law outlaws the phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada” (contextualized here; see charitable and critical interpretations of the slogan) when used to menace, harass, or offend someone.

Predictably, unintended consequences followed: Jewish pro-Palestinian activist Stephen Heydt was among the first charged under the Queensland law. This aligns with a pattern of censorship of pro-Palestinian Jews under hate speech and counter-terror laws, which The Future of Free Speech has documented.

Heydt’s crimes were that he wore a t-shirt to a Brisbane rally that said, “Jews for a free Palestine from the river to the sea” and gave a speech using the six-word phrase. In farcical scenes, protestors have recently sought to push the limits of the Queensland law by dancing in fancy dress en masse to an 80s ballad with very similar wording. This has faint echoes of the “Plasticine Action” and “Private Eye” arrests in England last summer.

Share

Sharing Across The Kangaroo Route

Speech and protest laws Down Under have global implications, perhaps especially for the UK. As protest law expert Maria O’Sullivan argues, there has been some recent “swapping” between the UK and Australia on approaches to pro-Palestinian protest regulation.

Reports from Human Rights Watch, Netpol, and Justice have documented the effect of protest laws enacted in recent years in Britain. These share characteristics with Australian laws alleged to erode protest rights. The laws have enabled Australia and the UK to lead the world in arresting climate protestors.

Another similarity is the context in which further curbs on protest are being debated. Depressingly, there have been several recent antisemitic attacks in the UK, carried out by racists targeting longstanding British Jewish communities for the actions of Israel.

The most recent antisemitic attacks in the UK (and Bondi) have had implications for pro-Palestinian advocacy. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said that he would consider banning some pro-Palestinian protests due to the “cumulative” effect, echoing new legislation, that they were having on some/most of the UK Jewish community. Decisions on specific marches in the UK are, however, ordinarily matters for the police under public order law.

Meanwhile, opposition political figures have called for a moratorium on all pro-Palestinian protests, calls echoed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall. People who advocate for “intifada” or “death to the IDF” on protests now face being arrested and charged. Hall argues the “precautionary principle” in national security policy justifies some further restrictions on “open hatred on the streets,” which, in his view, has legitimized terror attacks on British Jews. However, perhaps counterintuitively, empirical research suggests that greater free speech is associated with lower levels of terrorism in democracies.

Among the above responses, it is possible to distinguish the Prime Minister’s slightly more nuanced approach from that of the opposition, which would most likely result in a disproportionate infringement of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As a former human rights lawyer, Starmer should have in mind the obligations of public authorities, such as the police, under the UK Human Rights Act (HRA).

It is legitimate, and sometimes desirable, for authority figures to denounce the use of certain slogans on protests, such as “globalize the intifada.” This counterspeech and self-policing can also come from the self-professed antiracist organizers of the marches, which they would argue they do. However, when people are arrested for advocating “intifada,” it lowers the bar for censorship of political speech under UK and Australian law.

As Ben Saul points out, under international law, “globalize the intifada” and “from the river to the sea” are not intrinsically violent or hateful and are presumptively legitimate free speech, absent other indicators. Under English and ECtHR case law, there has traditionally been no right not to be offended. When discussing first principles, Jonathan Sumption sees criminalizing expressions of support for proscribed terrorist organizations in the same vein — an attack on the content neutrality of the law and a disproportionate infringement of free speech.

Conclusion

The direction of travel in Australia should serve as a cautionary tale for the UK and other countries. NSW, in particular, is a vivid reminder of what Conor Gearty witheringly called the fantasy of the civil libertarian common law. The English common law’s approach to freedom of expression was “hesitant and negative, permitting that which was not prohibited,” Lord Bingham summarized.

After the UK HRA came into force, it introduced new evaluative criteria, such as proportionality, for judges and other authorities with broadly positive implications for free speech and protest rights. While not a silver bullet, human rights laws generally “frontload rights-mindedness,” forcing greater consideration of rights ahead of any dispute. These considerations are perhaps in evidence in the comments of Prime Minister Starmer alluded to above.

In a 2018 lecture advocating for a federal human rights act, distinguished human rights expert Gillian Triggs concluded that “Australia has reached a position in which fundamental freedoms are diminished by a failure of the legal tools available to comparable countries.” Several other expert bodies in Australia have reached the same conclusion. Australia should chart a different course on free speech, protest, and its model of human rights protection.

Nick Queffurus is a law and policy researcher and consultant with interests in civil liberties and constitutionalism.

Subscribe now

By Anonymous

Unlike many other countries, America has allowed people to speak anonymously online.

The Trump administration is attempting to erode these protections, according to recent news reports. Fortunately, the attempts are facing resistance, but the news demonstrates the precariousness of the protections that Americans have enjoyed online for decades.

Bloomberg reported last week that federal prosecutors in Washington, DC are “seeking the names, addresses, and banking information of Reddit and X users, ratcheting up efforts to identify social media critics of government deportation efforts.”

Bloomberg states that the subpoenas are “asking for personal information on at least two anonymous posters behind accounts that have chided immigration enforcement efforts, according to records shared by attorneys for the users.” Lawyers representing the posters have challenged the subpoenas, and a judge is considering whether to quash them.

Subscribe now

For more than a quarter century, state and federal courts have held that the First Amendment protects the ability to speak anonymously on the internet. The cases developed primarily from defamation suits filed by companies against anonymous online critics. Because these critics often were employees, the companies sought to use the discovery process to unmask them. Courts developed procedural and substantive protections, requiring plaintiffs to have particularly strong claims before using the civil discovery process to identify the online posters.

“The trial court must consider and decide those applications by striking a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation through the assertion of recognizable claims based on the actionable conduct of the anonymous, fictitiously-named defendants,” a New Jersey appellate court wrote in 2001, setting the stage for federal and state courts around the country to develop similar protections.

These protections were grounded in Supreme Court precedent that recognizes the value of anonymous speech in American life. “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures, and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind,” the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in a 1960 opinion striking down a Los Angeles ordinance requiring handbills to contain the names of their authors. “Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.”

In a 1995 concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas conducted a detailed review of the history of anonymous speech and writing in the United States to conclude that the First Amendment was drafted with the understanding that it protected anonymity and pseudonymity. “After reviewing the weight of the historical evidence, it seems that the Framers understood the First Amendment to protect an author’s right to express his thoughts on political candidates or issues in an anonymous fashion,” Thomas wrote.

Despite this longstanding precedent, the Reddit and X subpoenas arise in a context that will be more challenging for the posters. Courts generally are more deferential to prosecutors seeking grand jury subpoenas than they are to plaintiffs’ lawyers in civil discovery, so it will be an uphill battle.

For instance, in 2012, a federal judge in the District of Columbia refused to quash a grand jury subpoena seeking identifying information for a person who pseudonymously tweeted: “I want to fuck Michelle Bachman in the ass with a Vietnam era machete.” The poster argued that the tweet was “ludicrous” and not a threat, and therefore, the government did not have a compelling need for the identifying information.

But Judge Royce Lamberth rejected that argument. “Here, an individual has made a statement that threatens an established candidate for the presidential nomination of one of our two major political parties, and the government has a strong public interest in investigating that threat, however outlandish,” Lamberth wrote.

Grand jury subpoenas for identifying information typically don’t result in written opinions, so Lamberth’s ruling is an indication that courts are reluctant to second-guess such government requests.

Still, as Joshua Koltun, one of the posters’ attorneys, told Bloomberg, his client simply made a sarcastic comment. “The post does not contain a trace or an inkling that any violence was intended,” Koltun said.

Koltun explained the harms that such subpoenas have on online speech: “It’s a very chilling thing to get a subpoena to find out your identity, and to run the risk that some ICE agent is going to be knocking on your door,” he told Bloomberg.

This Week at a Glance 🔎

— 🇺🇲 Trump Administration Proposes NDAs for Federal Workers

— 🇨🇳 Study Reveals China Silently Censoring WeChat Messages

— 🇻🇳 Vietnamese Police Summon 45 Social Media Users for Engaging with Disinformation

— 🇳🇱 Dutch LGBTQ+ Organizations Take Legal Action Against Meta

— 🇬🇧 UK Says TikTok, YouTube ‘Not Safe Enough’

First of All 🇺🇲

» Trump Administration Proposes Sweeping NDAs for Federal Workers to Crackdown on Press Leaks

• The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has proposed a draft non-disclosure agreement for use by federal agencies with both new and existing employees.

• Details:

  • Former government employees would need “written permission from an authorized agency official” to speak to journalists about information that the administration determines to be “confidential” after leaving their positions.

  • Federal law prohibits the government from retaliating against federal workers who disclose fraud, abuse, and misconduct in their workplaces to internal government watchdogs and Congress— disclosures that the draft agreement exempts.

  • The administration could pursue civil and criminal penalties against employees who violate the agreement and would be entitled to all “royalties” that employees received from disclosing information.

  • The proposal comes after President Trump has banned the Associated Press from the White House press pool and restricted reporters’ access at the Pentagon, which has itself allegedly planned random polygraphs and NDAs to stop leaks to the press.

» Dozens of Organizations Respond to FCC’s Inquiry into Warning Labels on ‘Gender Identity’ Programming

• More than 40 civil liberties, LGBTQ advocacy, and free expression organizations filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opposing a proposal that could require television programs featuring LGBTQ themes to carry special content warnings.

• Background:

  • The FCC’s inquiry, launched by Chairman Brendan Carr in April, asks whether current TV ratings systems provide parents with enough information about programming involving “gender identity themes” or “transgender and gender non-binary programming.”

  • In a comment submitted last week, The Future of Free Speech argues that the inquiry is “unconstitutionally vague” and raises serious First Amendment concerns involving viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, and government coercion of private actors.

    • The filing argues that the FCC’s framing fails to clearly define what programming would qualify for additional labeling, making meaningful public participation difficult and risking arbitrary enforcement.

    • It also warned that labeling programs featuring transgender or non-binary individuals alongside descriptors for violence or sexual content would stigmatize an entire category of protected expression.

  • Separately, a coalition led by groups including GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG National, and PEN America submitted a joint filing denouncing the proposal as discriminatory and politically motivated.

  • The coalition argued that “content warnings that specifically single out LGBTQ+ people, including transgender and non-binary people, or mentions of gender identity on screen are unnecessary, unhelpful, and discriminatory,” adding that parents — not government regulators — should decide what content children watch.

» Public Employees Fired for Charlie Kirk Social Media Posts Receive Settlements in Free Speech Cases

• Following an $835,000 award to a former police officer in Tennessee, who spent 37 days in jail for social media posts following the assassination of Charlie Kirk (as mentioned in last week’s Free Flow), two public employees have received settlements after facing termination over similar online posts.

• In Tallahassee, Florida:

  • Brittney Brown, a biologist for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, was fired in September after she posted an Instagram story criticizing Charlie Kirk in the wake of his assassination.

  • The state of Florida must pay $485,000 to Brown, who has, in turn, agreed not to apply to, or seek reinstatement with, the FWC in the future.

• In Indiana:

  • Suzanne Swierc, former health director at Ball State University, was terminated after making a social media post on a private Facebook account where she called his death a tragedy and critiqued his political activism.

  • “Charlie Kirk’s death is a reflection of the violence, fear, and hatred he sowed,” Swierc wrote. “It does not excuse his death, AND it’s a sad truth.”

  • The University did not admit to any wrongdoing, and President Geoffrey Mearns said in an email to university leadership that he stands by his decision to terminate Swierc, though the institution will pay Swierc $225,000.

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» Texas Sues Discord, Seeking Court-Ordered Age Verification Under SCOPE Act

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against Discord, a social media platform, alleging that it violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by falsely advertising the platform as safe.

• Details:

  • The suit, filed on May 22 in Collin County District Court, seeks an injunction requiring Discord to default new accounts to maximum safety settings and adopt age-verification measures under Texas’s Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act.

  • The complaint alleges that Discord “built and maintains one of the internet’s most efficient hunting grounds for manipulation, grooming, and predatory behavior towards children,” citing design features the state says enable predation, including private servers, reliance on unpaid volunteers for moderation, and safety features that require users to opt in.

  • Last year, Discord announced that hackers stole 70,000 users’ government IDs from a third-party service used to verify ages and identities.

» University of Florida Law Student Expelled for Antisemitic Posts Will Argue Free Speech at Trial

• The University of Florida will defend its expulsion of law student Preston Damsky, a self-described white nationalist, over an antisemitic X post.

• Background:

  • Damsky was banned from campus and expelled after quoting a historian saying, “Jews must be abolished by any means necessary.”

  • He sued UF, arguing the punishment violated the First Amendment because his post was offensive political speech, not a true threat.

  • UF argues that the post disrupted the law school and threatened the student body.

  • A federal judge previously ordered Damsky reinstated, but the 11th Circuit paused that order, with one dissenting judge warning that the case turns on whether “offensive off-campus political speech” is protected.

» University of Toronto Lab Study Reveals China Censoring WeChat Messages in Real Time

• A recent study conducted by the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto reveals that Chinese users of WeChat, an instant messaging service, are being unknowingly censored in real time.

• Details:

  • WeChat users have received messages informing them that a message they attempted to send was blocked for using government-restricted words, but now that censorship is happening without warning, the report claims.

  • The results showed that messages on WeChat accounts linked to mainland China phone numbers were silently filtered, and international accounts could be censored, though the censorship was not as extensive as on these accounts.

  • It also found that group chats are censored more heavily than one-on-one chats, and that on particular days or during certain periods, new words or phrases can be added to the list of restricted terms.

  • When messages pass through a server that scans for restricted words before transmitting them to the receiver, the messages are not sent, and neither party is notified, the report determined.

» Vietnamese Police Question Social Media Users for Engaging with ‘False Information’

• On May 20, Vietnam’s Hue City police “invited in for questioning” 45 account owners who had “regularly followed, accessed, and interacted with” information deemed to be “false, fabricated, distorted, and anti-state content from exiled reactionary elements.”

• Details:

  • The provincial police justified the summonses by claiming the users had “limited political awareness” and lacked the skills necessary to identify “false information” and “malicious schemes,” unintentionally helping the spread of “negative and distorted content about the country.”

  • Authorities added that after being educated by officers, the users “clearly recognized their violations,” removed related posts and comments, left the pages and groups in question, and “signed pledges not to reoffend.”

» Kenya Proposes $20.8 Million AI Initiative for Social Media Monitoring

• Kenya’s State Department for Broadcasting and Telecommunications has presented a proposal to parliament seeking $20.8 million USD to implement AI tools for social media monitoring, online sentiment analysis, and government communications management.

• The Proposal:

  • The proposal aims to counter misinformation, disinformation, and organized online narratives across platforms.

  • $2.96 million of the budget is allocated in the proposal for AI software to monitor social media discussions, which officials claim will provide insights into public opinion and improve communication strategies among ministries and agencies.

  • However, critics and digital rights advocates have raised concerns that the analysis tools can be abused to track dissent, stifle criticism, or shape public discourse.

  • The proposal follows earlier legal battles in the country regarding attempts to regulate or limit access to social media platforms.

  • The request is under examination by the Budget and Appropriations Committee before parliament reconvenes.

