Podcasts about Hate speech

Featuring Ben Tarnoff and Quinn Slobodian on their book Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed. What the world's bizarre richest man reveals about our financially fabulist, hard tech, far-right political-economic era. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Find Against Tech Oligarchy at Haymarketbooks.org  Learn more about Hate Speech at UCPress.edu The Dig goes deep into politics everywhere, from labor struggles and political economy to imperialism and immigration. Hosted by Daniel Denvir.

"In most other countries, there are laws, criminal laws that prohibit the expression of racial hatred or incitement to racial hatred," says Samantha Barbas, author of Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma, in this episode of the Modern Law Library. "There are no hate speech laws in the United States, and that makes the U.S. a true exception, a true outlier in the world. And so my book was trying to get to the question, why did the U.S. take this unique path? How do we explain that historically? Where and when and why did we diverge from the path that was taken by most other countries?" World War II prompted a barrage of hate speech legislation after it ended, but not in the United States, Barbas tells host Lee Rawles. "We had just seen how totalitarian governments establish themselves through censorship," Barbas says. "There are two really important ideals that seem to be clashing in the post-war era. Many hate speech laws are proposed, but they are rejected or struck down on free speech grounds. So at this moment when Europe is adopting hate speech laws, America is going the other way: Proposing them, but then rejecting them, and that consensus in favor of freedom of speech is going to hold for several decades." In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barbas and Rawles discuss how American courts and society have dealt with hate speech issues in the past, and how the growing awareness of psychological harm has impacted public attitudes about hate speech. They also explore Henry Ford and the Dearborn Independent, D. W. Griffith and Birth of a Nation, the Streisand Effect, and a series of cases about Illinois Nazis. Subscribe to Modern Law Library: https://play.megaphone.fm/6yvcqiwqqtmrvsjkgthoiq

The Pakistan Experience is an independently produced podcast looking to tell stories about Pakistan through conversations. Please consider supporting us on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceTo support the channel:Jazzcash/Easypaisa - 0325 -2982912Patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceAnd Please stay in touch:https://twitter.com/ThePakistanExp1https://www.facebook.com/thepakistanexperiencehttps://instagram.com/thepakistanexpeperienceThe podcast is hosted by comedian and writer, Shehzad Ghias Shaikh. Shehzad is a Fulbright scholar with a Masters in Theatre from Brooklyn College. He is also one of the foremost Stand-up comedians in Pakistan and frequently writes for numerous publications. Instagram.com/shehzadghiasshaikhFacebook.com/Shehzadghias/Twitter.com/shehzad89Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC44l9XMwecN5nSgIF2Dvivg/joinChapters:0:00 Violence and Revolution4:25 MQM is asking MQM to pick up weapons8:54 Establishment's plan to make Karachi a federal territory12:17 Angrez kay kuttay dholanay walay kaun hain?17:00 Sindh's history of resistance and highlighting racism20:24 Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui's lie about Sindh25:18 Sindhis did not want to kick Hindus out in 194728:40 Evacuee Property Corruption30:05 40% Agricultural land of Sindhis was given to Muhajirs33:49 MQM's politics of hate

"Unblinking Eyes" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis Website for the show: https://governamerica.com Vicky's website: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22680-govern-america-september-26-2026-unblinking-eyes Listen LIVE every Saturday at 11AM Eastern or 8AM Pacific at http://governamerica.net or on your favorite app. DISCLOSURE: AI used for top-of-the-hour newscasts and break bumper music.Flock Safety ALPR surveillance cameras in the spotlight this week as the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing. Trump admitted Congress was controlled by Israel, wants to deport critics of Israel and Zionism. Arizona man loses his house to HOA. Listener calls. In the final hour, Casey Whalen of "North Idaho Exposed" joins us to discuss foreign influence in the 50 state legislatures, and anti-free speech legislation pushed.

Featuring Ben Tarnoff and Quinn Slobodian on their book Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed. What the world's bizarre richest man reveals about our financially fabulist, hard tech, far-right political-economic era. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Find Against Tech Oligarchy at Haymarketbooks.org  Learn more about Hate Speech at UCPress.edu  

We have seen the effects of political correctness run amok in our nation. Even though there is a strong pulling back on the reins at this time, all it takes is for a new administration to open the floodgates wide open. Despite the pulling back on the reins we still see school systems that are indoctrinating children in the doctrines of LGBT. Young children are being influenced through graphic books under the guise of education. In North Carolina a school district has hired a so-called "transgender" male to teach a mandatory class at an elementary school. In Massachusetts a couple is fighting for custody of their daughter from the state, a system that groomed their daughter into believing she is a boy. They are in the heat of the battle as we speak. Many institutions are forcing politically correct pronouns even though they defy biological truth. On this edition of Crosstalk you'll be introduced to a man who was found guilty of "hate" against homosexual men by a Canadian court over flyers he distributed during a Toronto Canada Pride event a decade ago. That man is William Whatcott, a pro-family activist who is now a Canadian refugee in the United States. He's a client of the Pacific Justice Institute who is motivated by his Christian faith to evangelize those who face eternal peril if they refuse to repent. More Information: billwhatcott.wordpress.com

We have seen the effects of political correctness run amok in our nation. Even though there is a strong pulling back on the reins at this time, all it takes is for a new administration to open the floodgates wide open. Despite the pulling back on the reins we still see school systems that are indoctrinating children in the doctrines of LGBT. Young children are being influenced through graphic books under the guise of education. In North Carolina a school district has hired a so-called "transgender" male to teach a mandatory class at an elementary school. In Massachusetts a couple is fighting for custody of their daughter from the state, a system that groomed their daughter into believing she is a boy. They are in the heat of the battle as we speak. Many institutions are forcing politically correct pronouns even though they defy biological truth. On this edition of Crosstalk you'll be introduced to a man who was found guilty of "hate" against homosexual men by a Canadian court over flyers he distributed during a Toronto Canada Pride event a decade ago. That man is William Whatcott, a pro-family activist who is now a Canadian refugee in the United States. He's a client of the Pacific Justice Institute who is motivated by his Christian faith to evangelize those who face eternal peril if they refuse to repent. More Information: billwhatcott.wordpress.com

We have seen the effects of political correctness run amok in our nation. Even though there is a strong pulling back on the reins at this time, all it takes is for a new administration to open the floodgates wide open. Despite the pulling back on the reins we still see school systems that are indoctrinating children in the doctrines of LGBT. Young children are being influenced through graphic books under the guise of education. In North Carolina a school district has hired a so-called "transgender" male to teach a mandatory class at an elementary school. In Massachusetts a couple is fighting for custody of their daughter from the state, a system that groomed their daughter into believing she is a boy. They are in the heat of the battle as we speak. Many institutions are forcing politically correct pronouns even though they defy biological truth. On this edition of Crosstalk you'll be introduced to a man who was found guilty of "hate" against homosexual men by a Canadian court over flyers he distributed during a Toronto Canada Pride event a decade ago. That man is William Whatcott, a pro-family activist who is now a Canadian refugee in the United States. He's a client of the Pacific Justice Institute who is motivated by his Christian faith to evangelize those who face eternal peril if they refuse to repent. More Information: billwhatcott.wordpress.com

