free speech Archives - LN24

Trump Regulator Making Sure The “Debanking” Era Officially Over

LN24 — Fri, 07 Nov 2025 07:45:20 +0000

Regulator Cracks Down on “Debanking” Practices

Ensuring Big Banks Respect Customers’ Rights

A top banking regulator is taking decisive action to put an end to the era of “debanking,” a practice where big banks deny services to individuals and businesses based on their political beliefs, industry, or ideology. This move comes after numerous instances of banks, including Google, Paypal, and Amazon, cancelling accounts and restricting access to financial services for those who held dissenting views on topics like the origins of Covid-19 and the BLM movement.

Under the Biden administration, several banks were accused of blacklisting entire sectors, such as firearms, and denying services to individuals based on their political affiliations, with a noticeable bias against non-Democrats. However, Jonathan Gould, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), has announced that supervisors are now closely monitoring banks to ensure they have ceased these discriminatory practices. This oversight is a direct result of a June executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which explicitly directs banks to refrain from denying services based on industry type or political considerations. Reuters reports that supervisors are working to ensure the largest banks are in compliance with this updated approach, marking a significant shift in the banking sector’s treatment of customers.

The practice of debanking has been shrouded in secrecy, with only specialists openly discussing its implications. However, its effects can be devastating, denying individuals and businesses access to essential financial services without any recourse or appeal. The issue has sparked concern among advocates, including Christian organizations and conservatives, who claim to have been targeted by these practices. Notably, former First Lady Melania Trump has spoken out about her own experience with debanking, revealing that she and her son Barron were victims of this practice in 2021, after her husband left office. The Trump family has been vocal about the concerted efforts to erase their legacy, with Eric Trump sharing his family’s ordeal.

Banks Denying Services Based on Political Views

What is the main purpose of banks?

· Keep money safe for customers

· Offer customers interest on deposits, helping to protect against money losing value against inflation

· Lend money to firms, customers and homebuyers

· Offer financial advice and related financial services, such as insuranceBanks are intermediaries between depositors (who lend money to the bank) and borrowers (to whom the bank lends money)

This should be the scope of all commercial banks. However, debanking is a form of main stream cancel culture and this is what prophecy has told us about cancel culture.

Debanking: The Nigel Farage Case study

The banking systems were being utilized to exert social and political control, as evidenced by the compliance of Canadian banks with Trudeau’s request to freeze the bank accounts of truckers involved in the Canadian Freedom protests. Banks actively played politics, mirroring the actions of PayPal and other payment gateways, which froze the accounts of journalists. Graham Phillips, an independent journalist reporting from the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, had his assets completely frozen last year by UK authorities for merely reporting the truth about the conflict. Alina Lipp, a German journalist living in Donbas, was labeled a Russian terrorist and criminally charged by German authorities for her pro-Russian reporting, resulting in the shutdown of her bank accounts and those of her father. In the US, JP Morgan Chase allegedly severed ties with the faith-based non-profit National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF) last year, although the bank has since denied doing so due to the organization’s religious and political views. In 2023, Nigel Farage’s bank announced that it was closing his accounts, a decision that came without initial explanation, despite the controversial UK politician having been a customer for 40 years. Since then, Farage had attempted to open accounts at nine other banks but was unsuccessful. Banking discrimination was not limited to political figures like Farage or high-profile journalists, as banks were actively targeting individuals, with the National Australia Bank (NAB) announcing a plan to ‘cut off’ customers accused of being financial abusers, a practice known as ‘debanking’, which involves suspending, cancelling, or denying access to accounts.

Journalists reported that Nigel Farage had his bank account closed by Coutts, a prestigious bank catering to affluent clients, which is owned by the National Westminster Bank, a institution largely controlled by the British government since the 2008 banking crisis. As a prominent figure, Farage was instrumental in the 2016 referendum vote for Britain to leave the European Union, earning him both admiration and detestation from the public. Investigators found that Farage, who had been acquainted with Donald Trump, had voiced opposition to extreme transgender ideology and the pursuit of zero emissions, but had not been implicated in any illegal activities. Despite this, Coutts terminated his account, although the bank acknowledged that Farage had always conducted himself in a polite and courteous manner in his dealings with them.

Bank documents revealed that the institution perceived significant reputational risks in associating with N F, given his high profile and the substantial amount of adverse press surrounding him. Although he had no criminal convictions, his commentary and behaviours were deemed to be at odds with the bank’s purpose and values. The bank took issue with his comments and articles on ESG and diversity and inclusion, which did not align with their views or purpose. One document highlighted N F’s history of contentious actions, including his role in campaigning for Britain’s exit from Europe on stringent terms, his opposition to Covid restrictions, and his revived hostility towards addressing the climate emergency. The document also criticized his stance on “disinformation”, citing specific tweets in which he opposed clamping down on the spread of false information. These findings were compiled into a 40-page dossier, which was the result of extensive research and labour, funded by the bank’s depositors and shareholders, including the government, and were intentionally included in the bank’s files.