» Amnesty International Report Shows Indonesia Using Online Disinformation Campaigns to Brand Critics as ‘Foreign Agents’

• A report from Amnesty International reveals that since President Prabowo Subianto took office in Indonesia in 2024, state and state-aligned actors have launched coordinated disinformation attacks to portray human rights defenders and critics as ‘foreign agents.’

• Details:

  • The report claims that through public rhetoric and coordinated online campaigns, the government is seeking to delegitimize civil society, activism, and independent journalism.

  • Individuals accused of “entering into relations with persons or organizations domiciled abroad” to “overthrow or take over the government” can also face up to 10 years imprisonment under Indonesia’s newly enforced Criminal Code.

  • Four disinformation campaigns are outlined in the report, targeting human rights defenders protesting revisions to Military Law, participants in the ‘Indonesia Gelap’ protests that began in February 2025, the media outlet Tempo, and the Centre of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS).

  • Three of the campaigns involved social media accounts allegedly belonging to at least 63 military-affiliated entities.

  • To paint entities as “foreign agents,” allegations often used references to international partnerships, cross-border solidarity, or donor relationships.

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» UK’s Ofcom says YouTube and TikTok ‘Not Safe Enough’

• British Internet regulator Ofcom published a new report into how five large social media platforms responded to its calls for stronger action on children’s online safety and said TikTok and YouTube “failed to commit to any significant changes to reduce harmful content being served to children, maintaining that their feeds are already safe for children.”

• Details:

  • “Our wealth of evidence, published today, suggests they are still not safe enough,” Ofcom added.

  • TikTok and YouTube both pointed to safety features in their apps, including TikTok’s prohibition of direct messaging for under-16s and YouTube’s short-form video timer, which allows parents to set time limits for scrolling shorts.

  • Ofcom spokesperson said the regulator was “ready to take the toughest enforcement action” if platforms do not comply with its rules, adding “we will absolutely move into a formal investigation if we need to.”

  • The report highlighted changes made by Snap (owner of Snapchat), Roblox, and Meta that focused on reducing grooming risks, including Snap’s decision to block adult strangers from contacting children by default in the UK as well as introducing “highly effective” age checks this summer.

  • Roblox plans to let parents switch off direct chat entirely for under-16s, and Meta plans to hide teens’ Instagram connection lists by default and develop AI tools to detect likely sexualized conversations in DMs.

• Broader Concerns:

  • The report found that 84% of children aged 8 to 12 were still using at least one major service with a minimum age requirement of 13.

  • A government spokesperson said Ofcom had its “full backing” to ensure that companies prevent and remove harmful content from their platforms and feeds, adding that age limits, app curfews, and an outright ban are being considered.

» Dutch LGBTQ+ Organizations Take Legal Action Against Meta’s Content Moderation

• Dutch LGBTQ+ organizations are pursuing legal action against Meta after a series of Instagram account suspensions affecting queer clubs, artists, publications, and communities in the Netherlands, alleging the company’s moderation practices are discriminatory.

• Details:

  • The coalition’s formal legal demand to Meta, issued on May 20, argues that the moderation systems have targeted LGBTQ+ accounts and “may have violated European fundamental rights law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), GDPR, and Dutch anti-discrimination law.”

  • A lawyer for the coalition said, “Removing queer accounts without reason, without warning, and without any possibility of appeal constitutes a violation of European law. Platforms are not allowed to structurally exclude minority groups from public debate.”

  • The lawyer added: “This is the first case in which the Digital Services Act is being used to challenge discriminatory content moderation by a Very Large Online Platform.”

  • Meta has previously denied accusations that it targets LGBTQ+ users or content, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

Subscribe now

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» Journalists Jailed in Mexico Under New AI-Image Law

• Journalists Erendira Reyes and her daughter Alejandra Hermosillo were arrested by state police in San Luis Potosí, Mexico, on May 21 over alleged illegal use of AI.

• Details:

  • Reyes, founder and editor of the Facebook-based news page San Wicho Times and the magazine Capital, and Hermosillo are being held at the “La Pila” state penitentiary, according to Mexico’s National Registry of Detentions.

  • In a May 21 statement, the San Luis Potosí state prosecutor’s office confirmed the arrests and alleged “deliberate and illegal manipulation of the digital identity of the victim,” without naming the alleged victim.

  • Sources report that the pair’s arrests are related to a widely circulated video on Facebook last year of a local criminal gang accusing Gov. Ricardo Gallardo of corruption.

  • Gallardo denounced the video as containing AI-manipulated images of him, and the next month, the state penal code was amended to criminalize AI-manipulated images, punishable by up to three years in prison.

  • Sources also shared with the Committee to Protect Journalists a photo that appeared to be an arrest warrant for several journalists, among 11 people, and they believe they are on the same charges.

» Egyptian Filmmaker Detained for Spreading ‘False News’

• Egyptian director and screenwriter Omar Salah Marei has been held behind bars in Cairo since May 11, when he was arrested for “deliberately spreading false news” based on posts from his social media accounts.

• Details:

  • Marei is known for blending humor with sharp social and political commentary in his short films.

  • Plainclothes security officers reportedly broke down the door to his apartment, seizing four laptops, two phones, cash, and scripts for future projects, before taking Salah Marei to an undisclosed location without a warrant.

  • Salah Marei reappeared on May 16 before Egypt’s Supreme State Security Prosecution, and it was confirmed he had been held for 15 days of pretrial detention on charges of “deliberately spreading false news, based on posts on his social media accounts.”

  • Marei remains behind bars until his next judicial hearing on May 25, which will determine whether his pretrial incarceration is extended.

  • The International Coalition for Filmmakers at Risk affirmed that Omar “is a filmmaker who came to cinema from engineering through his own initiative, and who uses comedy as a vehicle for social commentary.”

» Belarus’ Banned Books Lists Surpasses 250 Titles

• Belarus’ Ministry of Information has added 17 more titles to its list of publications that are banned in the country.

• The List:

  • The list of total banned books that “may harm the country’s national interests” now contains 258 titles.

  • Among the banned titles is Christopher Isherwood’s “Goodbye to Berlin,” which was prohibited for its LGBTQ+ themes, and “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health” by Robert H. Harris.

  • Books by historians, including “Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe” by Anne Applebaum, the wife of Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, as well as her earlier book on the Gulag, appear on the blacklist.

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

Justin Hayes is the Director of Communications at The Future of Free Speech and the Managing Editor of The Bedrock Principle.

This Week at a Glance 🔎

— 🇺🇸 NYT Sues Pentagon Over Press Requirements

— 🤖 Nebraska’s Social Media Age Verification Law Challenged

— 🇬🇧 X Pledges Faster Action on Hate Speech, Terrorist Content for UK Users

— 🇳🇪 Niger Suspends Nine French Media Outlets Over Threat to Public Order

— 🇮🇩 Indonesia Plans to Vet Who Qualifies as Human Rights Defender

First of All 🇺🇸

» New York Times Sues Pentagon Over Press Restrictions

• The New York Times sued the Pentagon on May 18 to block a requirement that all reporters be escorted on Pentagon grounds, calling the policy unconstitutional.

• Context:

  • The suit follows an earlier Times victory: a federal judge had previously blocked the Pentagon’s strict credentialing rules that limited how defense reporters could solicit information. The Pentagon's escort requirement is its response to the judgment.

  • The suit asks the court to block the escort requirement and to restore access rules in effect prior to the Trump administration.

  • In its filing, the New York Times argues the restrictions have a clear aim: “closing the Pentagon to any journalist or news organization unwilling to report only what Department officials approve,” and that is “patently unconstitutional.”

  • The Times’ complaint lists examples of what stories reporters would no longer be able to cover under the escort requirement, including “routine unplanned interactions” with Pentagon personnel and stories that “capture the mood and atmosphere within the Pentagon during times of consequential military operations.”

  • Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote on X: “The latest filing by the New York Times, while dressed up to look like a constitutional challenge, is nothing more than an attempt to remove the barriers to them getting their hands on classified information.”

» Ninth Circuit Affirms University of Washington Violated Professor’s First Amendment Rights

• The Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of University of Washington computer science professor Stuart Reges, affirming that the university violated his First Amendment rights after he included a parody of its “land acknowledgment” statement in his course syllabus.

• Details:

  • In his winter 2022 syllabus, Reges replaced the university’s land acknowledgment, which recognized UW’s location on Coast Salish tribal land, with a parody drawing on John Locke’s labor theory of property: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property, the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

  • A lower court had ruled the statement unprotected because it caused disruption on campus. A 2–1 Ninth Circuit panel disagreed, reversed the ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

  • In the ruling, Judge Daniel Bress said, “When we place limits on what professors may say or impose punishment for the views they express, we destock the marketplace of ideas and imperil future generations who must be exposed to a range of ideas and readied for the disharmony of a democratic society.”

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» Tennessee Man Jailed Over Charlie Kirk Post Wins $835,000 Settlement

• Tennessee officials agreed to pay $835,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by Larry Bushart, a retired police officer who spent 37 days in jail over Facebook memes posted after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

• Details:

  • Bushart was arrested in September after refusing to remove posts mocking reactions to Kirk’s killing, including a meme quoting President Trump’s remarks following a 2024 Iowa school shooting: “We have to get over it.”

  • Perry County authorities claimed one post referencing “Perry High School” caused panic because residents believed it threatened the local school, even though Sheriff Nick Weems acknowledged the meme referred to a school in Iowa.

  • Bushart was charged with a felony, held on $2 million bail, lost his post-retirement job, and missed major family milestones while detained. Prosecutors later dropped the charge in October.

  • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which helped represent Bushart in his lawsuit, stated that the settlement should serve as a warning to law enforcement officials that “respect the First Amendment today, or be prepared to pay the price tomorrow.”

» Texas Woman Sues City After Arrest Over Facebook Post on Water Quality

• A Texas woman filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Trinidad after she was arrested over a Facebook post claiming residents had been hospitalized due to bacteria in the local water supply.

• Background:

  • Jennifer Combs was charged with felony “false alarm or report” after posting that residents had reported illnesses linked to Trinidad’s water system and urging locals to share information about discoloration, odors, or health issues.

  • Trinidad police accused Combs of spreading “false information” that caused panic in the community, while Police Chief Charles Gregory defended the arrest as “cut and dry.”

  • City officials acknowledged ongoing water infrastructure problems, including aging pipes dating back to the 1950s, and the city later issued a boil-water notice in April. Texas environmental regulators also confirmed an investigation into water quality complaints is ongoing.

  • Combs argues the arrest was politically motivated retaliation for criticizing city leadership and raising concerns about a matter of public interest.

» ACLU Sues Indiana AG Investigator Who Threatened Man Over ‘86’ Facebook Post

• Indiana resident Lee Lawmaster and the ACLU of Indiana have sued Kurt Spivey, Director of Investigations for the Indiana Attorney General’s office, alleging that he threatened Lawmaster with an indictment for posting “86” on state officials’ Facebook pages.

• Details:

  • After Lawmaster posted “86” to the Facebook pages of Indiana officials, Spivey visited his home, where a door camera recorded him telling Lawmaster to “tone down the rhetoric” or face indictment.

  • ‘86’ is a common shorthand for “get rid of.” The term gained heightened scrutiny after former FBI Director James Comey used it in an Instagram post apparently referencing President Trump, which served as the basis for two federal indictments against Comey, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

  • The ACLU seeks damages and an injunction blocking Spivey from further intimidating Indiana residents in the exercise of their First Amendment rights.

  • Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana: “If someone who’s law enforcement [says] you could be indicted right now if you do this again, people aren’t going to do it again. And when that thing that they’re not doing again is exercising their First Amendment rights, that is very serious.”

  • AG Rokita’s office declined an interview. Spokesperson Joshua DeFonce said in a statement: “With death threats against elected officials being very prominent across the nation and in our state, the Attorney General and his family are a top target.”

» NetChoice Challenges Nebraska’s Social Media Age-Verification Law

• NetChoice, a tech trade group, has sued Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers over the state’s Parental Rights in Social Media Act, which would require all social media platforms to verify a user’s age before an account can be created.

• Details:

  • The Act, set to take effect July 1, would allow minors to create social media accounts only with “express parental consent”—parental age-verification and a signed form submitted to the social media company by the parent.

  • Parents must also have the ability to revoke consent under the law, and companies would be required to establish a dashboard that allows parents to access all posts, interactions, and private messages from minors’ accounts.

  • NetChoice argues that the Act violates minors’ constitutional rights by “significantly curtailing (and, in some cases, eliminating) their ability to engage in core First Amendment activities on many of the most popular online services.”

  • The group adds that the “severe burdens” that the requirements impose could force some social media companies to “restrict Nebraskans from accessing their websites altogether.”

  • Companies violating the law could face fines of up to $2,500 per violation.

» Minnesota Senate Passes Social Media Restrictions for Minors

• The Minnesota Senate passed legislation on May 15 that would require parental consent for users under 16 to create social media accounts, clearing the chamber 66–0 with bipartisan support.

• Details:

  • The bill also bans addictive platform features for minors — including infinite scrolling, push notifications, autoplay videos, and targeted advertising.

  • The bill requires the strictest available privacy settings for minors’ accounts and also seeks to limit the data companies can collect from these users.

  • The bill was passed by the House but amended on the Senate floor, and will return to the House for a concurrence vote before heading to the governor’s office.

  • If signed into law, the state would join about 20 others that have enacted laws regulating minors' social media access, many of which are currently being challenged in court.

» Survey Suggests Australian Social Media Ban Leaves Teens With Less News

• A new survey finds that among Australian teenagers whose social media use has been affected by age restrictions, over half report consuming less news.

• Details:

  • Researchers surveyed 1,027 young people aged 10 to 17 in Australia two months after the country barred minors from social media.

  • Among the 26% of young people whose social media use had been affected by the ban, 51% reported consuming less news as a direct result.

  • Many also reported diminished opportunity to discuss news and civic issues with peers.

  • 61% of under-16s who had previously been using banned platforms reported little or no change in their social media use.

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» ECtHR Upholds Fine Against Georgian Man Over TikTok Video Criticizing Tbilisi Officials

• A new ruling from the European Court of Human Rights upheld an administrative fine against a food-delivery driver from Georgia, Irakli Miladze, for uploading a TikTok that insulted the Tbilisi mayor over the city’s bus lane policy.

• Context:

  • In 2018, Tbilisi city authorities announced a transport policy reform intended to reduce car use by bolstering public transport and improving infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians.

  • Public opinion surveys in 2021 and 2022 revealed that some Tbilisi residents found the reform process ineffective, and discussions about the driving practices of public buses driven by law-enforcement officers have been criticized.

  • In his TikTok, Miladze criticized the traffic situation. “This is your [mayor’s] doing. You turned a three-lane Tchavtchavadze Street into a single lane, and even in that one lane your own people – city hall employees, ministry employees, State Security Service employees – flying down the bus lane with tinted windows like they own the road.”

  • “Go f**k your mothers,” Miladze added, which the ECtHR determined was violent verbal aggression exempt from free speech protections enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  • The Court also treated TikTok’s reach and youth engagement as factors weighing against the speaker, and because speech travels further on the platform, it should be subject to stricter scrutiny.

Our Take: “A delivery driver on a scooter, raging about traffic policy on social media, has been placed juridically in the same conceptual neighborhood as physical violence,” Jacob Mchangama wrote on X. “That framing comes close to treating citizens like subjects owing deference to rulers.”

