Tag: FIRE

  • FIRE and Cosmos Institute launch $1 million grant program for AI that advances truth-seeking

    FIRE and Cosmos Institute launch $1 million grant program for AI that advances truth-seeking

    AUSTIN, Texas, May 16, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Cosmos Institute today announced the Truth-Seeking AI Grants Program, a new $1 million initiative to fund open-source projects that build freedom into the foundations of AI, rather than censorship or control.

    Truth-seeking AI: Why it matters

    Truth-seeking AI is artificial intelligence built to expand the marketplace of ideas and sharpen human inquiry — not replace it.

    AI already drafts our sentences, sorts our inbox, and cues our next song. But the technology is advancing rapidly. Soon, it could determine which ideas ever reach our minds — or form within them. Two futures lie ahead, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

    In one, AI becomes a shadow censor. Hidden ranking rules throttle dissent, liability fears chill speech, and flattering prompts dull judgment until people stop asking “why.” That is algorithmic tyranny.

    In the other, AI works as a partner in truth-seeking: it surfaces counter-arguments, flags open questions, and prompts us to check the evidence and our biases. Errors are chipped away, knowledge grows, and our freedom — and habit — to question not only survives but thrives. 

    To ensure we build AI tools and platforms for freedom, not control, Cosmos and FIRE are putting $1 million in grants on the table to ensure the future of AI is free.

    “AI guides a fifth of our waking hours. The builders of these systems now hold the future of free thought and expression in their hands. We’re giving them the capital, computing resources, and community they need to seize that opportunity,” said Brendan McCord, founder and chair of Cosmos Institute.

    “The First Amendment restrains governments, but the principles of free speech must also be translated into code. We’re challenging builders to do exactly that and prioritize freedom over control,” said Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of FIRE.

    “AI can already steer our thoughts. The future is AI that expands them, not controls them,” added Philipp Koralus, founding director, Oxford HAI Lab and Senior Research Fellow at Cosmos Institute.

    To read more about why we need to bake principles of free thought and expression into AI code, check out Brendan McCord, Greg Lukianoff, and Philipp Koralus’s piece at Reason. 

    How it works

    • Grant pool: $1 million (cash + compute); compute credits are from Prime Intellect, a platform for open, decentralized AI development
    • Typical award: $1k – $10k fast grants; larger amounts considered for standout ideas
    • Rolling review: decisions in ~3 weeks; applications open May 16 at CosmosGrants.org/truth
    • Sprint timeline: 90 days to ship a working prototype
    • Community: access to a vetted network of builders, mentors, and advisors at the AI and philosophy frontier
    • Showcase: Top projects funded by Nov 1, 2025 will be invited to demo at the Austin AI x Free Speech Symposium in December 2025; selection is competitive and at the program’s discretion

    What we’re funding

    • Marketplace of Ideas — projects that preserve viewpoint diversity and open debate.
    • Promoting Inquiry — systems that actively provoke new questions, surfacing counter-arguments and open issues that require more study.
    • Bold New Concepts — any approach that pushes AI toward the role of truth-seeking partner.

    Illustrative projects:

    We’re focused on prototypes that translate philosophy to code — embedding truth-seeking principles like Mill’s Trident and Socratic inquiry directly into open-source software.

    Possible projects could include:

    • AI challenger that pokes holes in your assumptions and coaches you forward
    • An open debate arena where swappable models argue under a live crowd score
    • A tamper-proof logbook that records every answer on a public ledger.

    About the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for them, and provides the means to preserve them. Learn more at www.thefire.org.

    About Cosmos Institute

    Cosmos Institute is a 501(c)(3) academy for philosopher-builders — technologists who unite deep reflection with practical engineering. Through research, fellowships, grants, and education, Cosmos advances human flourishing by translating philosophy to code across three pillars: truth-seeking, decentralization, and human autonomy. The Institute supported the creation of the new Human-Centered AI Lab at the University of Oxford, the first lab dedicated to embedding flourishing principles in open-source AI. Learn more at www.cosmos-institute.org.

    Media Contact
    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE
    karl.de.vries@thefire.org | +1 215-717-3473

    Source link

  • UT Dallas bars FIRE from speaking at student event

    UT Dallas bars FIRE from speaking at student event

    UT Dallas is at war with its student journalists.

    After the longtime student newspaper The Mercury published unflattering coverage of the university’s response to pro-Palestinian protests on campus, administrators began a months-long campaign of retaliation. They fired the editor-in-chief, refused to pay journalists as agreed, and even took down articles on the Mercury website.

