Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

California judge: first grader too young for free speech rights, family appeals

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

As you read this keep in mind, she’s 6.

The mother of a first grader punished for handing an “innocent” drawing with the phrases “black lives matter” and “any life” to a classmate of color is appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court ruling  declared first-grade students are too young to be protected by the First Amendment. 

After a first grade lesson on Martin Luther King Jr. and Black Lives Matter, a student who felt bad for her classmate of color drew a picture for that classmate to allegedly help the classmate feel more included. The picture had the phrase “Black Lives Mater” (sic) above “any life,” with a picture below of four circles of different colors — which the author says represented her and three classmates holding hands. The student thanked the author for the drawing and took it home, after which the recipient’s mother reported the drawing to the school’s principal “to express concern that her daughter was being singled out for her race.” 

The school’s principal, Jesus Becerra, allegedly concluded that writing “any life” was “inconsistent with values taught in the school but acknowledged that [author’s] motives were ‘innocent.’” The recipient’s parents agreed the author innocently drew the picture and that they did not want the author punished, but Beccara allegedly declared the drawing “racist” and “inappropriate,” and submitted the first-grade author to punishment. 

Becerra forced the author to apologize to the recipient for the drawing — to which the recipient allegedly expressed confusion upon receiving, leading to more confusion from the author. He also banned the author, a student “who loved to draw,” from drawing and giving pictures to classmates, and teachers banned the author from recess for two weeks without telling her why. 

According to Transparent California, Becerra received total pay and benefits of $207,678.20 in 2022 as elementary school principal at Capistrano Unified School District. 

After the author’s mother found out about the punishment a year later, she requested an explanation and an apology from the school, escalating until filing a suit in federal court. The school district claimed Beccara was operating under qualified immunity against the author’s First Amendment and retaliation claims. A federal district court ruled on behalf of Beccara, finding that first grade students are not protected by the First Amendment.

“Giving great weight to the fact that the students involved were in first grade, the Court concludes that the Drawing is not protected by the First Amendment,” wrote the court, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling finding “schools may restrict speech that ‘might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities’ or that collides ‘with the rights of other students to be secure and let alone.” 

The court also said the phrase “any life” was close to the phrase “All Lives Matter,” which it said is “an inclusive denotation but one that is widely perceived as racially insensitive and belittling when directed at people of color” in its justification for Beccerra’s actions. 

The case’s appeal claims Beccarra’s punishment of the author counts as retaliation for actions protected under the First Amendment, and that says first grader’s speech is protected under Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist, a United States Supreme Court ruling that says “First Amendment rights … are available to teachers and students,” who do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” 

The appeal from the Pacific Legal Foundation says the lower court incorrectly found the author’s speech fell under Tinker’s First Amendment exemptions for speech at school that infringes on another student’s right to be left alone with regards tobullying, or causes “substantial disruption.” 

The case now awaits a hearing and ruling from the Ninth Circuit, which should occur within a year.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canadian pro-freedom group sounds alarm over Liberal plans to revive internet censorship bill

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Democracy Fund warned that the Liberal government may bring back a form of Bill C-63, which is aimed at regulating online speech.

One of Canada’s top pro-democracy groups has sounded the alarm by warning that the Canadian federal government is planning to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.

The Democracy Fund (TDF), in a recent press release, warned about plans by the Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney to bring back a form of Bill C-63. The bill, which lapsed when the election was called earlier this year, aimed to regulate online speech, which could mean “mass censorship” of the internet.

“TDF is concerned that the government will try once more to give itself the power to criminalize and punish online speech and debate,” the group said.

“TDF will oppose that.”

According to the TDF, it is “concerned that the government intends to re-introduce the previously abandoned Online Harms Bill in the same or modified form.”

Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online. The bill died earlier this year after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election.

While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.

The Online Harms Act would have censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.

The TDF said that Bill C-63 would have made it a criminal offense to publish ill-defined “harmful content.”

The TDF warned that under Carney, the government is “once again considering new or similar legislation to regulate online speech, with the Minister of Justice claiming he would take another look at the matter.”

Mark Joseph, TDF litigation director, pointed out that Canada already has laws that “the government can, and does, use to address most of the bad conduct that the Bill ostensibly targeted.”