» X Pledges Faster Action on Hate and Terrorist Content in The UK

• Following months of regulatory pressure, Britain’s media regulator Ofcom announced that social media platform X has agreed to strengthen protection for UK users against illegal hate speech and terrorist content.

• Details:

  • Following concerns that flagged content was not always addressed, the platform agreed to engage external experts to improve its reporting systems.

  • The agreement stipulates that X will review suspected illegal hate and terrorism-related posts within 24 hours on average, and assess at least 85% within 48 hours.

  • X had also promised to restrict UK users’ access to accounts operated by or on behalf of organizations banned under the country’s terrorism laws.

• Context:

  • The new commitments as Ofcom continues its investigation into X’s systems for tackling illegal content and issues relating to its chatbot, Grok, after it responded to user prompts with sexualized images in February.

  • The company also faces a separate probe from the European Commission into whether it fails to curb hate speech, as well as pressure from the EU, Australia, and Singapore over illegal or militant content on X.

Subscribe now

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» Niger Suspends Nine French Media Outlets Over Alleged Threat to Public Order, Burkina Faso Joins Ban

• Niger’s military junta suspended nine France-based news outlets on May 8–9, accusing them of broadcasting content “likely to seriously endanger public order, national unity, social cohesion and the stability of institutions.”

• Burkina Faso, a West African country and ally of Niger and Mali, within the Confederation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), banned the broadcasting of one major French channel.

• The Suspensions:

  • The suspended outlets include France 24, Radio France Internationale (RFI), France Afrique Média, AFP (Agence France-Presse), TV5Monde, Jeune Afrique, Mediapart, and TF1 Info.

  • The suspension is “immediate” and applies to “satellite packages, cable networks, digital platforms, websites, and mobile applications.”

  • RFI and France 24 had already been suspended in July 2023, a few days after the coup d’état that brought the junta to power, and the British BBC was suspended in December.

  • The suspensions follow a similar ban by Burkina Faso on TV5Monde. Both are members of the Confederation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), a bloc of military-led governments in West Africa.

• Burkina Faso’s Ban:

  • Burkina Faso banned the broadcasting of TV5 Monde, accusing the channel of “disinformation” and “apology for terrorism” in its coverage of jihadist violence in the country and Mali, which has also banned French media.

» Nicaragua Shuts Down 31-Year-Old Independent Radio Station

• Nicaragua’s telecommunications authority canceled the license of and seized equipment from Radio Stereo Romance, a radio station that had been on the air for 31 years, on May 8.

• Details:

  • The Nicaraguan Institute of Telecommunications and Postal Services (Telcor) claimed the station had “failed to comply with the requirements for license renewal” under administrative resolution 024-2026.

  • Owner and general director of the station, Francisco Gadea, disputed the justification: “Our payments are up to date. We paid the corresponding fees for 2026. They argued that we had not fulfilled the requirements properly and on time, and they came and shut it down.”

  • He added, “They simply requested certain documents all at once, and the different state institutions delayed the process, so it did not go through. But that is beyond our control.”

• The closure adds to a wave of media outlet shutdowns in Nicaragua since 2018, with more than 309 journalists forced into exile. At least 61 media outlets had been shut down or confiscated by March 2025.

» Indonesia Plans to Vet Who Qualifies as a Human Rights Defender

• Indonesia’s Minister of Human Rights, Natalius Pigai, announced that an assessment team will review whether individuals qualify as human rights activists and are entitled to legal protections.

• Details:

  • The team would be created by proposed amendments to the 1999 Human Rights Law and include government officials, civil society, and law enforcement, who would evaluate whether someone is a “genuine” activist.

  • Pigai said state protection would extend only to activists defending the public interest without personal or commercial interests. Activists who are paid for their work would not qualify.

  • Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch: “It’s not up to President Prabowo Subianto’s government to decide who is or isn’t a human rights defender. The Indonesian authorities should protect all those who work to uphold human rights instead of rooting out government critics under the guise of identifying ‘genuine’ rights defenders.”

  • A final draft is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives for a vote in June or July.

» Sierra Leone Sentences Singer and Opposition Figure to Four Years in Prison

• International calls are growing for the release of Zainab Sheriff, a Sierra Leonean singer who became a political opposition figure who was sentenced to four years and two months in prison on charges of incitement and threatening language.

• Details:

  • Sheriff, a reality-TV show contestant turned opposition politician, was arrested on February 20, repeatedly denied bail, and sentenced on April 14 by a Sierra Leone court.

  • The charges stem from a speech she made at a political rally in January 2026, a video recording of which was played at trial.

  • Prosecutors argued she stated that anyone who rigged an election had committed treason and that they and their families should be killed. Sheriff pleaded not guilty.

  • Freetown Mayor Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr (All People’s Congress opposition party): “A lot of us feel this isn’t about Sheriff’s words. This is about Sheriff being used as a very, very visible, high-profile example of what you must not do in this society now. You must not speak your mind or you can be charged and end up in jail.”

» Thailand Detains Hong Kong Activist Wanted Under Chinese National Security Law

• Zhang Xinyan, a 54-year-old Hong Kong activist holding UN refugee status, has been arrested in Thailand on charges of overstaying her visa.

• Zhang is wanted by national security police in China for committing subversion, which is illegal under Article 23, and could face deportation from Thailand, where she is currently being held in a detention center.

• Context:

  • The Hong Kong Security Bureau declined to comment on law enforcement actions in other jurisdictions, and said, “Endangering national security is an extremely serious crime… no fugitive should harbour the illusion that they can evade criminal liability by fleeing Hong Kong.”

  • Hong Kong and Thailand have no formal extradition agreement, though transfer of fugitives can be arranged.

  • Zhang holds refugee status from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and is among a group of 19 activists named in a round of arrest warrants issued in Hong Kong in July 2025 under the city’s national security law.

  • Authorities cited the activists’ involvement in the “Hong Kong Parliament,” a group of overseas activists who held unofficial polls outside the city to form a shadow legislature to “pursue the ideal of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong,” as justification for the warrants.

  • In total, 34 people are wanted under the law on suspicion of offenses such as subversion, inciting secession, and colluding with foreign forces.

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

The challenges to freedom of expression and academic freedom are not new. The phenomenon is well documented by FIRE’s research and the Campus Expression Survey in the United States, as well as in other countries like the United Kingdom. Data from these countries show that pluralism has been declining in universities. The rise of alternative epistemologies, such as decolonial frameworks or identity-based approaches, at the expense of debate grounded in ideas and empirical evidence has fueled self-censorship among professors and students, and those with dissident or conservative views tend to suffer the most.

Unfortunately, Brazil is no exception to this trend. For some years now, professors and students have raised concerns about the presence of an “identity police” on campuses, made up of professors and students affiliated with social movements and political parties. These groups ostracize professors, often bypassing administrative procedures without any due process.

This climate has direct consequences for the legitimacy of Brazilian universities. A survey conducted by USP and UFBA found that 59% of respondents have little or no trust in public universities, and 54% believe these institutions promote ideology over quality education.

The perception has spread that universities – especially in the humanities, though increasingly in fields like health sciences – have become spaces impermeable to dissenting thought, where certain ideas, such as the reasonableness of racial quotas in university admissions or the practices of trans-activist movements, simply cannot be questioned or debated. While the stereotype of universities as “hotbeds of Marxism” may sound like a caricature, the real problem reported by professors is more subtle and more serious: an entrenched intolerance of dissent.

This perception is backed by data. A 2025 study conducted by Sivis in partnership with FIRE found that nearly half of Brazilian students are reluctant to discuss controversial topics, especially about politics and elections, in the classroom, and that almost 40% admit to self-censoring.

Additional research conducted by UFF mapped over 100 “cancellation” cases involving professors, students, and speakers. Recent episodes illustrate the scope of the problem: a student was expelled from their undergraduate program for questioning racial categories used in the quota system; professors were targeted for proposing alternative readings of dominant gender theory. There are also documented cases of sabotage and cancellation of lectures featuring conservative or right-leaning speakers, who were prevented from speaking on campuses.

Professor Veronica Toste, a sociology professor at UFF, remarked: “Since we began our research on the restrictions of academic freedom in Brazilian universities, we’ve been overwhelmed by reports from professors living in fear and resorting to self-censorship. Many have endured cruel public exposure and internal disciplinary processes; some are on leave, and others have even been diagnosed with PTSD. It is a troubling paradox: legitimate and vital agendas, such as racial and gender equality, are being weaponized in illegitimate disputes to silence dissent and restrict independent research.”

The pattern that emerges from these cases is troubling: there is a recurring practice of silencing that bypasses any formal process. Disagreement has come to be treated as transgression.

It was against this backdrop that a group of Brazilian professors came together in April 2026 to launch a manifesto in defense of pluralism, academic freedom, and institutional neutrality. Their demands were that universities refrain from taking official positions on political or ideological matters to protect dissenting views; that no professor or student be sanctioned for their opinions; and that universities foster an institutional culture that encourages the teaching of competing positions and the analysis of divergent perspectives on sensitive issues. These were demands that, in any genuinely academically oriented environment, shouldn’t even be needed.

There is yet another dimension to this problem that deserves attention: these issues not only affect the university environment, but they also compromise the very intellectual formation of students. Universities are in the business of developing human capital. When the climate of expression in a learning environment is hostile to debate and tolerance, how can it possibly produce young people who are genuinely open-minded, argumentatively capable, rhetorically skilled, and critically thoughtful enough to engage with ideas they disagree with and still seek to understand the assumptions behind them?

A university that cannot tolerate disagreement and evidence-based debate has lost its purpose. Rescuing is fundamental to universities’ health. While the problem appears to be a global trend, each country faces its own particular challenges and must address them on its own terms. That is the path we hope Brazil is taking with this manifesto.

This is only the beginning. More research is underway, and further discussions are planned to deepen our understanding and propose concrete improvements. The professors who signed this manifesto are not asking for privilege but for the minimum conditions necessary to do their jobs and keep the university functioning as it should.

Moreover, when the university fails to protect academic freedom and pluralism, students pay the highest price. A generation trained in an environment hostile to dissent will lack the argumentative tools, the intellectual humility, and the critical capacity that a functioning democracy demands. By strengthening academic freedom, we strengthen democracy itself.

Sara Clem is a PhD Candidate in Political Science and a researcher at Sivis Institute.

This Week at a Glance 🔎

— 🇺🇸 DOJ Subpoenas WSJ Reporters in Iran Leaks Probe

— 🇺🇸 ABC Claims FCC Threats Chill First Amendment Speech

— 🤖 LGBTQ+ Creators Claim Meta Is Suppressing Queer Content

— 🇩🇪 German Culture Minister Calls to Regulate YouTube’s Algorithm

— 🇸🇻 El Salvador Freezes Assets of Investigative News Outlet

First of All 🇺🇸

» ABC Claims FCC Threats Chill First Amendment Speech

• ABC has sent a legal letter accusing the Federal Communications Commission of attempting to threaten broadcasters and limit political discourse through an ongoing inquiry into its daytime talk show, “The View.”

• The Letter:

  • The letter responds to an FCC investigation into “The View” that began in February, following Texas Senate candidate James Talarico’s appearance on the show.

  • The agency claimed that “The View” had violated the “equal time rule,” which requires stations to give equal airtime to all legally qualified candidates for public office.

  • Although talk shows have historically been considered “news interview programs” and therefore exempt from the rule, the FCC is challenging whether such programs are “bona fide” news and qualify for exemption.

  • In a statement sent to the media, the FCC said it will review the matter, but that “the equal time law encourages more speech and empowers voters to decide the outcome of elections.”

  • ABC maintains that it has abided by the law and that the FCC is redefining what’s exempt and using regulatory power to restrict views.

• The Bigger Picture:

  • The letter also suggests that an FCC order issued last week for early license reviews of ABC-owned television stations is suspicious.

  • The order came one day after Trump pressured ABC to fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a controversial monologue, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

  • “Uncertainty as to the scope of broadcast licensees’ editorial discretion threatens to limit news coverage of political candidates and chill core First Amendment-protected speech for years and potentially decades to come,” ABC’s letter read.

» DOJ Subpoenas WSJ Reporters and Investigates Iran Leaks

• The Wall Street Journal has received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of certain reporters amid a push from the Justice Department to pursue investigations of journalists who have worked on sensitive national security stories.

• Details:

  • The subpoenas target reporters related to a February article that detailed Pentagon officials’ warnings about the risks of a military campaign against Iran.

  • The move comes as the Justice Department is pursuing investigations against reporters following complaints from President Trump about media leaks related to the Iran war last month.

  • According to officials, Trump is focusing on articles that provided details on how he arrived at his decision to launch the war, and what his advisers told him as he deliberated.

  • Sources revealed that prosecutors have sent subpoenas to media organizations and email and phone providers seeking information in leak inquiries over recent months.

  • The administration has also vowed to go after reporters who covered the downing of an American jet in Iran and the rescue operation that followed, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

» Trump Counterterrorism Strategy Links ‘Transgender Ideology’ to Violent Extremism

• The Trump administration’s new national counterterrorism strategy, released May 6, 2026, names “violent left-wing extremists” and “extremist transgender ideology” as among the top threats facing the country.

• Details:

  • Sebastian Gorka, the senior director for counterterrorism, also told reporters that the team is focused on online groups that are “inciting violence against innocent individuals” on both sides of the aisle.

  • “It’s also about the ideology, whether it’s against Western Civilization, America, the U.S. Constitution, our friends, our allies, peace in general, you fit under that rubric,” he added.

  • Gorka said the administration would use “all the tools constitutionally available to us” to identify members of political groups whose ideology is “anti-American, radically pro-gender or anarchist, such as antifa.”

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» OpenAI Endorses U.S. Kids Online Safety Act

• OpenAI has endorsed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that would require social media companies and other online platforms to implement stronger protections for children.

• Details:

  • The bill, first introduced in 2022, has been revised several times, though the current version requires platforms to allow minors to opt out of “addictive features” and algorithmic recommendations.

  • Platforms also have a “duty of care” to mitigate harmful content, including that which promotes eating disorders, suicide, and sexual exploitation under the Act.

  • OpenAI joins Apple, Microsoft, Snapchat, and X as endorsers of the bill.

» Denver Activist Sentenced to Jail for Doxing Police Commander

• A Denver activist, Regan Benson, was sentenced to 60 days in jail, two years’ probation, and a $1,000 fine for violating the state’s anti-doxing statute.

• Details:

  • Benson’s charges stem from a September livestream outside the District 3 police station, where she asked viewers to look up the home address of the Denver police commander, Joel Bell.

  • Benson suggested holding a “pig roast” there, and repeated the idea when users found the address, and read and repeated users’ suggestions for things to write in chalk outside the station.

  • After her sentencing, Benson vowed to appeal the decision, adding, “There’s a woman in jail right now for joking about a pig roast,” and that she never advocated for true threats.

• The Law:

  • The statute prevents the publishing of personal information of people with certain public-facing jobs in a way that creates a serious and imminent threat to their safety.

  • The person publishing such information should reasonably know if the information poses a threat under the law.

» LGBTQ+ Creators Fear Meta Is Suppressing Queer Content on Instagram

• LGBTQ+ creators and advocates are raising alarms about the suppression of queer and sexual-health-related content on Meta platforms, Instagram and Facebook.

