International
Supreme Court unanimously rules that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media

From LifeSiteNews
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Justice noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an ‘ambiguous’ status because they mix official announcements with personal content.
The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that government officials who post about work-related topics on their personal social media accounts can be held liable for violating the First Amendment rights of constituents by blocking their access or deleting their critical comments.
In a 15-page opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an “ambiguous” status because they mix official announcements with personal content.
The court ruled in two cases where people were blocked after leaving critical comments on social media accounts of public officials.
The first case involved two elected members of a California school board — the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees — who blocked concerned parents from their Facebook and Twitter accounts after leaving critical comments.
The court upheld the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the board members had violated the parents’ free speech rights.
The second case before the court concerned James Freed, Port Huron, Michigan’s city manager who had blocked constituent Kevin Lindke from commenting on his Facebook page after deleting his remarks about the city’s COVID-19 pandemic policies.
Lindke believed that Freed had violated the First Amendment by doing so and sued Freed.
Freed maintained that he launched his Facebook page long before becoming a public official, arguing that most of the content on his account concerned family-related matters.
Justice Barrett explained:
Like millions of Americans, James Freed maintained a Facebook account on which he posted about a wide range of topics, including his family and his job. Like most of those Americans, Freed occasionally received unwelcome comments on his posts. In response, Freed took a step familiar to Facebook users: He deleted the comments and blocked those who made them.
For most people with a Facebook account, that would have been the end of it. But Kevin Lindke, one of the unwelcome commenters, sued Freed for violating his right to free speech. Because the First Amendment binds only the government, this claim is a nonstarter if Freed posted as a private citizen. Freed, however, is not only a private citizen but also the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan — and while Freed insists that his Facebook account was strictly personal, Lindke argues that Freed acted in his official capacity when he silenced Lindke’s speech.
Barrett concluded:
When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private. We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.
In the end, the high court sent Lindke’s case back to the Sixth Circuit Federal Appeals Court for a second look.
Perhaps reflecting continued ambiguity following the court’s ruling, both defendant Freed and plaintiff Lindke declared victory.
“I am very pleased with the outcome the justices came to,” Freed told ABC News in a statement. “The Court rejected the plaintiff’s appearance test and further refined a test for review by the Sixth Circuit. We are extremely confident we will prevail there once more.”
Lindke was more effusive and told ABC News that he was “ecstatic” with the court’s decision.
“A 9-0 decision is very decisive and is a clear indicator that public officials cannot hide behind personal social media accounts when discussing official business,” said Lindke.
Legal experts called attention to the persistence of gray area in the law regarding social media due to the narrowness of the court’s decision.
“This case doesn’t tell us much new about how to understand the liability of the 20 million people who work in local, state, administrative or federal government in the U.S. … just that the question is complicated,” Kate Klonick, an expert on online-platform regulation who teaches at St. John’s Law School, told The Washington Post.
Katie Fallow, senior counsel for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told the Post that the court’s ruling does not sufficiently address public officials’ widespread use of personal “shadow accounts,” which constituents often perceive as official.
Fallow said the court was “right to hold that public officials can’t immunize themselves from First Amendment liability merely by using their personal accounts to conduct official business.”
We are disappointed, though, that the Court did not adopt the more practical test used by the majority of the courts of appeals, which appropriately balanced the free speech interests of public officials with those of the people who want to speak to them on their social media accounts.
According to The Hill, the Biden administration and a bipartisan group of 17 states and National Republican Senatorial Committee sided with officials, arguing in favor of their blocks, while the ACLU backed the cons
Friday’s ruling is only the first of several this term that deal with the relationship between government and social media.
“On Feb. 26, the justices heard argument[s] in a pair of challenges to controversial laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate large social-media companies,” explained Amy Howe on Scotusblog.com. “And on Monday the justices will hear oral arguments in a dispute alleging that the federal government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove false or misleading content. Decisions in those cases are expected by summer.”
Daily Caller
Trump Admin To Push UN Overhaul Of ‘Haphazard And Chaotic’ Refugee Policy

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The Trump administration will soon push the United Nations (UN) to rewrite the international asylum rules, calling the current framework a “haphazard and chaotic system” routinely abused by bad actors, the Daily Caller News Foundation confirmed.