We have seen the effects of political correctness run amok in our nation. Even though there is a strong pulling back on the reins at this time, all it takes is for a new administration to open the floodgates wide open. Despite the pulling back on the reins we still see school systems that are indoctrinating children in the doctrines of LGBT. Young children are being influenced through graphic books under the guise of education. In North Carolina a school district has hired a so-called "transgender" male to teach a mandatory class at an elementary school. In Massachusetts a couple is fighting for custody of their daughter from the state, a system that groomed their daughter into believing she is a boy. They are in the heat of the battle as we speak. Many institutions are forcing politically correct pronouns even though they defy biological truth. On this edition of Crosstalk you'll be introduced to a man who was found guilty of "hate" against homosexual men by a Canadian court over flyers he distributed during a Toronto Canada Pride event a decade ago. That man is William Whatcott, a pro-family activist who is now a Canadian refugee in the United States. He's a client of the Pacific Justice Institute who is motivated by his Christian faith to evangelize those who face eternal peril if they refuse to repent. More Information: billwhatcott.wordpress.com

"In most other countries, there are laws, criminal laws that prohibit the expression of racial hatred or incitement to racial hatred," says Samantha Barbas, author of Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma, in this episode of the Modern Law Library. "There are no hate speech laws in the United States, and that makes the U.S. a true exception, a true outlier in the world. And so my book was trying to get to the question, why did the U.S. take this unique path? How do we explain that historically? Where and when and why did we diverge from the path that was taken by most other countries?" World War II prompted a barrage of hate speech legislation after it ended, but not in the United States, Barbas tells host Lee Rawles. "We had just seen how totalitarian governments establish themselves through censorship," Barbas says. "There are two really important ideals that seem to be clashing in the post-war era. Many hate speech laws are proposed, but they are rejected or struck down on free speech grounds. So at this moment when Europe is adopting hate speech laws, America is going the other way: Proposing them, but then rejecting them, and that consensus in favor of freedom of speech is going to hold for several decades." In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Barbas and Rawles discuss how American courts and society have dealt with hate speech issues in the past, and how the growing awareness of psychological harm has impacted public attitudes about hate speech. They also explore Henry Ford and the Dearborn Independent, D. W. Griffith and Birth of a Nation, the Streisand Effect, and a series of cases about Illinois Nazis.

In Episode 152, we tell you about a new Montreal bylaw banning offensive speech directed at police and municipal employees. Plus, we dig into a new decision that found that the famous anti-gay-lifestyle activist Bill Whatcott guilty of criminal hate speech for his "gay zombies" flyer.Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:R. v. Whatcott, 2026 ONSC 3605 (CanLii)Montreal city council adopts bylaw banning insults against police, municipal employees (CBC News)Jamie Sarkonak: N.B. judge invents the Aboriginal right to be represented by an elder in court (National Post)Anti-gay crusader with Sask. ties guilty of promoting hatred at Toronto pride parade (Star Phoenix)Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn, with help from Alexander Surgenor.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

President Donald Trump is touting a historic new Greenland security agreement that he says gives the United States permanent control over security on the strategically vital Arctic island. What does the deal actually do — and what could it mean for Russia, China and the future of U.S. membership in NATO? Meanwhile, Canada is moving closer to the European Union after being invited to become the bloc’s first-ever “associate member,” with plans for deeper cooperation involving defense, energy, technology, artificial intelligence and critical minerals. We dive into the consequences surrounding the proposal. Also on today’s Sentinel Report: A Pentagon watchdog report details significant U.S. military losses from Iranian attacks; Washington imposes new visa restrictions on South African officials amid allegations involving land seizures, racial discrimination and violence; and newly declassified FBI notes raise fresh questions surrounding the prosecution of former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn. PLUS — two major interviews: Tanya Gaw, founder of Action4Canada, joins Alex Newman to discuss Canadian law enforcement showing up at her home to investigate alleged online “hate speech.” Pastor Paul Begley and investigative journalist Troy Anderson discuss their explosive new book, Trump vs. the Beast, examining artificial intelligence, technocracy, global government, biblical prophecy, and how Donald Trump fits in. All this and more on today’s episode of The Sentinel Report with Alex Newman.

President Donald Trump is touting a historic new Greenland security agreement that he says gives the United States permanent control over security on the strategically vital Arctic island. What does the deal actually do — and what could it mean for Russia, China and the future of U.S. membership in NATO? Meanwhile, Canada is moving closer to the European Union after being invited to become the bloc’s first-ever “associate member,” with plans for deeper cooperation involving defense, energy, technology, artificial intelligence and critical minerals. We dive into the consequences surrounding the proposal. Also on today’s Sentinel Report: A Pentagon watchdog report details significant U.S. military losses from Iranian attacks; Washington imposes new visa restrictions on South African officials amid allegations involving land seizures, racial discrimination and violence; and newly declassified FBI notes raise fresh questions surrounding the prosecution of former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn. PLUS — two major interviews: Tanya Gaw, founder of Action4Canada, joins Alex Newman to discuss Canadian law enforcement showing up at her home to investigate alleged online “hate speech.” Pastor Paul Begley and investigative journalist Troy Anderson discuss their explosive new book, Trump vs. the Beast, examining artificial intelligence, technocracy, global government, biblical prophecy, and how Donald Trump fits in. All this and more on today’s episode of The Sentinel Report with Alex Newman.