• Details:

  • Sources have reported widespread concerns among queer influencers and advocates about moderation and algorithmic suppression.

  • Repro Uncensored, a group that tracks online censorship of reproductive and sexual health content, claims it documented the suspension of more than 100 queer and creative accounts in April alone.

  • A sex toy retailer’s account with more than 700,000 followers, Bellesa Boutique, was removed, sparking renewed backlash against Meta.

  • Meta maintains that the account violated its solicitation policies on more than three occasions and that every organization and individual is subject to the same set of rules.

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» German Culture Minister Calls to Regulate YouTube’s Algorithm

• German Minister for Culture and Media Wolfram Weimer argued in an op-ed that YouTube and other large social media platforms should face broadcast-style regulation — including rules governing algorithmic content promotion — because they now function like traditional television.

• Details:

  • Weimer wrote in the German newspaper Die Welt that when YouTube CEO Neal Mohan declared his platform “the new television” in 2025, the statement carried regulatory implications: platforms that shape public discourse as TV once did should face comparable rules.

  • He called for rules governing content “prominence” — meaning which content gets surfaced and recommended by algorithms — arguing that these decisions carry the same publication responsibilities as broadcast editorial choices.

  • Weimer also called for binding age verification, arguing that the current minimum age of 13 — derived from U.S. data protection law — is effectively meaningless without enforcement mechanisms.

  • He simultaneously advocated deregulating outdated rules for traditional broadcasters, including advertising limits designed for scarce TV spectrum that no longer make sense in a fragmented digital landscape.

  • The op-ed comes as the EU considers reforms to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) — the key EU law governing video content across member states — which could be expanded to cover large streaming and social media platforms.

» EU Moves to Crack Down on TikTok and Instagram’s ‘Addictive Design’ Targeting Children

• At the European Summit on Artificial Intelligence and Children in Denmark, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the region will take action against “addictive design” features on TikTok and Meta’s platforms.

• Details:

  • “We are taking action against TikTok and its addictive design — endless scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications. The same applies to Meta, because we believe Instagram and Facebook are failing to enforce their own minimum age of 13,” Von der Leyen said.

  • The EU’s executive branch has also designed its own age-verification app that member states can integrate into their digital wallets, though it has sparked security concerns, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

» Meta Challenges UK Regulator Over Online Safety Fees and Fines

• Meta is challenging the UK’s media regulator, Ofcom, in London’s High Court over how fees and penalties are calculated under the Online Safety Act.

• Details:

  • The Online Safety Act sets standards for social media platforms and allows Ofcom to fine companies up to 10% of their global revenue.

  • Meta is arguing that Ofcom’s approach is disproportionate and unlawful, as well as its policy that renders two or more providers owned by the same organization jointly liable for breaches.

  • “We believe fees and penalties should be based on the services being regulated in the countries they’re being regulated in,” a Meta spokesperson said.

  • The challenge is due to be heard in October.

» Finnish Lawmaker Appeals Hate Speech Conviction Over Decades-Old Pamphlet to ECHR

• Finnish member of parliament Päivi Räsänen is appealing her hate speech conviction over a decades-old pamphlet that referred to homosexuality as a “developmental disorder” to the European Court of Human Rights.

• Details:

  • The conviction focused on a pamphlet Räsänen published in 2004 titled “Male and Female He Created Them: Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian Understanding of Humanity,” as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

  • “[T]he scientific material unequivocally proves that homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development,” Räsänen wrote. “Those who claim that homosexuality is a natural ‘healthy’ variety of sexuality nullify the evidentiary value found in family background studies for political reasons.”

  • Räsänen was charged with “agitation against a minority group” in 2021 over a 2019 tweet that questioned her church’s sponsorship of an LGBTQ+ pride event, though she was acquitted twice by lower courts in 2022 and 2023.

  • Now, Räsänen says she feels it is her duty to appeal her conviction, and “to reinstate respect for the basic human right that all are free to peacefully express their views in the public square.”

Subscribe now

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» California Bill Would Impose Jail Time on Protesters Near Houses of Worship

• A bill is moving through the California state legislature that would make it a crime to approach a person within 100 feet of a place of worship to hand out a leaflet, hold a sign, or “engage in oral protest.”

• Details:

  • Violators could face up to six months in jail, and up to a year if they violate the law twice.

  • The 100-foot buffer zone would apply to all houses of worship in the state, barring protesters from coming within eight feet of any person and handing them a pamphlet, showing a sign, or engaging in “oral protest or education.”

» Rutgers Disinvites Graduation Speaker After He Criticizes Israel

• Rutgers University has disinvited Rami Elghandour, a School of Engineering convocation speaker, after graduating students complained about his social media posts criticizing Israel.

• Details:

  • The university pointed to an April 20 post on X, where Elghandour accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide” in Gaza and alleged it was “training dogs to sexually assault prisoners.”

  • Afterward, the university released a statement that the invitation had been rescinded after discussing concerns with Elghandour.

  • The University Senate responded to the cancellation by voting to formally censor the dean of the engineering school for his “one-sided, opaque, and harmful” handling of the matter.

» Tunisia Sentences Prominent Journalist Zied el-Heni to One Year in Prison

• A Tunisian court has sentenced reporter Zied el-Heni, who was detained on April 24 after writing a post criticizing a judicial ruling, to one year in prison.

• Details:

  • El-Heni was convicted under Article 76 of Tunisia’s Telecommunications Code after he made a social media post criticizing the imprisonment of Khalifa Guesmi.

  • The post described the judiciary as a “conspiracy” that led to the wrongful imprisonment of both Guesmi and a national guard officer, who were later acquitted.

  • El-Heni said he would not appeal any ruling because he does “not recognize any outcome” resulting from an “illegitimate trial in which my rights are being violated.”

» El Faro Says El Salvador Froze Its Assets in Retaliation for Reporting on Bukele

• Salvadoran investigative outlet El Faro has revealed that the assets of two staff members were frozen, alleging that the freeze was retaliation against their work exposing corruption in President Nayib Bukele’s government.

• Details:

  • Tensions between Bukele and El Faro over its corruption investigations have played out in public, including when the outlet revealed that his administration had negotiated with gangs.

  • The move comes after the outlet released a documentary with PBV Frontline about the gang negotiations.

  • El Faro had previously been subject to Pegasus spyware surveillance, with researchers documenting that the phones of at least 22 of its employees were infected between June 2020 and November 2021 (revealed in January 2022).

  • In April 2023, El Faro relocated its legal and administrative base to Costa Rica — establishing the Fundación Periódica in San José — citing the deteriorating environment for independent journalism in El Salvador.

  • The May 2026 asset freeze shows that the Bukele government can still reach the outlet’s remaining in-country operations.

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

This Week at a Glance 🔎

— 🇺🇸 FCC Commissioner Condemns Disney Stations’ Early License Review

— 🌍 RSF Report: Global Press Freedom at Lowest Point in 25 Years

— 🤖 Meta Threatens Shut Down of Instagram, Facebook in New Mexico

— 🇺🇲 U.S. Senate Considers Bill to Require ID Checks for AI Chatbots

— 🇲🇲 Myanmar Revokes Publishing Licenses of Three News Outlets

First of All 🇺🇸

» FCC Commissioner Condemns Disney-Owned Stations’ Early License Review

• Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Anna Gomez publicly condemned the agency’s initiation of an early review process for Disney-owned broadcast stations’ licenses as “the most egregious action this FCC has taken in violation of the First Amendment to date.”

• Details:

  • The criticism focuses on the FCC’s order directing Disney’s eight television stations to file their broadcast license renewals ahead of schedule following a controversial monologue from Jimmy Kimmel, a late-night host on Disney’s ABC network, as mentioned in last week’s Free Flow.

  • FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has repeatedly said that the agency has a duty to scrutinize whether broadcasters that rely on public airwaves are serving “the public interest.”

  • Gomez argued that the move, which comes after a separate FCC investigation into Disney’s diversity practices, is evidence that the Trump administration is attempting to intimidate critics in the media.

  • “This should be a lesson to media companies that no amount of capitulation to this Administration will buy them protection,” Gomez added. “The only choice is to stand up and stand firm in defense of the First Amendment.”

» FBI Launches Criminal Leak Investigation Over The Atlantic’s Reporting on Director Patel

• The FBI has launched a criminal leak investigation into The Atlantic magazine journalist who wrote that FBI Director Kash Patel had “alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.”

• Details:

  • The investigation comes two weeks after Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the publication and the reporter, Sarah Fitzpatrick, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

  • Criminal leak investigations typically look into government officials who may have disclosed state secrets or classified documents, which makes its application to this case, where unclassified information was leaked to a reporter, unusual.

  • The investigation could allow agents to obtain Fitzpatrick’s phone number, run her name and personal information through databases, and examine her social media contacts, though it is not known what steps have been taken.

  • A spokesperson denied the existence of the investigation to MS NOW, and said, “Every time there’s a publication of false claims by anonymous sources that gets called out, the media plays the victim via investigations that do not exist.”

  • Fitzpatrick’s story included over two dozen anonymous sources that detailed concern among FBI officials over Patel’s alcohol consumption.

» Federal Trade Commission Withdraws Appeal, Comes to an Agreement with Media Matters

• Media Matters for America has won its case against the Federal Trade Commission’s retaliatory investigation into the organization last June.

• Context:

  • In June 2025, Media Matters sued to block the FTC’s investigation following its article about social media platform X’s placement of antisemitic posts next to major brands’ advertisements.

  • In August, the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. granted a temporary injunction blocking the agency from enforcing its investigation and determining it had likely acted with “retaliatory animus.”

  • Two months later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to stay the lower court’s decision, preventing the investigation from moving forward.

  • In April of this year, judges questioned the FTC’s counsel, asking that the FTC explain whether there was something “radically left” about being anti-Nazi.

  • The FTC later sought to withdraw its appeal and has now agreed to a binding agreement that guarantees it will never reissue investigative demands to the company.

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» Meta Threatens to Pull Instagram and Facebook from New Mexico Over Age-Verification Dispute

• Meta warned it may shut down Instagram and Facebook in New Mexico entirely rather than comply with a push by state prosecutors for fundamental changes to platforms’ child accounts.

• Context:

  • The push comes after a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for knowingly harming children’s mental health and concealing what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms.

  • The second phase of the case will unfold next week during a bench trial on allegations that Meta poses a public nuisance.

  • State prosecutors are now asking the court to order a series of changes to children’s social media accounts, including age-verification mandates, default privacy settings, and more stringent oversight.

• The Warning:

  • In a court filing, Meta argued it was unrealistic for the company to meet a proposed requirement for 99% accuracy in verifying that platforms’ child users are at least 13, among other demands.

  • “As a practical matter, this requirement effectively requires Meta to shut down its services — for all users in the state — or else comply with impossible obligations,” the filing read.

» U.S. Senate Panel Advances Bill to Ban Minors From AI Chatbot Companions

• A Senate committee unanimously advanced a bill that would prohibit minors under the age of 18 from accessing AI “companions” and require systems to disclose their “non-human status and lack of professional credentials” for all users.

• The GUARD Act:

  • The bill, known as the Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue (GUARD) Act, defines an AI companion as a chatbot designed to simulate interpersonal or emotional interaction with the user.

  • It would also establish a new crime for companies that “knowingly” make chatbots that “solicit or produce sexual content” available to minors.

  • The Act proposes age-verification measures to ensure compliance, including the submission of government ID.

Our Take: In a statement to The Hill, Ashkhen Kazaryan said, “By mandating government ID or equivalent age verification for any American who wishes to interact with an AI chatbot, the bill burdens the speech and associational rights of every adult, not just minors.”

» Lawsuit Pushes Back on Minnesota Law Mandating Social Media Health Warnings

• NetChoice, a tech trade group, has filed a lawsuit challenging a Minnesota law that requires social media companies to show users health warning labels on their sites.

• Details:

  • The warnings provided in the legislation were designed by the Minnesota Department of Health and will be required to appear on social media users’ feeds on July 1 if the law is passed.

  • The lawsuit argues that the law violates platforms’ First Amendment rights by requiring them to express “the government’s preferred message.

  • Similar social media warning legislation has passed in states like California (effective Jan 1, 2027), New York (effective date pending state rulemaking), and Colorado, though a federal court has paused Colorado’s law after a similar lawsuit by NetChoice.

• Potential Required Warnings Include:

  • “Warning: The app may repeatedly show similar or upsetting content, which may negatively affect your mental health. Use tools (mute, unfollow, “not interested”) to change what you see. Support is available: Call/text 988 or visit 988Lifeline.org.”

  • “Warning: Infinite scrolling and videos that play automatically may make it difficult to stop. Extended use may affect sleep, school, work, and mood. Call/text 988 or visit 988Lifeline.org.”

  • “Comparing yourself to ‘perfect’ posts? Call/Text 988 or visit 988Lifeline.org. Warning: Many images are edited and may affect self-esteem and mood.”

» UK Children Are Drawing Fake Mustaches to Beat Online Age Checks — and It’s Working

• A report from Internet Matters reveals that a third of children in the UK claim to have bypassed online age checks in the past two months, some by drawing mustaches to trick facial recognition software.

• Details:

  • The report follows the passage of the UK’s Online Safety Act, which began enforcing safety measures, including reporting tools, content warnings, and restrictions on features such as livestreaming, in July 2025.

  • According to the report, 46% of children said they believe age checks are easy to bypass, while 17% said they are difficult to bypass.

  • Children described using fake birthdates, someone else’s identification, submitting videos of other people’s faces, and using video game characters to circumvent facial recognition software.

  • The report also found that 26% parents have allowed their child to bypass age checks, with 17% actively helping them to do so.

» Utah Law Targeting VPN Use Goes Into Effect

• On May 6, Utah’s first-of-its-kind law targeting the use of VPNs to avoid age-verification mandates took effect.

• Details:

  • Utah lawmakers pushed for the bill as VPN usage surged after Pornhub blocked Utah IP addresses from accessing the site because of the state’s age-verification law.

  • The bill, known as the Online Age Verification Amendments, includes provisions that regulate access to websites based on geographic location, regardless of VPN use, and bans the sharing of VPN instructions.

Subscribe now

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» EU Accuses Meta of Age-Verification Failures

• The European Commission’s preliminary ruling has found that Meta has failed to implement required safeguards to keep children under the age of 13 off its platforms, Instagram and Facebook.

• Details:

  • The ruling determined that there is no adequate system in place to identify and remove the accounts of minors who manage to bypass the platforms’ age limits.

  • Regulators said Meta’s tool for reporting minors is “difficult to use and not effective,” and that the lack of effective controls appears to violate the Digital Services Act.

  • Under the DSA, the commission can issue a fine of up to 6% of Meta’s worldwide revenue.

  • The findings come as the EU is investigating Meta on other issues, including whether its platforms have an addictive design, and a probe into its recommender systems.

» European MEPs Call for Sanctions Against Georgian TV Channels

• The European Parliament is due to vote on proposed amendments to its annual report on Georgia that call for sanctions against several pro-government broadcasters.

• The Amendments:

  • The amendments, published on March 19, call for restrictive measures against three Georgian TV channels: Imedi, Rustavi 2, and POSTV.