U.S. officials are planning an event later this month during the UN’s annual General Assembly to spotlight reforms aimed at curbing asylum abuses that have “disrupted entire regions, enriched criminal cartels and violated the sovereignty of nations,” a State Department spokesperson told the DCNF. Proposed changes include requiring migrants to seek protection in the first country they enter rather than “asylum shopping” for a destination of choice.
“The United States plans to begin a conversation on reforming an outdated, decades-old system that has long been abused by bad actors and economic migrants to fuel the global migration crisis,” the spokesperson told the DCNF.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Most countries, including the U.S., are signatories to UN treaties that set a framework for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum at another country’s borders. The Trump administration, however, plans to push for “commonsense and necessary reforms” emphasizing that every nation has a right to control its borders, there is no right to receive asylum in a country of choice, asylum is meant to be temporary, sovereign states determine when return is possible, and that every country is obligated to accept return of its citizens, the spokesperson said.
European countries that have taken in millions of refugees, many from Muslim-majority nations, have been grappling with social turmoil and violence linked to migrants. Germany alone — with a population of 83 million — had 3 million refugees as of mid-2024, according to the UN.
The push aligns with President Donald Trump’s broader push to tighten asylum standards and “realign” U.S. policy.
“Cities and small towns alike, from Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and Springfield, Ohio, to Whitewater, Wisconsin, have seen significant influxes of migrants,” Trump wrote in his Jan. 20 executive order temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which is currently being challenged in court.
“The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees,” the order continued.
The administration is also expected to set its refugee admission ceiling for fiscal year 2026 this month. More than 100,000 refugees were admitted into the country under former President Joe Biden in fiscal year 2024 — the highest figure since 1994 — according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Meanwhile, Trump has highlighted the violence and discrimination faced by Afrikaners, the minority group of predominantly Dutch descent in South Africa, whose harrowing testimonies the Daily Caller has documented. In May, the president signed an executive order promoting the resettlement of Afrikaners, and several groups have already arrived in the U.S.
Crime
Down the Charlie Kirk Murder Rabbit Hole

- Tyler Robinson’s dad is not a cop but in construction.
- The idea of a wider conspiracy is more credible today.
- Discord is the platform that Robinson used. Twitch is also a gaming platform and one that hosts a great deal of inflammatory speech against MAGA and conservatives more generally.
- The trans story connection from Thursday is taking off with yet another odd festishistic twist. Wait for it.
My credentials do come into play somewhat here and you deserve to know them. I worked at the highest levels of true crime investigation and reporting for many years. In cases like this, experience matters. A number of grifters have emerged to monetize this story. Including the bizarre contention that the rise of Charlie Kirk haters posting on social media is a “psy-op” which is easily debunked. They are real accounts with actual bios attached and the posters whose names are on them are being fired and punished. Demonstrably provable.
On background — our team overturned the conviction of a Nova Scotia man wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife. We uncovered evidence that Karla Homolka was more likely than Paul Bernardo to have murdered their victims. It was the highest rated crime reporting in the history of the CBC. Later, I investigated and further exposed a spate of wrongful convictions on Chicago’s South Side that send many young black men to prison for murders they didn’t commit. There are more but let’s leave it at that.
Are we being lied to? No doubt. My advice: stay away from the influencers and rage farmers. They will not make us smarter.
So what do we have? We have a narrative around Tyler Robinson which gets weirder by the minute. And we have an emerging idea around Israel that I rejected in the podcast but am curious about after reading a piece by Max Blumenthal. Kirk was turning away from the Zionist billionaires who’d helped fund TPUSA and they had started threatening him for questioning the America/Israel collaboration. Kirk was also questioning Israel/Gaza and America’s blind attachment. I apologize to Chris Bray our brilliant guest for not giving him a chance to comment on this as I am sure he has something to say. I found the Grayzone piece after we recorded.
Stick with me. I am posting here the entire Grayzone article. Please read it and comment but keep it cool. At this point — can we take anything off the table?
A Trump insider and longtime friend of Charlie Kirk tells The Grayzone how the assassinated conservative leader’s turning point on Israeli influence provoked a private backlash from Netanyahu’s allies that left him angry and afraid.
The source said anxiety spread within the Trump administration after an apparent Israeli spying operation was uncovered.
Charlie Kirk rejected an offer earlier this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to arrange a massive new infusion of Zionist money into his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization, America’s largest conservative youth association, according to a longtime friend of the slain commentator speaking on the condition of anonymity. The source told The Grayzone that the late pro-Trump influencer believed Netanyahu was trying to cow him into silence as he began to publicly question Israel’s overwhelming influence in Washington and demanded more space to criticize it.