“To the extent that there are gaps in the Criminal Code, amendments should be carefully drafted to fix this,” he said.

“However, the previous Bill C-63 sought to implement a regime of mass censorship.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews last month, a recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.

Another recent Carney government Bill C-2, which looks to ban cash donations over $10,000, was blasted by a constitutional freedom group as a “step towards tyranny.”

Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.

He has also said his government plans to launch a “new economy” in Canada that will involve “deepening” ties to the world.

Under Carney, the Liberals are expected to continue much of what they did under Justin Trudeau, including the party’s zealous push in favor of abortion, euthanasia, radical gender ideologyinternet regulation and so-called “climate change” policies. Indeed, Carney, like Trudeau, seems to have extensive ties to both China and the globalist World Economic Forum, connections that were brought up routinely by conservatives in the lead-up to the election.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Dan Frieth

The now-defunct ad coalition GARM shared insider data and urged boycotts of Twitter to punish non-compliance with its ‘harmful content’ standards, a US House Judiciary report shows.

A new report from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has shed light on what it describes as an alarming collaboration between powerful corporations and foreign governments aimed at suppressing lawful American speech.

The investigation focuses on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative founded in 2019 by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), which the committee accuses of acting as a censorship cartel.

According to the report, GARM, whose members control about 90 percent of global advertising spending, exploited its market dominance to pressure platforms like Twitter (now X) into compliance with its restrictive content policies.

A copy of the report can be found HERE.

The committee highlighted how GARM sought to “effectively reduce the availability and monetization” of content it deemed harmful, regardless of public demand for free expression.

Documents obtained by the committee reveal direct coordination between GARM and foreign regulators, including the European Commission and Australia’s eSafety commissioner.

In one exchange, a European bureaucrat encouraged advertisers to leverage their influence to “push Twitter to deliver on GARM asks.”

Similarly, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant praised GARM’s “significant collective power in helping to hold the platforms to account” and sought updates to “take into account in our engagement and regulatory decisions.”

Partial email from Julie Inman Grant to Rob Rakowitz dated November 9, 2022, expressing interest in GARM's collective power to hold platforms accountable and emphasizing the importance of brand and platform safety, with email addresses partially redacted.

Robert Rakowitz, GARM’s co-founder and initiative lead, expressed a chilling goal in private correspondence, stating that silencing President Donald Trump was his “main thing” and likening the president’s speech to a “contagion” he aimed to contain “to protect infection overall.”

Email from Rob Rakowitz dated Tuesday, November 1, 2022, discussing plans approved by the Steer Team to influence Twitter and Elon Musk regarding advertising standards, mentioning collaboration with WPP and outlining transparency and remediation plans for advertisers; includes blacked-out and redacted email addresses and ends with his title as Initiative Lead at the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and mentions WFA locations in Brussels, London, New York, and Singapore.

The report outlines how GARM distributed previously unavailable non-public information about Twitter’s adherence to its standards, fully aware this would prompt advertisers to boycott the platform if it failed to conform. According to the House report, Rakowitz admitted that this information sharing was designed to encourage members not to advertise on Twitter.

He went as far as to draft statements urging GARM members to halt advertising on the platform, telling colleagues he had gone “as close as possible” to saying Twitter “is unsafe, cease and desist.”

Despite the widespread impact of GARM’s actions, including what the committee describes as coerced “concessions” from platforms, internal polling circulated within GARM showed that “66 percent of American consumers valued free expression over protection from harmful content.”

Still, GARM pressed ahead with efforts to “eliminate all categories of harmful content in the fastest possible timing,” ignoring consumer preferences.

Even after GARM dissolved in 2024 amid legal challenges, similar efforts persisted.

A new coalition led by Dentsu and The 614 Group briefly attempted to revive GARM’s mission before disbanding under scrutiny. Gerry D’Angelo, a former GARM leader, reflected on the initiative’s overreach, stating, “Did we go too far in those first rounds of exclusionary restrictions? I would say yes.”

The Judiciary Committee warns that despite GARM’s downfall, the threat of collusion to stifle free expression remains.

It pledged to continue oversight to defend “the fundamental principles” of the Constitution and ensure that markets, not coordinated censorship efforts, shape the flow of information in the digital age.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Trending

X