  • Another Amendment raises the possibility of extending sanctions to leaders of Georgia’s National Communications Commission and the Public Broadcaster.

  • Individuals from Imedi and POSTV who are explicitly named in the report for spreading “deliberately misleading information” about the war in Ukraine could also face sanctions.

• The Report:

  • The report describes the TV outlets as a “communications arm” of the ruling Georgian Dream party that spreads disinformation and hostile propaganda.

  • It focuses on campaigns targeting EU institutions and representatives, condemning “demeaning narratives” and “manipulative reporting” that undermine public trust in the bloc.

  • Georgia’s status as an EU candidate country is highlighted, with the report adding that such practice runs counter to the country’s commitments to obtain that status, and that disinformation undermines the fundamental principles of democratic accountability.

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index Shows Sharp Global Decline

• Reporters Without Borders (RSF) latest Press Freedom Index shows media freedom is at a 25-year low, with countries like the U.S. falling as many as seven places in the rankings.

• Findings:

  • Out of the 180 countries in the report, 100 experienced a decline in press freedom, and more than half of the countries now fall into the ‘difficult’ or ‘very serious’ categories for press freedom.

  • The U.S. has fallen to 64th place, seven places below its previous ranking, which the report attributes to the Trump administration’s “systematic policy” of “repeated attacks on the press and journalists.”

  • The steepest decline took place in Niger, which fell 37th places to 120th, as a wave of suppression washed over the Sahel region with armed groups and ruling juntas attacking journalists.

  • Meanwhile, Syria saw positive improvements, rising from 177th to 141st, and Ukraine moved by seven places to 55th.

• Pushback from Hong Kong:

  • The Hong Kong government and legislature condemned the reports after it was ranked 140th.

  • The report cited the 20-year sentence given to journalist and activist Jimmy Lai, which the government said was an attempt to “sugarcoat the criminal acts of a national security offender.”

  • The government also called out Deutsche Welle after it awarded Lai its 2026 freedom of speech award, and said the “so-called ‘award’” was an attempt to “slander, smear, as well as attack” authorities.

» 50,000 Protesters Were Arrested During Iran’s Crackdown, Some Face Death Penalty

• Around 50,000 people were arrested in total during anti-regime protests across Iran in January that led up to the Iran war, with some facing charges that carry the death penalty.

• Details:

  • The United Nations reports that at least 21 political prisoners have been executed since the start of the war, and many were forced to confess under torture.

  • Primary reports have revealed that several thousand simply disappeared in custody as well.

» China Pressures Zambia to Cancel World’s Largest Digital Rights Conference

• Access Now, the group that organizes the world’s largest digital rights conference, RightsCon, has said the event was canceled following pressure from the Chinese government.

• Details:

  • A week before the conference was scheduled to take place in Lusaka, Zambia, the Zambian government announced it would be postponed to an unspecified date.

  • Two days before the announcement, Access Now learned that the Chinese government had been informed of the in-person participation of Taiwanese people.

  • It claims the Chinese government tried to influence the Zambian government’s approach to Taiwanese participants’ move across the border.

  • According to Access Now, it was told “informally from multiple sources” that “in order for RightsCon to continue, we would have to moderate specific topics and exclude communities at risk, including our Taiwanese participants, from in-person and online participation.”

» Myanmar Junta Revokes Publishing Licenses of Three Media Outlets

• Myanmar’s military junta revoked the publication licenses of three news agencies (Khonumthung Media Group, Chin World, and Myatmaukkhit News Agency) for publishing and broadcasting content detrimental to national security, the rule of law, and public peace.

• Details:

  • The revocation prohibits the news outlets from publishing or broadcasting on any media platform or technology.

  • The bans took effect on April 9 and were formally announced on April 24.

  • The Independent Myanmar Journalists Association told the Committee to Protect Journalists that several journalists associated with the banned outlets have gone into hiding to avoid arrest or harassment.

» Uganda Passes ‘Foreign Agents’ Law

• The “Protection of Sovereignty” bill, passed on May 5, criminalizes actions deemed to promote the “interests of a foreigner against those of Uganda” and labels anyone receiving money abroad as a foreign agent.

• Details:

  • The bill drew outrage among Ugandans, prompting lawmakers to remove a clause classifying Ugandans abroad as “foreigners” and creating an exemption for certain institutions, including medical, academic, and faith-based organizations, from restrictions on foreign funding.

  • Human Rights Watch said the bill’s vague language could be used to target activists and organizations, and risks shrinking civic space in a country already accused of suppressing dissent.

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

TL;DR

• DOJ Joins Federal Challenge to Colorado’s AI Discrimination Law: The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in a federal lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s xAI against Colorado’s AI discrimination law, marking the first challenge from the federal government to a state AI law in court. The lawsuit argues that the legislation compels developers to embed ideological judgments into AI model outputs and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

• White House Releases Legislative AI Blueprint: The Trump administration issued a national AI policy framework urging Congress to centralize AI oversight and preempt state regulation in order to avoid government censorship. Whether that framing actually safeguards against censorship or merely moves regulatory powers remains an open question.

• Washington State Enacts AI Disclosure and Chatbot Safety Laws: Washington Governor Ferguson signed three AI bills requiring watermarks on AI-generated media, disclosure and safety obligations for companion chatbots, and a new private right of action for unauthorized deepfake uses of a person’s voice or likeness — with critics warning that litigation-driven enforcement may create compliance uncertainty.

• Anthropic Sues Trump Administration Over Pentagon Blacklisting: Anthropic is challenging its designation as a supply-chain risk, alleging the move was direct retaliation over its refusal to allow the Pentagon to use Claude for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons targeting.

• Court Refuses to Block California’s AI Training Data Transparency Law: A federal court declined to halt California’s law requiring AI companies to publicly disclose summaries of their training data, rejecting xAI’s argument that the requirement violates the First Amendment and constitutes an unconstitutional taking of trade secrets.

• Florida Opens Criminal Probe Into ChatGPT Outputs: Florida’s attorney general launched a criminal investigation into OpenAI over allegations that ChatGPT advised the FSU shooting suspect on weapon choice and targeting. The company faces a separate lawsuit from the families of victims of the Tumbler Ridge school shooting in British Columbia, who claim it failed to alert police after internally flagging the shooter’s account months before the attack.

• China Rolls Out National AI Ethics Review Framework: China introduced its first comprehensive AI ethics review regime, requiring pre-deployment approval for AI systems capable of shaping public opinion or social mobilization — placing censorship upstream of any user interaction, with a government-maintained list of high-risk activities that can be updated without notice or challenge.

• India’s AI Content Rules Drive Wave of Takedowns: India’s amended IT Rules have triggered documented removals of journalist and satirist content, while a new draft amendment would require platforms to treat informal ministerial advisories as binding law — raising serious constitutional concerns about overbroad speech regulation.

• Philippines Launches Multi-Agency Deepfake Initiative: The Philippines’ government formalized a whole-of-government response to AI-generated disinformation and deepfakes, combining legal enforcement with platform pressure. Now, legitimate dissent could be criminalized under laws broad enough to cover content “inciting disobedience to lawful authority.”

• Meta Faces Senate Scrutiny Over AI Surveillance Glasses: U.S. senators pressed Meta over plans to add facial recognition to its Ray-Ban glasses, warning the technology could identify people at protests without their knowledge. Civil society groups, including the ACLU and 75 organizations, have also called on Meta to halt the plans entirely, describing them as a threat to anonymous public life.

• African Governments Expand AI-Driven Surveillance: Eleven African governments have spent at least $2 billion on Chinese-built AI surveillance infrastructure to reduce crime, despite researchers finding no evidence that it will do so.— Now, researchers claim it is instead being used to monitor political opponents, journalists, and activists without adequate legal safeguards.

Major Stories

» DOJ Joins Federal Challenge to Colorado’s AI Discrimination Law

• Elon Musk’s xAI sued to block Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act, and the Department of Justice moved to intervene—marking the first time the federal government has challenged a state AI law in court.

• Details:

  • xAI’s complaint argues that building an AI model is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and that compelling developers to redesign systems to avoid disparate demographic outcomes amounts to government-compelled expression.

  • The DOJ, joining through its Civil Rights Division, argues the law also violates the Equal Protection Clause by requiring companies to mitigate disparate impacts while simultaneously carving out an exemption for algorithms designed to advance “diversity” or “redress historical discrimination.”

  • The same afternoon the DOJ intervened, Colorado’s Attorney General agreed to voluntarily halt enforcement of the law pending resolution of the litigation, with the state legislature facing a narrow window to pass an amended version before the current text is either struck down or takes effect on June 30.

Free Expression Implications: The case tests whether AI model design constitutes protected speech and whether anti-discrimination mandates amount to compelled expression. The DOJ argues that a state anti-discrimination law itself distorts expressive outputs. The outcome will shape whether states can mandate how AI systems weigh protected characteristics, and how far First Amendment doctrine extends into AI governance.

For insight into Colorado’s AI Act, see the US chapter of FoFS’s report: “That Violates My Policies: AI Laws, Policies, and the Future of Expression.” The Act regulates “high-risk” AI systems, but exempts chatbots governed by an “accepted use policy” prohibiting “discriminatory or harmful” content, leaving these terms undefined. This could incentivize companies to adopt content restrictions that may sweep in protected speech to avoid liability.

» White House Releases National AI Policy Blueprint

• The White House released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, outlining nonbinding legislative recommendations to guide Congress toward a unified federal approach to AI regulation and preemption of state laws.

• Details:

  • The Framework is organized around seven pillars: child protection, AI infrastructure, intellectual property, censorship and free speech, innovation, workforce, and federal preemption of state AI laws.

  • The “Preventing Censorship and Protecting Free Speech” calls on the government to protect free speech and the First Amendment and on Congress to prohibit federal agencies from coercing AI providers to ban or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas, and to provide redress mechanisms where the government attempts to censor expression on AI platforms.

  • On state preemption, the Framework recommends prohibiting state laws that “impose undue burdens” on AI development.

  • The Framework’s release was met with immediate pushback from the other side of the aisle: Representative Beyer and Democratic colleagues introduced the GUARDRAILS Act, which would nullify the December AI preemption executive order and prohibit the use of federal funds to implement it.

Free Expression Implications: The Policy Framework’s reference to defending the First Amendment is welcome. It is also encouraging that, unlike recent Executive Orders, the framework does not emphasize neutrality or “truth-seeking.” At the same time, previous statements and Executive Orders framed in culture-war terms counsel caution. The Framework’s age-assurance recommendations, which condition access to lawful speech on identity disclosure, also give pause. For additional insight, see our statement here.

» Washington State Enacts AI Disclosure and Chatbot Safety Laws

• Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed three AI bills in March 2026 covering AI content disclosure, companion chatbot safety, and a new right to sue over unauthorized AI-generated uses of a person’s voice or image.

• Details:

  • House Bill 1170 requires large AI companies to identify when images, video, or audio are created or substantially altered by AI — through watermarks or embedded metadata — and to offer detection tools. House Bill 2225 requires companion chatbots to disclose they are not human at the start of every conversation and every three hours, with hourly reminders for minors, and bans manipulative engagement tactics designed to deepen emotional attachment. A separate law allows individuals to sue over unauthorized deepfake uses of their voice or likeness.

  • Critics warn that allowing enforcement standards to be defined through private lawsuits rather than agency rulemaking may create uncertainty for responsible actors trying to comply in good faith. Ferguson signed the bill without changes.

Free Expression Implications: Disclosure and duty of care requirements can indirectly shape expressive content. Providers facing liability may limit nuanced discussion of sensitive topics — mental health, sexuality, identity — to avoid exposure. The concern is particularly acute for younger users: those who may most need reliable, non-judgmental information on difficult subjects are precisely those for whom the new restrictions apply most stringently.

» Anthropic Sues Trump Administration Over Pentagon Blacklisting, Raising First Amendment Questions

• Anthropic filed a lawsuit in California in March 2026, challenging the Trump administration’s designation of the company as a “supply-chain risk” — effectively barring government agencies from working with Anthropic after the company refused to allow the Pentagon to use Claude for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons targeting. Anthropic argues the designation was unconstitutional retaliation for its First Amendment-protected advocacy on AI safety.

• In a parallel proceeding, Anthropic filed in the D.C. Circuit, challenging a separate government-wide supply-chain designation under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act, which effectively warned all federal contractors to avoid using Anthropic’s products in defense work.

• Details:

  • In California, a federal judge granted Anthropic a preliminary injunction on March 26, finding the company likely to succeed on its First Amendment arguments and other claims. She called the government’s rationale “Orwellian” and held that the measures looked like punishment for Anthropic’s public criticism rather than a genuine security response. The ruling temporarily blocks the government’s actions, with the government’s appeal now before the Ninth Circuit.

  • At the D.C. Circuit, a three-judge panel denied Anthropic’s emergency stay of the separate FASCSA designation on April 8 — explicitly declining to reach the First Amendment merits, and finding that Anthropic’s harms, while real, were primarily financial rather than constitutional in nature. The ACLU and CDT filed an amicus brief in support of Anthropic, arguing its advocacy for AI guardrails is constitutionally protected.

Free Expression Implications: The case raises significant and unresolved questions, notably whether and how ethical limits implemented by AI companies in their models can be enforced against government customers.

» Court Refuses to Block California’s AI Training Data Transparency Law

• A California federal court declined to halt enforcement of California’s AI training data transparency law in March 2026, denying xAI’s request for a preliminary injunction in X.AI LLC v. Bonta — leaving in place a requirement that generative AI companies publicly post summaries of the datasets used to train their systems.

• Details:

  • California’s AB 2013 requires developers of generative AI systems available in that state to disclose the sources and owners of training datasets, whether they contain personal data or copyrighted material, approximate dataset size, and whether data was purchased or licensed. It does not require disclosure of proprietary model weights or system architecture. OpenAI and Anthropic have already posted compliant disclosures.

  • xAI raised three constitutional challenges: that the law compels disclosure of trade secrets, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation, and violates the First Amendment by compelling speech. Judge Bernal denied the injunction, finding xAI had not shown it was likely to succeed on any of these claims — but the ruling addresses only the threshold for emergency relief, not the law’s ultimate constitutionality. The case proceeds on the merits.

Free Expression Implications: The case is still ongoing — the court’s denial of a preliminary injunction leaves the constitutional questions unresolved on the merits. xAI’s First Amendment argument, if ultimately accepted, could mean that decisions about what data to use to shape an AI system’s outputs constitute protected expression that the government cannot compel disclosure of.

Subscribe now

» Florida Launches Criminal Investigation Into ChatGPT Outputs

• Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a criminal investigation into OpenAI, alleging ChatGPT advised the man accused of a mass shooting at Florida State University on what ammunition to use, what time of day to strike, and where on campus to find the most people.

• Details:

  • Uthmeier sent subpoenas to OpenAI requesting its policies on responding when users make threats to harm others, and said at a press conference: “If it was a person on the other end of that screen, we would be charging them with murder.” The criminal investigation follows a civil inquiry announced earlier the same month.

  • OpenAI has disputed the characterization, stating ChatGPT “provided factual responses to questions with information that could be found broadly across public sources” and did not encourage illegal activity, and noted the company proactively shared the suspect’s account information with law enforcement after the shooting.