Welcome back to another episode of the Couple Casuals Podcast!In this episode, Stefano sits down with Canadian constitutional lawyer John Carpay, founder of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, for an in-depth conversation about civil liberties, government power, censorship and the future of freedom in Canada.John shares his journey into constitutional law and explains why he has dedicated much of his career to defending Canadians' Charter rights and freedoms.The conversation dives into:• Canada's COVID-era lockdowns, mandates and restrictions• Justin Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act and the Justice Centre's legal involvement in challenging it• the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal rulings on the Emergencies Act• Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, and concerns surrounding online censorship• Bills C-11, C-18, C-2, C-8, C-9 and C-22 and their potential impact on privacy, surveillance and free expression• hate speech laws and freedom of religion• the debate surrounding “Islamophobia” and criticism of religion• MAID and the expansion of medical assistance in dying• government spending, debt and the growth of government• why independent media and political engagement matterJohn also explains why he believes Canadians need to actively exercise their Charter rights, contact their elected representatives and remain engaged in the democratic process.The episode closes with a powerful conversation about Canadian identity, freedom and why John says he is proud of Canada's heritage of liberty and the rule of law — but deeply concerned about what the country has become today.Grab a casual, lock in, and let's get into it.Host: StefanoInstagram: @drstefohttps://www.instagram.com/drstefo?igs…Guest: John CarpayJustice Centre: https://www.instagram.com/justicecentre?stkn=MXZzZHZ2bWhrNnVjZA==https://www.jccf.ca/This episode is brought to you by Canada First — secure your home with Canada's best home fortification.Visit https://canadafirst.com/ to learn more.Follow Canada First on Instagram!https://www.instagram.com/canadafirst.inc?igsh=OGd4YjZ5enV0M2t5CHAPTERS0:00 Intro & Canada First0:32 John Carpay Joins the Podcast3:21 John's Story & Career in Constitutional Law5:35 Why Constitutional Rights & Freedoms Matter7:18 What Happened to Canadian Freedoms During COVID?9:12 The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms11:42 COVID Lockdowns, Mandates & Government Overreach16:10 Where Is the Accountability?17:31 COVID Censorship & Silencing Different Opinions20:19 Justin Trudeau & the Emergencies Act22:17 Justice Centre Wins Again in Federal Court of Appeal23:56 The Freedom Convoy & Ending the Mandates25:13 What Canadians Should Learn From COVID26:51 Can Canadians Still Trust Government?28:14 Canadian Politics & Staying Non-Partisan29:36 Canada's Six Major Censorship & Surveillance Laws31:14 Bill C-11 & Government Control of the Internet32:14 Does the Government Want to Censor Canadians?34:10 Bill C-34: The Safe Social Media Act35:42 Government Spending, Debt & Canada's Future38:10 Could Canada Follow the UK on Free Speech?39:25 Islamophobia, Religion & Government Policing Speech42:34 Is There a Double Standard Against Christianity?45:19 Why Morality Matters in a Free Society46:43 What Actually Qualifies as Hate Speech?50:01 Bill C-9 & Religious Speech52:05 The Charter vs. Hate Speech Laws53:41 MAID & the Expansion of Assisted Suicide57:21 How Can Canadians Fight for Their Country?59:00 Are You Proud to Be Canadian?59:43 Final Message: Don't Give Up1:00:41 Outro

The United States has no hate speech laws; hate speech is generally considered to be free speech under the First Amendment. In Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma (U California Press, 2026), acclaimed legal historian Samantha Barbas chronicles the country's legal and cultural battles over the regulation of hate speech in the last hundred years. Charting the historical context for current debates, she ultimately argues that, however emotionally appealing they may seem, hate speech laws undermine civil rights and democracy.The American policy on hate speech evolved from influences such as the civil rights movement, which contended that the most effective way to combat hate speech wasn't through proposed laws. Rather than imposing restrictions, the US has developed an array of mechanisms other than law, including counterspeech and public education, that have been relatively effective at dealing with hate speakers and hate groups. Though not perfect, our method of addressing hate is less dangerous than government censorship and less likely to be weaponized against the powerless. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The United States has no hate speech laws; hate speech is generally considered to be free speech under the First Amendment. In Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma (U California Press, 2026), acclaimed legal historian Samantha Barbas chronicles the country's legal and cultural battles over the regulation of hate speech in the last hundred years. Charting the historical context for current debates, she ultimately argues that, however emotionally appealing they may seem, hate speech laws undermine civil rights and democracy.The American policy on hate speech evolved from influences such as the civil rights movement, which contended that the most effective way to combat hate speech wasn't through proposed laws. Rather than imposing restrictions, the US has developed an array of mechanisms other than law, including counterspeech and public education, that have been relatively effective at dealing with hate speakers and hate groups. Though not perfect, our method of addressing hate is less dangerous than government censorship and less likely to be weaponized against the powerless.  This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The United States has no hate speech laws; hate speech is generally considered to be free speech under the First Amendment. In Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma (U California Press, 2026), acclaimed legal historian Samantha Barbas chronicles the country's legal and cultural battles over the regulation of hate speech in the last hundred years. Charting the historical context for current debates, she ultimately argues that, however emotionally appealing they may seem, hate speech laws undermine civil rights and democracy.The American policy on hate speech evolved from influences such as the civil rights movement, which contended that the most effective way to combat hate speech wasn't through proposed laws. Rather than imposing restrictions, the US has developed an array of mechanisms other than law, including counterspeech and public education, that have been relatively effective at dealing with hate speakers and hate groups. Though not perfect, our method of addressing hate is less dangerous than government censorship and less likely to be weaponized against the powerless. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The United States has no hate speech laws; hate speech is generally considered to be free speech under the First Amendment. In Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma (U California Press, 2026), acclaimed legal historian Samantha Barbas chronicles the country's legal and cultural battles over the regulation of hate speech in the last hundred years. Charting the historical context for current debates, she ultimately argues that, however emotionally appealing they may seem, hate speech laws undermine civil rights and democracy.The American policy on hate speech evolved from influences such as the civil rights movement, which contended that the most effective way to combat hate speech wasn't through proposed laws. Rather than imposing restrictions, the US has developed an array of mechanisms other than law, including counterspeech and public education, that have been relatively effective at dealing with hate speakers and hate groups. Though not perfect, our method of addressing hate is less dangerous than government censorship and less likely to be weaponized against the powerless. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The United States has no hate speech laws; hate speech is generally considered to be free speech under the First Amendment. In Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma (U California Press, 2026), acclaimed legal historian Samantha Barbas chronicles the country's legal and cultural battles over the regulation of hate speech in the last hundred years. Charting the historical context for current debates, she ultimately argues that, however emotionally appealing they may seem, hate speech laws undermine civil rights and democracy.The American policy on hate speech evolved from influences such as the civil rights movement, which contended that the most effective way to combat hate speech wasn't through proposed laws. Rather than imposing restrictions, the US has developed an array of mechanisms other than law, including counterspeech and public education, that have been relatively effective at dealing with hate speakers and hate groups. Though not perfect, our method of addressing hate is less dangerous than government censorship and less likely to be weaponized against the powerless.  This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The United States has no hate speech laws; hate speech is generally considered to be free speech under the First Amendment. In Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma (U California Press, 2026), acclaimed legal historian Samantha Barbas chronicles the country's legal and cultural battles over the regulation of hate speech in the last hundred years. Charting the historical context for current debates, she ultimately argues that, however emotionally appealing they may seem, hate speech laws undermine civil rights and democracy.The American policy on hate speech evolved from influences such as the civil rights movement, which contended that the most effective way to combat hate speech wasn't through proposed laws. Rather than imposing restrictions, the US has developed an array of mechanisms other than law, including counterspeech and public education, that have been relatively effective at dealing with hate speakers and hate groups. Though not perfect, our method of addressing hate is less dangerous than government censorship and less likely to be weaponized against the powerless. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The United States has no hate speech laws; hate speech is generally considered to be free speech under the First Amendment. In Hate Speech: The Legal and Cultural History of an American Dilemma (U California Press, 2026), acclaimed legal historian Samantha Barbas chronicles the country's legal and cultural battles over the regulation of hate speech in the last hundred years. Charting the historical context for current debates, she ultimately argues that, however emotionally appealing they may seem, hate speech laws undermine civil rights and democracy.The American policy on hate speech evolved from influences such as the civil rights movement, which contended that the most effective way to combat hate speech wasn't through proposed laws. Rather than imposing restrictions, the US has developed an array of mechanisms other than law, including counterspeech and public education, that have been relatively effective at dealing with hate speakers and hate groups. Though not perfect, our method of addressing hate is less dangerous than government censorship and less likely to be weaponized against the powerless. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