As much as Mr. Farage may not always be right, but the real issue was whether banks had the authority to scrutinize their clients’ views and deny them service if those views conflicted with those of the chief executive. Banks were actively examining the political beliefs of their clients, sparking concerns about their role in society. The chief executive of Coutts’ parent bank, Alison Rose, had explicitly stated that tackling climate change and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion were central to the bank’s purpose, but it appeared that this diversity did not extend to individuals with conservative views or those with less than $1 million to deposit. Investigations revealed that when Mr. Farage initially announced that Coutts had closed his account, the bank claimed it was due to insufficient funds, but documents obtained by Mr. Farage later proved that the account was closed for purely political reasons. Furthermore, Mr. Farage alleged that nine other banks, acting as a cartel, had refused to open accounts for him, demonstrating a disturbing trend of financial institutions suppressing freedom of opinion.

Bank refuses to open account for parental rights group opposing ‘trans’ surgeries for kids

We also uncovered that another UK-based bank, Metro Bank, had refused to open a business account for a parental rights group, Our Duty, which opposed transgender surgeries for children. The bank’s spokesman attributed the decision to commercial reasons, but the group believed it was due to their political stance. Metro Bank had recently allied itself with pro-LGBT ideology, joining most major UK banks in promoting this cause.

The actions taken against Mr. Farage and the parental rights group served as a warning to the wealthy to conform to the prevailing ideology or risk losing access to their funds. The Canadian government’s introduction of bank bail-in legislation and the potential implementation of a centralized digital currency raised concerns about the erosion of individual freedoms, particularly the ability to control one’s own body and make choices about healthcare, such as vaccine status. With the ability to withhold funds, individuals might be forced to comply with certain requirements, such as taking quarterly vaccinations, in order to access basic necessities like food and housing. As the regulator continues to crack down on debanking, it remains to be seen how this will impact the banking sector and its treatment of customers. One thing is certain, however: the era of debanking is officially over, and big banks are being held accountable for their actions.

The Intersection Between National Sovereignty and Free Speech

LN24 — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 07:59:12 +0000

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 in Orem, Utah. The State Department has 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. As you would expect, 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. And so, in the status quo, we see an interesting intersection between national sovereignty and free speech – in what is a fairly simple contention to resolve.

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

President Trump Honors Charlie Kirk as ‘Martyr for American Freedom’ at Memorial Service

LN24 — Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:55:54 +0000

U.S. President Donald Trump delivered an emotional tribute to Charlie Kirk during a memorial service held in Arizona on Sunday, calling the conservative activist a “martyr now for American freedom.”

Kirk, 31, was shot and killed during a speaking event at a Utah university earlier last week in what authorities have described as a targeted attack. The investigation is ongoing, and officials have not yet released a motive.

Speaking before a packed audience of supporters, family, and political allies, Trump praised Kirk as “a great American patriot, a fighter, and a true believer in liberty.”

“Charlie didn’t just talk about freedom he lived it. And now, tragically, he died for it. He is a martyr, and we will never forget his sacrifice,” Trump said.

Presidential Medal of Freedom to Be Awarded Posthumously

In one of the most powerful moments of the service, Trump announced his intention to posthumously award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, citing his contributions to youth political engagement and free speech advocacy.

“Charlie Kirk will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom because that’s what heroes deserve,” Trump said, drawing a standing ovation.

The medal would mark a symbolic tribute to Kirk’s legacy as the founder of Turning Point USA, a prominent conservative youth organization that played a key role in energizing young Republican voters across the country.

Background: A Controversial but Influential Figure

Charlie Kirk was a prominent conservative commentator, activist, and staunch ally of Trump. Through his platform at Turning Point USA, he became one of the most recognized faces of the American right-wing youth movement. He frequently appeared on conservative news programs, college campuses, and at political rallies.

While lauded by supporters for defending free-market capitalism, religious liberty, and conservative values, Kirk was often criticized by opponents for promoting divisive rhetoric and misinformation on issues ranging from election integrity to public health.

Security Concerns and Ongoing Investigation

Kirk’s shooting has sent shockwaves across the political spectrum, raising urgent questions about security at public political events and the potential escalation of political violence in the United States.

Authorities have yet to confirm whether the attack was politically motivated. Federal and state law enforcement agencies are involved in the investigation. President Trump urged for “swift justice” during his speech and called on Americans to “unite against hate, no matter where it comes from.”

A Nation Divided and Mourning

Reactions to Kirk’s death and Trump’s remarks have highlighted the deepening political divide in America. While conservatives have largely hailed Kirk as a fallen hero, critics have expressed concern over the politicization of the tragedy and the language being used in its aftermath.

Still, Trump’s comments at the memorial struck a note of solemnity and resolve:

“Charlie’s voice has been silenced, but his message will echo for generations. We will carry the torch he lit. We will stand strong, just as he did.”