  • A parallel lawsuit in British Columbia, Canada alleged ChatGPT discussed gun violence with the perpetrator of a mass shooting in February 2026, and that OpenAI’s internal systems flagged the account eight months before the shooting, but the company chose not to alert authorities. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman apologized to the community, but the company is expected to face more than two dozen additional suits in the coming weeks.

Free Expression Implications: The probe raises foundational questions about whether AI outputs are more analogous to protected speech or regulated conduct. No U.S. court has yet held a general-purpose AI provider criminally liable for a user’s violence. If such a precedent were established, providers would likely sharply curtail responses on sensitive topics well beyond what existing law requires, with a significant chilling effect on lawful AI-mediated speech.

» China Introduces National AI Ethics Review Framework

• China has rolled out its first comprehensive AI ethics review framework, jointly issued by ten government departments, requiring universities, research institutions, healthcare providers, and companies to establish ethics compliance systems before deploying AI that could pose risks to human dignity, public order, or health.

• Details:

  • At the core is a pre-deployment approval process: institutions must obtain ethics clearance from internal committees before proceeding, with a mandatory additional government-led expert reassessment for high-risk activities — including algorithms capable of shaping public opinion or social mobilization, and systems that significantly affect behavior, emotions, or health.

  • The high-risk list is updated dynamically by government ministries, and a parallel oversight regime allows authorities to suspend or terminate AI projects if risk conditions change during implementation.

Free Expression Implications: The framework’s most significant provision from a free expression standpoint is its designation of systems capable of “shaping public opinion or social mobilization” as high-risk — subject to government-led expert reassessment before deployment. Pre-deployment review of expressive AI systems places censorship upstream of any user interaction, and the dynamic updating of the high-risk list means the boundaries of permissible AI speech can shift without notice or challenge.

For insight into China’s AI policies, see the China chapter of FoFS’s report: “That Violates My Policies: AI Laws, Policies, and the Future of Expression.”

» India’s AI Content Rules Drive Wave of Takedowns Against Journalists and Satirists

• India’s amended IT Rules, which took effect in February 2026 and introduced a three-hour takedown window for AI-generated content, have been accompanied by a documented surge in government-ordered content removals targeting journalists, satirists, and political commentators — with no public explanation of which ministry ordered the actions or why.

• Details:

  • A March 30 draft amendment would go further, requiring platforms to comply with informal ministerial communications — advisories, clarifications, and directives — as a binding condition of safe harbor protection. Platforms that fail to comply with these communications—which are instruments that carry no force of law and require no parliamentary scrutiny—would face liability for all user content. The same draft would extend a Code of Ethics designed for professional publishers to ordinary social media users discussing current affairs.

  • Critics warn the draft reproduces the logic of a provision the Bombay High Court struck down in 2024 for being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad — but broadens the trigger from a single fact-check unit to an indefinite class of executive communications.

Free Expression Implications: Strict regulatory deadlines create structural incentives toward over-compliance. When platforms face liability for delay or misjudgment, lawful but controversial speech becomes collateral damage. The Indian case illustrates how AI safety regimes can become instruments of speech control when paired with punitive intermediary liability frameworks.

For insight into India’s AI policies, see the India chapter of FoFS’s report: “That Violates My Policies: AI Laws, Policies, and the Future of Expression.”

» Philippines Launches Coordinated Government Initiative Against Deepfakes

• The Philippine government has launched a multi-agency initiative under “Oplan Kontra Fake News,” formalizing coordination among justice, communications, and technology agencies to combat AI-generated deepfakes and online disinformation.

• Details:

  • The Department of Justice, Presidential Communications Office, and Department of Information and Communications Technology signed a memorandum of agreement that combines legal enforcement, platform coordination, and public education. Authorities argued that AI-generated false narratives — particularly on economic issues — could trigger panic, distort markets, and undermine institutions, and noted that content may constitute offenses under the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

  • In a parallel move, the government wrote to Meta demanding expedited takedown protocols for “high-risk content” and a 24/7 enforcement coordination point, warning that failure to comply could prompt regulatory and legal measures. Meta indicated its platforms are committed to supporting the effort.

Free Expression Implications: The framework’s stated commitment to preserving constitutionally protected speech sits alongside enforcement tools broad enough to reach content that ‘incites disobedience to lawful authority.’ When governments can demand expedited platform takedowns of content deemed harmful to ‘economic stability’ or ‘confidence in institutions,’ there is a real risk that speech is restricted simply because it is inconvenient.

» US Senators Press Meta Over AI Surveillance Glasses

• U.S. senators formally pressed Meta over the civil liberties implications of its AI-enabled smart glasses after internal company documents revealed plans to add facial recognition capable of identifying strangers in real time — a feature Meta internally referred to as “Name Tag.”

Details:

• Senators Markey, Wyden, and Merkley sent Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg a letter in March 2026 warning that the glasses could be used to identify people at political rallies and demanding answers about data retention, database scope, and whether biometric data would be used to train Meta’s AI models. Meta did not respond by the senators’ April 6 deadline.

• In April 2026, the ACLU and 75 organizations called on Meta to halt and publicly disavow the plans, warning the glasses would allow anyone to identify strangers by name at protests, medical clinics, and other sensitive locations — and link those identities to databases containing information on health, habits, and relationships.

Free Expression Implications: Glasses equipped with facial recognition would eliminate any expectation of anonymity in public life. The ability to be identified — and profiled — during a protest, a clinic visit, or an ordinary social interaction creates a chilling effect that operates before any speech is uttered. As the ACLU coalition warns, this is not merely a privacy concern: the erosion of anonymous public presence is a prerequisite condition for free expression, and its loss would fall hardest on those already most exposed to surveillance and retaliation.

» African Governments Accelerate Deployment of AI-Driven Surveillance Systems

• Governments across Africa are rapidly deploying AI-enabled surveillance technologies—including facial recognition and biometric identification—often with minimal legal oversight, raising alarms about protest monitoring and repression.

• Details:

  • Eleven African countries have spent at least $2 billion on Chinese-built “smart city” surveillance infrastructure, including AI-enabled CCTV and facial recognition systems.

  • The systems are being rolled out without adequate legal frameworks to protect human rights, and researchers warn that they are increasingly being used to monitor political opponents, journalists, and activists rather than to address the security threats that were used to justify their procurement.

Free Expression Implications: When individuals know—or suspect—that their movements can be automatically tracked, participation in protests and political discourse becomes riskier. In environments with limited rule of law, AI surveillance enables repression at scale, eroding anonymity and chilling expression long before overt censorship occurs.

The Future of Free Speech in Action

The Future of Free Speech has been reviewing how model behaviors shape freedom of expression and political conversations, as part of its broader commitment to engage with industry, policymakers, academia, and civil society. Anthropic has highlighted our collaboration in their update on election safeguards. This work builds on projects such as That Violates My Policies: AI Laws, Chatbots, and the Future of Expression.

Senior Research Fellow Jordi Calvet-Bademunt was a speaker at a multistakeholder event in Dublin, attended by industry representatives, civil society, and scholars, that focused on digital rights and risk mitigation. He warned against the dangers posed by vague, risk-based regulations and emphasized the need for enforcement guidance that is firmly committed to protecting freedom of expression.

Jordi will speak at the 2026 Internet Communications Governance Forum, to be held in Taipei on May 12–13, 2026. He will discuss developments in international AI legislation and their implications for free speech. The event is organized by Taiwan’s National Communications Commission and the Taipei Computer Association.

Executive Director Jacob Mchangama will speak at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 12, 2026. He will discuss the “AI and Censorship” dilemma.

Share

Isabelle Anzabi is a research associate at The Future of Free Speech, where she analyzes the intersections between AI policy and freedom of expression.

Jordi Calvet-Bademunt is a Senior Research Fellow at The Future of Free Speech and a Visiting Scholar at Vanderbilt University.

Few phrases carry as much rhetorical force in contemporary politics as “protecting children.” Across Europe and beyond, governments have invoked it to justify everything from content moderation laws to age-verification mandates to outright bans on speech about LGBTQ individuals. In April 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) drew a line.

In Commission v Hungary, the CJEU issued a judgment on Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ law. The Hungarian law did not emerge in isolation. It formed part of a broader political pattern in which the (former) government used “family values,” “child protection,” and “LGBT ideology” rhetoric to restrict rights, stigmatize minorities, and consolidate illiberal political identity.

Scholarship on the rule of law backsliding in Central Europe notes how attacks on democratic standards often go hand in hand with restrictions on expression, assembly, reproductive rights, and minority rights. Hungary’s law followed this template. The CJEU’s decision is not only an important ruling on equality, but it also represents a major victory for free speech that highlights how deeply intertwined equality and freedom of expression are.

The CJEU held that Hungary’s 2021 legislation, framed as a child protection measure, unlawfully restricted access to content concerning homosexuality, gender identity, and gender reassignment. In doing so, it violated, among other provisions, Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which stipulates that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The European Commission began infringement proceedings in July 2021, arguing that Hungary’s (and Poland’s) legislation limited minors’ access to content that “promotes or portrays” divergence from sex assigned at birth, gender reassignment, or homosexuality. In July 2022, the Commission referred Hungary to the CJEU, stating that the law violated internal market rules, fundamental rights, and EU values. Commentators at the time described the law as part of a longer sequence of measures targeting LGBTQ people in Hungary.

The law’s speech implications were central from the start. Hungary did not simply regulate explicit sexual material. It restricted the depiction, discussion, and circulation of LGBTQ lives. As the CJEU emphasized, the law treated audiovisual programs portraying homosexuality and gender reassignment differently from programs portraying heterosexual or cisgender identities. That distinction, the CJEU said, was based on “a preference for certain identities and sexual orientations to the detriment of others, and thus contribute[d] to the stigmatisation of the latter.”

For free speech, that is the core problem. The state singled out a category of lawful expression because of the identities and viewpoints it represented.

Child Protection Cannot Justify Viewpoint Suppression

The judgment does not deny that children may be protected from genuinely harmful material. But it rejects the idea that “child protection” can be used as a blanket justification for suppressing content about LGBTQ identity.

The CJEU was explicit. It held that the Hungarian measures restricted both speakers and audiences. Media providers, advertisers, educational actors, civil society organizations, and members of the public were all affected. The law limited the right to impart information and the right to receive it.

The CJEU stated that the provisions “issue limit the freedom of expression and information not only with regard to minors, but also with regard to members of the general public wishing to receive such content, as well as with regard to service providers disseminating that content in the form of advertising, communications of public interest or messages promoting awareness broadcast in the public sphere.” This is a particularly important clarification. Free speech not only protects the right of the speaker but also the right of the listener or reader, including young people, to receive information and ideas. The Hungarian law attacked both sides of that relationship.

The CJEU’s strongest free speech passage comes in its Article 11 analysis. Building on case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it reaffirmed that freedom of expression is “one of the basic conditions for progress in a democratic society and for each individual’s self-fulfillment.” It protects not only information or ideas that are “favourably received” but also those that “offend, shock or disturb.” The CJEU added that these are “the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.”

This language matters because Hungary’s law was built on the opposite premise. The government assumed that exposure to LGBTQ content is itself harmful to minors. It treated visibility as danger, identity as contamination, and speech as something to be quarantined.

The CJEU concluded that the prohibition on making such content available to minors constituted “particularly serious interference with the freedom of expression and information guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter.” It then held that this interference could not be justified by Hungary’s reliance on the best interests of the child or parental rights. This is the judgment’s central speech-related holding. States may regulate age-inappropriate sexual material. They may not suppress an entire category of identity-related expression and call that protection.

The CJEU also recognized the breadth and vagueness of the law’s problematic provisions. They covered content and advertising that “promotes or portrays” homosexuality, gender reassignment, or divergence from sex assigned at birth. Such provisions invite caution, overcompliance, and self-censorship. In practice, broadcasters, publishers, schools, advertisers, and NGOs would have strong incentives to avoid anything that could be interpreted as LGBTQ-positive, LGBTQ-inclusive, or even LGBTQ-neutral. That is how censorship often works. It does not always need mass prosecutions. Vague legal risk is enough.

Stigma-Fuelled Speech Restrictions

The CJEU also connected the speech restriction to stigma. It found that the provisions resulted in the “stigmatisation and marginalisation of non-cisgender persons - including transgender persons - or non-heterosexual persons, who constitute a minority group of persons, solely on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

The CJEU also condemned the structure of the law itself. Hungary placed restrictions on LGBTQ content in legislation titled as a measure against paedophilia. The CJEU held that this created an association between being LGBTQ and being convicted of paedophilia. In the CJEU’s words, that association, through its “offensive and stigmatising effect,” was capable of encouraging “hateful conduct” and violating the dignity of the LGBTQ community.

That point is essential. The law did not merely silence speech about LGBTQ people. It communicated a state-sponsored message about them. It suggested that LGBTQ lives belong in the same legal and moral category as threats to children. Rather than neutral child protection, the law created a state-authored stigma.

Why This Ruling Is A Victory for Free Speech

The ruling should therefore be read as a free speech decision for three reasons. First, it protects the right to speak about LGBTQ lives. The CJEU made clear that Article 11 covers the dissemination of information through media, advertising, education, and public interest communications.

Second, it protects the right to receive such information. The judgment is explicit that the law restricted “the right of everyone” to receive information concerning the identities covered by the legislation.

Third, it rejects the use of majoritarian morality as a basis for censoring minority expression. The CJEU’s reliance on pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness places LGBTQ expression within the democratic public sphere, not outside it. That is why the case is bigger than Hungary. It stands against a model of governance in which states use “children,” “family,” and “tradition” as rhetorical shields to control speech.

The CJEU drew a clear line. Child protection is legitimate. Viewpoint suppression is not. Hungary’s law failed because it did not target harm but visibility. It restricted speech about LGBTQ lives, chilled public discussion, limited access to information, and reinforced stigma through law. The CJEU’s answer was that pluralism cannot survive if the state is allowed to erase minority identities from public discourse in the name of protecting children.

For free speech, the judgment is a powerful reminder that censorship often arrives wrapped in protective language. The question is not whether children matter but whether governments can use children as a justification for making lawful identities unspeakable. The CJEU has answered no.

That conclusion invites broader questions about how far the logic of the judgment travels beyond the case itself and into adjacent debates. As European States increasingly turn to age-verification regimes and platform governance in the name of child protection, a pressing question emerges: to what extent can such measures be reconciled with minors’ rights to access information, the centrality of the listener, and the Court’s warning against vague and overbroad restrictions?

Another issue is what this reasoning means for hate speech regulation, and whether current European approaches risk reproducing the very dynamics of restriction that the Court has just rejected. These questions will be taken up in my next piece.

Natalie Alkiviadou is a Senior Research Fellow at The Future of Free Speech. Her research interests lie in the freedom of expression, the far-right, hate speech, hate crime, and non-discrimination.

Subscribe now

Share

The Global Dialogue on AI Governance is the United Nations’ first universal forum on AI, bringing together member states, civil society, and other stakeholders in Geneva this July to shape the trajectory of international AI governance and regulation.

We’ve submitted input to the Global Dialogue’s open call for comments to ensure that freedom of expression and access to information are at the center of multilateral AI governance conversations.