In the weeks leading up to his September 10 assassination, Kirk had come to loathe the Israeli leader, regarding him as a “bully,” the source said. Kirk was disgusted by what he witnessed inside the Trump administration, where Netanyahu sought to personally dictate the president’s personnel decisions, and weaponized Israeli assets like billionaire donor Miriam Adelson to keep the White House firmly under its thumb.
According to Kirk’s friend, who also enjoyed access to President Donald Trump and his inner circle, Kirk strongly warned Trump last June against bombing Iran on Israel’s behalf. “Charlie was the only person who did that,” they said, recalling how Trump “barked at him” in response and angrily shut down the conversation. The source believes the incident confirmed in Kirk’s mind that the president of the United States had fallen under the control of a malign foreign power, and was leading his own country into a series of disastrous conflicts.
By the following month, Kirk had become the target of a sustained private campaign of intimidation and free-floating fury by wealthy and powerful allies of Netanyahu – figures he described in an interview as Jewish “leaders” and “stakeholders.”
“He was afraid of them,” the source emphasized.
At TPUSA, the rift with Israel widens
Kirk was 18 years old when he launched TPUSA in 2012. From its inception, his career was propelled by Zionist donors, who showered his young organization with money through neoconservative outfits like the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He repaid his wealthy backers over the years by unleashing a relentless firehose of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic diatribes, accepting propaganda trips to Israel, and sternly shutting down nationalist forces challenging his support for Israel during TPUSA events. In the Trump era, few American gentiles had proved more valuable to the self-proclaimed Jewish state than Charlie Kirk.
But as Israel’s genocidal assault on the besieged Gaza Strip drove an unprecedented backlash within grassroots right-wing circles, where only 24% of younger Republicans now sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians, Kirk began to shift. At times, he toed the Israeli line, spreading disinformation about babies beheaded by Hamas on October 7, and denying the famine imposed on the population of Gaza. Yet he simultaneously ceded to his base, wondering aloud if Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset, questioning whether the Israeli government allowed the October 7 attacks to proceed in order to advance long-term political goals, and parroting narratives familiar to his most vociferous critic on the right, streamer Nick Fuentes.
This July, at his TPUSA Student Action Summit, Kirk provided a forum for the right-wing grassroots to vent its fury about Israel’s political hammerlock on the Trump administration. There, speakers from former Fox News stalwarts Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, to the anti-Zionist Jewish comedian Dave Smith, denounced Israel’s blood-soaked assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, branded Jeffrey Epstein as an Israeli intelligence asset, and openly taunted Zionist billionaires like Bill Ackman for “getting away with scams” despite having “no actual skills.”
Following the confab, Kirk was bombarded with infuriated text messages and phone calls from Netanyahu’s wealthy allies in the US, including many who had funded TPUSA. According to his longtime friend, the Zionist donors treated Kirk with outright contempt, essentially ordering him to fall back into line.
“He was being told what you’re not allowed to do, and it was driving him crazy,” Kirk’s friend recalled. The conservative youth leader was not only alienated by the hostile nature of the interactions, but “frightened” by the backlash.
The friend’s account dovetails with those of multiple right-wing commentators with access to Kirk.
“I think, in the end, Charlie was going through a spiritual transformation,” Candace Owens, a conservative influencer who shifted decisively against Israel after October 7, reflected after her friend’s killing. “I know it, he was going through a lot. There was a lot of pressure, and it’s hard for me to watch the people who were pressuring him just say the things that they’re saying.”
She continued: “They wanted him to lose everything for changing or even slightly modifying an opinion. It’s very hurtful to me.”
Kirk appeared visibly outraged during an August 6 interview with conservative host Megyn Kelly, as he discussed the menacing messages he was receiving from pro-Israel bigwigs.
“It’s all of the sudden: ‘oh, Charlie: he’s no longer with us.’ Wait a second—what does ‘with us’ mean, exactly? I’m an American, okay? I represent this country,” he explained, before addressing the powerful Zionist interests harassing him.
“The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question—which is not isolated, it would be one thing if it were just one text, or two texts; it is dozens of texts—then we start to say, ‘whoa, hold the boat here,’” Kirk continued. “To be fair, some really good Jewish friends say, ‘that’s not all of us’… But these are leaders here. These are stakeholders.”