Police and Protesters Scuffle as 110,000 Join Anti Migrant London Protest

LN24 — Sun, 14 Sep 2025 17:33:24 +0000

More than 100,000 people marched through central London on Saturday in what has been described as one of the UK’s biggest right wing demonstrations in recent decades. The event, organized by far‑right activist Tommy Robinson under the banner “Unite the Kingdom”, focused on anti‑immigration messages and free speech. Protesters carried flags of England and Britain, as well as some American and Israeli flags, and many wore “MAGA” hats.

The Metropolitan Police estimated the crowd at around 110,000, a turnout that reportedly overwhelmed expectations police sources said parts of the approved route, especially Whitehall, were too full to accommodate all protesters.A counter‑protest was organized by Stand Up to Racism, drawing about 5,000 people.

Clashes & Police Response

Although much of the march was peaceful, tensions boiled over in several places. Officers said some protesters attempted to veer off the approved route, trying to enter “sterile areas” meant to keep opposing groups apart. Confrontations involved hurling of bottles and flares, physical assaults (kicks, punches), and verbal abuse. The police described the violence from some participants as “unacceptable.”

A total of 26 officers were injured, four of them seriously, in the course of the events. Around 25 arrests were made, with authorities warning more are likely as investigations continue.

Organisers & Messaging

Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley‑Lennon) delivered a speech framing the march as a defense of British heritage, free speech, and national identity. In his address, he claimed that migration policies had eroded rights of native Britons and called for political change. Supporters echoed such themes, carrying signs reading “send them home” among others.

Besides domestic figures, the rally attracted international voices. Elon Musk addressed attendees via video linkage, criticizing the UK government and lamenting what he described as cultural erosion. French far‑right politician Éric Zemmour also appeared via video, invoking ideas such as the “great replacement” theory.

Political & Social Context

Immigration has increasingly become one of the UK’s most talked about and divisive issues. Record numbers of asylum applications and migrant arrivals via small boats across the Channel have stirred strong public emotions. This march, following a summer of anti‑immigration protests including outside hotels where migrants were being housed reflects significant social tensions.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged the right to peaceful protest but condemned the violence and what he called the misuse of national symbols to instil fear. He emphasized Britain’s values of diversity and tolerance.

Why It Matters & What Comes Next

The scale of this protest marks a possible turning point for the far‑right in Britain. Analysts warn that such large mobilisations give increased visibility and legitimacy to fringe views that previously operated on the margins. The involvement of foreign figures like Elon Musk furthers this sense of global resonance with the UK’s far‑right movements.

Questions remain about how law enforcement and politicians will respond. There may be tighter regulation of protests, especially in sensitive areas. Legal action against those who broke the route or engaged in violence seems likely. Also under scrutiny is the interplay between online radicalisation, political speech, and public safety.

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

LN24 — Fri, 12 Sep 2025 09:50:08 +0000

THE ASSASSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK: PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ADDRESS

The assassination of Charlie Kirk, and to begin with, president Donald Trump announced the passing of Charlie Kirk after he was shot at an event at Utah Valley University. In his announcement, he detailed that his administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to the atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after American judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to the US.

President Trump exclaimed that he is filled with grief and anger at the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk on a college campus, adding that Charlie inspired millions. Referencing to all-so-recent violent occurrences in the US, President Trump added that from the attack on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others. Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. He then asked all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died, the values of free speech, citizenship, and the rule of law.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION IS ONGOING

Secondly, regarding details of the assassinaton, as far as the shooting is concerned, as we mentioned this incident occurred on a college campus. The suspect in the shooting is not yet in custody, according to a spokesperson from Utah Valley University, despite saying earlier the police did have someone in custody. In addition, former FBI Agent Stuart Kaplan shared that Charlie Kirk’s Assassination was a “professional hit”, which would add the implication that this was an organised and possibly even funded effort.

IT IS NOTABLE THAT CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS

But, there is a slightly less shocking realisation to the fact that Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a college campus. He often visited college campuses and encouraged debate. He was famous for fielding extremely hostile questions and answering them civilly—the antithesis of those, such as his killer, who silence their opponents with violence.

However, in recent years, many college campuses have become dark, atavistic places of ideological possession and rage – so much so that thirty-four percent of college students recently said they supported using violence in some circumstances to stop a campus speech. More specifically, for years now, institutions of higher learning have exhibited dwindling student tolerance for opposing viewpoints, and this year is the worst yet. A new nationwide survey conducted by my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and College Pulse shows that 34% of college students believe that using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable in some cases. Since 2021, that share has risen from 24 percent, which was already unacceptably high.

