Skip to content

government censorship

Stalking Zealots: Connecticut faces a free speech showdown as activism, online accountability, and government policy collide.

Stalking Zealots

    A growing debate in Connecticut highlights the collision between online activism and the First Amendment. Critics say certain watchdog groups, including StopAntisemitism.org, blur the line between public accountability and digital harassment by naming and shaming individuals for controversial opinions. Supporters call it justified exposure; opponents call it censorship. With Governor Ned Lamont’s Hate Crimes Council expanding its reach, free-speech advocates warn of state-endorsed policing of thought. The question is simple but profound: when does fighting hate become hating dissent?

    Another Sniper – Dan Rayfield Oregon AG

      Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield is under fire for a controversial $10,000 fine levied against a South Carolina citizen accused of unauthorized practice of psychology. Critics argue the penalty is an unconstitutional assault on free speech, punishing political expression across state lines under the guise of professional regulation. The case raises alarms about state overreach, misuse of administrative proceedings, and potential violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment protections. With Oregon’s family courts already facing scrutiny, the move deepens concerns about whether elected officials are weaponizing state power to silence critics and chill constitutionally protected speech nationwide.

      CENSORED FOR SPEAKING OUT: OCDA Deleted Public Comments During Its Own Crime Victims Rights Ceremony

        Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer hosted a livestreamed Crime Victims Rights Week ceremony on April 29, 2025, promising a platform for survivors. But when a journalist submitted peaceful, on-topic comments demanding accountability for CPS, family court, and law enforcement failures, moderators deleted the posts mid-broadcast. The event—billed as a public forum for victim voices—became a textbook case of viewpoint discrimination. The censorship violated First Amendment protections affirmed in Lindke v. Freed and sparked public outcry. A CPRA request and formal media inquiry are now pending. Over 13,000 have signed a petition demanding full investigation of Orange County family courts.