British author, academic, and free speech advocate Andrew Doyle joins Duncan Garner in the studio while on tour with the Free Speech Union to deliver an urgent warning to New Zealand. Looking at the United Kingdom as a cautionary tale, Andrew breaks down staggering stats from a recent Big Brother Watch report revealing 62,000 arrests for offensive speech between 2021 and 2025. That is roughly 30 people a day arrested for opinions, online posts, and even satirical jokes. Duncan and Andrew dive into the chilling reality of non-crime hate incidents, police ideological training, and how police guidelines are shifting away from fundamental equality before the law. They examine real-world cases, including comedy writer Graham Linehan's arrest at Heathrow Airport by armed officers over Twitter posts, and a former police officer fined for a satirical meme. Andrew warns that expanding protected characteristics to include religious belief in New Zealand could severely compromise satire, parody, and free thought. Is New Zealand already setting up the framework to head down the exact same path? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Host Shirley Rooker speaks with Mark Jamison of the American Enterprise Institute, who explains why he views government regulation of what we see on social media as a threat to democracy.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We've launched Minimum Competence CLE, and our first course is now available completely free. Researching Federal Tax Issues After Loper Bright looks at how the Supreme Court's decision ending Chevron deference changes the way lawyers should research and evaluate Treasury regulations, IRS guidance, and other federal tax authorities.Take the course and earn CLE credit at cle.minimumcomp.com.This Day in Legal History: The Kellogg-Briand PactOn August 27, 1928, representatives of fifteen nations gathered in Paris and signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact—an international agreement in which the signatories solemnly renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Named for U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, it was born of the still-fresh horror of World War I and the earnest hope that the great powers could simply agree to stop settling disputes by force. Eventually 64 nations signed on.It is, on its face, one of the most idealistic documents in the history of international law—and one of the most famous cautionary tales about law's limits. The pact had a fatal flaw: it contained no enforcement mechanism, no sanctions, no army, nothing but the promise itself and the hope that world opinion would keep nations honest. Within a few years, that hope was in tatters—Japan invaded Manchuria, Italy invaded Ethiopia, Germany rearmed, and the whole edifice collapsed into the Second World War. As a device for preventing war, Kellogg-Briand failed almost completely.And yet the significance of August 27, 1928 is more complicated than “noble failure.” The pact planted a legal idea that outlived its own impotence: that aggressive war is not just tragic but unlawful. After World War II, that principle became the backbone of the Nuremberg trials, where Nazi leaders were prosecuted for “crimes against peace”—waging aggressive war—a charge that traced its lineage directly to Kellogg-Briand. So the pact is a genuinely instructive anniversary for lawyers: it's a reminder that a law without an enforcement mechanism is mostly an aspiration, but also that even an unenforced principle can lodge itself in the legal conscience and reappear, with teeth, decades later. It's worth keeping that dual lesson in mind on a day when we've got stories about whether court orders and legal protections will actually be honored.A federal judge in Washington holds a hearing this afternoon on a question that sounds trivial but isn't: whether adding President Trump's name to the Kennedy Center's signage defies a court order. We set this up yesterday. Back in May, Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the Kennedy Center to remove Trump's name from the building, siding with Democratic Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, who sued over the renaming of the memorial to President John F. Kennedy. Then, on August 13, the center's board—now stacked with Trump appointees—voted to alter the signage to read “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump,” and to christen the grounds “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.” The administration says this complies with the injunction because the building is still, technically, named for Kennedy—the Trump language is just a donor acknowledgment. Beatty says it's open defiance. Today Judge Cooper hears them out. And this is genuinely the crux of the rule of law: an injunction isn't a word game. Courts have long held that you can't evade a court order by finding a technical workaround that accomplishes the very thing the order forbade. If Cooper concludes the board's maneuver is a bad-faith attempt to do indirectly what he directly prohibited, the consequences can escalate toward contempt. The significance, as I noted yesterday, is that this small fight over a plaque is really a test of whether the executive branch treats a court order as a binding command or a puzzle to be solved. And on today's Kellogg-Briand anniversary, it's a pointed reminder that a legal order matters only if it's actually enforced. US judge weighs challenge to restore Trump's name to Kennedy Center | ReutersThe Hill · PBS NewsHourNow to a fight with far bigger stakes for the economy: the effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Cook's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has sent a letter to the White House declaring there is “no legally cognizable cause” to fire her, arguing she “has never committed mortgage fraud or any intentional wrongdoing.” The White House has been trying to oust Cook for over a year, most recently by building a formal process to remove her over allegations that she listed two different properties as her primary residence in mortgage documents—and this comes after the Supreme Court already ruled against an earlier, more summary attempt to fire her. Here's why this is one of the most important legal stories of the year. Federal Reserve governors are not ordinary executive officials who serve at the president's pleasure; under the Federal Reserve Act, they can only be removed “for cause.” That phrase is doing enormous work. It traces back to the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey's Executor, which upheld Congress's power to insulate the heads of independent agencies from at-will presidential removal—the legal foundation of the Fed's independence. The current Supreme Court has been chipping away at Humphrey's Executor for other agencies, but it has pointedly signaled that the Fed is special and its independence protected. So the battle is being fought on the meaning of “cause”: Cook's team says a disputed mortgage-paperwork allegation, with no finding of intentional wrongdoing and no crime, doesn't come close to the kind of malfeasance that “cause” requires. The significance could hardly be larger. If a president can remove a Fed governor he disagrees with by gathering allegations and declaring “cause,” then the Fed's independence—the firewall that's supposed to keep monetary policy insulated from short-term political pressure—becomes a fiction. Markets, and the rule of law, are watching this one closely. Lawyer for Fed's Cook, targeted by Trump, says there is no grounds for dismissal | ReutersCNBC · AxiosAnd finally, Elon Musk's X has lost its First Amendment challenge to a New York law requiring social-media companies to disclose how they handle hate speech. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan dismissed the suit—and did so “with prejudice,” meaning X can't refile. The law at issue is New York's “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” signed by Governor Hochul in late 2024, which requires large social-media platforms to disclose their policies for handling hate speech, extremism, harassment, foreign interference, and disinformation, and to report on their efforts. X argued this compelled it to speak—forcing it to make statements about “highly sensitive and controversial” content under threat of lawsuits and fines, in violation of the First Amendment. The judge disagreed, and the legal reasoning is worth understanding. There's a well-established doctrine that governments can require businesses to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information” about their own practices, as long as the requirement is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest—the standard from a case called Zauderer. Judge Cronan found that making X describe its own content-moderation policies is exactly that kind of factual disclosure, tied to New York's interest in helping users make informed choices about the platforms they use. The significance is that this lands on one side of a genuinely unsettled national fight. Courts have split over social-media transparency laws—a similar California law was partly struck down on First Amendment grounds—so this New York ruling, upholding a disclosure mandate, deepens a divide that may ultimately need the Supreme Court to resolve. And there's an irony worth noting: X, the platform that markets itself as the champion of free speech, just lost a free-speech case—by arguing that being made to describe its own rules violated its rights. Judge dismisses lawsuit by Elon Musk's X challenging New York hate speech law | ReutersUS News · Daily Maverick This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this sobering episode of Do You Ever Wonder, Mike Haltman sits down with Moshe Sperb, president of the United Jewish Teachers, to unpack the rising tide of antisemitism inside New York City public schools — and what his new report reveals about who's enabling it.Moshe shares hard specifics from the report, including:• Why the mayor's revocation of the IHRA antisemitism definition opened the floodgates,• Swastikas and hate speech removed from schools without the NYPD ever being called,• A top Queens high school student bullied for simply announcing his enlistment in the IDF,• How DSA-aligned factions and groups like CAIR New York have embedded themselves in teacher training,• Why Jewish families are now weighing private school — and whether leaving is running from the problem,This isn't just about schools. It's a conversation about history, survival, and what happens when hate becomes acceptable speech again.Guest: Moshe Sperb — President, United Jewish Teachers (UnitedJewishTeachers.org)If you found this conversation valuable, subscribe for more on the issues that matter — and share it with someone who needs to hear it.____________________________If you're buying real estate in New York...…You need to understand what separates one New York title insurance provider from another. Take a moment to read the Hallmark Abstract Service guide...Read “In New York, Do Your Due Diligence When It Comes to Title Insurance!” here https://open.substack.com/pub/hallmar....When you're ready, we're here to help.Hallmark Abstract ServiceYou Buy Real Estate….We Protect It.Michael Haltman, CEOmhaltman@hallmarkabstractllc.com(646) 741-6101About the Host Michael Haltman is the CEO of Hallmark Abstract Service, a title insurance provider focused on commercial and residential real estate transactions in New York. He explores the intersection of economic trends, leadership, and modern challenges on Do You Ever Wonder.Connect with MichaelHallmark Abstract Service: https://www.hallmarkabstractllc.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/titleinsurancenewyork/Subscribe to the Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@DoYouEverWonder943/videosPodcast Inquiries & Guest Proposals Interested in appearing on the show or suggesting a topic? Email Michael: mhaltman@hallmarkabstractllc.com“Do You Ever Wonder” is produced by Hallmark Abstract Service to provide insights into the forces shaping our world, from housing policy to personal safety, and much more!