And so, this data is grim. More college students than ever believe that, at least in some rare circumstances, it can be acceptable for their peers to engage in violence to stop speech they don’t like. This is extremely troubling, because violence in response to speech is how our culture of free expression — and the civil society it creates — begins to crumble completely. When it comes to violence, even “rarely” is too often. And yet, a majority of students — cutting across both liberal and conservative ideological lines, by the way — oppose their schools allowing controversial speakers on campus. And more than two-thirds of students believe it’s acceptable for their peers to engage in the so-called heckler’s veto, shouting down a planned speech with the explicit intention of preventing it from being heard. In addition, more than half of surveyed students believe that physically blocking entry into such an event can be permissible.

But, as alarming as these findings are, unfortunately, they are also not very surprising. For one thing, this has been going on for a long time; FIRE has been issuing these surveys for six years, and each has produced more concerning results than the last. The data is also reflective of an overall polarization in the US and a calcifying antagonism toward perspectives that differ from one’s own.

HOWEVER, there are deeper and more consequential implications at play here as well. The preferences expressed by these students undermine principles that are not just foundational, but fundamental to higher education: and these are principles of open debate, free inquiry, and exposure to differing viewpoints. They are also the pillars of American civil society that are increasingly falling out of favour. Nothing good can come from this — especially when violence is on the table. In fact, democracy requires deliberation and debate. It is premised upon the notion that no one person or group possesses the absolute truth, and as a result they should not possess absolute power or control. When we become so convinced that we are right that we are willing to use force rather than argument to impose our will upon others, democracy dies.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS PERPETUATING THE PROBLEM THAT FUELS VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY

Speaking of an inclination to violence, to underscore the abyss of stupidity in which the political Left has sunk in America, MSNBC Host Katy Tur said on her show—while breaking the news—that Kirk is “divisive” and “polarizing.” Then, one of Tur’s guests on the show, Matthew Dowd—who ran for Lieutenant Governor of Texas as a Democrat in 2021— said, “We don’t know… if this was a supporter shooting their guns off in celebration.” Dowd, who was the chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, is an expression of the diabolical alliance between Bush era ghouls and today’s Democrat establishment.

Well, immediately following this, a statement from MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler was released, which stated that (quote): “During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.” In addition, Matthew Dowd has also been fired from MSNBC after blaming Charlie Kirk for his own death, in light of Kirk’s Support for gun ownership. It’s incredible to see that Charlie Kirk’s passing has inspired a sense of remorse in the mainstream media, and I hope it does not only become manifest in instances where a person has died.

THE LEFT TRIED TO USE KIRK’S DEATH TO DRUM UP SUPPORT AGAINST THE 2ND AMENDMENT

But, to further the discussion, I’d like to once again respond to the frankly now aggravating misplaced talk about the second amendment and gun ownership in instances where a person dies. However, people minimise the intent of the second amendment, because it is rather incredibly valuable in the grand scheme of things. In more detail, the Second Amendment was originally intended to provide states with the ability to rapidly stand up a militia if needed to push back against federal oppression. As such, the argument that “guns won’t stop a government” comes from a place of defeatism and misunderstanding. Sure, firearms cannot counter a nuclear strike, but that is not the point. The sheer number of guns in America, more than one per person, makes a ground invasion by any foreign power a logistical nightmare. Unlike countries with stricter gun laws, such as those in the UK or Canada, the US is uniquely fortified by its armed populace. Would it be chaotic and bloody? Absolutely. But it would never be a walkover. Therefore, the Second Amendment acts as a powerful deterrent against both foreign and domestic threats on a large scale.

Secondly, it is possible to infer that the existence of the Second Amendment has slowed down a number of so-called “new world order” and big government agendas. This is considering that the American Founding Fathers did not enshrine this right for minor disputes; they designed it to prevent a tyrannical government from overreaching, drawing a clear line in the sand after breaking free from British rule under King George III. They wanted a system that empowered citizens to resist oppression, distinct from the monarchical control they escaped. And so, ultimately, the 2nd Amendment insures that the people are sufficiently respected by governmental authority to deter those who would use government power to strip them of their rights. Which is what Charlie Kirk advocated for.

However, when a shooting does occur, it is easy to see the weapon as the reason for the loss of life. But, here’s how we can think about it: if the shooter did not have a gun, would they also not have the same motive to kill? And chances are, they would likely still have the motive to kill, and would have found other ways to do it. Afterall, we’ve all heard of cases of domestic violence, or terror attacks where it was not a gun that was the primary weapon.

But, the truth is, using Charlie Kirk’s assassination through a gun is only a cover for the evil motives that lie beneath what liberals and Democrats stand for. And I think this was perhaps demonstrated by the fact that Democrats protested praying for Charlie Kirk before they learnt of his passing. In what was one of the most repulsive and evil things ever seen, just before we learned Charlie had passed, Republicans tried to lead a prayer on the House floor – praying for his recovery after he was tragically shot. The Democrats started booing and yelling at them. And yet, it is their rhetoric that often influences these sorts of behaviours! Kindly watch this.

