THE STATE OF FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

And now onto our main discussion, regarding “The Intersection of National Sovereignty and Free Speech”. I should state now that we are going to spend a fair amount of time on points of contextualisation, so that we are able to adequately adjudicate the related issues in the status quo. And to begin with, we ought to take stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US. Now, first and foremost, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the fundamental rights of persons to express themselves, to gather with other people, and to protest their government, among other rights. The text of the First Amendment itself is quite short but emphatic; it states that (quote): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, this short paragraph has acted as the basis of the right to free speech in the US. People across the US have sacrificed, litigated, legislated, and organised to ensure that the rights conferred by this amendment are upheld. In light of this, here is what the overall jurisprudence and progressively litigated precedent concerning the First Amendment looks like today:

To begin with, the First Amendment prohibits government agencies from censoring, discriminating against, or applying rules inconsistently to private speech based on its viewpoint. This principle is called “viewpoint neutrality,” and it means that local and federal government agencies can NOT allow expression on a given subject from Viewpoint A – but not from Viewpoint B. For example, the government can NOT approve a permit for an pro-abortion rally, while blocking a permit for an anti-abortion rally. Not only this, but viewpoint neutrality is not even limited to political issues. For example, panhandling – or asking passersby for money in public places – is actually also constitutionally protected under viewpoint neutrality. And the idea is that governments cannot ban people from asking for money for themselves in public places, while at the same time allowing people to ask for money for something like the Girl Scouts or political campaigns.

Secondly, the First Amendment protects a person’s right to express him/herself and to testify before, petition, and protest the many branches and agencies of the local and federal government. If, for example, a person in the US wants to picket his/her local police station to protest an issue of misconduct, or wants to protest a law that council members passed, the First Amendment protects the right to do so. Furthermore, the First Amendment also prohibits all local government agencies, including public schools, from discriminating against speech based on its viewpoint. Which is why it was jarring that a Massachusetts middle school suspended a student for wearing a “There are only two genders” t-shirt – because this is protected expression.

And Liam Morrison actually asked a crucial question, and it is unfortunate the courts in the US might have missed it or deliberately ignored it, and this is the point on what is a protected class, and why are their feelings more important than his rights. Now, this question that he asks is incredibly important because it exposes the fact that in undermining first amendment protections, the federal government and activist judges and courts are arbitrarily creating a “protected class” of beings not based on objective necessity or a decent legal argument, but rather based on their feelings?! This is UNACCEPTABLE!

DISHONEST AND HATEFUL SPEECH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Then still taking stock of the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, here is where this amendment and the progressive precedent surrounding it got more deliberate in its protections of not just free speech, but ABSOLUTE free speech. Irrespective of whether speech is a lie, it ought not to be limited! Make no mistake: lies are a problem. In fact, one can persuasively argue that lies are one of the biggest problems in society, especially when looking at the deception that came during the COVID era, or the climate change hoax, or feminism and its insistence in vilifying men, and so many phenomena in society. I’d even go a step further to state that few behaviours are as corrosive to a nation’s social fabric or as foundational to societal divisions as lies. And this is primarily because lies severely hobble the ability to communicate effectively, the capacity to understand reality, and attempts at securing social and moral progress. HOWEVER, in recognising the gravity of the ramifications emanating from lies, a number of individuals, as a result, conclude that using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is justified – you’d even recall the Welsh government’s 2024  decision to criminalise lies from parliament members.

However, using government power to prohibit and eliminate lies is a dangerous idea, and one that is contrary to First Amendment jurisprudence. More specifically, outside of a few narrow and formally recognised categories of unprotected speech, the First Amendment is neutral regarding the content of the speech it defends.

This principle was expressed beautifully by Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1972 Supreme Court case of the Police Department of Chicago v Mosley, which questioned the constitutionality of a city ordinance banning non-union picketing outside of a school building. In the majority opinion, Justice Marshall wrote that (quote): “the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” So, in observing the precedent that came from this decision, this therefore tells us that the First Amendment almost universally prohibits content-based regulations of speech. In other words, because content-based regulations of speech target the substance of speech and are easily used to suppress disfavoured ideas, content-based laws or regulations are presumed unconstitutional, and the government must meet a very heavy burden to justify them.

Now, this heavy burden imposed on the government is understood as strict scrutiny — and is supposed to be the highest standard in First Amendment law, and it essentially requires the government to prove that the content-based regulation it wants to implement “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,” as outlined in the case of Reed v Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. The explanation of this burden is that: interests are “compelling,” when they are regarding “regulation vital to the protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity, and respect for fundamental rights.” And the key here is that any regulations must not only advance a “compelling” interest, but must also not restrict people’s ability to speak freely (and dishonestly) beyond what is necessary to further that interest pursued by the government. BUT THEN, there was the case of United States v Robert J. Stevens, which offered an important challenge to this thinking.

Essentially, based on the issues that were just outlined in the excerpt we watched, in the case of the United States v Robert J. Stevens, the Court emphatically rejected as “startling and dangerous” the idea of a “free-floating test for First Amendment coverage” that requires speech to survive an ad hoc balancing of its costs and benefits by the government – because, as we stated, this was a burden on the government. As such, the development in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case is that: The “First Amendment itself reflects a judgement by the American people that the benefits of the restrictions imposed on the government through the first amendment outweigh the costs”. And so, from the precedent established in the United States v Robert J. Stevens case, it primarily means that American citizens were the ones who reserved judgement on the cost of restrictions to free speech, and not the government – which is a triumph and testament of the protectionist nature of the first amendment.

