Category Archives: Free Speech

Some members of Congress apparently think that Facebook, Twitter,and other social media giants are still not doing enough to censor the politicalviews of conservatives on their platforms.

Speaker Nancy Pelosis House committee investigating the eventsat the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has issuedsubpoenas to Twitter, Meta (Facebook), YouTube, Alphabet (Google), andReddit to consider whether the platforms were promoting domestic terrorism.

The tech companies are already facing lawsuits and widespread customer backlash for the one-sided silencing of politicalspeech.

In the most famous example, Twitter canceled the account of @RealDonaldTrump, then the sitting presidentof the United States, for violating its community standards. Twitter then canceled numerous other accounts and purged many followers because an algorithm determined theywere likely Russianbots.More recently, Twitter permanently removed the account of U.S. Rep. Marjorie TaylorGreen, R-Ga.

Twitter is not alone in this respect: YouTube has taken downvideos of U.S. Sens. RonJohnson and RandPaul,the latter for saying what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now admitsis trueconcerning the efficacy of cloth masks in fighting the spread of COVID.

And we know from admissions made from the podiumof the White House press room that the Biden administration is conspiring withthe social media platforms to remove so-called health disinformation. My law firmrepresents a Twitter and Facebook user who was suspendedby both platforms for posting peer-reviewed social science about the masking ofchildren at the same time the White House and surgeon general launched a coordinatedcampaign against so-called health disinformation.

Whether the topic was ballot integrity in the 2020 elections,information about COVID-19, or the events of Jan. 6, the social media platformswere on the prowl for disfavored opinions.

And yet apparently, all of that is not enough. Revoking or suspendinguser accounts, removing individual posts or video content, requiring disclaimers,and imposing accompanying links to accurate information still does not cut itas far as congressional Democrats are concerned.

Because lets be real: These subpoenas are not about gathering informationtheir purpose is intimidation. Few things send a shudder down the spine of a corporate executive at a publicly traded company like a congressional subpoena. We all know where this is headed: a front-page photo of new Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and Facebooks Mark Zuckerburg taking an oathbefore a congressional committee.

In advance of fulfilling the subpoena and testifying, the pressure from the CEOs office to corporate underlings will be intense: Give me everything weve got where weve taken steps to shut down extremist speech. Lets turn over a thousand pages documenting everything weve done. But who defines extremist?

But it will not stop there. The corollary will be equally obvious: We need to do more. I need to announce something. Lets rewrite the algorithms, lets commission more volunteer monitors, lets hire more in-house censorsgive me something to give the committee.

And so, in the name of combatting domestic terrorism, the already woke scions of Silicon Valley will censor even more speech.

Domestic terrorism is a real threatwe were reminded of that vividly a few weeks ago when an Islamic terrorist held hostagesat a Jewish synagogue in Texas. And those who broke the law on Jan. 6 deserve the full measure of justice for their violation of Americas temple of democracy.

But Speaker Pelosi and her hand-picked and one-sided Jan. 6 committee are making the most of the old Rahm Emmanuel adage, Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Under the glaring bright lights of a congressional room, the social media platforms will take the hint to do more to combat domestic terrorism, defined by the left as any speech on the right deemed unacceptable. These same platforms seem to think that no speech to the left is ever too extreme.

When Congress enacted Section 230, the law that provides liability protection for platforms that remove content, it said its purposes included ensuring the internet offer[s] a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

How far Congress has fallen from that noble aspiration.

Editors note: Daniel Suhrs law firm, the Liberty Justice Center, represents Justin Hart in a lawsuit challenging Twitter and Facebooks suspension of his social media accounts.

See more here:
Another blow to free speech | WORLD - WORLD News Group

On today's showSDPB's Richard Two Bulls reports on Sicangu Community Development Corporation's food initiative program in Rosebud. It's a grassroots program to realize a return to food sovereignty to indigenous communities.

The United States has a long history of protecting free speech from government intrusion. Today we explore the famed case of United States v. One Book Called Ulysses. It's the story of a James Joyce novel, efforts to smuggle a single copy into the country to challenge obscenity laws, and how lawyers made history that impacts our ability to read what we want to read to this day. Augustana University Professor Patrick Hicks, Ph.D., and University of Sioux Falls Professor Mike Thompson, J.D., have the rollicking legal and literary drama.