THE LEFT IS THE VIOLENT DANGER THEY PRETENTIOUSLY WARN ABOUT

Shaun Maguire put it aptly when he said, “The Left lectured us for the last decade about the dangers of violence from the Right. But, from the assassination attempts of President Trump, to Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare CEO, being murdered, and now to Charlie Kirk – all this exposes that the danger was actually on the Left. They are the ones who peddle violence against opposents, and actually take violent actions! They are the ones who applaud public speeches relishing the thought of killing Trump and his supporters. They are the ones who applaud as being an artistic edge, artists who make music videos or portrayals of Trump being beaten and fatally shot – they stand behind this, and perpetuate it themselves.

THE MURDERS OF CONSERVATIVE NEWS PERSONALITIES INDICATES A WAR ON PRESS FREEDOMS

You’d recall that we discussed here on The War Room earlier this year the murder of an info wars reporter. In essence, while limitations on press freedoms were being placed on journalists in Ukraine, people like Jaime White were exposing the atrocities of the Ukrainian government. While this was happening, Jamie White, not only covered the proxy war in Ukraine, but posted on X on the 12th of June, in the year 2024, that he found out that he was on the Ukrainian ‘Enemies List’ due to his reporting work on the Ukraine proxy war. In addition, the group that is said to have compiled this so-called ‘Enemies List’ is tied to the US State Dept, USAID, CIA and George Soros.

With this in mind, and considering the fact that the report from law enforcement says that Jaime White was killed by car burglars – here is why I think this connection between Jaime White and the Ukraine proxy is important to consider in light of his unacceptable and the broader war on press freedom. First, if he reported in June 2024 (which is before the second Trump administration and DOGE) that the so-called ‘Enemies List’ he was put on is tied to the US State Dept, USAID, CIA and George Soros – then this should immediately raise alarms, as being one of the clandestine operations that USAID financed that resulted in the deaths of innocent people or oven specific figures of interest. I say this, because we now know that USAID (which is a CIA front) even funded terrorist organisations.

The second reason why this link between Jaime White and the Ukraine proxy war is important is because we now know that USAID funded operations in Ukraine; and those operations were not exclusively tied to financing what was (itself) an unjust war. Rather, these operations even include the coup in Ukraine in 2014, and even the killing of political opponents and persons of interests in and outside of Ukraine. All of this to say, that the US military industrial complex, has a vested interest in the proxy war in Ukraine, not only as a means for profit, but also as a tool of shaping geopolitics in Europe through NATO.

And so, if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a professional hit (which can be deduced from the circumstances), and also if Jaime was on a Ukrainian ‘Enemies List’ due to his reporting work on the Ukraine proxy war, then there very well could be an intentional targeting of the conservative media and prominent voices.

DEBATE AND DISCOURSE REMAIN PARAMOUNT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST DECEPTION

Finally, I think what remains unchanged is that debate and discourse remain paramount. Not only is the freedom of speech an inalienable, God-given right but it is instrumental to bridging gaps that fuel misunderstanding. I’ve followed Charlie Kirk for some time and had a genuine appreciation for his approach to engagement with the youth (while emphasising the Christian perspective), and I think it lies in part with the shared value for debating. Since literally the 6th grade when I took debating as an extra-curricular activity, to high school and university, where I was blessed with opportunities to travel to various countries and debate with students in high school and universities (on various matters, which included beating two Oxford university teams on a Brexit motion, to debating the merits of operation car wash and its role in Bolosanaro’s accession to power in Brazil) – with all of this, to many around the world, debate became more than an extracurricular activity, and became a tool for organised and meaningful discourse. Hear’s why:

First, debate (at least competitively) encourages one to form an antagonistic relationship with ignorance. And this is because those who want to do exceptionally, or deliver speeches with great impact, are compelled to learn the most and go beyond ideas that are on the surface – meaning that you genuinely always want to know so much that you can adequately deliver nuanced approaches to the subject of discussion.

Secondly, debate (when done in sincerity) demands the development and practice of compassion. This is because, often, you will have to debate motions that are trying to solve an issue that does not affect your immediate circumstance, but it will still be required of you to understand the characterisation and circumstances of the primary actors affected enough to contribute a meaningful solution to their crisis. It is why, despite never having lived in the UK, I care deeply about the fact that they do not have a written constitution, which has enabled the Labour government to perpetuate a war on free speech; it is also part the reason why so many of us around the world used various platforms of engagement to foster constructive discourse about the necessity of a second Trump administration, and analysing policy comparisons between him and Kamala Harris before the November 2024 election – despite the fact that we were NOT all Americans who would have an opportunity to cast a vote. Debate, make critical issues matter to you beyond on-the-surface consideration – even if they may seem factually distant to your everyday circumstances.