Then finally, on the jurisprudence and precedent surrounding the First Amendment in the US, it is worth noting that First Amendment protections also extend to speech that might be deemed as hateful. And, honestly, in a world where “hate speech” is either arbitrarily defined OR is a highly weaponised and politicised definition, I would argue that speech that is supposedly hateful is especially crucial to protect if any meaningful institutionalisation of free speech is to be claimed.

So, all that we’ve just discussed is the broad contextualisation of today’s discussion, and it will factor into how we adjudicate cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech. And to start us off, let’s address the Jimmy Kimmel free speech debate, because many are building on that occurrence to claim that the Trump administration is violating the first amendment, especially in light of the recent visa suspension announcement – and in addressing the cases in the status quo that pertain to the intersection of national sovereignty and free speech, we get to understand where the first amendment also ceases to protect speech.

ADDRESSING THE JIMMY KIMMEL FREE SPEECH DEBATE

So, regarding the Jimmy Kimmel case, what essentially transpired is that after the assasination of Charlie Kirk, late night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended following the concerning remarks he made about the assassination, and claims about president Trump’s supporters trying to capitalise on the assasination for political gain. For the most part, this was an incredibly important and interesting niche in free speech discourse, and I think it had a profound impact in how Americans view comedians (who function as political commentators for the left). However, there does also appear to be a gap in an understanding of the responsibilities and powers of media broadcasters, in light of the protections of free speech. But, before we proceed, here is how Jimmy Kimmel (and frankly a lot of people on the left) viewed his remarks:

So, yes, in the aftermath of the suspension, Jimmy Kimmel painted his suspension as being based on the malicious mischaracterisation of his words; and even told his audience that he was “silenced” by Trump (because apparently Trump cannot take a joke) and even warned about comedians being censored – and yet he did say that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is a product of MAGA indoctrination, and that Trump supporters were trying to capitalise on the assassination for political gain – and so, that was just a weird attempt at averting direct accountability for the distasteful remarks he made, and somehow try to make Trump the focus of the discussion.

Nevertheless, as far as the First Amendment is concerned, Jimmy Kimmel is entitled to say what he wants, however horrendous and distasteful the remarks; and the Trump administration is also mandated by the First Amendment NOT to censor Jimmy Kimmel, even if his speech is deemed a lie or paints president Trump poorly.

WAS JIMMY KIMMEL CENSORED, & DOES THIS AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Therefore, we then have to ask ourselves this question: In being suspended following the remarks he made about the Charlie Kirk assassination, was Jimmy Kimmel censored and does this amount to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration?

The first response to this is that the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel was not based on efforts at demanding the censorship of videos that paint President Trump in a bad light – seeing that Trump himself makes jokes about Trump. BUT, even if it was about censoring videos that paint Trump in a bad light (which it was not), Jimmy Kimmel has the backing of US law to protect his free speech, meaning that he has every right and opportunity to hold Trump accountable if he thinks his speech was censored. For instance, in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court explained that “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the Court declared that with few exceptions, “the First Amendment means [that] the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” And in the second case, which is the case of United States v Alvarez (in 2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that even “false statements” may not be censored, writing that “some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views…”.

And so, free speech and the freedom to criticise policies or even portray the president in a less pleasing light are very well protected in the US constitution and free speech jurisprudence! Ergo, president Trump is not running some comedian censorship industrial complex, that is enabled by the absence of laws that protect free speech. In fact, Trump himself has proven to understand and respect the ambits of the first amendment, especially in light of what powers are available to him. For instance, you’d recall that in late 2024, president Trump sued CBS News for $10 billion for “deceptively doctoring” Kamala Harris’ 60-Minutes interview. And the harm that was argued by Trump was that CBS engaged in election interference to try to help Kamala Harris; to which Paramount (the parent company of CBS) agreed to pay $16 million to Trump’s future library or other cause. Crucial to note here is that Trump did not launch a welfare campaign to try to get CBS off air, or orchestrate the censorship of the CBS anchor who conducted the interview: he simply used the same first amendment law to hold the CBS accountable for abusing the press freedom they enjoy through the first amendment.

Then, still answering the question of whether Jimmy Kimmel was censored and whether his suspension amounted to a violation of the first amendment by the Trump administration, the second response here is that the left does not appear to have a strong grasp on the intersection between free speech and the private corporations.

So, for some additional context: the First Amendment, like the US Constitution generally, affords rights that people can use to challenge the government. Local and federal governments have many agencies, all of which must abide by the First Amendment. But free speech and association rights do not BLANKETLY apply to private organisations or people, even if those organisations or people receive funding from the government. These private organisations are thus entitled to formulate private organisational policies that people can choose to opt in or out of.

Now, what this means is that a private company can suspend or fire an employee for something they say, or a social media platform can remove a user’s post without violating the First Amendment because they are not the government.

HOWEVER, the exception is that if you can prove a private company is working with government actors to suppress speech, then the First Amendment will apply – which is what the Murthy v Missouri case is doing in light of how the Biden-Harris administrations coerced social media companies to censor speech on their platforms.