He went on to complain to Kelly, “I have less ability… to criticize the Israeli government than actual Israelis do. And that’s really, really weird.”
In one of his final interviews, conducted with Israel’s premier influencer in the United States, Ben Shapiro, Kirk once again tried to raise the issue of censorship of Israel critics.
“A friend said to me, interestingly: ‘Charlie, okay, we’ve pushed back against the media on COVID, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border,’” Kirk told Shapiro on September 9. “Maybe we should also ask the question: is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel? Just a question!”
According to Kirk’s longtime friend, Kirk’s resentment of Netanyahu and the Israel lobby was spreading within Trump’s inner circle. In fact, they said, the president himself was terrified of Netanyahu’s wrath, and feared the consequences of defying him.
During the past year, the Trump insider was told by contacts in the White House that the Secret Service had caught Israeli government personnel placing electronic devices on its emergency response vehicles on two separate occasions.
While The Grayzone was unable to confirm the story with the Secret Service or White House, such an incident would not have been unprecedented. Indeed, according to a report in Politico citing three former senior US officials, a cellphone spying device was placed by Israeli agents “near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington” toward the end of Trump’s first term in 2019.
Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recounted a similar incident in his memoir, writing that his security team found a listening device in his bathroom soon after Netanyahu used his personal toilet.
The Israel-did-it theory
Kirk was killed this September 10 with a single shot fired by a sniper apparently positioned on a rooftop 200 meters away. He was shot while seated before a crowd of thousands at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah on the first leg of his American Comeback Tour. The scene of Kirk collapsing from the impact of a gunshot to his neck just as he began answering a question about transgender mass shooters was perhaps the most shockingly vivid spectacle of assassination – and certainly the most viral – in human history.
There is currently no evidence of an Israeli government role in Kirk’s assassination. However, that has not stopped thousands of social media users from speculating that the pro-Trump operative’s shifting views on the issue contributed in some way to his death. By the time of publication, over 100,000 Twitter/X users have liked a September 11 post by libertarian influencer Ian Carroll declaring about Kirk, “He was their friend. He basically dedicated his life to them. And they murdered him in front of his family. Israel just shot themselves.”
Many advancing the unsubstantiated theory have pointed to a Twitter/X post by Harrison Smith, a personality at the pro-Trump Infowars network, stating on August 13 – almost a month before Kirk’s assassination – that he was told by “someone close to Charlie Kirk that Kirk thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against Israel.”
The frenzied speculation has set off shockwaves in Tel Aviv, where Netanyahu was compelled to explicitly deny that his government killed Kirk during a September 11 interview with NewsMax.
Netanyahu and his allies bury the Kirk crisis as “big tent” collapses
That appearance was just one of several interviews and statements the Prime Minister dedicated to Kirk in the wake of his killing in an effort to frame the late conservative leader’s legacy in a uniformly pro-Israel light. The major public relations push has occurred while Netanyahu wages a military campaign on seven fronts, punctuated by a regional assassination spree that most recently reached into the heart of Qatar, a US ally.
Netanyahu first tweeted prayers for Kirk at 3:02 PM in the afternoon on September 10, minutes after news of the shooting broke. He has since authored three additional posts about Kirk, even breaking away from the Israeli war cabinet to spend the afternoon of September 11 memorializing the conservative leader on Fox News.
During that interview, Netanyahu did his best to insinuate that Israel’s enemies were responsible for murdering Kirk, despite the fact no suspect was named or in custody at the time:
“The radical Islamists and their union with the ultra-progressives—they often speak about ‘human rights,’ they speak about ‘free speech’—but they use violence to try to take down their enemies,” the Prime Minister told Harris Faulkner.
In a September 10 Twitter/X post eulogizing the conservative leader, the Israeli Prime Minister described a recent phone conversation with Kirk.
“I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel,” Netanyahu declared. “Sadly, that visit will not take place.”
Left unmentioned was whether Kirk declined the invitation—just as he did with the Prime Minister’s offer to reload TPUSA’s coffers with donations from his coterie of wealthy American Jewish cutouts.
At the time of publication, a 22-year-old resident of Utah has been taken into custody after supposedly confessing to killing Kirk. The public may soon learn the true motives of the alleged assassin. Perhaps they will fuel the narrative which Trump and his allies advanced in the immediate wake of the shooting – that a leftist radical was responsible, and that a wave of draconian repression must follow.