But then most importantly, debate is one of the most paramount means for facilitating civility among people who disagree, and is also a paramount tool in the fight against deception. This is to say that people are certainly not homogenous beings: people who come from different backgrounds, and are exposed to different information will not often share the views of those who’ve experienced different circumstances. Therefore, building on this concession, debate nevertheless promotes a structured engagement between different people and views, where what matters is who is able make the most compelling case – as opposed to relegating people to isolated thinking silos, where their ideas are never challenged. This is why, even here on ‘The War Room’, I make an effort to reference and display the views that I believe are contrary to truth and what I stand for, before proceeding to offer a refutation and direct response. This is because debate and constructive discourse invites others to share their views; it does not benefit from the censorship of others.

Similarly, debate is a paramount tool against deception – and Charlie Kirk understood this. In his engagements with youth in campuses, he demonstrated that often the disagreements that liberals promulgated against conservatives were based on distorted representations or strawmans of what conservatives actually stand for. He spent a lot of his time dispelling deception by making truth or facts apparent through direct engagement. And so, his activism for Christianity and conservative political ideas was effective for this: he welcomed debate from those who thought differently to him. And so, this is what I hope does not get lost.

I hope it is not lost on us that Charlie Kirk had a gift for embracing his critics, for refuting their arguments in open debate. He loved debate and he loved ideas. He believed in discussion and openness, and urged this country to open it up so that everyone had a place, not just those who agreed with codified claims of mainstream media. Kirk even ran a nationwide debating society, building it from its founding to a huge national presence. His talent for debate, more than any other force in the country, even played a significant role in President Trump winning the Gen Z vote in November 2024 – emphasising that debate is a powerful force capable of turning what was said to be one of the most liberal and political confused generations into a force that rallied behind God’s choice for America. But, here’s Charlie Kirk (himself) making the point himself that when people stop talking (meaning when debate and meaningful discourse stops), that is when bad things happen.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Trump to Posthumously Award Charlie Kirk Presidential Medal of Freedom

LN24 — Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:53:39 +0000

President Donald Trump announced today that conservative activist Charlie Kirk will be posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the United States. The announcement came during the annual 9/11 remembrance ceremony at the Pentagon.

Charlie Kirk, 31, was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, during a speaking event at Utah Valley University as part of his “American Comeback Tour.” Witnesses say he was struck by a single shot from a rooftop while addressing a crowd of about 3,000. Authorities have recovered a suspected bolt‑action rifle but the shooter remains at large.

“Charlie was a giant of his generation, a champion of liberty and an inspiration to millions and millions of people,” Trump said. “We miss him greatly, yet I have no doubt that Charlie’s voice and the courage he put into the hearts of countless people, especially young people, will live on.” He also expressed his condolences to Kirk’s wife Erika and their children.

A date for the formal award ceremony has not yet been set.

The House Judiciary Committee’s Hearing with UK MP Nigel Farage

LN24 — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:48:54 +0000

REFUTING THE RATIONALE BEHIND LIMITATIONS ON FREE SPEECH

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

Pope Leo XIV Calls for Release of Imprisoned Journalists in First Address to Media

LN24 — Tue, 13 May 2025 08:19:54 +0000

In a powerful first address to the global press, Pope Leo XIV issued a strong appeal for the release of journalists imprisoned worldwide, describing their detainment as an attack on truth and the public’s right to information.

Speaking before a packed audience of international media professionals at the Vatican on Monday, the newly elected Pope said, “Journalists are not enemies they are instruments of understanding and accountability. Let us not imprison truth by imprisoning those who seek to tell it.”

The address marked Pope Leo’s first formal remarks to the press following his election and the funeral of his predecessor. His tone was both pastoral and urgent as he warned of the growing threats to media freedom across continents, driven by rising authoritarianism, political polarization, and ideological hostility.

Pope Leo underscored the essential role of a free and ethical press in modern society. “We live in an age where disinformation travels faster than truth,” he said. “It is the duty of both journalists and leaders to fight this war of words not with weapons, but with facts, with integrity, and with courage.”

The pontiff’s remarks come amid rising global concerns about the treatment of journalists. According to press freedom organizations, dozens of reporters remain imprisoned in various countries, often under charges widely criticized as politically motivated.

Human rights groups and journalism watchdogs have welcomed the Pope’s remarks. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) issued a statement thanking Pope Leo for what it called “a much-needed moral stance at a time when journalism is under siege.”

While the Vatican did not name specific cases, Pope Leo’s comments are expected to resonate with governments and advocacy groups alike. His message aligns with a broader push among international institutions calling for greater protections for journalists and media workers, especially in conflict zones and repressive regimes.

Pope Leo’s speech also addressed the polarization of media discourse, urging reporters to reject ideological warfare and pursue peace through truth. “Your pen,” he said, “can be a sword that wounds or a light that heals. Choose to heal.”

With this statement, the new pontiff has not only outlined a vision for the Church’s engagement with the media but has also staked a moral position on one of the defining freedom-of-expression issues of the modern age.