Now, the left in decrying censorship from Trump as being the reason that Jimmy Kimmel was suspended, is ignoring this aspect of the first amendment, which allows private corporations to decide if they want to air certain content. And yet, this exclusion of private corporations in the scope of the first amendment is why, while ABC is the media corporation that powers Jimmy Kimmel’s show, a number of ABC affiliates suspended his show, ad have now refused to air Jimmy Kimmel’s show altogether. It is NOT censorship by Trump, RATHER, it is the first amendment allowing private corporations to decide what they will or will NOT air.

WHITE HOUSE REVOKES VISAS FOR ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENTS AFTER CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION

So, let’s bring in the factor of national sovereignty. As we alluded to earlier, on October 15th, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that US visas are a privilege revocable for foreign nationals expressing death wishes toward America, especially following the September 10th assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. The State Department has thus revoked visas for at least six individuals accused of celebrating Kirk’s death on social media, extending the policy to international students in pro-Hamas protests cited as national security threats. This move has drawn support from conservatives who see this as a defence of American values but, simultaneously, this has also drawn criticism from what are said to be civil liberties groups over free speech concerns. But before we proceed, here are the remarks from the Press Secretary.

Now, in addressing this development in the status quo, here we must ask: Is this policy by the Trump administration a weaponisation of national sovereignty against free speech?

Well, interestingly, this consideration is not at all new in US politics. In fact, in a case that considered whether lawfully present non-citizens in the United States have First Amendment rights, a federal district judge answered that question with a resounding “yes.” Judge William G Young, ruled that the Trump administration’s policy to detain and deport foreign scholars over their pro-Palestinian views violates the US constitution and was designed to “intentionally” chill free speech rights. Judge Young further stated that although no one’s freedom of speech is completely unlimited, the key is that whatever limits that exist “must be the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.” He even added that the Trump administration claimed the authority to deport non-citizens who have committed no crimes but whose presence it deems to pose a threat to US foreign policy. And so, after a 2-week trial, Judge Young ruled that this authority was being used to target people based on their constitutionally protected speech.

HOWEVER, I’d like to offer a practical rebuttal to this position. With ALL the extensive protections that the First Amendment offers to speech, it also draws the line on speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” – in other words, the First Amendment does not protect protesters who chant “death to America”, or make remarks about how they wish someone would kill Charlie Kirk. and all of this are things that have occurred in the US.

But, finally, for people concerned about censorship and even being offended, I’d also like to make the argument that free speech has a place in a functional society for 2 reasons. First, when people speak frankly about even hateful sentiments they hold, you have the privilege of an honest discussion, and an adequate measure of the moral inclinations of society. Furthermore, it is easier to challenge and debate (for instance) racist ideas with people who are openly racist than with people who form secret clubs and societies in which they share their racist inclinations among others who think the same. Therefore, there is less inspiration for change toward acceptable virtues, if those who do not yet possess them are not challenged to assess their thinking through open debate and free speech. In addition, when someone is frank with you about what they think, it is a manifestation of respect as opposed to that person telling you what they think you want to hear.

HOWEVER, also consider that in having the liberty to speak frankly, be prepared to be held accountable for what you say, where you abuse that speech- through litigation, and not laws that justify censorship.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso

Her “crime”? Telling the world what was really happening in Wuhan at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and later, continuing to report on human rights abuses by the Chinese state.

Rather than being celebrated as a whistleblower or journalist, Zhang has been criminalized for doing what journalists everywhere are supposed to do: hold power to account.

Speaking Truth to Power and Paying the Price

In early 2020, while the Chinese government was tightly controlling the narrative around the COVID-19 outbreak, Zhang Zhan traveled to Wuhan and used her smartphone to show the world the real conditions on the ground.

She posted videos of overcrowded hospitals, food shortages, and frightened citizens evidence that contradicted Beijing’s claims of calm and control.

For this, she was arrested, tried, and sentenced to four years in prison under the vague and politically motivated charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

Now, just months after finishing that sentence, she has been sentenced again for the same “offense” this time, for continuing to expose human rights violations and question official narratives. Her reporting posed no harm to society only to the fragile egos of those in power.

China’s War on Free Speech

The charge used against Zhang is often described by rights groups as a tool for silencing dissent. It does not refer to a specific criminal act but is regularly deployed to punish activists, journalists, lawyers, and citizens who speak out.

In Zhang’s case, there was no incitement to violence, no threats to national security, no disinformation. Her videos were straightforward, factual, and often quiet a stark contrast to the loud propaganda of the state.

This sentencing is part of a broader pattern of repression where independent voices are crushed, and government critics disappear into prison cells. It sends a chilling message to anyone in China who dares to tell the truth.

Freedom of Speech is Not a Crime

Across the world, freedom of speech and a free press are cornerstones of open, democratic societies. Zhang Zhan’s case is a test of the international community’s willingness to defend those principles.

She has not harmed her country she has only asked it to do better, to be transparent, to respect its own people. For that, she has been punished twice.

Zhang’s courage stands in stark contrast to the cowardice of the authorities who fear even the slightest criticism. By silencing her, China only amplifies her voice on the global stage.

The World Must Speak Up

Human rights organizations, democratic governments, and ordinary citizens must condemn this injustice loudly and without hesitation.

Remaining silent allows authoritarian governments to believe they can imprison journalists and activists without consequences. Zhang Zhan is not alone but without international pressure, she may well suffer alone, again, behind bars.