But after the shooter’s initial escape and a series of federal law enforcement mishaps, a large sector of Americans will likely never believe the official story. Nor will they ever know where Kirk’s turning point on Israel would have taken the conservative movement.
Four days before the assassination, frustration among pro-Israel commentators bubbled over in public during an Fox News interview in which Ben Shapiro launched a chilling attack on Kirk without naming him.
“The problem with a ‘big tent’ is that you may end up with many clowns inside,” Shapiro told Fox host and fellow Zionist gatekeeper Mark Levin in an apparent critique of TPUSA.
“Just because you’re saying somebody votes Republican—that doesn’t mean that they ought to be the preacher at the front of the church, they’re not the person that ought to be leading the movement, if they are spending all day criticizing the President of the United States as ‘covering up a Mossad rape ring’ or ‘being a tool of the Israelis for hitting an Iranian nuclear facility.’”
When Kirk took his usual place at the “front of the church” four days later, he was cut down by a sniper’s bullet.
Within 24 hours of Kirk’s death, Shapiro announced that he would be launching his own campus speaking tour, vowing: “We’re gonna pick up that blood stained microphone where Charlie left it.”
Ben ShapiroBenjamin NetanyahuCharlie KirkConservativesDonald TrumpFox NewsGazaGOPIsraelIsrael-
END OF GRAYZONE PIECE
Back to Tyler Robinson:
Earlier there was some evidence reported by Steven Crowder and the Wall Street Journal of a trans connection based on etchings in the shell casings. That was later softened and then debunked when the actual markings were officially confirmed by the FBI. But hold on to your hats….the markings actually refer to a modern kink known as “furry”— a sad subculture which is LGBTQ adjacent in which adherents get their kicks by dressing in plush animal costumes. Andy Ngo’s extensive reporting on Antifa suggests a link between trans/furry and some of the violence that attended the BLM riots. Remember the mug shots?
Then the story got weirder. On Saturday, Fox and then the New York Post reported that the “roommate” who was working with police is actually Robinson’s romantic partner with whom he lived. Lance Twiggs identifies as trans and it was reported Twiggs is in the process of “transition.” Below is Twiggs in his furry gear.
This revelation is a full circle moment given that Kirk was in the middle of discussing trans violence when he was shot. Robinson’s family is not ruling out trans anger as a motive for the shooting. Kirk’s final words before the fatal shot.
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” Kozak asked. While Kirk said “too many,” Kozak contended the number was five.
Kirk’s final words were a question to Kozak for clarity on the number. He asked whether that was “counting or not counting gang violence.” That’s when the shot rang out, ending the 31-year-old activist’s life.
My question: Was the shooting of Charlie Kirk a misguided gesture of love/commitment by Robinson aimed at his trans/furry boyfriend?
The story about Tyler Robinson is a compelling one but obviously we don’t know enough. Will he die in prison before a trial?
NEW-THE SECURITY ANGLE:
What is clear and it is the obvious question that no one is talking about — why was security for Kirk so apparently lax going into an event that was in hugely hostile territory. Did the TPUSA team even know about the pushback from students and that credible threats were made in the days leading up to it? This was a replay of Butler. Why no sweep of the rooftops?
Perhaps Robinson was aware of this story and petition against Kirk in the University Newspaper. Click through into the comments link to read.
Credible threats. Failed security. Multiple stories with different motives. Let’s see how this shakes out….
Stay critical.
#truthovertribe
Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
-
espionage2 days ago
Inside Xi’s Fifth Column: How Beijing Uses Gangsters to Wage Political Warfare in Taiwan — and the West
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Decision expected soon in case that challenges Alberta’s “safe spaces” law
-
Energy1 day ago
The IEA’s Peak Oil Fever Dream Looks To Be In Full Collapse
-
Crime1 day ago
Transgender Roomate of Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Cooperating with Investigation
-
COVID-191 day ago
Why FDA Was Right To Say No To COVID-19 Vaccines For Healthy Kids
-
Crime22 hours ago
Down the Charlie Kirk Murder Rabbit Hole
-
Business12 hours ago
Carney Admits Deficit Will Top $61.9 Billion, Unveils New Housing Bureaucracy
-
Business19 hours ago
It’s time to finally free the beer