Take A Moment: Poetry from Studio 47 features the work of Jane Yolen.

South Dakota state historian Ben Jones hosts a podcast calledHistory 605. On Monday, a new episode drops in which Jones interviews author and historian Gary Anderson about his book Massacre in Minnesota: The Dakota War of 1862, the Most Violent Ethnic Conflict in American History.

Fresh Tracks with David Hersrud is back with a glance into the world of popular music. Books, Boxsets, and Betty White are the theme for this week's episode. SDPB's Larry Rohrer and music industry insider David Hersrud have the story.

More:
A famed case over free speech, and a food initiative program in Rosebud - SDPB Radio

Freedom Convoy not about freedom Jan. 31

Geoffrey Stevens column dealt, in part, with reasonable limits on freedom of expression; I feel that there is a very reasonable limit on this right which is often overlooked:

If Peter has a right to express his opinion, then Paula has a right to ignore everything Peter has to say. The right to express ones views does not, or at least should not, imply the right to force others to listen to those views.

Protesters, salespeople, preachers and politicians are among the people who seem to get very annoyed when their words fall on deaf ears. Too bad. No one with the possible exception of the people who administer our laws -has the right to a captive audience.

In our increasingly connected world, it is important to strike a balance between the right to freedom of speech and the right to ignore the speaker. Its been called the right to disconnect, but I would suggest that the broader term, freedom from speech is more appropriate.

The rest is here:
Opinion | I have every right to ignore your free speech - TheRecord.com

In May 2021, I published a list of Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments with our friends over at Areo. The great Nadine Strossen former president of the ACLU from 1991 to 2008, and one of the foremost experts on freedom of speech alive today saw the series and offered to provide her own answers to some important misconceptions about freedom of speech. My answers, when applicable, appear below hers.

Earlier in the series:

Assertion: The arguments for freedom of speech are outdated.

Nadine Strossen: The arguments both for and against freedom of speech continue to involve the same eternal, fundamental issues of principle that have been debated throughout history: why free speech is important, and how to draw the appropriate line between protected and punishable speech. For one compelling account, see Jacob Mchangamas forthcoming book releasing later this month: Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media. Ironically, one of the consistently recurring issues concerns the regularly repeated claim that changed societal circumstances in particular, new communications technologies have made established free speech principles obsolete.

To be sure, changing factual developments are pertinent in evaluating how free speech principles should be enforced in particular circumstances. Whether certain speech directly threatens imminent, serious harm that cant be averted without restricting the speech hence justifying the restriction under modern free speech principles depends on the factual details surrounding the speech. For example, new technology may facilitate deepfakes that could be restricted as defamation or fraud, whereas such restrictions might not be warranted for less sophisticated false communications, because deepfakes are more likely to mislead reasonable viewers.

The recent surge in social justice activism has depended on robust free speech.

In contrast with the changing factual circumstances to which free speech principles and rationales are applied, what is the basis for claiming that these underlying principles or rationales themselves should be changed? Experience around the world and throughout history demonstrates that when a government has been granted more discretion to restrict speech than under the current speech-protective principles, it predictably wields that discretion disproportionately to the disadvantage of minority views and voices. Far from being outdated, the current principles are more important now than ever, so that traditionally marginalized people and perspectives are vigorously protected. The recent surge in social justice activism along with all other movements for greater equality and inclusivity throughout history has depended on robust free speech, and would be impeded by rollbacks of such freedom based on the claim that they are somehow outdated.

Just as modern speech-protective principles stand the test of time, the same is true of the classic rationales for free speech, which recognize its crucial and enduring role in promoting the search for truth, democratic self-government, and individual autonomy. Surely these goals themselves are not outdated, nor is the reason for preferring free speech to censorship (beyond the limited circumstances permitted by contemporary speech-protective principles) as a vehicle for pursuing them: free speech will not necessarily secure such goals, but censorship will necessarily undermine them.