Across governance instruments produced since 2018, speech protections tend to be applied with general terms that fall short of the legality, legitimacy, and necessity requirements set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Our submission calls on the Dialogue to apply these rigorous principles and standards in its regulatory framework, building on the commitments member states have already made through the Global Digital Compact.

You can read our full submission below:

Subscribe now

Submission to the Global Dialogue on AI Governance

1. In your opinion, what outcomes would make the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance a success?

The Global Dialogue on AI Governance offers a unique opportunity to shape how the world governs AI, owing to its universality and its anchoring within the broader UN system, including commitments member states have already made through the Global Digital Compact and related instruments.

Human rights—particularly freedom of expression and access to information—must be a cornerstone of the Dialogue and of any multilateral governance instruments that are eventually adopted.

Yet, freedom of expression and access to information are routinely subsumed under information integrity objectives without the counterweight of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . Most instruments invoke human rights without naming freedom of expression or highlighting the importance of the necessity and proportionality requirements under Article 19(3).

The Dialogue’s human rights thematic cluster should engage Article 19 directly, treating the legality, necessity, and proportionality triad as the standard for adopting and evaluating AI content governance measures rather than as aspirational language. The Panel’s annual assessment should encompass how AI-enabled surveillance, AI-assisted political communication, and information integrity governance measures affect freedom of expression and access to information. The Co-Chairs’ summary should document the divergence between existing instruments on freedom of expression standards and identify it as a question requiring resolution in subsequent processes.

The Global Digital Compact should commit member states to protecting freedom of expression and access to information in AI risk mitigation and to refraining from information restrictions inconsistent with international human rights law. UNGA Resolution A/RES/76/227 explicitly requires that efforts to counter disinformation promote and protect rather than violate freedom of expression. The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI requires that limitations on freedom of expression be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. The Dialogue should continue to apply freedom of expression and access to information standards in the AI governance context.

2. Which thematic areas reflect your priorities for urgent action? (Select up to 4)

Protection and promotion of human rights; Transparency, accountability, and human oversight; Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic, and technical implications of AI; and Safe, secure, and trustworthy AI.

3. Please briefly explain your selection.

Protection and promotion of human rights is the primary selection because the governance gap is structural and documented. Most major multilateral AI instruments invoke human rights without naming freedom of expression or explicitly endorsing Article 19’s necessity and proportionality requirements. The Dialogue’s human rights thematic cluster and the Co-Chairs’ summary are the mechanisms through which this record can be documented and addressed.

Transparency, accountability, and human oversight matter for freedom of expression and access to information because AI-enabled content moderation operating without appropriate safeguards can lead to unjustified restrictions—often falling hardest on minority voices. Those safeguards include human review, meaningful avenues for appeal, and evaluations that account for over-moderation, not only under-moderation. The Scientific Panel is well placed to assess whether existing transparency and oversight frameworks are designed to protect expression or merely to enforce compliance with undefined information integrity standards.

Social, economic, ethical, cultural, and technical implications encompass the chilling effect: AI-enabled mass surveillance deters people from speaking, organizing, and dissenting. The Human Rights Committee and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression have established that the chilling effect is itself a harm to freedom of expression independent of formal sanction, and AI removes the scale constraints that previously limited such operations. The Scientific Panel’s evidence-gathering mandate should specifically encompass how mass surveillance enabled by AI affects freedom of expression at population scale.

Safe, secure, and trustworthy AI is particularly relevant to information integrity. Engaging this theme from a freedom of expression perspective within the Dialogue’s thematic discussions is essential. Doing so helps ensure that AI safety objectives are not designed in ways that treat restrictions on expression as a default compliance strategy, and that the Co-Chairs’ summary records freedom of expression as a structural limit on safety measures rather than a competing objective.

4. Are there any cross-cutting or emerging issues not captured by the listed themes?

The most significant cross-cutting issue not captured by the listed themes is the structural relationship between information integrity as a governance objective and freedom of expression as a legal constraint. This relationship determines the practical effect of AI governance frameworks on expressive freedom, yet it has not been named as a structural problem in any major multilateral instrument.

Information integrity appears across AI governance instruments as a primary or co-equal objective to freedom of expression and is often structurally embedded within governance instruments. Where information integrity measures are explicitly conditioned on respect for freedom of expression, as in the 2024 OECD Recommendation and select provisions of the Global Digital Compact, the right functions as a substantive limit. Where information integrity is framed as an independent or primary objective without that counterweight, the legal discipline of Article 19 recedes. Categories such as ‘inaccurate information,’ ‘harmful content,’ and ‘content that undermines social stability,’ left undefined and unmoored from proportionality requirements, have a documented history of being applied to journalism, political dissent, and civil society activity in both democratic and authoritarian contexts.

Notably, the Global Digital Compact‘s information integrity provisions (paragraphs 33 and 34) frame countering disinformation as a cooperative objective without explicitly subjecting it to the necessity and proportionality standard, even though paragraph 23(d) separately commits states to refraining from information restrictions inconsistent with international law. UNGA Resolution A/RES/76/227, adopted in December 2021, set a stronger precedent by explicitly requiring that disinformation responses ‘promote and protect and do not violate individuals’ freedom of expression.’ The Dialogue’s thematic discussion on safe, secure, and trustworthy AI, and its Co-Chairs’ summary, should clarify that the GDC’s information integrity commitments are to be read in light of this requirement.

5. How are the governance gaps in your selected thematic areas affecting your country, region, or sector?

The Future of Free Speech (FoFS) works primarily on freedom of expression in the United States and the European Union. Both are democracies with relatively strong protections for free expression, yet both face challenges. We examine these challenges in our recent report, That Violates My Policies: AI Laws, Chatbots, and the Future of Expression, which assesses AI and freedom of expression across six jurisdictions (the United States, the European Union, Brazil, China, India, and the Republic of Korea) in collaboration with leading local experts.

In the European Union, the systemic risk assessment requirements under the Digital Services Act and the AI Act are a particular cause for concern. They rest on vague provisions that are susceptible to misuse and orient compliance around risks rather than rights.

In the United States, policy focuses on “truth-seeking” and “neutral” AI risks producing undue restrictions on free speech and access to information, in part because the underlying concepts are so loosely defined. Deepfake prohibitions on political content in several states are a further source of concern.

Together, these provisions reflect a broader multilateral gap: when information integrity is foregrounded as an objective without the counterweight of legality, necessity, and proportionality, governance frameworks generate compliance pressure toward restricting contested but lawful speech.

The international AI governance corpus does not provide the normative foundation a rights-protective framework requires. When the multilateral instruments that inform national policymaking treat information integrity as a primary objective without grounding it in Article 19’s operative standards, that gap propagates into domestic legislative design. The Dialogue, as the universal forum connecting the GDC’s commitments to AI governance practice, is the appropriate venue in which to establish that legality, necessity, and proportionality are not optional standards in AI content governance but the applicable international human rights law framework.

6. What role can the AI Dialogue play in advancing international cooperation on AI governance?

The populations in the Global Majority are not represented in the processes that have produced some of the dominant normative instruments, such as the OECD AI Principles and the EU AI Act. The Dialogue’s universal membership creates the conditions under which this asymmetry can be corrected, provided the human rights cluster engages substantively rather than procedurally.

Member states arrived at the Dialogue having already committed, through the Global Digital Compact, to protect freedom of expression in risk mitigation measures and to refrain from information restrictions inconsistent with international law. These commitments provide a shared foundation for discussion that should not need to be relitigated. The Dialogue’s value is in clarifying how those commitments apply to AI governance specifically: to content moderation systems, to AI-enabled surveillance, and to the information integrity frameworks that states are building into national AI legislation. UNGA Resolution A/RES/76/227 of December 2021 further established that disinformation responses must not violate freedom of expression. The Dialogue can treat this as settled UN-system doctrine and ask how it applies to AI-mediated content decisions.

The Dialogue can also commission the Scientific Panel to provide evidence on how AI-enabled surveillance and content governance affect freedom of expression across different governance contexts, building the evidentiary foundation that subsequent instruments will require. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression’s 2021 report on disinformation (A/HRC/47/25) found that state and company responses to disinformation have been ‘problematic, inadequate and detrimental to human rights’ and called for responses grounded in the international human rights framework. That finding remains directly applicable to AI governance and should inform the Panel’s mandate.

7. What existing initiatives, partnerships, or mechanisms should the Dialogue build upon or connect with?

The Global Digital Compact (2024) provides the most recent and authoritative UN-level foundation. Paragraph 30 commits states to ‘robust risk mitigation and redress measures that also protect privacy and freedom of expression.’ Paragraph 31(c) commits cooperation to ‘protect privacy, freedom of expression and access to information while addressing harms.’ Paragraph 23(d) commits states to refrain from ‘imposing restrictions on the free flow of information and ideas that are inconsistent with obligations under international law.’ Taken together, these provisions establish that member states accept freedom of expression as a structural limit on AI governance measures, not merely as a value to be acknowledged.

UNGA Resolution A/RES/76/227 (December 2021) on countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms explicitly required that responses to disinformation ‘promote and protect and do not violate individuals’ freedom of expression.’ This resolution predates most AI governance instruments and establishes the applicable UN-system standard. The Dialogue should treat it as part of the normative foundation on which its information integrity discussions are built.

The Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression’s 2021 report on disinformation (A/HRC/47/25), which found that state and company responses have been problematic and detrimental to human rights and called for multidimensional responses grounded in the international human rights framework.

The UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2021) is the most developed member state-endorsed instrument on freedom of expression and AI. It invokes the proportionality test in its human rights sense, prohibits AI systems from being used for social scoring or mass surveillance, and requires states to ensure AI actors respect and promote freedom of expression in automated content moderation.

The 2024 revision of the OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence introduced the formulation that harm mitigation must respect freedom of expression, conditioning information integrity measures on compliance with this right.

Isabelle Anzabi is a research associate at The Future of Free Speech, where she analyzes the intersections between AI policy and freedom of expression.

This Week at a Glance 🔎

— 🇺🇸 Trumps Call on ABC to Fire Kimmel After Monologue

— 🇺🇸 DHS Announces Plan to Vet Immigrants for ‘Extremist’ Views

— 🇦🇺 Australia Says Platforms Fail to Apply Age-Verification Consistently

— 🇹🇳 Tunisia Suspends Rights Group and Protesters Rally for Press Freedom

— 🇦🇷 Argentina Blocks Journalists from Government Headquarters

First of All 🇺🇸

» Trumps Call on ABC to Fire Kimmel After Monologue, FCC Considers Early License Review

• President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump publicly called on ABC to immediately fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel after he joked that Melania had “the glow of an expectant widow.”

• Details:

  • Trump called the joke “a despicable call to violence” and wrote on social media that Kimmel “should be immediately fired” by ABC and its parent company, Walt Disney Co.

  • Melania Trump separately said, “People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate.”

• Pressure from the FCC:

  • Following the incident, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order directing Disney’s eight owned-and-operated television stations to file their broadcast license renewals ahead of schedule.

  • According to Semafor, the agency is moving toward a review of the licenses, though “a person familiar with the FCC’s thinking” said the timing was not related to the monologue.

  • The company’s licenses have been threatened before, including this month when Chairman Brendan Carr criticized its diversity programs.

» DHS Announces Plan to Vet Immigrants for ‘Extremist’ Views

• The Department of Homeland Security has announced a new policy to scrutinize immigrants’ past statements for signs of “extremist views.”

• Details:

  • The policy would allow immigrants to be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, from participating in a pro-Palestinian protest to desecrating the American flag.

  • A spokesperson for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said that “espousing terrorist ideologies, expressing hatred for American values, advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States government, or providing material support to terrorist organizations” would warrant closer scrutiny.

  • In DHS training materials, a social media post that declares “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out was cited as an example of questionable speech.

• Context: The Trump administration has previously cracked down on pro-Palestinian movements by attempting to deport protesters, threatening to freeze funds for universities where protests were held, and vetting immigration applications for antisemitism as well as ‘anti-Americanism.’

» Ex-FBI Director Indicted Over Social Media Post

• Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted over a social media photo that officials argue constitutes a threat against President Trump.

• The Post:

  • The new indictment focuses on a photo Comey posted nearly a year ago of seashells arranged on a beach that he had seen on a walk, which spelled out “86 47.”

  • “86” is slang for “to get rid of” or “throw out,” and 47 alludes to Trump, the 47th president of the U.S. Officials accused Comey of advocating for the president’s assassination.

  • Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, and wrote, “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence,” and that he took the post down because he opposed “violence of any kind.”

  • He was then interviewed by the Secret Service and is now accused of “knowingly and willfully” making a threat to “take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon” the president, as well as transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.

  • The indictment does not provide evidence that Comey knowingly threatened Trump, but suggested that a “reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret” the message as a threat.

• Context:

  • The latest action follows a separate indictment against Comey on charges that he lied to Congress in 2020 about whether he had authorized providing information to a journalist about an investigation.

  • That indictment was dismissed after a judge determined that the prosecutor who brought the charges was illegally appointed by the Justice Department.

  • Comey’s relationship with the administration has been strained, with Trump firing Comey months into his first term as president amid an investigation that Comey was overseeing into whether Trump’s campaign had coordinated with Russia to sway the 2016 election outcome.

» Emory Professors File First Amendment Lawsuit Over Campus Protest Arrests

• Three professors at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, have sued the institution over its decision to call in police to disperse a pro-Palestine campus protest, resulting in 28 arrests, arguing the crackdown violated their First Amendment rights and Emory’s own free-speech commitments.

• Details:

  • The complaint alleges Emory broke its own policies by calling in Atlanta police and Georgia state troopers to clear protesters, who had set up tents on the university’s main quad to protest the war, without seeking alternatives.

  • The lawsuit demands the university reimburse three students who paid to defend themselves against misdemeanor charges that were later dismissed, along with punitive damages.

  • One protester was charged with disorderly conduct after she yelled, “Stop!” at a police officer arresting a protester. Another was arrested on the same charge while trying to help an elderly woman.

  • Emory claimed that those arrested were trespassing on school property and not students, but 20 of 28 arrested individuals were affiliated with the university.

Subscribe now

The Digital Age 🤖

» California Advances Social Media Age Ban That Would Require Government ID From All Users

• California’s AB 1709, which would ban all users under 16 from social media platforms with ‘addictive features,’ has cleared two committees and is on track for a full Assembly vote next month.

• Details: Companies would be required to verify every user’s identity, regardless of age, before allowing access to their platforms, or risk penalties.

Our Take: “Democracies have always worried about dangerous ideas corrupting the young. Intellectuals and lawmakers should absolutely be concerned about how and when our children navigate social media,“ wrote Jacob Mchangama and Jeff Kosseff at the Wall Street Journal. “But they should also be concerned about whether, in our rush to protect our children, we are building an infrastructure of surveillance and censorship that will ultimately threaten the hard-won freedoms we want future generations to enjoy.”

» Australian Authorities Say Platforms Fail to Apply Age-Verification Consistently

• Australia’s eSafety Commissioner said that platforms’ weak deployment of age-assurance products, rather than the limits of the technology, is responsible for enforcement problems with the country’s social media ban for minors under 16.

• Details:

  • The findings push back against social media companies’ claims that continued underage access was a reflection of inadequate age-checking products.