So, when you observe discussions on limitations of free speech, you would have noted that what is often contentious is the allowance of speech that is deemed to be mis or dis information or even hateful. And so, those in support of placing limitations on free speech, often argue that the danger from these categories of speech (being misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech) is so great that it becomes justifiable to place limitations on or even completely censor persons that curate such speech – be it by word or writing.

Let’s start with mis and disinformation. In socio-political discourse, the word “misinformation” is a dangerous word because it cannot be objectively defined; meaning that it means different things to different people. For instance, governments often label speech as mis or disinformation when that particular speech communicates a message that is contrary to official messaging. But, the government is not immune to error: governments or official organisations get things wrong or lack knowledge to communicate accurate facts quite often – an example being the WHO’s directives during COVID, which were parroted by some governments and the mainstream media.

Secondly, in addition to mis and disinformation lacking an objective definition, this vague quality of these words thus allows governments to assume the role of being the arbiter of truth; which – as empirical evidence from the last 4 and half years would show – tends to embolden governments to assume a monopoly on truth, and punish those who become dissenters. And they actually capitalise on the vagueness of the definition of mis and disinformation to accomplish this. For instance, Dr Mike Ryan, who is the Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, said something quite striking a few years back. He stated that misinformation is when grossly incorrect information gets out while being promoted as correct, or purposely designed to be incorrect… and also used as a weapon to manipulate how people make conclusions. And he said this in trying to clarify that the WHO is fighting misinformation and not overall dialogue and the asking of questions.

First, this is a lie. When governments and organisations like the WHO (and even the WEF) assume a monopoly on truth, they expect (in fact DEMAND) compliance, and therefore punish those who dissent. This is literally why the censorship industrial complex exists, and why laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act exist. Secondly, because of the (often) legislated demand for compliance, people have a hard time having genuine discourse or asking pertinent questions, when they know that could land them in trouble – and so, the compliance laws systematically nudge society towards self censorship. Therefore, this all details the fundamental flaw in the rationale behind limiting free speech that is considered mis or disinformation: and the fundamental flaw lies with the fact that there is no objective definition of these terms, and where they are defined, they are often heavily politicised to mean what a respective government or organisation demands, and also these politicised definitions enable the curation of censorship-promoting compliance laws.

WHAT (ACTUALLY) IS HATE SPEECH?

Which then brings us to hate speech, and why the rationale behind limiting speech that is deemed hateful is also flawed. And the first consideration is that (as alluded to earlier) the definition for what is deemed hate speech is not as clear as people assume it is. For instance, let’s consider these three definitions from a relatively quick search. The first is from the Oxford dictionary, and it states that hate speech is (quote): “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”

Then the second definition is from the UN. It states that hate speech is from (quote): “hate speech is “discriminatory” (in parenthesis) (biased, bigoted or intolerant) or “pejorative” (in parenthesis) (prejudiced, contemptuous or demeaning) of an individual or group. Then finally, we have the definition from the South African Human Rights Commission, and it states that (quote): “Hate speech may be defined as expression which goes beyond mere insults or offensive language, and which may infringe the dignity of certain persons or groups”. Now these all sound like fairly reasonable definitions, with discernable common denominators – being: discrimination, contempt or an infringement of dignity, and perhaps abuse – or simply, offence.

But, I do not think that all these different organisations considered that the application of these definitions is relative to each unique context where allegations of hate speech might arise.

For instance, the word “kaffir” (which is an Arabic word) is said to originate from the Quran and refers to a “disbeliever” or someone who rejects faith in Islam and its core tenets. In the colonial context, this word was used by the Boer in South Africa as a derogatory way to refer to black South Africans during apartheid. Today, this word is sometimes casually used by black South Africans in references that are informed by the apartheid and colonial context, but that aren’t deemed hateful. For instance, instead of referring to one’s hair as an afro or natural hair, one would say “my kaffir haar” – and no one will bat an eyelid.

Similarly, the “b” word that means a female dog is deemed derogatory and vulgar when used by men in reference to women, but it frequents informal and amicable conversations among both men and women, rap music and other forms of popular culture. The same can be said about the word Nigger in the American or African context. Now, I mention this to demonstrate that offence (which is what hate speech is hinged on) is very subjective; in fact, even how words receive compounded meanings beyond what they originally mean is often a product of the subjective intentions of one group, seeing that (for example) the original meaning of the word Nigger had nothing to do with the discriminatory connotations that were later added to it. And so, what is deemed to be hate speech will often differ not just for each group in society but for each individual within a certain group! And all of this is because offense is a highly subjective metric, which then makes it very problematic to use it to inform the law – because it would mean that the government is creating a law that is intended for general application, on the basis of the offence of a select few individuals or possibly even one person. Well, this came up at the hearing, including from Representative Mark Harris.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BODY TO DEFINE WHAT IS HATE SPEECH

The second argument I’d like to put forward is that – in addition to the lack of objective definition of hate speech – the government should also not be the body to define hate speech. And the reason fundamentally lies with two considerations: first, because slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal systems, it means the state should never be used as a metric for ethics. In other words, history testifies to the fact that the government does not have an unequivocal grasp on good morality, because governments are made up of people who are not immune to error and who can be influenced towards evil deeds.

The second consideration is the fact that government definitions are (again) heavily politicised. And so, if we allow a government to define free speech and enforce that definition, it will likely amount to a means of restricting speech that the government in question does not like or agree with. But, that speech in-of-in itself may not actually amount to hate, in a manner that would be objective enough to warrant general application. And this actually presents considerable problems for the state because implementing subjective definitions of hate speech is hard work!