The Pakistan Experience is an independently produced podcast looking to tell stories about Pakistan through conversations. Please consider supporting us on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceTo support the channel:Jazzcash/Easypaisa - 0325 -2982912Patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceAnd Please stay in touch:https://twitter.com/ThePakistanExp1https://www.facebook.com/thepakistanexperiencehttps://instagram.com/thepakistanexpeperienceThe podcast is hosted by comedian and writer, Shehzad Ghias Shaikh. Shehzad is a Fulbright scholar with a Masters in Theatre from Brooklyn College. He is also one of the foremost Stand-up comedians in Pakistan and frequently writes for numerous publications. Instagram.com/shehzadghiasshaikhFacebook.com/Shehzadghias/Twitter.com/shehzad89Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC44l9XMwecN5nSgIF2Dvivg/joinChapters:0:00 Violence and Revolution4:25 MQM is asking MQM to pick up weapons8:54 Establishment's plan to make Karachi a federal territory12:17 Angrez kay kuttay dholanay walay kaun hain?17:00 Sindh's history of resistance and highlighting racism20:24 Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui's lie about Sindh25:18 Sindhis did not want to kick Hindus out in 194728:40 Evacuee Property Corruption30:05 40% Agricultural land of Sindhis was given to Muhajirs33:49 MQM's politics of hate

Optimus says Alberta police chiefs need to stand up for themselves; Fat Dave, Brent, and Sean have lots to say about our August 12 hate speech/hate crimes episode; and James is thinking long-term on AI data centres. It's The Flamethrower proudly presented by the DQs of Northwest Edmonton and Sherwood Park! WHEN YOU SWING BY A DQ IN PALISADES, NAMAO, NEWCASTLE, WESTMOUNT, OR BASELINE ROAD, BE SURE TO LET 'EM KNOW REAL TALK SENT YOU! GET YOUR "PROUDLY ALBERTAN. FIERCELY CANADIAN." HOODIES BEFORE THEY SELL OUT: https://ryanjespersen.com/merch The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Relay Communications Group Inc. or any affiliates.

Fired by Burger King for Saying “Free Palestine”