    And as everybody but a college administrator would expect, their efforts to keep the paper silent and the student body ignorant of the school’s misdeeds have only backfired.

    Undeterred, the student staff of The Mercury created The Retrograde, a wholly independent publication. But when the Retrograde tried to distribute its new issues around campus, administrators ripped out the newsstands that would be used to distribute it. That’s why FIRE went to campus, in person, to hand out copies of the paper and tell students about the school’s sordid efforts to quash student expression.

    FIRE and The Retrograde planned to hold an event the following day to celebrate the triumph of these student journalists over censorship. And Texas has a law requiring public universities to allow student groups to bring in guest speakers. So Gutierrez told the university he planned to bring FIRE Program Officer Dominic Coletti as a guest speaker. The administrators, resistant to allowing any critical speech on campus, told Gutierrez that only registered student organizations could invite guest speakers. And since UT Dallas has conveniently refused to recognize The Retrograde, Coletti could not speak on campus.

    FIRE then hand-delivered a second letter to administrators, explaining that UT Dallas’ policy ignores and violates state law. The university ignored that letter, too. So at the event, Gutierrez read the address Coletti had planned to give, detailing UT Dallas’s abuses and The Retrograde’s resilience.

    This absurd affair illustrates the malicious impact censorship can have on freedom of expression. UT Dallas administrators seem determined to continue on their lawless power trip, but they cannot silence the voices of the campus’ determined student journalists. And as everybody but a college administrator would expect, their efforts to keep the paper silent and the student body ignorant of the school’s misdeeds have only backfired.

    Now, more students know of the university’s dirty dealings than ever before. And they’re letting administrators know censorship should not be bigger in Texas. You can, too.

    Source link

  • FIRE and ACLU of TX: University of Texas must drop unconstitutional drag ban

    FIRE and ACLU of TX: University of Texas must drop unconstitutional drag ban

    AUSTIN, Texas, Apr. 22, 2025 — A pair of civil liberties organizations are joining forces today to demand the University of Texas System Board of Regents rescind its ban on campus drag shows — a clear First Amendment violation.

    In a joint letter, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called on the UT System to drop its drag ban that is currently chilling and infringing upon the speech of more than 200,000 students across its nine campuses.

    “Banning performances because government officials disapprove of their message is a textbook example of unconstitutional government censorship,” said FIRE Attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “The First Amendment protects the right of students at public universities to express themselves through art and performance, and that includes drag.”

    In March, University of Texas System Board of Regents Chair Kevin Eltife, citing unspecified “executive orders,” publicly declared that “our public university facilities, supported by taxpayers, will not serve as venues for drag shows.” Eltife’s statement followed a letter from Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare, which complained that drag shows “denigrate women” and suggested they violated an executive order from President Donald Trump that said “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.”

    But as a public university system, the UT System is required to abide by the First Amendment, which protects expression even if it offends state officials, campus administrators, or fellow students. And the justifications O’Hare cited are the same arguments from the Texas A&M University System that a federal judge in Texas roundly rejected when holding that system’s drag ban unconstitutional. On March 24 — just days after UT announced its drag ban — Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas struck down Texas A&M’s drag ban, ruling that drag “is speech and expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”

    The UT drag ban violates the First Amendment in a number of ways. First, it creates a prior restraint on speech, silencing artistic performances before they can even be held. This is a form of censorship that the Supreme Court has held to be “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”

    Second, by seemingly being issued to comply with Trump’s executive order targeting “gender ideology,” the ban is viewpoint discrimination; government institutions can’t gag speech based solely on whether they approve of the ideology being expressed. Lastly, UT’s drag ban is unconstitutionally vague. Because “drag” and “gender ideology” are undefined by the Board of Regents, students have no way of knowing whether their speech will fall afoul of regulations.

    West Texas A&M President cancels student charity drag show for second time

    News

    West Texas A&M President Wendler enforced his unconstitutional prior restraint by canceling a student-organized charity drag show for the second time.


    Read More

    “The University of Texas System must immediately rescind its unconstitutional anti-drag policy, which is an affront to its students’ First Amendment rights and its stated commitment to free speech and academic freedom,” said ACLU of Texas staff attorney Chloe Kempf. “The UT System’s vague and discriminatory ban on drag performances will make its campuses less free, less fair, and less welcoming for every student — especially LGBTQIA+ students. Texans expect state institutions to vigorously protect our fundamental rights and freedoms, no exceptions.”