Supreme Court Rejects Case on Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones, Upholding Restrictions Amid Free Speech Dispute

LN24 — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:32:34 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Monday not to hear a case about buffer zones that protect abortion clinics and reduce harassment of patients. Anti-abortion activists had argued that these zones violated their right to free speech.

The Court turned down appeals from activists in New Jersey and Illinois, who had sued after lower courts ruled against them. They wanted the Supreme Court to overturn a 2000 decision that upheld a similar law in Colorado.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito disagreed with the decision not to hear the case.

Buffer zones, which create a space around abortion clinics or keep protesters at a distance from patients and staff, have been debated in court for years. The issue is whether they limit free speech or are necessary to prevent harassment and violence from protesters.

The current Supreme Court has a conservative majority. In 2022, the Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, which had legalized abortion across the country. Since then, the topic of buffer zones has become more important. While some states have banned or heavily restricted abortion, certain cities in states where abortion is still legal have introduced buffer zones to reduce harassment at clinics.

In Carbondale, Illinois, a group called Coalition Life sued after the city passed a buffer zone law in 2023. The law created an 8-foot space around healthcare facilities to stop people from approaching others without permission. This law was later repealed but was modeled after a similar law in Colorado that the Supreme Court had upheld in 2000.

In March 2024, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, saying the activists couldn’t win as long as the 2000 ruling remained in place.

Justice Thomas disagreed with the decision not to reconsider the earlier ruling and said the Court missed the chance to fix it. The activists argued that buffer zones are often used to silence anti-abortion speech, especially when it’s most important.

Buffer Zones

A buffer zone is a designated area around a specific location, like an abortion clinic, where certain activities or actions are restricted to supposedly protect people from harm or harassment. In the case of abortion clinics, buffer zones are typically set up to prevent anti-abortion protesters from getting too close to patients, staff, or others entering or leaving the clinic.

These zones usually create a certain amount of distance—such as 8 feet or more—between protesters and people seeking medical services, so that patients aren’t harassed, intimidated, or obstructed on their way inside. The goal of a buffer zone is to ensure that people can access the clinic safely without being confronted by protesters or being subject to verbal or physical interference.

The legality of buffer zones has been debated because some people argue they limit free speech, while others believe they are necessary to protect individuals’ rights to access healthcare without being harassed or threatened.

Buffer zones around abortion clinics are a direct infringement on free speech and the right to peacefully protest. These zones essentially silence those who are exercising their First Amendment rights by preventing them from engaging in peaceful demonstrations. Anti-abortion activists are simply expressing their beliefs, and by limiting their ability to do so near clinics, buffer zones unfairly target their right to free expression.

Such laws are a tool used to restrict opposition to abortion and create an environment where only one viewpoint is allowed to be heard. These zones limit the ability of activists to provide information, offer support, or even pray near clinics, especially when their message might be most important to individuals considering abortion. Instead of ensuring safety or access, buffer zones are often used to silence voices of dissent.

The right to free speech and peaceful protest should never be undermined by laws that prioritize the comfort of those seeking abortion over the fundamental rights of others. Removing buffer zones would allow for a more open exchange of ideas and restore the balance between free expression and personal freedom.

EU Tech Chief Defends Digital Enforcement Amid Growing Criticism of Tech Giants

LN24 — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:54:44 +0000

As the European Union intensifies its efforts to regulate online platforms, the European Commission’s tech chief has faced mounting pressure from lawmakers to ramp up its enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA, which came into effect in late 2022, imposes stricter rules on tech platforms, aiming to curb harmful content, protect users, and hold online platforms accountable for their role in shaping public discourse.

In recent remarks to the European Parliament, the EU’s digital chief defended the Commission’s progress, despite calls for quicker action, particularly regarding high-profile platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and its billionaire owner Elon Musk. Lawmakers have raised concerns about foreign interference on social media and the pace at which the Commission is completing ongoing investigations into tech companies’ alleged violations of the DSA.

The Digital Services Act, passed in December 2020, is a landmark piece of legislation designed to hold online platforms accountable for the content they host and for ensuring the safety of their users. It covers a wide range of issues, from tackling illegal content to protecting user privacy, with specific focus on tech giants with a significant presence in the EU. Under the DSA, these platforms are required to take a proactive role in managing risks associated with the spread of harmful content, misinformation, and disinformation.

One of the key components of the DSA is the increased responsibility of platforms to monitor and control content while also providing more transparency about how they operate. This includes obligations around content moderation, data handling, and the provision of clear mechanisms for users to report harmful content. Platforms such as X, Facebook, and YouTube must now comply with EU standards, or face hefty fines and legal consequences.

Growing Criticism of the European Commission’s Enforcement

Despite the ambitious goals of the DSA, the European Commission has faced criticism from lawmakers, particularly regarding the pace at which it has pursued investigations into potential breaches of the law. The concern is especially pronounced when it comes to high-profile cases involving tech billionaires like Elon Musk, whose acquisition of Twitter (now X) has raised questions about the platform’s responsibility in curbing harmful content and foreign interference.