A bit of a wild situation in Alberta, as Premier Danielle Smith and her Public Safety Minister Mike Ellis clap back at an Edmonton Police campaign encouraging citizens to report hate speech and hate crimes. "We believe law enforcement should...not police opinions or 'hurt feelings,'" tweeted Minister Ellis in response to the EPS initiative. Meantime, StatsCan says hate crimes are up in Alberta year-over-year, and have doubled across Canada since 2018. In our feature interview presented by Mercedes-Benz Edmonton West, we check in with Nina Saini and Sunny Johal from StopHateAB (6:00) for an important conversation about the difference between freedom of expression and hate speech, and the reality of hate crimes in our own backyard. THIS EPISODE IS PRESENTED BY HANSEN DISTILLERY. CHECK OUT THEIR NEWEST RELEASE - DANNY R, A SMOOTH, READY TO DRINK BLOOD ORANGE WHISKY COCKTAIL WITH A DISTINCTIVE HANSEN TWIST. PROCEEDS BENEFIT MEN'S MENTAL HEALTH. LEARN MORE: https://hansendistillery.com/ MBEW: https://www.mercedes-benz-edmontonwest.ca/ STOP HATE ALBERTA: https://stophateab.ca/ 35:00 | Real Talkers have their say on the difference between "free speech" and hate speech, and Danielle Smith's interference in the EPS anti-hate campaign. Real Talk's Live Chat is powered by Park Power.  SAVE on INTERNET, ELECTRICITY, and NATURAL GAS: https://parkpower.ca/realtalk/ 1:04:45 | This is your sign to bring your dog to Jasper! Jespo shares a few favourite dog-related Jasper memories through the years and we present some of the best dog-friendly activities in Jasper National Park. #MyJasper Memories is presented by our friends at Tourism Jasper.  BOOK YOUR NEXT JASPER ADVENTURE: https://www.jasper.travel/ 1:11:00 | Real Talkers have more to say about hate speech, hate crimes, and targeted groups across Canada. A clear message emerges aimed at the Christian community. Thoughts? EMAIL THE SHOW: talk@ryanjespersen.com  1:41:20 | Did we mention Real Talk was just listed as Canada's seventh-best political podcast? We take a look at what another top podcaster (who happens to be Stephen Harper's former comms director) is saying about Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.  REAL TALK'S LIVE STREAM IS PRESENTED BY CALIFORNIA CLOSETS. BOOK YOUR FREE CONSULTATION: https://californiaclosets.ca/ REAL TALK HIGHLIGHTS ARE PRESENTED BY KUBY ENERGY AND CANADIAN GREEN TECH, YOUR TRUSTED SOLAR PROVIDERS. LEARN MORE AT https://kuby.ca/ or in-store at Costco. SIGN UP for YEGplus, CANADA'S FIRST AIRPORT REWARDS PROGRAM: https://yegplus.com/realtalk SAVE 10% on ONLINE MEN'S CLOTHING PURCHASES at THE HELM with promo code REALTALK: https://thehelmclothing.com/ FOLLOW US ON TIKTOK, X, INSTAGRAM, and LINKEDIN: @realtalkrj & @ryanjespersen JOIN US ON FACEBOOK: @ryanjespersen REAL TALK MERCH: https://ryanjespersen.com/merch RECEIVE EXCLUSIVE PERKS - BECOME A REAL TALK PATRON: patreon.com/ryanjespersen THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING OUR SPONSORS! https://ryanjespersen.com/sponsors The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Relay Communications Group Inc. or any affiliates.

In Hour 1 of the Friday, July 24th, 2026 broadcast, host Charlie James dives into an energetic discussion on local and national politics, starting with a breakdown of South Carolina's increasingly crowded Senate primary. He details key voting dates, outlines the inevitability of a runoff election, and takes caller feedback on potential candidates. Moving into national news, James critically examines media coverage surrounding hate crimes and double standards following a stabbing incident in New York City, before taking a brief, lighthearted turn to sing "Happy Birthday" to a listener. The hour concludes with a deeper analysis of the Democratic Party's primary calendar strategy, focusing on the Democratic Socialists of America's growing influence, local data center developments, and concerns raised by figures like Representative Jim Clyburn.

"Hate Speech crimes?"; Coming soon - Democratic Socialist in KY Legislature; Take action (kentuckyfamily.org/take-action)! KY Family Forum - Sat, Oct 24 (kentuckyfamily.org/events). Share. Make it a great day in the Love & Lordship of Christ (Mark 12:29-31)!

UN Trade and Development warns economic recovery still fragileThe DR Congo Ebola outbreak continues to grow: WHOAI-driven hate speech is putting refugees at increasing risk, says UNHCR

Today on The Gist, a look back at a Webby Award nominated focus group spoof from the vault before diving into a major analysis of the Supreme Court's monumental ruling against Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. Then, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and author Eric Lichtblau joins the show to discuss his new book, American Reich: A Murder in Orange County, Neo-Nazis, and a New Age of Hate. Lichtblau unpacks the tragic 2018 murder of Ivy League student Blaze Bernstein by his former high school classmate, Sam Woodward, mapping Woodward's toxic path from an online "journal of hate" to a paramilitarized neo-Nazi hate camp in Texas. Finally, in the spiel, a deep dive into the 14th Amendment's original congressional debates reveals why the high court's 6-3 rejection of the citizenship ban successfully held the constitutional line against fringe conservative theories Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today on The Gist, a look back at a Webby Award nominated focus group spoof from the vault before diving into a major analysis of the Supreme Court's monumental ruling against Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. Then, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and author Eric Lichtblau joins the show to discuss his new book, American Reich: A Murder in Orange County, Neo-Nazis, and a New Age of Hate. Lichtblau unpacks the tragic 2018 murder of Ivy League student Blaze Bernstein by his former high school classmate, Sam Woodward, mapping Woodward's toxic path from an online "journal of hate" to a paramilitarized neo-Nazi hate camp in Texas. Finally, in the spiel, a deep dive into the 14th Amendment's original congressional debates reveals why the high court's 6-3 rejection of the citizenship ban successfully held the constitutional line against fringe conservative theories Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠sales@amplitudemediapartners.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's a busy Reaction Monday on SDH AM929TheGame's Abe Gordon and SoccerForUSPod's Bart Keeler look at the group stage and prep the round of 32Bart also breaks down what a co-host needs to address from here to learn from the tournamentCity of Atlanta Chief Impact Officer for the Mayor's Office of One Atlanta, Candace Stanciel, looks back at the FIFA International Day for Countering Hate Speech as well as the "Stop Hate. Protect Football" panel from the host city perspective and the lessons going forward from that as well...Plus your AM news and previews   

FIFA held a panel discussion within the World Cup host city on tackling and countering hate speech in athletic environments and subsequently discussed the notion of "Stop Hate. Protect Football" initiativeCity of Atlanta Chief Impact Officer Candace Stanciel came on SDH to talk about the panel, the lessons, and what to do going forward

A collective of ethnic, faith and community leaders have written to MPs with a call for politicians to get behind laws aimed at curbing hate speech and incitement to violence. It follows social media comments by Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki. The Royal Commission on the Christchurch mosque attacks recommended improved hate speech and incitement laws, but last year the government abandoned work on the proposed law reforms. Spokesperson Abdur Razzaq spoke to Lisa Owen.

