Tag: FIRE

  • FIRE highlights artistic freedom with launch of new YouTube interview series featuring heavy metal and punk’s biggest stars

    FIRE highlights artistic freedom with launch of new YouTube interview series featuring heavy metal and punk’s biggest stars

    Today the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression presents a new video series — “Fire with FIRE” — featuring some of the biggest and up-and-coming names in heavy metal and punk rock.

    Throughout the summer, FIRE will drop a new conversation every other week on our YouTube channel with the likes of:

    Artists can be the canaries in the coalmine. Too often, they are the first to be censored, or worse — much, much worse. 

    In Nazi Germany, the regime destroyed and banned certain art, particularly Jewish art, and labeled it “degenerate.” Jewish artists like Charlotte Salomon — who some argue created the first graphic novel — were sent to death camps and murdered by Adolf Hitler’s thugs.

    The Soviets were no better. Artists who rebelled against the confines of the state-approved artform of “Socialist Realism” were blacklisted, sent to the gulag, or executed. (After the Soviet Union’s fall, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin revived the old regime’s repression of artists, most famously targeting the punk rock and performance art collective Pussy Riot. Most members now live in exile after criticizing Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.)

    In 1973, the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet tortured and murdered Chilean artist and folk singer Víctor Jara for his music and political activism. His murderers pumped him full of bullets and then dumped his body on a public road. Message sent. 

    After the Islamic Revolution engulfed Iran, the ultra-religious government banned Western heavy metal and punk music. The Iranian regime has persecuted, arrested, and thrown in prison musicians daring to play such music. In 2015, for example, the members of the Iranian death metal band Confess were sentenced to years in prison and 74 lashes for blasphemy, disturbing public opinion, and anti-government propaganda. They fortunately escaped to Norway. 

    America isn’t immune to such crackdowns on creative expression either.

    During the McCarthy era of the late 1940s into the 1950s, artists like director, actor, and writer Orson Welles; screenwriter and novelist Dalton Trumbo of “Spartacus” and “Johnny Got His Gun” fame; folk singer Pete Seeger; and many others were blacklisted because of their left-wing politics and Communist ties, real or imagined. 

    In the 1960s and 1970s, the FBI surveilled artists associated with the Civil Rights and antiwar movements. The bureau maintained files on John LennonThe Monkees, and the proto-punk band MC5. Even the soul and gospel singer Aretha Franklin had a 270-page FBI file, with G-men monitoring her because of her connections to the Civil Rights movement and “Black extremists.” 

    During the 1980s, the Parents Music Resource Center — co-founded by future Vice President Al Gore’s wife Tipper — created a moral panic around heavy metal, punk, and pop artists like Twisted Sister, the Dead Kennedys, and Prince. The PMRC’s crusade led not only to “Parental Advisory” stickers on albums but also to what is arguably Glenn Danzig’s best composition ever, “Mother.” 

    Enter the “Fire with FIRE” interview series. 

    Every two weeks, FIRE will release conversations with six of the biggest metal and punk artists in music right now about their inspirations, their influences, and why free expression not only makes life worth living, but is also essential to a free society. 

    First up: Spencer Charnas of Ice Nine Kills. What a bloody mess this interview is. Our host Ryan J Downey slices into Spencer’s musical inspirations, why horror movies infest his music and art, and how Disney censored Ice Nine Kills — with Spencer getting the last howling laugh. 


    Like it. Share it. Tell us what you think in the YouTube comments. And let us know who you’d love us to interview in the future!

    Source link

  • Salt Lake City eases off crackdown on salty speech after FIRE steps in

    Salt Lake City eases off crackdown on salty speech after FIRE steps in

    This month marks one year since Salt Lake City clocked possibly the shortest public comment in city council history when police removed activist Jenna Martin after only 20 seconds of speaking that began, “What the hell is wrong with you?

    Martin, who was wearing a keffiyeh pinned in the front like a shawl, then accused Mayor Erin Mendenhall of having police arrest local pro-Palestinian activist Michael Valentine on multiple occasions for “the most bullshit reasons.” 

    The council promptly ejected Martin, who could hardly be described as causing any type of disturbance given that she only had the floor for 20 seconds and her comments were entirely relevant to matters of public concern. But apparently, the council did not like people cursing in front of the mayor. 

    On Aug. 14, 2024, FIRE wrote the council, explaining that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to comment on matters related to the city and its leaders, even if the commentary is less than “respectful,” so long as the speaker is not disrupting the meeting. Pointed criticism is not the same as disruption.

    Mandating respectful discourse is an example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because the city is sure to enforce the rule only against criticism, not praise. It’s also vague because what qualifies as “respectful” is undefined, constitutes a matter of opinion, and falls to the complete discretion of the same elected officials who are often the subject of that very criticism. The law recognizes that you cannot have the fox guarding the hen house.

    Although not pertinent to Martin’s case, FIRE also warned the council that its unqualified ban on “discriminatory” language is unconstitutional for the same reasons. After FIRE sent  a second letter on Oct. 7, a city attorney acknowledged the council had no basis to eject Martin, confirmed the policy had been revised to comply with the First Amendment, and noted that the city implemented “First Amendment training after receiving FIRE’s notice and plans to continue to reinforce that training.”

    Instead of vague and viewpoint-discriminatory categorical prohibitions on speech, the policy now encourages speakers to “avoid … intimidating or discriminatory language,” “profanity,” “threats,” and “personal attacks.” The policy also now explicitly acknowledges that speakers have free speech rights that the council cannot infringe upon: 

    The Council respects constitutional rights to free speech. It recognizes that some comments may be legally permissible under the U.S. and Utah Constitutions or other federal and state laws. However, the Council reserves the right to address behavior that creates disruption or safety risk or constitutes unprotected speech (such as true threats).

    Salt Lake City’s previous decorum policy highlights a common misconception among elected officials across the country regarding the contours of the First Amendment. While they may encourage the public to be respectful, they absolutely cannot censor or eject a speaker on these grounds. The mere use of profanity does not justify censorship either. FIRE will watch to ensure the city actually enforces the new policy in line with the First Amendment.

    Salt Lake City Council meetings are, at minimum, limited public forums. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that in limited public forums, towns can restrict speech only in a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral manner. For instance, Salt Lake City can decide when the public may speak, and may require comments to be relevant to city affairs — but it cannot cut off the public simply for using profanity or accusing the mayor of an abuse of power. 

    The First Amendment protects not just the content of speech but also the tone and intensity of that speech — an essential part of how people communicate opinions and ideas.

    If Martin can’t hold the mayor accountable for a perceived abuse of authority at a city meeting, where can she voice her grievances? City meetings are supposed to encourage civic engagement and inform the public. Yet FIRE has had to repeatedly hold local government officials accountable for censoring public comments beyond constitutional bounds. Fortunately, we’ve recently securedcouple victories on that front. 

    We commend Salt Lake City for taking corrective action and realizing that salty speech is not a threat to democracy, but a sign of its good health.


    FIRE defends the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — no matter their views. FIRE’s proven approach to advocacy has vindicated the rights of thousands of Americans through targeted media campaigns, correspondence with officials, open records requests, litigation, and other advocacy tactics. If you think your rights have been violated, submit your case to FIRE today.

    Source link

  • 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
    [email protected] | +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; [email protected]

    Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas, [email protected]

    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; [email protected]

    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.

    @wvu_football ♬ original sound – WV football

    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