    UT’s drag ban doesn’t just contradict the Constitution and recent court rulings in Texas — it also contradicts its own expressed values. Just last year, the UT System Board announced a “Commitment to Freedom of Speech and Expression,” which held that “it is not the proper role of the UT System or the UT institutions to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” 

    “The UT Board of Regents laid down its marker last year that it would uphold the First Amendment and protect speech that may offend others,” said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. “Now’s the time to put their money where their mouth is and stand up for the constitutional rights of all its students, instead of bowing to political pressure.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    The ACLU of Texas is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas, media@aclutx.org

    Source link

  • FIRE POLL: Only 1/4 of Americans support deporting foreigners for pro-Palestinian views

    FIRE POLL: Only 1/4 of Americans support deporting foreigners for pro-Palestinian views

    PHILADELPHIA, April 17, 2025 — Many Americans are opposed to President Donald Trump’s speech-restrictive policies, a new national survey of free speech attitudes finds, with only a quarter supporting the deportation of legal non-citizens for expressing pro-Palestinian views.

    The National Speech Index, a quarterly survey designed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, also found substantial opposition to pulling federal funding from colleges and universities that failed to arrest pro-Palestinian protesters, or are “not doing enough” to combat anti-Semitism on campus and those that fail to disband DEI programs.

    The survey provides the first detailed national snapshot of Americans’ views towards Trump’s policies through the prism of free speech rights in his second term. It also found that those saying they have “very little” or “no” confidence that Trump will protect First Amendment rights has risen ten points since the survey was last conducted in January.

    Only 26% of Americans said they support or strongly support deporting foreigners legally in the United States on a student visa for expressing pro-Palestinian views, while 52% are opposed or strongly opposed and 22% neither support nor oppose it. As for green card holders being deported for pro-Palestinian views, only 23% are in support, 54% are opposed, and 23% are neither in favor nor against.

    “Deporting someone simply for disagreeing with the government’s foreign policy preferences strikes at the very freedoms the First Amendment was designed to protect,” said FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “Americans are right to reject this kind of viewpoint-based punishment.”

    The National Speech Index also polled Americans about whether they would support the federal government rescinding federal funding from colleges and universities for a host of reasons. (FIRE’s poll was conducted before the Trump administration announced on Monday that it would freeze $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard University as part of a dispute over the administration’s proposed reforms to the institution.)

    Just shy of half of Americans oppose pulling funding from colleges and universities for failing to arrest student protesters who express pro-Palestinian views (47%) or for failing to disband DEI programs (44%), while only 26% and 31% of Americans respectively support pulling funding in those cases.

    When asked about pulling funding from colleges over insufficient efforts to combat antisemitism: 35% of Americans said they would support that measure and 37% would oppose it.

     

    The latest edition of the NSI also found a notable decline in Americans’ confidence that Trump would protect their First Amendment rights. 51% of Americans now say they have “very little” or “no confidence at all,” compared to 41% who said the same in January.

    “Confidence in Donald Trump’s First Amendment bona fides has returned to pre-inauguration levels,” said Nathan Honeycutt, FIRE manager of polling and analytics. “The partisan differences never really went away, but the honeymoon phase for independents appears to be wearing off.”

    The National Speech Index is a quarterly poll designed by FIRE and conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab to capture Americans’ views on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and to track how Americans’ views change over time. The April 2025 National Speech Index sampled 1,000 Americans and was conducted between April 4 and April 11, 2025. The survey’s margin of error is +/- 3%.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • FIRE comment to FCC calls for review of regulations that may violate the First Amendment

    FIRE comment to FCC calls for review of regulations that may violate the First Amendment

    Last week, FIRE filed a comment in the FCC’s “In re: delete, delete, delete” docket, in which the agency said it “seeks comment on every rule, regulation, or guidance document that the FCC should eliminate.” As the agency observed, this review is necessary in light of their statutory mandate to uncover and remove regulations “no longer necessary in the public interest.” FIRE’s comments remind the FCC that the Commission itself has said, “The public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” Therefore, in its hunt for “unnecessary regulatory burdens,” the Commission should start with its regulations on content. Such policies include discretionary speech-based investigations and its news distortion policy, which run headlong into the First Amendment and Communications Act directives that deny the FCC the power of censorship. The FCC’s current chairman claims to base FCC decisions on “the law, the facts, and the First Amendment.” With this proceeding, it’s time to put up or shut up. 