Those who criticize freedom of speech correctly note that it does not guarantee that truth will ultimately prevail in the proverbial marketplace of ideas. What such critics generally fail to note, however, is what censorship does guarantee about the search for truth: under a censorial regime, any truth that challenges government policies or officials is especially unlikely to prevail. Historically, governments have wielded censorship power precisely as one would expect: to suppress speakers who dissent from current orthodoxy and advocate reform from abolitionists through Black Lives Matter activists. This pattern, which constitutes an important reason to support freedom of speech, is no more outdated than any other pro-speech rationales. For example, all over the country, BLM protesters, as well as journalists who cover them and legal observers who seek to protect their rights, have been subject to unwarranted suppression. No wonder so many leading crusaders for racial justice and other human rights causes have celebrated free speech and decried censorship.

Under a censorial regime, any truth that challenges government policies or officials is especially unlikely to prevail.

Finally, it is difficult to imagine why freedom of speech might even arguably be outdated as a means to promote individual autonomy. Echoing esteemed philosophers, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized that free speech has intrinsic value as an essential prerequisite for individual self-actualization, in addition to its key instrumental roles in promoting truth and self-government. As the Supreme Court stated in a 2000 decision, The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

In sum, for all its shortcomings and risks, freedom of speech is far more effective than censorship in advancing truth, democracy, and individual autonomy not to mention all other human rights. It is the anti-free-speech arguments that are outdated. Those arguments are not only outdated today; they have been wrong every one of the many times they have been made throughout history, including in response to every new communications technology, dating back to the printing press.

Greg Lukianoff: John Stuart Mills central arguments in On Liberty remain undefeated, including one of his strongest arguments in favor of freedom of speech Mills trident of which I have never heard a persuasive refutation.

Mills trident holds that, for any given belief, there are three options:

Read more:
Is free speech outdated? Part 6 of answers to bad ...

While most college students believe that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American democracy, a new report released Tuesday shows that a shrinking share sees freedom of speech as secure. A growing majority also believe their college or university stifles free expression.

According to the report from the Knight Foundation, which surveyed 1,000 students between 18 and 24 enrolled in any kind of higher education institution last year, 84percent said free speech rights are critical to American democracy. Yet only 47percent said that their freedom of speech rights are secure, a share that has declined steadily since 2016, when 73percent said they were secure.

Additionally, 65percent of students believe their institutions climate stifles free expression, preventing people from saying what they believe because others might find it offensive. Thats up from 54percent in 2016.

Adam Goldstein, senior research counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that over the past five years, students have begun advocating to restrain speech on campus, a departure from the historical trend of administrators trying to stifle student speech.

Students are increasingly afraid of each other, Goldstein said. Theyre afraid that theyll be targeted for the things they say, and that makes them more reluctant to say things in the first place.

The surveys partisan divide was especially pronounced. Among students who identified as Republican, who made up 21percent of total respondents, only 27percent view their freedom of speech as secure; by contrast, 61percent of Democrats and 46percent of independents considered their freedom of speech secure.

Evette Alexander, director of learning and impact at the Knight Foundation, said the free speech environment on campus has changed since the foundation started conducting surveys on the subject. Everything from the Trump administration to the pandemic to the Black Lives Matter movement has heightened the politicization of speech on campus, she said.

I think we do see more Republican students seeing free speech under threat right now, Alexander said. We also have concerning findings related to race and speech. Black students, for example, do not feel as protected by the First Amendment. So there are reasons, for equity and equality in society, that people dont think this speech is secure.

Only 51percent of Black students, who made up 11percent of respondents, said the First Amendment protected them, compared to 90percent of white students (who made up 56percent of respondents) and 82percent of Hispanic students (22percent of respondents).

Alexander said the Knight Foundation has known for a while that Black students are more interested in limiting certain types of speech on campus to create a more optimal learning environment. Shes concerned that so many Black students feel unprotected by the First Amendment when institutions are trying to promote both free speech and inclusivity.

It is a big problem for all Americans, but definitely for people in the education field, Alexander said. Because if students dont feel protected by the First Amendment and dont feel that their speech is as equally protected as others, then theres consequences.

Goldstein said FIREs research has shown that a lot of students, especially those from marginalized communities, feel their speech is restrained when they see another student being allowed to express themselves.