This Day in Legal History: DobbsOn June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case that fundamentally changed American constitutional law. The case centered on a Mississippi statute that prohibited most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court held that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion. The decision expressly overturned Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1992. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, arguing that abortion was not a right deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. The ruling returned the authority to regulate abortion primarily to the states.Almost immediately, abortion access began to vary widely across the country, depending on state law. Some states enforced near-total bans or severe restrictions, while others expanded protections for abortion access. The decision was also significant because it narrowed the use of substantive due process, the doctrine under which courts have recognized certain unenumerated constitutional rights. Supporters of the ruling argued that the Court had corrected a constitutional error and restored democratic control over abortion policy. Critics argued that the decision removed a long-recognized liberty interest and placed major personal medical decisions under state control. Dobbs also sparked renewed debate over stare decisis, the principle that courts should generally follow precedent.For many legal observers, the case became a defining example of how changes in the Court's membership can reshape constitutional rights. June 24 therefore stands as the date the Supreme Court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion and transformed the legal landscape of reproductive freedom in the United States.New York's Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has upheld the constitutionality of a law designed to restrict hate speech on social media platforms. The ruling represents a significant victory for free speech limitations in the digital age. Here's what happened: New York passed a law requiring social media platforms to remove or restrict content that incites hatred or violence based on protected characteristics like race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin. The law's supporters argue that online platforms have become the new town squares where public discourse happens, and that hate speech can radicalize people and lead to real-world violence. Critics worried the law was too broad and would violate the First Amendment by punishing protected speech.For generations, the government couldn't regulate speech just because it was hateful or offensive. The First Amendment protected even deeply offensive speech. But online platforms create a new kind of public space where algorithms amplify divisive content, and a single post can reach millions. The question the court had to answer was: Can states regulate hate speech on these platforms the way they might regulate incitement to violence? New York's highest court said yes, the law likely passes constitutional scrutiny.The court found that the law targets speech that genuinely incites hatred and violence, not merely offensive opinions. It's narrowly tailored to achieve the state's legitimate interest in preventing violence and discrimination. This ruling opens the door for other states to pass similar laws. It represents a potential shift in how courts balance the absolute protection of offensive speech against the harms caused by hate speech in the digital age. Tech companies will likely face increased regulation around hate speech, and the definition of what counts as unprotected incitement may narrow. The decision reflects a judicial recognition that online speech operates differently than traditional speech and may warrant different legal treatment.New York's top court says hate speech social media law likely passes muster | ReutersGoogle's YouTube has agreed to settle a lawsuit with a plaintiff rather than face a second trial over questions of social media liability and content moderation. The settlement ends litigation that challenged YouTube's responsibility for user-generated content that allegedly caused harm. Here's the broad strokes context: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a federal law that shields online platforms from liability for content posted by users. In other words, if someone posts defamatory content on YouTube, the person who posted it can be sued, but YouTube itself typically cannot be held responsible.The logic is that Section 230 encourages platforms to host diverse content by protecting them from lawsuits about every post. However, plaintiffs have been arguing that Section 230 doesn't shield platforms from all liability, and that platforms have a responsibility for content they actively moderate or promote. Imagine you own an apartment building. If a tenant commits a crime in their apartment, you're not responsible for that crime. But if you knowingly rent apartments to criminals or knowingly create conditions that enable crime, that's different. The question in social media cases is: When does YouTube's moderation and recommendation algorithms cross the line from passive hosting into active promotion that removes Section 230 protection?YouTube settled rather than litigate this question again, suggesting the company wanted to avoid another trial where a jury might rule against it. The settlement amount and terms weren't disclosed. Settlement doesn't necessarily mean YouTube admitted wrongdoing, but it does avoid a precedent-setting jury verdict that could have limited Section 230 protections. This case illustrates the ongoing tension between platforms' desire to host diverse content and their responsibility to moderate harmful material. As social media litigation continues, Section 230 protections may continue to erode, forcing platforms to be more responsible for content they host or recommend.Google's YouTube settles case over social media harm to children | ReutersA federal judge has vacated (struck down) Trump administration policies that authorized immigration agents to arrest undocumented immigrants at courthouses. The ruling represents a significant limitation on immigration enforcement tactics. The Trump administration issued policies directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct arrests of undocumented immigrants in and around courthouses, even during court proceedings.The policy's supporters argued it was an effective enforcement tool that would apprehend deportable aliens. Critics argued the policy undermined the judicial system because it chilled access to courts. If immigrants fear being arrested when they go to court, they won't report crimes, testify as witnesses, or seek legal protection from domestic violence. They'll be afraid to appear for required court appearances related to immigration proceedings. The federal judge agreed with the critics.The courthouse is supposed to be a safe space where people can seek justice. Historically, both federal and state judges have issued standing orders prohibiting ICE arrests in courthouses because such arrests interfere with the administration of justice. If people are afraid to go to court because they might be arrested, the entire justice system suffers. Witnesses won't testify, victims won't report crimes, and the judicial process breaks down.The judge found that the administration's policies violated well-established principles protecting courthouse access and were an abuse of enforcement discretion. The ICE agents conducting the arrests violated state court rules and judicial orders protecting courthouse integrity. Why this matters: This ruling reaffirms that even immigration enforcement—an area where the executive branch typically has broad authority—must respect core judicial functions. The decision protects immigrants' ability to access courts without fear of enforcement. It may encourage undocumented immigrants to report crimes, testify in cases, and pursue legal remedies. Immigration advocates see this as a significant victory. Immigration enforcement officials may argue it limits their ability to apprehend deportable aliens. The decision reflects a judicial judgment that courthouse access is so fundamental that even immigration enforcement must yield to it.US judge vacates Trump immigration courthouse arrest policies | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hate speech is an unavoidable menace today – particularly so for women and girls – on and offline. The abuse they face is increasingly fuelled by so-called “manosphere” online influencers.Their posts primarily target young men and boys to promote a warped view of masculinity, usually by promoting rigid gender roles and misogyny.To mark the International Day for Countering Hate Speech on 18 June, UN News's Nathalie Minard sat down with Kalliopi Mingeirou from gender equality agency UN Women, where she's leading efforts to end gender-based violence.

Matt and Doug discuss signs of consumer strain in the U.S.—record-low sentiment, rising delinquencies, and high prices—alongside a stock market at all-time highs, comparing the disconnect to historical episodes like Germany's 1923 hyperinflation. They argue official inflation measures are unreliable, deficits and money printing persist, foreign holders are cutting U.S. Treasuries, and gold benefits while mining stocks remain cheap; Doug remains long gold, oil, and commodities and warns the AI/data-center boom may be a debt-fueled bubble. The conversation turns to widening inequality, debt-based consumption tools, weaker job prospects even for top graduates, and fears of social unrest and potential civil conflict. They criticize what they describe as escalating corruption under Trump, including a DOJ settlement structure and extensive trading disclosures suggesting insider activity, then discuss elections, AIPAC/Israel influence, speech taboos, and rising generational and ethnic tensions. 00:00 Everybody Wants Love 00:08 Economy vs Market Highs 01:34 Sticker Shock in America 04:28 Inflation Numbers Doubt 05:57 Treasuries to Gold Rush 07:12 Mining Stocks and ESG 08:36 AI Data Center Bubble 10:32 Haves and Have Nots 12:08 Buy Now Pay Later Living 13:23 Decades of Debt Warnings 17:10 Trump Corruption Claims 17:50 DOJ Settlement Slush Fund 24:25 Insider Trading Allegations 25:50 Epstein and Ukraine Talk 28:59 Elections and Voter Trust 32:17 Israel Influence and AIPAC 36:38 Hate Speech and Taboo Topics 40:32 Tribalism and Protected Classes 44:22 Civil War and Generational Rift 47:22 Wrap Up and Next Guest