For example, in 2021, a former police officer in the UK won a court of appeal challenge over police guidance on hate incidents after claiming it unlawfully interferes with the right to freedom of expression. Ex-officer Harry Miller, who describes himself as “gender critical”, was visited at work by an officer from Humberside police in January 2019 after a single member of the public complained about his allegedly transphobic tweets. The force recorded the complaint as a non-crime hate incident (which we’ll discuss shortly), and this non-crime hate incident is defined by the College of Policing’s guidance as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”.

Well, ex-officer Harry Miller, from Lincolnshire, challenged both Humberside police’s actions and the College of Policing’s guidance at the high court and, in February 2020, a judge ruled the force’s actions were a “disproportionate interference” with his right to freedom of expression. But his challenge to the College of Police’s guidance was dismissed, with the judge finding that it “serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate”. However, in a ruling in 2020, the court of appeal then found that the College of Policing’s guidance also breached his freedom of expression rights.

So, this proves that a law that tried to allow the state to enforce one person’s subjective feeling of offence as a law of general application did not stand successfully against the inalienable freedom to speak freely. And so, even from a state perspective, this is a ridiculous approach to try to enforce.

HATE SPEECH IS (AND SHOULD TREATED AS) PROTECTED SPEECH

Then, finally, even if it was easy and non-subjective to define hate speech, hate speech should not only be regarded as protected speech, but the protection of hate speech is a part of the litmus test for whether a society truly values free speech. And the litmus test is: do you support the protection of fundamental freedoms for everyone, including for people you disagree with? If you do NOT, you are NOT someone who should be trusted with legislating on matters pertaining to free speech, because you have a segregationist mindset that sees society and politics as zero-sum.

But, secondly, it means you fail to grasp the inalienable nature of the freedom of speech. But, the truth is that inalienable rights have a high regard in society and jurisprudence because these are  God-given rights and freedoms, and thus not subject to statutory limitations or conditional application by governments, which is to say that even governments are bound by those rights. Therefore, because free speech is an inalienable right, even speech that is deemed subjectively hateful should be regarded as protected speech. As such, is there arises a personal injury or defamation issue, let it be addressed as such, where people make their case in court, as opposed to the government opting to censor people in defence of the claimed offence of another.

And finally, can we consider for a moment that the world is filled with people who have a reason to be offensive to others. Therefore, if you allow people to have power over how you see yourself, or even over your emotions, by allowing them the ability to offend you, then you might be part of the problem (seeing that offence is – afterall – subjective); and this is because you essentially delegated the power to offend you to those people. Whose speech you found offensive. They are responsible for what they say, and you are responsible for how you respond. I mean the Lord Jesus was told he performed miracles through the enablement of the devil, accused of blaspheming God, and more – and yet, He did not take offence from the persecution he suffered, and still died for all (including those who killed Him) to receive salvation.  Therefore, offense is a problem that primarily originates and lies with the person who is offended.

WHY DOES THE UK HAVE A FREE SPEECH PROBLEM?

So, now that we’ve undressed the flaw behind the rationale behind restrictions on free speech, let’s deal with the question behind Nigel Farage’s hearing in the US, which is: Why does the UK have a free speech problem. If we are being fundamentalist in our approach, I would argue that the origins of this problem can be articulated in considering the fact that the US has something the UK doesn’t have, namely a First Amendment. Of course, we know that there are those who wish the US didn’t have it either, including the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, because they see the First Amendment (and in particular, its extensive protections of free speech) as obstructive to his plans. BUT, not only does the UK not have a First Amendment, it doesn’t have a constitution either, and that makes for a significant concern, especially at a time when free speech has little currency with Gen Z and even less with the new UK Labour government – so much so that many are saying the UK has become a police state.

Furthermore, in the United Kingdom censorship has been applied to various forms of expression such as the media, cinema, entertainment venues, literature, theatre and criticism of the monarchy. And while there is no general right to free speech in the UK, British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law, and since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied in British law through the Human Rights Act.

Then, current law also allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace, sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications; and more. And so, there is a more clearly defined and long list of speech that is probematised in the UK, than there is comprehensive law that protects the freedom to speak freely.

This is a problem for two reasons: first, free speech is an inalienable right, which not only means that it is absolute and not in the purview of any government to limit or take away, but also means that it should be well protected in legislation. Secondly, this attitude of focusing more on speech that the government problematises ignores crucial historical context, which is that atrocities were often committed by governments who undermined or took away essential freedoms like the freedom to speak freely, and not people who had too much freedom. Therefore, the jurisprudence of any nation with an accurate understanding of history should highlight free speech as a protectionist right, that serves to prevent against government abuses of power and citizens. But, here’s more on the UK not having a written constitution, and not having explicit legal protections for free speech.

What Austen Morgan is essentially advocating for is that the UK considers becoming a constitutional republic; and for clarity, a nation is considered a constitutional republic if: (1) It has a constitution that limits the government’s power; and (2) the citizens choose their own heads of state and other governmental officials. If you’ve followed one of our programmes here on LN24 International, called ‘Starting Point’, you’d recall a discussion we had on Constitutional Republicanism, even going on to distinguish it from democracy. And the essence is that constitutional republicanism, establishes a law of the land in the constitution that is meant to establish the rights of citizens and the powers of the government, in a manner aimed at preventing against abuses of power from government branches, and also preventing against the tyranny of the majority – which is what democracy tends to produce.

