FIRE opposes unlawful detainment of Rümeysa Öztürk, TX tries to criminalize memes, FIRE victory in TN, & more!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (5/4/25)
Stories of the week
Trump's systematic retaliation against law firms like Perkins Coie for representing clients or causes he opposes is more than an attack on those firms — it’s an attack on the rule of law itself.
Secretary Rubio claims (as do all censors) that this time is different, that university students’ pro-Palestine (and, as administration officials allege, anti-Israel) views cannot be tolerated. But “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive” (Texas v. Johnson, 1989 — holding the First Amendment protects burning the American flag in protest; see also Snyder v. Phelps, 2011 — holding the First Amendment protects displaying “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” posters outside a military funeral).
Don’t let Texas criminalize free political speech in the name of AI regulation (FIRE) by John Coleman
These proposals aren’t just overkill, they’re unconstitutional. Courts have long held that parody, satire and even sharp political attacks are protected speech. Requiring Texans to add disclaimers to their opinions simply because they used modern tools to express them is not transparency. It’s compelled speech.
Besides, Texas already has laws on the books to address defamation, fraud and election interference. What these bills do is expand government control over how Texans express themselves while turning political expression into a legal minefield.
This week in FIRE’s blog
Brendan Carr’s Bizarro World FCC by Robert Corn-Revere
Germantown’s ordinance wasn’t just an exercise in misguided micromanagement, it violated the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, Americans are free to put up holiday decorations on their property whenever they like, not just in a government-approved period of time. And by demanding the Santa-themed skeletons come down — even if one has a dark sense of humor, or happens to like Tim Burton movies — the city engaged in viewpoint discrimination about what constitutes an “acceptable” Christmas display.
This week in ERI
FIRE in the press!
Bill Maher’s Complicated Dinner (Persuasion) by ERI’s own
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup
A federal court in Vermont ordered the immediate release of Columbia student Moshen Mahdawi from immigration detention, ruling that his arrest likely constituted unconstitutional retaliation for his protected political speech opposing the Israel-Palestinian war.
The federal court in Vermont ordered immediate release from federal immigration custody of a permanent resident Columbia University student who has been outspoken in opposing the Israel-Palestinian war—including speaking at student demonstrations in favor of respecting international law, human rights, and a permanent ceasefire and peaceful resolution—holding he “raised substantial questions about the use of administrative arrest to stifle his exercise of free speech.” Moshen Mahdawi had received a scheduling notice from U.S. Customs and Immigration for his naturalization interview, the last step before the formal ceremony, and attended despite suspecting authorities might detain him for his speech, which, of course, they did. In granting his petition for release, the court started from the propositions that noncitizen residents like Mahdawi enjoy First Amendment rights to the same extent as citizens, that retaliation for protected political speech is a cognizable ground for habeas relief in the immigration context, and that “official reprisal for protected speech offends the Constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right, and the law is settled that … the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for speaking out.” The court held Mahdawi presented sufficient evidence that his speech was protected as addressing a matter of public concern at the heart of an ongoing political debate and not falling within any areas in which the First Amendment permits restrictions based on content, and that arrest and detention suffice as adverse government actions for a First Amendment retaliation claim. The court credited Mahdawi’s citation of government statements as evidence of retaliatory intent, including Executive Order 14161’s targeting of “aliens who ... espouse hateful ideology,” the fact sheet accompanying Executive Order 14188 that promises to “punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities” and to deport or revoke student visas of “all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses,” and then-candidate Trump’s reported promise on pro-Palestinian activism to donors in 2024 to “set that movement back 25 or 30 years.” It also considered “the extraordinary setting of this case and others like it,” specifically, that: “Legal residents—not charged with crimes or misconduct—are being arrested and threatened with deportation for stating their views on the political issues of the day. Our nation has seen times like this before, especially during the Red Scare and Palmer Raids of 1919–1920 that led to the deportation of hundreds of people suspected of anarchist or communist views.” The court further denied a request to stay its order while the government appeals it, and instead required Mahdawi’s immediate release.
Related bonus case: Just one day prior, in Khalil v. Joyce, the federal court in New Jersey reaffirmed over government opposition its jurisdiction over the habeas petition of another Columbia student in immigration custody – see FIRE’s amicus brief in that case.
International free speech stories of the week
Thai Prosecutors Decline to Pursue Charges Against American Accused of Insulting the King (NYT) by Isabella Kwai
Another ‘Bridge Man’ in China Forcibly Disappeared (HRW) by Yalkun Uluyol
International law prohibits enforced disappearances, defined as the arrest or detention of anyone without providing information on their fate or whereabouts. The Chinese authorities should disclose Mei Shilin’s location and immediately and unconditionally release all those being held for exercising their right to free expression.
Cause for celebration: Mubarak Bala arrives in Germany (Humanists International)
Song of the month
An oldie but goodie: The 1979 hit, “Making Plans for Nigel” by XTC has been bouncing around in my head lately. And now, it can be stuck in yours too!
Just a question of these antisemitism issues. Can we differentiate between what someone is allowed to say and what someone is allowed to do? Like the discrimination against racial comments vs discrimination based on race. I can make stupid racial comments but if I discriminate against people based on race that is a different story? Am I correct?
Alan Dershowitz believes SCOTUS will revisit Brandenburg. I believe the principle of free speech rests on a value proposition within the social compact and must be supported empirically. In other words, the benefits of free speech must be shown to outweigh the costs to the victims of free speech.