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on immigration judge’s ruling that deportation of Mahmoud Khalil can proceed

    FIRE statement on immigration judge’s ruling that deportation of Mahmoud Khalil can proceed

    This afternoon, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation could proceed under immigration law. But the fight over the constitutionality of that law continues.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the secretary of state nearly unchecked authority to deport a legal permanent resident on nothing more than his whim if the secretary believes the person poses “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” 

    Below is FIRE’s statement, attributable to Legal Director Will Creeley:

    Can expressing an opinion that the government doesn’t like justify a green card holder’s arrest, detention, and deportation? That’s what this case comes down to — and it’s a question the courts must answer. The government is holding up a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that purports to say “yes.” But the principles enshrined in the First Amendment say “no.”

    Allowing a single government official sweeping and nearly unchecked power to pick and choose individuals to deport based on beliefs alone, without alleging a single crime, crosses a line that should never be crossed in a free society. 

    The only “crime” the government has offered was that Mahmoud Khalil expressed a disfavored political opinion. If that’s a crime in America, every single one of us is guilty.

    Source link

  • FIRE welcomes Allison Hayward to board of directors

    FIRE welcomes Allison Hayward to board of directors

    FIRE is thrilled to announce that professor Allison Hayward has joined our board of directors.

    Allison is the former head of case selection for the Meta Oversight Board, where she played a critical role in shaping the platform’s approach to content moderation. She also previously served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission and co-chaired the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

    “Allison brings an extraordinary depth of experience at the intersection of law, media, policy, and free expression,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “At a time when the future of open discourse is being shaped by institutions both public and private, her insight will be invaluable in guiding FIRE’s mission.”

    Additionally, Allison is the former vice president of policy at the Center for Competitive Politics (now the Institute for Free Speech).

    With a robust background in academia, Allison taught constitutional law, election law, ethics, and civil procedure as an assistant law professor at George Mason University School of Law from 2006 to 2010. She also served as counsel to Commissioner Bradley A. Smith at the Federal Election Commission.

    Allison was also an associate at the law firm Wiley, Rein & Fielding in Washington, D.C., and counsel at Bell, McAndrews, and Hiltachk in Sacramento, California.

    Allison has written widely on election law and ethics topics and has been published in a variety of law journals. Before attending law school, she served as staff in the California legislature and managed a state assembly campaign. 

    She earned her bachelor’s degree in political science and economics from Stanford University, and her J.D. from the University of California, Davis. She has clerked for Judge Danny J. Boggs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and as chair of the Federalist Society’s Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group.

    Allison is a member of the ABA Standing Committee on Election Law and the American Law Institute. She is also an active member of the California bar.

    Apart from law and politics, Allison is passionate about music. She sings, plays fiddle and keyboards, and sits on the board of a fiddle camp and a bluegrass festival.

    She lives in Cambria, California, with her husband Steve, who teaches at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, and is the proud mother of two adult children.

    “One of the things I most respect about FIRE is its non-partisan mission,” said Allison. “Threats to speech are ultimately nonsectarian and what comes around certainly goes around. FIRE understands that the liberty long-game is critical to freedom and sound governance.”

    Source link

  • FIRE Defends WVU Football Players’ Right to Dance on TikTok

    FIRE Defends WVU Football Players’ Right to Dance on TikTok

    West Virginia University’s football team is experiencing a digital Footloose: The coach has prohibited the players from dancing on TikTok. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression hopes to reverse the ban.

    In March, head football coach Rich Rodriguez told his players that while they could post on TikTok, they weren’t allowed to dance on the platform.

    “We have to have a hard edge … and you’re in there in your tights dancing on TikTok ain’t quite the image of our program that I want,” Rodriguez said, according to the Associated Press.

    Watch on TikTok

    Rodriguez also said he wants the players to focus less on their individual performances and more on the team dynamic—and he believes not dancing on TikTok can help.

    FIRE responded by writing a letter last month to the university’s athletic director, Wren Baker, arguing that the ban on dancing violates the athletes’ First Amendment right to free expression.

    “WVU players don’t hand in their expressive rights when Rodriguez hands out shoulder pads at the start of training camp,” FIRE wrote in the letter. “Because student-athletes are students first, their right to free expression off the field must be commensurate to other students on campus.”

    When Baker failed to respond within a few weeks, FIRE sent another letter, which was posted on X.

    “Major NFL players like Tom Brady, Gronk [Rob Gronkowski], and the Kelce brothers maintain robust TikTok presences,” the letter read. “Coaches at public colleges can’t stop their players from posting online, because students—including athletes—have the First Amendment right to express themselves.”

    The policy isn’t written anywhere, as Front Office Sports learned after requesting a copy through the Freedom of Information Act, but FIRE claims “its existence and enforcement violates students’ expressive rights.”