Youll see students say things like, When I saw that they allowed this person with opposing viewpoints to speak, I knew that they would never let me speak, Goldstein said. I think thats especially true if you feel youre in a marginalized community and you see theres people who are speaking in ways that make you feel unsafeyoure much less likely to want to volunteer to be the target of that hostile speech.

He added that some students think if their institution tolerates ideas and speech they hate, then it doesnt support their free speech.

However, a majority of students59percentbelieve it is more important for colleges to expose students to all types of speech, even if they may find it offensive or biased. Twenty-twopercent said institutions should protect students by prohibiting offensive speech, and 17percent said they had no opinion.

Half of students said they personally feel comfortable expressing disagreement with their class instructor or other students in the classroom.

About one in five students reported feeling unsafe on campus, and 34percent reported feeling uncomfortable due to a comment someone made in reference to their race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Democrats and students of color were more likely to report feeling unsafe on campus, the report found.

Sixtypercent of students said they favored institutions providing safe spacesareas on campus designed to be free from threatening actions, ideas or conversations. Only 33percent of students supported mandated speech codes, compared to 2017, when 49percent of them did.

Goldstein said hes seen a decline in institutions establishing speech codes on campus but no decline in the creation of safe spaces. However, he noted that safe spaces are returning to their original intended use, meaning theres a small number of places on campus where students are free to speak without fear of consequence or discipline.

I think safe spaces became troubling when people would declare an entire campus a safe space, Goldstein said. Especially because the core concept of a safe space was youre free to be who you are without fear of judgment; then the way they were being implemented was incredibly judgmental and made students incredibly afraid.

The report states that students generally support colleges restricting use of racial slurs but are less supportive of restrictions on political speech. Sixty-sevenpercent of students favor colleges restricting people from using racial slurs to refer to people of color, which dropped from 88percent in 2019.

In terms of free expression, 45percent said students should be restricted from displaying a pornographic poster in a dorm room, 34percent said they shouldnt be allowed to wear clothing displaying the Confederate flag and 21percent said students should be prevented from starting a campus group to defend Americans gun ownership rights.

Sixty-sixpercent of students said they consider diversity and inclusion in conflict with free speech rightsa decline from 76percent in 2019.

And 25percent of students support disinviting speakers on campus because some students might perceive their message as offensive or biased, compared to 42percent in 2019. Goldstein said some students might feel more compelled to confront controversial speakers and potentially challenge the speaker about differing opinions.

Id like to believe that students are kind of getting sick of this game of Were going to try to stop someone from speaking, Goldstein said. I think that after students have seen people get silenced on all sides of the debate, eventually, students are kind of just exhausted with it, and you just want to hear people.

The Knight Foundation also surveyed 4,000 American adults to compare college students views on free speech to those of the general public. Alexander said the foundation didnt see a lot of difference.

We are seeing that college student speech landscape as a microcosm of whats happening in the United States at large, Alexander said. So that was very interesting to us that we didnt see a ton of differences between students and the rest of the public.

View original post here:
Fewer students see freedom of speech as secure - Inside Higher Ed

Beijing last week provided another reason to skip the 2022 Winter Olympics Games: a warning to competing athletes to not speak about about Chinas aggression, oppression or genocidal abuses.

Any expression that is in line with the Olympic spirit Im sure will be protected, Yang Shu, the Beijing Organizing Committees deputy director general of international relations, generously allows. But: Any behavior or speech that is against the Olympic spirit, especially against the Chinese laws and regulations, are also subject to certain punishment.

Nice to know the Chinese Communist Partys view of Olympic spirit, already apparent in its treatment of its own athletes.

Just two months ago, the CCP disappeared Chinas own three-time tennis Olympian Peng Shuai after she publicly accused former top party leader Zhang Gaoili of sexual assault. Her allegations immediately were scrubbed from the Internet; Peng went missing for 18 days.

But the no-nos could literally be anything the CCP deems offensive or illegal under its ambiguous national security law.

Team USA and other squads encourage athletes to protect themselves against Chinese surveillance, urging them to bring burner phones so their personal data is not at risk. Like computers, the data and applications on cell phones are subject to malicious intrusion, infection and data compromise, runs the US warning.