And Austen Morgan is certainly right – what an explicitly written constitution would accomplish is giving Britons constitutionally enshrined rights (which would encourage more protections of those rights, when people know their scope), while also providing a means of curbing the wrong interpretations of activist judges, whose own interpretations of the law become part of the problem. But, here is more on the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic, in the context of the US, which is where this discussion has been prevalent.

NON-CRIME HATE INCIDENTS AND THE CASE OF ALISON PEARSON

Let’s proceed to discuss non crime hate incidents (as flag earlier), along with the case of Alison Pearson, who had the police knocking on her door this Remembrance Sunday. They had come to warn her they were investigating a tweet she had posted a whole year ago which someone had complained about. They were investigating whether it constituted a Non-Crime Hate Incident or NCHI. And yes, police are sanctioned to respond to a ‘non-crime’ hate incident, which is nothing short of intimidation and coercion towards silence; because if it is decidedly not a crime, despite potentially being hateful, then why are POLICE addressing it?

Secondly, even the definition of hateful speech is incredibly subjective and highly influenced by context. For instance, the “N” word is generally regarded as a hateful and derogatory term, however, some African Americans claim to have appropriated it and use it among themselves in a lighter meaning that is meant to invoke some comradery. However, there are also those who would argue that appropriation of a derogatory word does not erase its original meaning, and that, therefore, its use by those it was meant to oppress only serves as a continuation of its racist or colonial intention, except that those it was meant to oppress choose to think it does not carry the derogatory meaning. And I tend to agree with this latter view, because words carry definite meaning; and just because you appropriate the word to mean something else, does not change its intended meaning. I make the same argument about words like “man” or “woman”, with respect to the trans agenda.

But, I say all of this to say that despite my perceptions of the use of the “N” word, some people do not deem it hateful, and others do. Similarly, years ago, it was not potentially hateful to call a biological man a man, but today it’s a non-crime hate offence in the UK and other countries. And this is where it becomes obvious that the UK has become a police state: the government allows itself to define what is hateful, and further allows itself to allocate offence to certain speech – enough to then unleash police on citizens who say what the government does not want them to say – this is nothing short of autocracy!

ALISON PEARSON’S CASE AND THE PROBLEMS WITH ‘NON-CRIME HATE INCIDENTS’

What is worse is that this means that, in the UK, you can get a police record for something you posted on X that someone else didn’t like – when you haven’t even committed a crime! NCHIs are essentially a way they have of getting around the law in the same way John Kerry would like to get around the First Amendment, except it’s already being done in the UK!

But, Alison Pearson’s case further exposes the Problems with the Non-Crime Hate Incidents, and we ought to look at her case further. For some context, Alison Pearson is a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, but that certainly does not mean she can write what she likes – especially as a reporter, who should have journalistic integrity and credibility – and so she tried to ascertain what the problem tweet was. But, when she asked the police what the tweet that led to them investigating her was, she was told they couldn’t tell her that. When she asked who the complainant was, they said they couldn’t tell her that either. They added that she shouldn’t call them a complainant, they were officially the victim (which is just wild: it is the equivalent of saying an accused is guilty before a trial). BUT.. that’s what due process is like when you don’t have a First Amendment or a constitution! Victims of NCHI in the UK are decided without a trial or a defence.

Now, of course, there has been a public ruckus over this particular case, but the police are unapologetic and have doubled down. Stung into action by unwanted publicity, they are now saying they have raised the matter from an NCHI to an actual crime investigation. Which means they think she can be arrested and put in prison for expressing her opinion on X. And of course they are right. In the UK that’s where we are right now. Pearson tried to point out the irony of two police officers turning up on her door to complain about her free speech on Remembrance Day of all days, when we recall the thousands who died to keep this a free country, but irony is lost on those who have no memory of what totalitarianism means.

EVEN MORE CONCERNING is that these police are sanctioned or enabled by a government that should be protecting its people! However, instead, in a woke culture with explicitly (and sometimes perpetually) defined victims, governments will tip toe around people committing crimes, in the name of not offending the political minority – especially considering that a lot of these developments in the UK are tied to the Southport case, which involves an immigrant teenager accused of killing three girls and attempting to murder 10 others in a knife attack at a dance class.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The war against the cancer epidemic in children, and to begin with: for the first time in modern medical history, children as young as eight are being diagnosed with aggressive colon cancer—a phenomenon so rare it was virtually unheard of before 2021. But now, oncologists are breaking ranks, exposing what they call a “global epidemic” of fast-moving cancers directly linked to COVID-19 vaccines, while the medical authorities who once demanded blind faith in these shots have gone eerily silent as the many children get sick.

Against this backdrop, Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, who is a pioneering cancer researcher, recently dropped a bombshell during an interview with Tucker Carlson, by bluntly connecting the dots between mRNA vaccines and the surge in deadly cancers. His warning follows a flood of reports from frontline doctors witnessing bizarre, rapid-onset tumors in young patients—cases that they state defy decades of medical understanding. Meanwhile, Dr Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist from the University of London, has called for an outright ban on mRNA vaccines, declaring they have no place in medicine outside of terminal cancer cases; and this came as his research found mRNA fragments inside tumors, suggesting the shots may be fueling cancer growth.