    Some college athletes use their social media presences to generate revenue through name, image and likeness opportunities, and many of the top earners through NIL deals are colleges football players, though fewer of their brand opportunities are a result of social media dances.  

    An impending ban on TikTok makes the future of students in general posting on the platform less clear.



    Source link

  • Defending free speech: FIRE and Substack partner to protect writers in America

    Defending free speech: FIRE and Substack partner to protect writers in America

    In his farewell address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan remarked that “America is freedom,” and it’s this freedom that makes the country “a magnet” for those from around the world.

    In recent weeks, America has sent a very different message to foreigners residing in America lawfully: You can stay here — but only if you give up your freedom of speech.

    Earlier this week, federal immigration officials arrested a Tufts University student off the street, allegedly for an op-ed she wrote in a student newspaper calling for the university to divest from Israel. If true, this represents a chilling escalation in the government’s effort to target critics of American foreign policy.

    Since our founding, America has long welcomed writers and thinkers from across the globe who come to this country and contribute to the richness of our political and cultural life. Christopher Hitchens was one of President Bill Clinton’s sharpest critics, Alexander Cockburn punched in all directions, and Ayn Rand minced no words in her condemnation of socialism.

    To preserve America’s tradition as a home for fearless writing, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Substack are partnering to support writers residing lawfully in this country targeted by the government for the content of their writing — those who, as Hitchens once put it, “committed no crime except that of thought in writing.” If you fit this category, whether or not you publish on Substack, we urge you to get in touch immediately at thefire.org/alarm or pages.substack.com/defender.

    President Reagan recognized that freedom is “fragile, it needs protection” — and that’s exactly what FIRE and Substack intend to provide.

    Source link

  • FIRE and civil liberties groups challenge ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ against Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE and civil liberties groups challenge ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ against Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE along with the National Coalition Against Censorship, The Rutherford Institute, PEN America, and First Amendment Lawyers Association today filed a “friend of the court” brief arguing that the jailing of Mahmoud Khalil violates the First Amendment. What follows is the brief’s summary of argument.

    America’s founding principle, core to who and what we are as a Nation, is that liberty comes not from the benevolent hand of a king, but is an inherent right of every man, woman, and child. That includes “the opportunity for free political discussion” as “a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy.” (Cox v. Louisiana). And “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” (Terminiello v. City of Chicago). For these reasons, along with all citizens, “freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” (Bridges v. Wixon).

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, is attempting to deport a permanent resident, Mahmoud Khalil, not because the government claims he committed a crime or other deportable offense, but for the seemingly sole reason that his expression stirred the Trump administration to anger. The Secretary claims he can deport Mr. Khalil under a Cold War–era statute giving the secretary of state the power to deport anyone he “personally determines” is contrary to America’s “foreign policy interest.” And he argues this power extends even to deporting permanent residents for protected speech. It does not.

    The First Amendment’s protection for free speech trumps a federal statute. (United States v. Robel). Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Foreign students would (with good reason) fear criticizing the American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media, lest they risk deportation. That result is utterly incompatible with the longstanding recognition that “[t]he essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident,” and that “students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” (Sweezy v. New Hampshire).

    Secretary Rubio claims (as do all censors) that this time is different, that the supposed repulsiveness of Mr. Khalil’s pro-Palestine (and, as Secretary Rubio alleges, pro-Hamas) 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) (holding the First Amendment protects burning the American flag in protest); see also (Snyder v. Phelps) (holding the First Amendment protects displaying “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” posters outside a military funeral).

    Allowing the Secretary of State to deport any non-citizen whose views, in his subjective judgment, are against America’s foreign policy interests places free expression in mortal peril. China’s Constitution, for example, provides that “when exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens . . . shall not undermine the interests of the state.” As China’s experience shows, allowing the government to step in as censor when it believes speech threatens the government’s interests is a loophole with infinite diameter. It has no place in America’s tradition of individual liberty.

    The only court to address the deportation provision Secretary Rubio relies upon to deport Mr. Khalil reached a similar conclusion, holding the law unconstitutional. As that court explained, “If the Constitution was adopted to protect individuals against anything, it was the abuses made possible through just this type of unbounded executive authority.” (Massieu v. Reno).

    The “First Amendment does not speak equivocally. It prohibits any law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow.” (Bridges v. California) (invalidating criminal convictions, including of a non-citizen, based on protected speech). Our “liberty-loving society” does not permit deportation as a punishment solely based on expression the government disfavors. The Court should grant Mr. Khalil’s motion.

    Source link