Yang added that the politicization of sports is one of the things opposed by the Olympic Charter and that dedicated departments would be established if any protests violated Chinese laws or the Olympic regulations.

What kinds of dedicated departments? Well find out when China makes something up on the spot.

And dont expect the International Olympic Committee to stand by the athletes or free speech; its been too busy defending its choice of Beijing to host the games, despite its repeated atrocities.

These Olympics threaten to add a whole new competition with the CCP racking up gold medals for fresh oppression.

Read the rest here:
Beijing's free-speech threat at Winter Olympics is the millionth reason to boycott - New York Post

If you have something you've been working on for the February submission cycle, submit it to us first. We require exclusive submission, but we will respond within 14 days (a promise we have so far kept for every submission that we receive)and if you want to publish quickly, we could publish it within weeks, which is to say nine months to a year (or more) before most journals would publish it.

So far, we've published articles by (among others) Jack Balkin (Yale), Mark Lemley (Stanford), Christopher Yoo (Penn), and more. Our board of reviewers includes, among many others, Profs. Amy Adler, Vince Blasi, Erwin Chemerinsky, Jamal Greene, Michael McConnell, Robert Post, Fred Schauer, Geoffrey Stone, and Rebecca Tushnet, as well as Judges Stephanos Bibas, Jose Cabranes, Douglas Ginsburg, Raymond Randolph, Neomi Rao, Robert Sack, David Stras, Jeffrey Sutton, and Diane Wood.

We just published today David McGowan's article on rethinking New York Times v. Sullivan. Yesterday we accepted an article by Jacob Mchangama (author of the forthcoming book Free Speech: A Global History from Socrates to Social Media) and Natalie Alkiviadou comparing South African "hate speech" law with European law. Tomorrow, we could be accepting your article! For more on the journal, see here; to submit, go to our ScholasticaHQ page.

UPDATE: Just noticed a Tweet (entirely unsolicited by us) from one of our authors:

Read the rest here:
Submit Your Articles to the Journal of Free Speech Law - Reason

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. headlined a Defeat the Mandates rally in Washington DC and claimed that vaccine mandates are worse than the Holocaust. This was publicized as an anti-mandate rally, but many of the people there were openly anti-vaccine. Kennedy made the case that at least Jews and other minority groups in Nazi Germany had a chance at hiding or escaping. He said, today, the mechanisms are being put in place that will make it so none of us can run and none of us can hide.

The Auschwitz Memorial put out a statement condemning the comparison saying, exploiting of the tragedy of people who suffered, were humiliated, tortured & murdered by the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany including children like Anne Frank in a debate about vaccines & limitations during a global pandemic is a sad symptom of moral & intellectual decay. Kennedy also touched on a few other conspiracy theories in a subtle way meant to appeal to those who are worried about 5G and low orbit satellites. While RFK Jr. has done great work in some areas including environmental law, this speech can potentially do a tremendous amount of damage.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org

Defeat the Mandates Anne Frank Auschwitz Memorial Conspiracy Theories global pandemic Holocaust Nazi Germany Robert F. Kennedy Jr. totalitarian Washington DC

Read more:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr Defeat the Mandates - Free Speech TV

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Original post:
Letter: There's a right to free speech, but hatred doesn't make us better - NRToday.com

A grand jury in Georgia has been approved to investigate Donald Trumps election interference in the state. After losing the race there to Joe Biden, Trump badgered Governor Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and other election officials to change the outcome in his favor. Famously, Trump was recorded on a phone call saying, "I just want to find 11,780 votes." The former president may have broken the law with this comment and others like it.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis requested to seat the grand jury on May 2nd. The decision of whether to press charges is expected to come in the first half of 2022. For all the claims of election fraud that Trump has made ever since the 2020 election, he could be the one facing penalties for tampering with the voting process. In addition to this investigation, Trump is also facing a civil suit out of New York having to do with possible financial infractions. The problems continue to pile up for the ex-POTUS and they are certainly well deserved.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org

#davidpakmanshow Brad Raffensperger Brian Kemp ex-POTUS Fani Willis Fulton County District Joe Biden New York Trump

View post:
Criminal Grand Jury Approved for Trump Election Interference - Free Speech TV