Source: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
by Ari Cohn
“An Instagram post isn’t a cigarette. A YouTube short isn’t a shot of whiskey. Social media platforms and the information, ideas, and entertainment they connect people to aren’t tangible items that inherently and invariably have physical impacts on the human body. No matter how you feel about social media, the minute we start treating speech as if it were just another physical product is the minute we hand the government the power to decide what we can read, watch, and say. That’s dangerous — and the First Amendment forbids it.” (03/25/26)
“Are young boys everywhere on the verge of being pulled down into the abyss of online gambling? If you’ve been reading the news lately, you might be tempted to think so. Young men are all addicted to sports betting, and now the industry’s incessant advertising is luring in kids, so say some media outlets. If something isn’t done to limit ads for gambling apps, some argue, kids will continue to be taken advantage of. … In reality, gambling ads pose very little threat to children.” (03/25/26)
“Four years after the Twitter Files, the Missouri v. Biden case ends in a consent decree barring government from threatening protected speech – a belated but important victory.” (03/25/26)
“The city of Herculaneum in Jefferson County is showing how use taxes can be properly added into the municipal revenue mix. A use tax is simply a sales tax on goods you purchase online (or through catalogs) and have delivered to your home. Many cities and counties have added them in recent years as online shopping has grown. Voters often approve them, but sometimes they say ‘“no, thank you.’ Supporters of use taxes say they level the playing field between online purchases and actual stores from a cost perspective, along with raising revenue for local services. That is true, and I have generally been supportive of use tax expansion in recent years. Broadening the sales tax base is a good thing. However, I have also called for cities and counties to offset the increased revenues from use taxes with cuts to other taxes (at least partly).” (03/25/26)
“ou recall how the Covid lockdowns began. It was a soft and slow drumbeat that began in late January 2020, with growing amounts of panic and a faster tempo, increasing for several weeks. The US President and the UK Prime Minister resisted extreme reactions. Most governments did and so did most public health authorities. … Six years later and nearly to the day, this new attempted lockdown seems to be going the same way, not concerning infectious disease but energy use. Isn’t it remarkable how the officially recommended methods of managing these completely different realms bear so much in common? They both come down to restricting your liberty, rationing your consumption, redirecting your attention, and shouting down critics.” (03/26/26)
“On the last day of testimony in the federal ‘“Prairieland’ trial (wherein nine activists faced charges related to a protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center), the government called its star witness back to the stand. Kyle Shideler, director of counterterrorism research at the right-wing think tank Center for Security Policy, had been key to the prosecution’s case that ’antifa’ (the loose network of activists defined by their ‘opposition to fascism’) is a violent, criminal organization bent on overthrowing the U.S. government. Shideler, an imposing figure with a cleanly shaven head and full beard, had attended nearly the entire trial, even sitting in the overflow room during jury selection. At the stand, Shideler read aloud the government’s definition of antifa, as well as an excerpt from President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring antifa a domestic terrorist organization — issued in September, less than two weeks after the assassination of right-wing pundit and activist Charlie Kirk.” (03/26/26)
“The biggest problem with the ‘justice system’ (judicial system) is that it is filled with lawyers. Including all but a very small number of judges. And a big part of that problem with judges is that they know what side their bread is buttered on. Their income, their working places, their prestige is all tied to the government apparat that pays for all of that. And that protects them personally. Let us look at three cases which illustrate that judges today are creatures of the State, of government.” (03/25/26)
Everything costs more. Everything is monitored. Everything feels like it’s designed to take—from your wallet, your time, your freedom. That’s because it is. The government has turned everyday life into a revenue stream—funding endless wars, bloated agencies, surveillance systems, and profit-driven policing… all on your dime. You’re not just paying taxes. You’re paying to be watched. Paying to be policed. Paying to be controlled. This isn’t government. It’s a business model.” (03/25/26)
“Privacy is important. Not because you have anything to hide, but because it’s no one’s business. Otherwise, let’s get rid of restroom doors, curtains, or anything else that might shield our activities from everyone else’s eyes. Companies that help government spy on people are doing wrong. Digital ID. Flock cameras. Age verification. TSA scanners. Government’s co-conspirators are not the good guys. Not all surveillance is a bad thing, though. You should know everything about anyone who holds a government office. At the same time, they shouldn’t be able to learn anything about you. As long as those offices are allowed to exist — and they shouldn’t be — the standard should be that while you hold any government job, your life is an open book.” (03/25/26)
“Once you acknowledge the truism that AI output is speech, almost all regulation of AI is ipso facto illegal. Government has no more legal right to regulate AI than it has to regulate the New York Times. Even if you’re a convinced doomer, you have to admit that the danger of existing LLMs is not ‘clear and present,’ much less ‘imminent.’ If the Supreme Court has an iota of consistency, the AI industry will be able — barring an anti-AI amendment to the Constitution — to fend off virtually all regulation with ease. Does the Supreme Court have an iota of consistency? Based on past performance, the jury is still out.” (03/25/26)