We are learning more details about Monday’s deadly shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego. The mother of the 17-year-old suspect alerted police two hours before the attack that her son was missing, suicidal and took her car and several guns. Police say both teenage suspects died by self inflicted gunshot wounds after killing the Center’s security guard, a teacher and a food store worker. Investigators acknowledged they found hate speech on one of the weapons and writings about racial pride.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Three people, including a security guard, were killed in a shooting today at San Diego's largest mosque, authorities said. Two teen suspects also were found dead in a car near the scene. One of the suspects took a firearm from their parents' home and left a suicide note that contained writings about racial pride, law enforcement officials told CNN. Hate speech was also scrawled on one of the weapons, they said. Plus, a shocking settlement to the president's $10 billion lawsuit against the government he runs, the nearly $1.8 billion of your money the deal contains, and the January 6th insurrectionists who'll likely be getting it. We're Keeping Them Honest. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We are learning more details about Monday’s deadly shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego. The mother of the 17-year-old suspect alerted police two hours before the attack that her son was missing, suicidal and took her car and several guns. Police say both teenage suspects died by self inflicted gunshot wounds after killing the Center’s security guard, a teacher and a food store worker. Investigators acknowledged they found hate speech on one of the weapons and writings about racial pride.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We are learning more details about Monday’s deadly shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego. The mother of the 17-year-old suspect alerted police two hours before the attack that her son was missing, suicidal and took her car and several guns. Police say both teenage suspects died by self inflicted gunshot wounds after killing the Center’s security guard, a teacher and a food store worker. Investigators acknowledged they found hate speech on one of the weapons and writings about racial pride.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The defense secretary hits the campaign trail in the middle of a war as Trump creates a $1.8 billion slush fund. Plus, a deadly shooting at the largest mosque in San Diego.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Daniel presents Jack with a bevvy of clips of far-right figures reacting to the Trump admin's indictment of the Southern Policy Law Centre.  Features Matt Walsh, Jack Posobiec, John Doyle, and James Edwards of the Political Cesspool.  Lies and ironies abound. CONTENT WARNING, ESPECIALLY FOR ABLEIST RHETORIC Episode Notes  Associated Press, "Southern Poverty Law Center charged with defrauding donors with payments to extremist informants" https://apnews.com/article/southern-poverty-law- center-criminal-investigation-db7fdcf9baa0d1b24b8f1e1f2cebc0be > "The civil rights group faces charges of wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought in the federal court in Alabama, where the organization is based. > The indictment came shortly after the SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its disbanded informant program to gather intelligence on extremist group activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement." NBC News, "The Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on charges that it fraudulently paid informants in extremist groups" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice- department/southern-poverty-law-center-says-targeted-trump-administration-rcna341237 Emptywheel.net, "Kash Patel Just Invited SPLC TO Demonstrate Their Importance (and His Negligence)" https://emptywheel.net/2026/04/24/kash-patel-just-invited-splc-to-demonstrate-their-importance-and-his-negligence/ Emptywheel.net, "Who's Fooling Whom? How the SPLC Indictment Works" https://emptywheel.net/2026/04/23/whos-fooling-whom-how-the-splc-indictment-works/ Ken Klippenstein, "Assasin Wasn't on FBI's Radar, Sources Say" https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/assassin-wasnt-on-fbis-radar-sources Eric Garland, "Who Trained the SPLC Spies in the KKK?" https://ericgarland.substack.com/p/who-trained-the-splc-spies-in-the Posting Through It, "Strange People on the Hill" (Discusses Hayden's time at the SPLC in some detail) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/096-strange-people-on-the-hill- live-in-dc-4-11-26/id1348573415?i=1000761090083 Michael Edison Hayden, "I Know the SPLC's Flaws Better Than Most" https://michaeledisonhayden.substack.com/p/i-know-the-splcs-flaws-better-than hbomberguy, "Woke Brands." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg Weird Little Guys, "The Southern Poverty Law Center Did Not Plan Unite the Right" https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-weird-little-guys-201395214/episode/the-southern- poverty-law-center-did-333608009/ Weird Little Guys, "Murder on Fourth Street" (A retrospective on the car attack at Unite the Right) https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-weird-little-guys- 201395214/episode/murder-on-fourth-street-281861018/ The Intruder (1962) (Full Film, directed by Roger Corman) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDaTc3bFWIg The Intruder (1962) "Hate Speech" scene from William Shatner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0NJxQrDYI Jessie Gender, "The Manipulations of Matt Walsh's 'What is a Woman?'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJty8Dcmuk Lisa Loeb, "Stay", on Pop-Up Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEc6DtAofo4   SHOW NOTES: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay ad-free and independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to at least one full extra episode a month plus all backer-only back-episodes. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper/posts Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618&fan_landing=true IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's (Locked) Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ Jack's Bluesky: @timescarcass.bsky.social Daniel's Bluesky: @danielharper.bsky.social IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1

Megyn Kelly is joined by Tucker Carlson, host of "The Tucker Carlson Show," to discuss reporting that the U.S. and Iran may be close to a deal to end the war, backlash from neocons furious about the possibility of de-escalation, the truth about the money and political influence behind efforts to keep the Iran war going, the push from pro-war voices to try to reach Trump before a deal is reached, bipartisan efforts to censor so-called “hate speech,” corporate media and Jake Tapper backing the crackdown attempt,  why obsessing over Donald Trump either from love or hate is unhealthy, why Tucker would vote for Trump again over "dumb" Kamala, absurd backlash over their recent comments about Islam, why it's important to be self-reflective about whether you've been manipulated by the establishment press and elites, and more. Then Mark Lynch, GOP U.S. senate candidate in South Carolina, joins to discuss how he plans to defeat Lindsey Graham, why he believes "traitor" Graham needs to go, the state of the race, and more. And Megyn closes out with why she's supporting Spencer Pratt for LA mayor after his fantastic debate, the best moments of him sparring with Mayor Bass and the "failure" council member, and more.   Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 for a free info kit and to see if you qualify for up to $10,000 back through May 29. DailyLook: https://dailylook.com to take your style quiz and use code MEGYN for 50% off your first order. Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Brooklyn Bedding: Upgrade your sleep with Brooklyn Bedding—Visit https://brooklynbedding.com and use promo code MEGYN for 30% off sitewide!     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow  Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The National Security Hour with Major Fred Galvin – From the attempted assassinations of President Trump in 2024… to the growing number of violent threats against elected officials… to coordinated acts of intimidation and destruction across the country—America is seeing the effects of a nation pushed toward the edge. What responsibility do leaders carry—not just for what they say—but for how it is heard?

Terry Mattingly of Rational Sheep Rational Sheep Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture GetReligion.orgThe post Media Coverage of a Hate Speech Trial of Lutheran Leaders in Finland – Terry Mattingly, 4/8/26 (0981) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

A controversial proposal in Canada could criminalize quoting parts of the Bible, igniting a heated debate on faith, free speech, and government overreach. The panel dives into whether this marks a dangerous shift toward silencing religion in the West.