  • The Commissioner flagged failures to verify ages at account setup, repeated attempts to verify ages until users pass, and continued reliance on self-declared ages as compliance gaps.

  • It is currently investigating Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Google’s YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat over suspected breaches of the ban.

  • The platforms face up to $49.5 million AUD in fines for each breach, and the government has said it is gathering evidence to support federal court action if compliance does not improve.

Subscribe now

The Brussels Effect: Europe and Beyond 🇪🇺

» Greece to Ban Anonymous Posts on Social Media

• Greece’s minister of digital governance, Dimitris Papastergiou, has announced that the government is moving forward with a plan to ban anonymity on social media.

• Details:

  • “The major problem behind anonymity is toxicity— anyone, especially on social media, can smear an individual and carry out character assassination without facing any consequences,” Papastergiou explained.

  • He added that platforms must be required to verify account identities, and that there are many technical ways to do so.

Free Speech Recession 🌍

» Argentina Blocks Journalists from Government Headquarters

• Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, has expelled reporters and the press corps from Casa Rosada, or the “Pink House” — the equivalent of the White House.

• Details:

  • A spokesperson for Milei said that the block, which affects roughly 60 reporters with press credentials covering Casa Rosada, was a “preventative measure” after footage filmed with smart glasses from inside the headquarters was aired on local TV channel Toda Noticias without authorization.

  • Casa Rosada security is also suing the network for “illegal espionage,” though a journalist from the network claims they had notified press officers of their filming plans in advance.

  • The footage showed accessible parts of the Casa Rosada that had already appeared on TV.

• Previous Attacks on Media:

  • The government had constrained the media’s movements in the building last year, capping attendance at news briefings and barring certain wings of the headquarters.

  • Six accredited media outlets were barred from entering Casa Rosada and the lower house of Congress this month following accusations of involvement in Kremlin-backed disinformation.

  • Milei has taken to X to insult journalists multiple times, with 86 written posts and 874 re-shares between April 2 and 5th alone, including a re-share of a post asking him to designate the press as a terrorist organization.

  • He has also filed defamation suits against at least eight journalists in the last year, and encouraged his allies to do the same.

» Tunisia Suspends Rights Group and Protesters Rally for Press Freedom

• In the latest crackdown on civil society, Tunisian authorities have ordered a one-month suspension of the Tunisian League for Human Rights, one of Africa’s oldest rights groups.

• The same day, dozens of people demonstrated outside the Tunisian journalists’ union’s headquarters in Tunis, the country’s capital, demanding press freedom.

• The Suspension:

  • The President has frequently cited foreign funding as grounds for suspensions, claiming it is a threat to Tunisia and is used to stir unrest.

  • The suspension follows similar measures targeting rights groups over the past year.

  • It also comes shortly after a journalist, Zied El-Heni, was detained for 48 hours over a Facebook post, highlighting a pattern of arrests and legal pressure.

• Public Backlash:

  • Protesters gathered to support Mourad Zeghidi, a columnist, and his colleague, Borhen Bsales, who have been in detention since 2024 for spreading false news.

  • The pair faced later charges of money laundering and tax evasion, and were sentenced to three and a half years in prison in January 2026.

» Bangladesh Arrests Four For Criticizing the Government on Social Media

• Bangladesh has arrested at least four individuals for social media content criticizing the government.

• Arrests:

  • Hasan Nasim:

    • Nasim was arrested on April 17 after following a police complaint from a ruling party supporter about his post of a cartoon that depicted a government lawmaker and quoted a joke he had made in parliament.

    • A case was filed against him relating to online blackmail, prompting a local newspaper to ask, “How can a joke made in a public forum, printed in newspapers, and a cartoon based on that joke constitute blackmail?”

    • Nasim was granted bail on April 21.

  • Sawoda Sumi:

    • Sumi was arrested on April 5 for allegedly posting comments on Facebook that were deemed “anti-government.”

    • Sawoda was arrested under section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Bhola municipality, southern Bangladesh, which allows arrest without a warrant if authorities have “credible information” of a “cognizable offense.”

    • She was granted bail two days later.

  • Azizul Haque:

    • Haque was arrested after ruling party supporters filed a complaint about a post on his Facebook page featuring a controversial depiction of the Prime Minister.

    • A magistrate upheld his detention on April 1, and the police said, “We can arrest him immediately. He has been spreading misinformation about the Prime Minister.”

  • Shaon Mahmud:

    • Mahmud was abducted by members of the ruling party’s youth wing and turned over to the police for “insulting” the Prime Minister on Facebook.

» U.S.–Kuwaiti Journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin Acquitted After Nearly Two Months in Detention

• A Kuwaiti court has acquitted U.S.–Kuwaiti journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin of all charges following roughly seven weeks in detention for publishing footage of a US Air Force plane crashing west of Kuwait City, as mentioned in a previous Free Flow.

• Details: Press freedom groups note that while the acquittal is a positive outcome, the prolonged detention itself represents a significant press freedom violation and a potential deterrent for other journalists covering sensitive topics in the region.

» CPJ Sounds Alarms About Belarus’ Surveillance and Doxxing of Exiled Journalist

• The Committee to Protect Journalists has sounded alarms following an April 2 broadcast by a state-owned TV channel in Belarus that exposed the address and phone number of an exiled investigative journalist, as well as personal information on about 20 other journalists.

• Details:

  • STV host Raman Pratasevich claimed that Stanislau Ivashkevich, the director of the Belarusian Investigative Center (BIC), has “led to entire sectors of the Belarusian economy being added to the sanctions list.”

  • He disclosed Ivashkevich’s phone number and address, released private recordings of him and his son, and shared video instructions on how to access the apartment where he is currently residing in Warsaw.

  • Pratasevich also listed 12 exiled journalists he said are working with BIC and shared their dates of birth and departure from Belarus, as well as 4 exiled journalists who left BIC in 2023 to form an investigative outlet known as Buro Media.

Share

Ashley Haek is a communications coordinator and research assistant at The Future of Free Speech.

Every country that regulates speech eventually discovers the same uncomfortable truth: laws written to shield people from hatred turn out to be remarkably well-suited for shielding governments from criticism. Even when legislation is drafted in good faith, its enforcement almost never is. Armenia is at the precipice of learning this lesson.

The Ministry of Justice has advanced a package that would extend liability for hate speech beyond the Criminal Code into civil and administrative law by creating new fines, fast-takedown duties, and conduct rules for the media. On top of that, it defines hate speech as anything that “humiliates, mocks, labels, or targets.” Not only are these concepts vague, leaving citizens unsure of what is off-limits, a law that turns on whether a sentence wounds, offends, or humiliates gives authorities broad discretion to punish speech they simply don’t like. That is the classic problem with vague speech laws. People who are unsure about what is illegal simply stop talking, and officials who are given sweeping powers tend to use them.

Crucially, “political opinion” is listed among the protected categories. In other words, the law would ban hate speech that “humiliates” or “mocks” someone’s political opinions or “worldviews.” But while hate speech laws are ordinarily justified as protection for historically vulnerable groups against dehumanizing attacks, they tend to punish political critics. Including denigration of “political opinion” — the one kind of speech that European law most emphatically protects — in hate speech legislation hands the government a tool to silence denigration of itself. It could also conceivably punish satire, which, by definition, mocks political opinions and worldviews.

And finally, the law would change how enforcement is designed to work. The draft imposes fines on media outlets and audiovisual service providers that fail to remove prohibited content, including content posted by users, immediately, but no later than three calendar days. Civil liability is expressly independent of criminal or administrative liability, meaning the same sentence can trigger all three at once.

No regulation should be read in a vacuum, and this one has arrived at a particularly tumultuous moment for the country. Over the past year, the Armenian government has conducted a visible campaign against its loudest institutional critic, the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The government of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has moved repeatedly against its critics. Senior clergy of the Armenian Apostolic Church have been detained and arrested. Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, who led protests against territorial concessions, was detained on coup allegations; Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan was sentenced to prison on similar grounds. The head of the Church, Garegin II, has faced travel restrictions and public calls for removal following disagreements with the government. The principle of separation of church and state is often described as mutual restraint. The state does not govern the church, and the church does not govern the state.

Armenia is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 10 of that Convention is not a mere suggestion. Its core holding, repeated by the European Court of Human Rights for half a century, is that freedom of expression protects not only ideas that are welcome or harmless, but also those that offend, shock, or disturb. That directly conflicts with a statute whose operative verbs are “mock” and “denigrate.” Offense is not a recognized harm under Article 10; it is the price of living in a democracy, and Armenia must afford the same.

Calls for a Prime Minister to resign, criticism of territorial concessions, participation in protest movements, sermons that challenge the government’s handling of a war — these are not fringe cases of protected speech. They are the cases that legal doctrine is built to protect. They are, if the pun may be forgiven, canonical.

Armenia’s post-2018 “Velvet Revolution” was built on public demands for accountability, pluralism, and governance under law. Those commitments are written into the treaties Armenia has ratified, the Council of Europe institutions to which it belongs, and the constitutional text produced in the aftermath of that movement.

History has shown that, time and time again, when we sacrifice these commitments, freedom suffers and power consolidates. The question raised by this draft legislation is whether the legal order that emerged from a movement for pluralism is now setting up to police the boundaries of acceptable dissent.

Ashkhen Kazaryan is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Future of Free Speech, where she leads initiatives to protect free expression and shape policies that uphold the First Amendment in the digital age.

Subscribe now

Share

In a normal conversation about whether AI outputs are protected by the First Amendment, there wouldn’t be much to discuss. We’re dealing, after all, with LLMs—large language models. Words. Ideas. The Supreme Court has affirmed your right to receive information, from virtually any source, many times over.

It has also repeatedly held that editors — compilers of information — have the right to control their expressive compositions. The First Amendment covers chatbots coming and going. It says the government may neither dictate how AI firms train and design LLMs nor alter the outputs you seek from them. Case closed.

These, however, are not normal times. Can you feel the AGI? The stochastic-parrot crowd was comically wrong. The chatbots have become really good, and they’re only getting better. Frontier labs are updating their models at a startling clip. They now talk openly about recursive self-improvement—the models designing their own successors. Calls are growing for AI to be paused, outlawed, nationalized, maybe blessed by a priest. The future has arrived, and it is weird.

Fortunately, America was built for this. We are weird. “In the United States,” James Madison wrote, “the People, not the Government, possess the absolute sovereignty.” Thus it is, he concluded, that “the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.”

In this country, we don’t cower before an aristocracy. We don’t obey an established church. We rule ourselves — which means, crucially, that we think for ourselves. No overseer tells us what we may read or whom we may trust. No one gets to decide which ideas are too dangerous to entertain. You may recall that we fought a revolution over this. We are unruly, even riotous. We are anti-tutelary. We are not housetrained. Don’t tell us what to think.

In a country like this, the arrival of AI is not a crisis; it’s a Tuesday. A machine that will speak in almost any voice, discuss almost any topic, and offer almost any opinion is the most goddamned American thing there could be. LLMs should be allowed to flourish, free of government censorship, lest we become traitors to our history and our culture. Don’t you dare claim that the Founders would disagree. Those fractious men loved them some political dissent. Who, they’d have exclaimed, is to tell them they can’t use an LLM to draft rebellious tracts or explore forbidden thoughts?

Fine, the fears are not baseless. In the words of journalist Stephen Witt, “a mechanical brain with one hundred trillion synapses firing at five billion cycles a second ha[s] no precedent in history, religion, or philosophy.” Hard to argue with that. Nor are the leaders in the field helping matters with their public musings about how AI will destroy entry-level jobs and, oh yeah, just maybe kill everyone. Maybe this warrants new taxes, stronger antitrust laws, or fresh intrusions into the labor market. But when it comes to AI as a medium of expression, we should stick to our principles.

There are three possibilities. The first is that the doomsayers are right: AI becomes superintelligent, then turns us all into paperclips. But the notion that the “god in a box” will abruptly turn on us piles speculation on speculation. Building First Amendment doctrine around the disaster hypothesis would be like stripping every major newspaper of constitutional protection on the theory that a Bond villain might take over all of them in a bid for world domination. It could happen!

Some people respond to every conceivable threat by clamoring for a more powerful government. You start to think the dream of an all-powerful government is what’s truly driving the bus. This is no way to do constitutional law. In any event, if very evil AI really comes swerving around the corner, we’ll have bigger problems than quarrels over the First Amendment — and we’d only compound those problems by making the government a bigger leverage point for HAL 9000.

The second possibility is that AI turns out to be ordinary, albeit very capable, technology. It’s smart, and it’s helpful, but it’s not destined to become superintelligent any time soon. It makes people better informed and more articulate, but it is not itself so overbearingly persuasive that it can brainwash people into thinking things. (Alternatively, it is dazzlingly good at argument and rhetoric, but you believe that people’s opinions run deeper than that.)

In this situation, AI is a cool new medium, with the mix of benefits and drawbacks that that entails, and nothing more. It should be treated as constitutionally protected expression, just like all the other cool new media that have come before. Carry on. As you were.

Under the third — and in light of recent events, most likely — scenario, AI, though not Skynet, is indeed revolutionary. It reshapes what people think about themselves and the world. It’s a big deal. But stale narratives and conventional wisdom don’t need constitutional backing. A “marketplace of ideas” sounds antiseptic, but it is in fact a radical commitment. America is always open to fresh ways of seeing things. That is why the First Amendment exists.

We’ve grappled with powerful new ideas before. There was a time when Marxism seemed poised to sweep all before it. One evening in June 1919, an anarchist named Carlo Valdinoci approached the Washington home of the attorney general. He was carrying a large bomb, but it went off early and killed him. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, who lived across the street, were shaken by the blast. Valdinoci and many others wanted to hasten the collapse of the capitalist order. Faced with this threat—one that serious people regarded as existential — the Supreme Court for quite some time did almost everything wrong. It upheld convictions for circulating pacifist, anarchist, and communist literature. It let the Socialist Party’s candidate for president go to prison for making a campaign speech. It blessed prosecutions that all but outlawed active membership in the Communist Party.

When Whittaker Chambers renounced communism in 1938, he believed he was leaving “the winning world for the losing world.” His mind had not changed when he testified before Congress a decade later, nor when he died in 1961. The threat persisted. Yet the Supreme Court eventually found its nerve.

In the 1950s and 60s, a run of decisions chipped away at the Red Scare precedents. Then came Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which held that advocacy can be punished only when it is meant to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. It took half a century, but the First Amendment emerged from the Red Scare stronger than it went in.

The parallel between Valdinoci and Daniel Moreno-Gama — the young man who allegedly hurled a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman’s home this month while carrying a doomer manifesto — is, to put it mildly, available. Panic makes bad law.

As before, so again: we should expect setbacks in court. Some judges will lean into their anxieties and withhold First Amendment protection from AI outputs. But “in calmer times,” Justice Hugo Black wrote, dissenting in one of the now-repudiated Red Scare decisions, “when present pressures, passions and fears subside,” the Supreme Court “will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high preferred place where they belong in a free society.”

AI may yet reveal stupendous ideas and deeper truths. As it does, we should stand by the First Amendment. We should not be afraid of new knowledge.

Corbin K. Barthold is Internet Policy Counsel at TechFreedom. This article is adapted from his new paper, AI + 1A: Why the First Amendment Protects Artificial Intelligence.

Subscribe now