More specifically, Dr Dalgleish highlighted that researchers have identified traces of mRNA within cancerous tumors, noting that this genetic material plays a role in their rapid growth and the aggressive spread of these cancers. He asserted, “Cancer caused by mRNA vaccines is a known outcome.” He subsequently issued a cautionary note, emphasising that mRNA vaccines should NOT be utilised as a preventive measure against cancer, as they are implicated in its causation!

Now, the timing of these cancers is undeniable. Before 2021, childhood cancers like glioblastoma and advanced colon cancer were statistical anomalies. Now, pediatric oncology wards are filling with cases that progress at terrifying speeds—what doctors now call “turbo cancers.” Yet instead of investigating, public health agencies and pharmaceutical giants have doubled down on censorship, smearing dissenting experts as “conspiracy theorists” while quietly updating vaccine injury compensation programs to include cancer claims. The term “turbo cancer” isn’t even a recognised medical term, yet doctors continue to report aggressive cancer cases, in adults and young children without a history of medical issues!

Not only that but the parallels to past medical scandals are chilling. Just as Big Tobacco buried evidence linking smoking to lung cancer for decades, the COVID vaccine pushers—from the FDA to Pfizer—are gaslighting the public while children suffer. Evidently, history repeats itself when profit outweighs ethics. The same institutions that lied about opioids, asbestos, and Agent Orange are now dismissing vaccine injuries as “anecdotal.” But with doctors like Dr Soon-Shiong and Dr Dalgleish risking their careers to speak out, how long can the facade hold? As grieving parents demand answers, one question burns: If vaccines are safe, why are the architects of this experiment refusing to debate their critics in the open? And this is one of those questions that say a lot more than any possible answer. But, here is Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong revealing what is evidently concerning data: which reports aggressive prostate cancers in men as young as 40-50, and colon cancer in kids aged 10-12. And the culprit is a prostate enzyme (called TMPRSS2) that helps spike proteins invade cells faster, accelerating cancer growth.

STUDIES ARE LINKING mRNA JABS TO THE ACCELERATION OF CANCER GROWTH

Adding to what Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong and Dr Angus Dalgleish are warning about, studies are actually linking mRNA jabs to the acceleration of cancer growth. For instance, in a groundbreaking landmark study titled “Synthetic mRNA Vaccines and Transcriptomic Dysregulation: Evidence from New-Onset Adverse Events and Cancers Post-Vaccination” – researchers discovered that COVID-19 mRNA injections can trigger profound, long-lasting genetic dysregulation in individuals who develop new-onset adverse events or cancer following vaccination.

The study was conducted by scientists from Neo7Bioscience (namely Dr John Catanzaro, Dr Natalia von Ranke, Dr Wei Zhang, and Dr Philipp Anokin), as well as researchers from the University of North Texas (namely Dr Danyang Shao, Dr Ahmad Bereimipour, and Minh Vu), as well as researchers from the McCullough Foundation (being Dr Peter McCullough – himself – and Dr Nicolas Hulscher) and also Kevin McKernan from Medicinal Genomics. So, using high-resolution RNA sequencing of blood samples and differential gene expression analysis, the researchers found that COVID-19 “vaccines” severely disrupted the expression of thousands of genes—inducing mitochondrial failure, immune system reprogramming, and oncogenic activation that persisted for months to years after injection!

These findings strongly suggest 3 alarming ramifications. First, these findings suggest that mRNA vaccines can induce gene expression profiles consistent with tumor formation and chronic disease. Secondly, this also suggests that mRNA-vaccinated individuals may be at heightened risk of cancer, immune dysfunction, and inflammatory disorders. Finally, the synthetic mRNA and long-lasting spike protein appear to create sustained cellular stress that disrupts normal genetic regulation. And so, evidently, it is time for the immediate withdrawal of these dangerous gene therapies to protect the population still considering booster doses.

DNA IN THE VACCINE VIALS MAY BE CAPABLE OF CHANGING HUMAN DNA

Now, since the introduction of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, some members of the public have been concerned that the vaccines may modify the human gene by combining their sequences with the human genome. However, “Fact-checkers” refuted this, stating that mRNA cannot be changed into DNA. Yet Mr. McKernan’s earlier work shows that DNA in the vaccine vials may be capable of changing human DNA. And it’s not only Kevin McKernan: human biologist, professor Ulrike Kämmerer, PhD, at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany conducted earlier stages of this research. Exposing breast and ovarian human cancer cells to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, Ms. Kämmerer found that around half of the cells expressed the COVID-19 spike protein on their cellular surface, indicating they had absorbed the vaccines.

Well, Kevin McKernan (who was among the researchers of the study we just referenced) – he then performed gene sequencing and found that these cells, as well as their descendant cells, contained vaccine DNA. After this, he tested to see if any vaccine DNA combined with the cancer cell DNA, a process known as DNA integration. Integration is more of a concern in healthy cells than cancer cells since it disrupts cells’ genetic stability and integrity, increasing cancer risk. However, because cancer cells already have unstable DNA, the effects of DNA integration are less clear. Currently, in biomedical research, most experiments are carried out in cancer cell lines as they are easier to obtain, experiment on, and maintain in the laboratory. Mr. McKernan detected vaccine DNA sequences on two chromosomes in the cancer cell lines: chromosome 9 and chromosome 12. The sequencing machine detected both instances of integration twice. It is important to get two readings of the DNA integration to ensure the integration is not a result of misreading or random error. Mr. McKernan said it is unsurprising that integration was only detected on two chromosomes with two readings of each integration. This is because integration is rare, and the genes must be sequenced many times to get more sensitive results.