Lawmakers have called for a swifter response, urging the Commission to expedite pending investigations and impose penalties on companies that fail to comply with the new rules. The EU has faced heightened scrutiny over the role of social media platforms in facilitating foreign interference, particularly in the context of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and more recently, the ongoing spread of disinformation related to elections in the EU.

What stands out, however, is the perception that the scrutiny of Musk’s leadership at X, specifically in his controversial decisions on content moderation and platform governance, is becoming increasingly personal. Musk’s decision to reinstate previously banned accounts and his reduction of content moderation have been framed by critics as a “free speech absolutist” stance that seems to challenge the prevailing norms of digital regulation in Europe.

Some observers have raised the question: Is the pressure on Musk and X an indirect attack on the concept of free speech? Could it be that the European Commission’s calls for more rigorous enforcement are not just about curbing harmful content but about reshaping the boundaries of speech itself on global platforms?

A Personal Attack on Elon Musk?

Elon Musk’s purchase of X (formerly Twitter) in 2022 marked a major shift in the platform’s direction, particularly in terms of content moderation. Musk has positioned himself as a champion of free speech, openly criticizing what he perceived as overreach by previous Twitter management in limiting discourse. His decisions to reinstate previously banned accounts, including those of controversial figures, and his reduction of content moderation protocols, have drawn ire from both lawmakers and digital rights advocates.

From the perspective of some European lawmakers, Musk’s actions on X could be seen as a direct challenge to their vision of digital governance. Yet, it’s crucial to question whether this is truly about combating harmful content, or whether it is an indirect effort to restrict the boundaries of free expression itself particularly when it comes to government regulation of speech.

For some, the call to ramp up enforcement on Musk and X seems personal, targeting a high-profile individual whose vision of digital space clashes with the EU’s. The emphasis on X’s handling of disinformation, misinformation, and foreign interference could be seen as focusing too much on Musk’s leadership decisions, rather than on systemic issues affecting all platforms in general.

It raises an uncomfortable question: Is this really about protecting users, or is it about limiting the scope of free expression on social media platforms that fall under European jurisdiction?

The Indirect Attack on Freedom of Speech

One of the core debates surrounding the DSA and its enforcement is the tension between curbing harmful content and preserving free speech. The DSA certainly aims to address the proliferation of harmful speech be it disinformation, hate speech, or foreign interference but it also places significant power in the hands of regulatory bodies and tech companies themselves to determine what constitutes acceptable speech.

For some, particularly in the context of Musk’s leadership at X, the push for swift enforcement of the DSA could be seen as an indirect effort to limit free speech under the guise of regulation. Musk has been vocal about the need to protect free speech online, arguing that censorship and heavy-handed moderation can lead to the suppression of diverse viewpoints. By regulating speech to such an extent, critics argue, the EU risks setting a dangerous precedent where platforms are incentivized to restrict speech out of fear of sanctions or fines, stifling open dialogue.

The DSA’s framework could, in effect, result in self-censorship by tech platforms, especially smaller companies or those without the resources to navigate complex compliance procedures. As these platforms seek to avoid penalties, they may opt to limit content in ways that go beyond what is necessary to comply with the law, creating a chilling effect that suppresses free speech.

In this context, the EU’s growing pressure on Musk and his platform could be viewed as part of a broader trend to regulate speech in a way that disproportionately favors government and corporate interests, rather than fostering an open, diverse, and robust public sphere.

In response to these critiques, the EU’s digital chief defended the Commission’s enforcement strategy, emphasizing that the complexities of digital regulation require a careful, measured approach. The DSA’s broad scope means that the Commission must work within a complex regulatory framework that involves numerous stakeholders, legal procedures, and technical challenges.

The Commission’s commitment to thorough investigations is necessary to ensure that any penalties or sanctions are legally sound and justifiable. Hasty action, some argue, could undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the enforcement process, especially in high-profile cases involving influential figures like Elon Musk. While there is pressure to act quickly, the reality of enforcing a new and complex digital law requires precision and the collection of sufficient evidence to support any legal actions.

The European Commission’s defense of its enforcement actions under the DSA raises important questions about the intersection of regulation, free speech, and personal freedom in the digital age. While the need for stricter controls on harmful content is undeniable, it is equally crucial to ensure that these regulations do not inadvertently limit open discourse or infringe on the fundamental right to free expression.

As the Commission continues its efforts to enforce the DSA, it must walk a delicate line between combating online harm and respecting the principles of free speech. The growing scrutiny of platforms like X, particularly under Elon Musk’s leadership, highlights the complex political and ideological forces at play. Whether this push for more stringent enforcement is a personal attack on Musk or a broader attempt to control speech online, it underscores the ongoing global debate over how much power governments and regulatory bodies should have in shaping the digital landscape.