PFIZER’S COVID-19 JAB GOES INTO LIVER CELLS AND IS CONVERTED TO DNA

By the way, this issue is seen also with liver cells. According to Swedish researchers at Lund University, the mRNA  from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA! SO, the researchers found that when the mRNA vaccine enters the human liver cells, it triggers the cell’s DNA, which is inside the nucleus, to increase the production of the LINE-1 gene expression to make mRNA. The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enters the cell’s cytoplasm, where it translates into LINE-1 protein. A segment of the protein called the open reading frame-1, or ORF-1, then goes back into the nucleus, where it attaches to the vaccine’s mRNA and reverse transcribes into spike DNA. Now, reverse transcription is when DNA is made from RNA, whereas the normal transcription process involves a portion of the DNA serving as a template to make an mRNA molecule inside the nucleus. And of course you can conduct your own research about, especially the difference between the normal and reverse transcription process.

However, what remains important to note from this information is this: this whole process of reverse transcription occurred rapidly within six hours. And yet… the vaccine’s mRNA converting into DNA and being found inside the cell’s nucleus is something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said would not happen! And so, they lied about the relationship between the mRNA jab and the human DNA – something that the President of Loveworld Inc. has always made plain: mRNA affects, and makes editable, the human DNA!

VACCINE MANUFACTURERS KNEW THE VACCINES COULD CAUSE CANCER

By the way, this is not new information for vaccine manufacturers – they knew vaccines have this effect on DNA, and were especially aware of the cancer causing capacity or mRNA. In fact, Pfizer put cancer causing agents in their vaccine!

So, all of this, explains why mRNA vaccines are linked to cancer, but why doctors are seeing a surge in cancers in children – it is a ramification of the mass COVID vaccination campaign!

FOOD COMPANIES ARE ALSO CULPABLE FOR THE CANCER EPIDEMIC IN CHILDREN 

Let’s bring in food companies as additional culprits in the childhood cancer epidemic – and we especially have to focus on herbicide producers. Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are the world’s most widely used weed control agents. Public health concerns have increased since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015. To further investigate the health effects of glyphosate and Glyphosate-based herbicides, the Ramazzini Institute launched the Global Glyphosate Study (GGS), which is designed to test a wide range of toxicological outcomes.

For the duration of the study, glyphosate and two GBHs, Roundup Bioflow used in the European Union (EU) and RangerPro used in the U.S., were administered to male and female Sprague–Dawley rats, beginning at gestational day 6 (via maternal exposure) through to 104 weeks of age; and glyphosate was administered through drinking water at three doses.

Well, the findings from the study showed that in all 3 treatment groups, statistically significant dose-related increased trends or increased incidences of benign and malignant tumors at multiple anatomic sites were observed compared to historical and concurrent controls. These tumors arose in haemolymphoreticular tissues (leukemia), skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovary, mammary gland, adrenal glands, kidney, urinary bladder, bone, endocrine pancreas, uterus and spleen (hemangiosarcoma). Increased incidences occurred in both sexes. Most of these involved tumors that are rare in Sprague–Dawley rats (with a background incidence of less than 1%) and yet after exposure ot the GBHs, 40% of leukemias deaths in the treated groups occurred before 52 weeks of age and increased early deaths were also observed for other solid tumors. This tells us that these GBHs, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are highly carcinogenic!

But, the study referenced, while it does predominantly focus on rats, is intended to show the dangers that emanate from GBHs. And so, I think not only does it offer insight for the rise of cancers in children, but jarring also in pets. Which I think is a massive indicator because pets are most exposed to environmental factors, that might be a cause for concerns – from food, to vaccines and household chemicals. For instance, the average life of a golden retriever used to be 17 years, but now it is in the single digits, and they often die from cancer or diabetes. Evidently, this tells us that there must be a change in environmental factors that needs to be investigated, especially given that these changes are parallel to the epidemic of cancer in children.

On top of this, it is crucial to remember that the current American agriculture system origin story involves large chemical companies – if you got a chance to follow the expose of food companies on one of our programmes called ‘Starting Point’ here on LN24 International, you would have noted that Monsanto, for instance, was one of nine wartime government contractors who manufactured Agent Orange from 1965 to 1969. As a result, in the status quo, 85% of the food people consume started from a patented seed sold by a chemical corporation that was responsible for creating a chemical weapon that was used in the Vietnam War, and has biological ramifications that are still felt even today!

AGROCHEMICAL COMPANIES ARE TAKING A PAGE FROM BIG PHARMA’S PLAYBOOK

And yet, in the midst of these concerns, Agrochemical companies are taking a page from big pharma’s playbook, in that they are seeking a TOTAL liability shield against claims against them! This is to say that while the pesticides that agrochemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto utilize have been “linked to cancer, to learning disabilities, to infertility, to hormone disruption … and they impact children more than the rest of us..” they are, nevertheless, fighting for a liability shield to prevent people from taking legal action against them for injury and death.

And so, just like vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the harms their vaccines cause, agrochemical companies, like Bayer are seeking similar protections. While Congress has allocated a special fund for those who have been injured by vaccines, the chemical companies are proposing no such plans.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso