MSNBC: Judge reinstates South Dakota professor who called Charlie Kirk a ‘hate spreading Nazi’

The art professor “demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim,” a federal judge wrote.

A University of South Dakota art professor can keep his job — for now, at least — despite his private Facebook post in which he called Charlie Kirk “a hate spreading Nazi” after Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at a Utah college.

A judge’s temporary restraining order keeping Phillip Michael Hook in his position while his lawsuit proceeds highlights that at least some employers may have overstepped legally in taking actions against employees for their speech about Kirk, the Trump-allied activist who has been eulogized as a free speech advocate. It also reinforces that Attorney General Pam Bondi was incorrect when she attempted to single out so-called hate speech as something that the First Amendment doesn’t protect.

Explaining her temporary ruling in Hook’s favor Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier reasoned that the professor’s speech “is entitled to First Amendment protection” and that the school failed to produce “any evidence of disruption” in response to Hook’s post. Such evidence wouldn’t necessarily justify his firing, but it would add a layer to the analysis that the Clinton appointee determined she didn’t have to examine here.

Hook wrote in his Sept. 10 post, which he made while at home and not working:

Okay. I don’t give a flying f*** about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was. I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe.

He wrote in a follow-up post that day, while still at home and not working:

Apparently my frustration with the sudden onslaught of coverage concerning a guy shot today led to a post I mow [sic] regret posting. I’m sure many folks fully understood my premise but the simple fact that some were offended, led me to remove the post. I extend this public apology to those who were offended. Om Shanti.

Republican state officials spoke out against the professor and supported his firing. The university told Hook that it intended to fire him and that he would be placed on leave in the meantime. He filed a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional retaliation against core political speech.

Opposing the restraining order in a court filing ahead of Schreier’s ruling, university officials wrote that Hook’s post “angered many people, both internal and external” to the university. They also said that a restraining order is unnecessary because even if Hook succeeds in his claim, he can get reinstatement and back pay.

Schreier nonetheless ordered Hook reinstated through Oct. 8, when the judge will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on the next steps in the case. For now, she wrote, the professor “has demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim.”

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/charlie-kirk-social-media-professor-fired-south-dakota-rcna233718

Bloomberg: Murdoch Calls Trump’s Epstein Suit ‘Affront’ to Free Speech

Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. asked a US judge to throw out President Donald Trump’s $10 billion libel lawsuit over a Wall Street Journal report tying him to a bawdy birthday note to the late Jeffrey Epstein, calling the case “an affront to the First Amendment.”

The July 17 story about a note bearing Trump’s signature that was sent to Epstein along with a sketch of a naked woman in 2003 is true and doesn’t defame the president’s character, lawyers for the 94-year-old News Corp. chairman emeritus said Monday in a request to dismiss the suit.

“By its very nature, this meritless lawsuit threatens to chill the speech of those who dare to publish content that the President does not like,” Murdoch and News Corp. said in the filing in federal court in Miami.

Trump sued July 18, accusing Murdoch, News Corp. and Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. of maligning his character. The suit was filed as the president was fighting a firestorm of criticism over the government’s handling of documents related to the late, disgraced financier. Epstein died in prison in 2019 as he faced sex-trafficking charges.

The Wall Street Journal story, which provided details of a “birthday book” of notes compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday, raised further pressure on Trump, who has long denied any awareness of Epstein’s activities. House Democrats investigating the sex-trafficking operation run by Epstein earlier this month released the alleged birthday note that they said Trump sent to the late disgraced financier.

“Two weeks ago, in response to a congressional subpoena, Epstein’s estate produced the Birthday Book, which contains the letter bearing the bawdy drawing and plaintiff’s signature, exactly as The Wall Street Journal reported,” Murdoch and News Corp. said in the filing.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Murdoch and News Corp. said in their filing that the First Amendment’s protections for truthful speech “are the backbone of the Constitution.”

Trump “acknowledged his friendship with Epstein,” Murdoch and News Corp. said in the filing. “As the article reports, three months before the Birthday Book was gifted to Epstein, a New York magazine article quoted the plaintiff as saying that he had known Epstein for ‘15 years’ and that Epstein was a ‘terrific guy,’ ‘a lot of fun to be with,’ and ‘likes beautiful women as much as I do.’”

Murdoch in August agreed to provide Trump’s lawyers with a sworn declaration “describing his current health condition” as well as regular updates on his health as part of a deal to delay any deposition in the case. 

The filing comes days after a judge tossed Trump’s $15 billion defamation suit against the New York Times, which accused it of serving as a “mouthpiece” for the Democrats. The judge in that case said Trump’s lawyers “unmistakably and inexcusably” violated court rules by featuring “repetitive,” “superfluous” and “florid” allegations and details in the complaint. The judge gave Trump permission to refile a shorter lawsuit within the rules.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-22/murdoch-asks-judge-to-toss-out-trump-s-10-billion-epstein-suit

Talking Points Memo: Trump Administration Loses Plot During ‘Free Speech’ Struggle Session

Hello it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕️

To some extent, every new excess by the Trump administration is unsurprising to us, the writers and editors of Talking Points Memo, and, I imagine, to you, our readers. These guys told us what they were going to do, after all. It sounded authoritarian. Trump’s own former military leaders said he was “fascist.” But given that priming, we heavy consumers of news can, I think, sometimes lose track of how far the Trump administration has gone, even by its own standards.

Nicole on Thursday flagged an interview with CNBC during which FCC director Brendan Carr outlined his belief that both his agency and the “media ecosystem” overall are in the midst of a “massive shift” given the “permission structure that President Trump’s election has provided.”

“And I would simply say we’re not done yet with seeing the consequences of that,” Carr said.

“Will you only be pleased when none of these comedians have a show on broadcast television?” CNBC anchor David Faber asked.

“No, it’s not any particular show or any particular person,” Carr replied. “It’s just we’re in the midst of a very disruptive moment right now, and I just, frankly, expect that we’re going to continue to see changes in the media ecosystem.”

Carr and the rest of the Trump administration have tried to get a lot of mileage out of the whole idea that the 2024 election represented a substantiation of an American cultural “vibe shift” post-COVID (though Carr’s talk of a new, Trumpian “permission structure” is a particularly chilling way to articulate that idea).

But setting aside that Trump’s electoral victory was, in the end, not that large, are Trump’s leaders in government still doing what they understood themselves to have won permission to do?

“This was all in Project 2025, btw,” an actor from “Glee” tweeted, and Carr at 11:43 p.m. replied with that GIF of Jack Nicholson nodding with an ecstatic, unhinged look, a seeming affirmation that, yes, this was all the plan.

But was it? Carr, in fact, wrote the FCC chapter of Project 2025. There was nothing about revoking broadcast licenses or using the “Equal Time” rule in creative ways, as he has threatened to do with “The View,” a program that is seemingly his next ABC-broadcast target. “The FCC should promote freedom of speech,” his chapter of Project 2025 began.

That’s an ideal his party is now seemingly somewhat confused about. Early this week, Pam Bondi got in trouble for trying to distinguish anti-Charlie Kirk “hate speech” from “free speech.” “An FCC license, it’s not a right. It really is a privilege,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) told Semafor on Thursday. “Under normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right. And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore,” she added. Other Republicans took the opposite side of the issue, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of all people calling Carr’s tactics “right out of Goodfellas.”

It’s in these moments where the Trump administration and its allies lose the plot — when they do an about-face on the same ideas they bear hugged in weeks and months and years prior, casting about for enemies to punish — that the MAGA coalition frays a bit, straining under the weight of cognitive dissonance. We saw the same thing with Trump’s short-lived war on Iran and, much more so, with his aggressive insistence that there was nothing important going on with that Jeffrey Epstein guy. The cause of ending cancel culture launched a thousand MAGA-aligned influencer careers; it is the supposed raison d’être of entire MAGA-friendly publications. Now that the government they serve has turned the page on free speech, what do they do?

It’s not just the MAGA faithful. Booting a late-night host watched by millions from the air over some muddled remarks about your slain political ally is the kind of thing that gets the attention of the “normies” who have decided to tune out from the whole lurid spectacle of American democracy in 2025. (Ditto for revising childhood vaccine recommendations while confessing you’re not even totally clear what you’re voting on.)

Ten years into this, only fools predict we’ve reached the beginning of the end of Donald Trump. And that’s not what I’m saying. But moments like these are not good for Trump’s already limited base of support, and bring us toward the next chapter of America’s authoritarian experiment, whatever that chapter may be.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/the-weekender/the-trump-admins-free-speech-struggle-session

Hollywood Reporter: Trump’s Attack on ABC Is Illegal. It Might Not Matter

The carrot or the stick? Trump has utilized every lever of government to target networks critical of him.

The chain of events that led to ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! unfolded unusually fast. It started with a thinly-veiled threat from Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr that his agency might take action against the network over accusations that the late night host mischaracterized the politics of the man who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he said to right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Within five hours, Nextstar, an owner of ABC affiliate stations around the country, said that it would pre-empt the show “for the foreseeable future.” Minutes later, ABC pulled it indefinitely.

Since the start of his second term, President Trump has used every lever of government to fight back against what he considers conservative bias in mainstream media and adversarial coverage. By dangling carrots of selective regulatory enforcement and favorable regulation, he’s effectively been able to strongarm networks, which disguise the could-be censorship as private business decisions. Consider Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount, with CEO David Ellison intending to make major changes at CBS News, possibly by bringing on The Free Press founder Bari Weiss in a leading role at the network.

Kimmel was “fired because of bad ratings more than anyone else,” Trump, who predicted the late night host’s firing in July, said at a press conference in London. Later, he suggested revoking the licenses of adversarial broadcast networks. “I would think maybe their licenses should be taken away,” he said. Carr also told CNBC earlier in the morning that “we’re not done yet,” hinting at further changes in media.

And like approval of Paramount’s sink-or-swim merger with Skydance, Kimmel’s suspensions shines a spotlight on the power that Trump wields over dealmaking and regulatory matters in decisions with the potential to transform the long term trajectory of a company. Media execs are on notice: Bob Iger allowed ABC News’ settlement of a defamation lawsuit from Trump; Jeff Bezos revamped The Washington Post‘s opinion section to bring it more in line with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal; Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong shifted the paper’s strategy to increasingly platform conservative views.

Here, Carr knew the affiliate networks had leverage. Nextstar reaches 220 millions viewers in the country, and it appears the company drew a hard line over Kimmel’s remarks. The FCC didn’t formally have to do anything.

“The threat is real,” says Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment lawyer who’s argued more than a dozen free speech cases before the Supreme Court.

To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law, lines were clearly crossed. “The government, including the FCC, never can impose sanctions for the views expressed,” he says. “But that is exactly what Carr threatened and ABC capitulated.”

Important to note: Nextstar is seeking regulatory approval for its $6.2 billion megamerger with Tegna that, if greenlit, would make it by far the largest owner of local TV stations in the country. But first, the FCC has to raise the 40 percent ownership cap in order to advance the deal.

By pre-empting Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Nextstar was able to curry favor with Carr. The company “stood up and said, ‘Look, we have the license, and we don’t want to run this anymore. We don’t think it serves the interests of our community,’” he said during a Wednesday segment on FOX News’ Hannity. “I’m very glad to see that America’s broadcasters are standing up to serve the interests of their community.”

Yes, Carr’s threat likely violates the First Amendment, legal scholars say, but that only matters if Disney is willing to go to court. The entertainment giant had clear incentives to fold. It has ambitions, perhaps ones that will require regulatory approval in the near future, outside of ABC. There’s the looming threat of government retaliation if it didn’t suspend Kimmel.

Recently, Disney has tried to avoid the partisan political fray. By its thinking, its brand is built on fairytales and fantasies, not taking positions on socially divisive topics, which have come with consequences (Conservatives go to Disney World too). Take the company, under pressure from its employees, criticizing a Florida education barring classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity. State legislators, at the direction of Gov. Ron DeSantis, responded by assuming control of the special tax district that encompasses its 25,000-acre resort. A years-long, bitter feud with its most vital partner for its parks business that likely contributed to former chief executive Bob Chapek’s ouster and a dragging stock price, which culminated in a proxy fight with activist investor Nelson Peltz, followed.

If it does sue, which is very unlikely, Disney could lean on precedent created by an unlikely ally: The National Rifle Association. In a case before the Supreme Court last year, the justices unanimously found that the gun group’s First Amendment rights were violated when New York state officials coerced private companies into blacklisting it. The takeaway, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, is that the constitution “prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech.”

There are obvious parallels, says Eugene Volokh, a professor at U.C.L.A. law school and influential conservative blogger. “It’s clear that the FCC used coercive pressure — the threat of investigation or cancelling the Nextstar, Tegna merger,” he says.

It’s true that Kimmel’s remarks about the political affiliation of Kirk’s shooter were incorrect. It matters to get things right. But Carr’s intervention thrusts the FCC — and government — into a miscast role as the arbiter of truth. There’s a right to speculate on current events, even if it later turns out to be wrong.

“We’ve never been in a situation like this,” Abrams says. “It’s a real body blow to free expression.”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/jimmy-kimmels-suspension-trump-era-first-amendment-threat-1236375335

Alternet: ‘Go somewhere else’: Sheriff may file charges against Democrats over anti-Trump buttons

Members of the Ashland County, Ohio Democratic Party were recently escorted out of the county fair for displaying merchandise critical of President Donald Trump. And criminal charges could soon follow, according to the local sheriff.

Cleveland, Ohio-based ABC affiliate WEWS reported Friday that Ashland County Sheriff Kurt Schneider is contemplating filing criminal charges against the Democrats for displaying several buttons that he and other fairgoers found objectionable. WEWS reported that before the Democrats were escorted out, they were told to stop displaying the buttons. After several fairgoers continued to complain, deputies escorted the Democrats off of the fairgrounds.

One of the buttons in question shows a red baseball cap with “FELON” written on it, and the text “is he dead yet” underneath. Another button has a red baseball cap bearing the message “RESIST” with the caption “8647” (which is a reference to both a restaurant term to get rid of something on the menu and Trump being the 47th president of the United States).

Both Schneider and fairgoer Dan Kaufman viewed the buttons as “threatening,” and the sheriff said he had contacted the U.S. Secret Service over the buttons. He said he hadn’t ruled out pressing charges, but didn’t immediately specify what charges he was considering.

“Everybody can say anything, right? But then what are the consequences of what you say?” Schneider told WEWS. “This kind of nonsense, it can go somewhere else.”

State senator Bill DeMora (D) argued the buttons were protected speech, and blasted local authorities over their reaction.

“”This is censorship,” he said. “It’s a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.”

“”[Schneider] is wrong and will lose any battle in court,” he added.

https://www.alternet.org/sheriff-democrats-trump-buttons

Independent: Reporter and House candidate Kat Abughazleh thrown to the ground by ICE as 400 arrested in Chicago

‘This is what it looks like when ICE violates our First Amendment rights,’ said Kat Abughazaleh

Kat Abughazaleh, a former journalist and Democratic congressional candidate, was thrown to the ground by an ICE agent during a protest in Chicago on Friday, with video of the incident going viral.

The 26-year-old running for Congress in Illinois’s 9th District in 2026 posted videos of the incident on X, writing, “This is what it looks like when ICE violates our First Amendment rights.”

In the first video, an armed agent grabs Abughazaleh around the chest and throws her onto the road, landing on her backside.

The other shows Abughazaleh seated on the street alongside other protestors wearing face masks and holding signs.

A group of ICE agents walks up to the group, and one picks up Abughazaleh, dragging her further back. She gets up to be shoved by other agents as multiple bystanders record the interaction.

“What ICE just did to me was a violent abuse of power — and it’s still nothing compared to what they’re doing to immigrant communities,” Abughazaleh added in another post. “I’ve been fighting the right as a journalist and now I’m running for Congress to do the same in DC.

“I hope you’ll join me in this fight,” she said, providing a link to her campaign website.

Some right-wingers appeared gleeful at the assault.

“I love watching communists get body slammed by ICE,” MAGA commentator Laura Loomer posted. “Communist and Palestinian. Pick a struggle.”

Abughazaleh first made a name for herself at Media Matters for America, where she drew attention for her sharp critiques of Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Her work has also appeared in outlets like Mother Jones and The New Republic.

“First off they shot pepper balls to the ground, and then said, ‘Your First Amendment rights are on the sidewalk,'” Abughazaleh told Newsweek. “And then when we tried to get in the way of the van, they picked us up or dragged us away, for some people, shoved people. I was picked up and thrown.”

“No one was violent. No one did anything that could possibly warrant being detained by federal officers. But they didn’t care,”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kat-abughazleh-ice-chicago-protest-b2830203.html

Alternet: ‘This is insane’: Conservatives demand Trump official’s removal over ‘hate speech’ blunder

The Guardian reports prominent conservatives are attacking U.S. Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi for pledging to “absolutely target” people who use “hate speech” in the wake of the killing of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk.

[“Bimbo #3”] Bondi declared on a podcast hosted by Katie Miller, the wife of the right-wing White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, that there is “free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society”.

The U.S. attorney also went so far as to threaten to prosecute an Office Depot employee who allegedly refused to print flyers for a vigil for Kirk.

But legal experts and conservative pundits are condemning the comments because there is no “hate speech” exception in the First Amendment right to speech, so targeting people for frank or even hurtful comments is unconstitutional.

“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason,” said conservative pundit Matt Walsh posting on X

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson, also writing on X, said: “Our Attorney General is apparently a moron. ‘There’s free speech and then there is hate speech.’ No ma’am. That is not the law.”

Savanah Hernandez, a commentator with Turning Point, described [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s statement as the “most destructive phrase that has ever been uttered … She needs to be removed as attorney general now.”

Heidi Kitrosser, a Northwestern University law professor, told the Guardian that [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s talk of targeting people who use “hate speech” is not legal because the “first amendment creates very, very strong protections from punishment for speech that’s offensive or for speech with which people disagree.”

“The bar for punishing speech based on content, and especially based on viewpoint, is extremely, extremely high,” Kitrosser said.

What else would you expect from a brainless bimbo?

https://www.alternet.org/pam-bondi-free-speech

‘I’ve Asked Pam To Look Into That’: Trump Openly Discusses Plans To Dismantle Democracy, Says All His Critics Should Be ‘Put In Jail’

Donald Trump signed a memorandum to deploy troops in Memphis, Tennessee several days ago from the Oval Office. During his gaggle with the press, Trump threw a temper tantrum over protestors who crashed his recent restaurant visit in D.C. Trump stated that he asked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into whether or not these protestors can be charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and put in jail. “They should be put in jail. What they’re doing to this country is really subversive,” Trump remarked.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-ve-asked-pam-to-look-into-that-trump-openly-discusses-plans-to-dismantle-democracy-says-all-his-critics-should-be-put-in-jail/vi-AA1MJ0o6

USA Today: Federal judge hands press groups wins in lawsuits against LAPD, DHS

  • U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera issued preliminary injunctions in lawsuits against the Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of Homeland Security over officers’ treatment of journalists.
  • Vera wrote that federal officers “indiscriminate use of force … will undoubtedly chill the media’s efforts” to cover protests and that the police department violated both state and federal law.
  • Press groups filed lawsuits against both agencies in June following protests over President Donald Trump’s immigration raids in Los Angeles.

A federal judge handed press and civil liberties groups wins in two separate cases against the Los Angeles Police Department and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over the treatment of journalists covering immigration raid protests.  

U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera’s preliminary injunctions bar, among other actions, the police department from arresting journalists for failing to disperse or otherwise interfering with journalists’ ability to cover Los Angeles protests. The DHS officers are also barred from “dispersing, threatening, or assaulting” journalists who haven’t “committed a crime unrelated to failing to obey a dispersal order.”

In his Sept. 10 order in the LAPD case, Vera wrote that the department’s “heavy-handed efforts to police this summer’s protests” violated both state and federal law.  

In granting the motion in the DHS case, Vera said federal officers “unleashed crowd control weapons indiscriminately and with surprising savagery” during the protests. 

“Specifically, the Court concludes that federal agents’ indiscriminate use of force … will undoubtedly chill the media’s efforts to cover these public events and protestors seeking to express peacefully their views on national policies,” Vera wrote.  

He went on to condemn individuals who engaged in violent action during such protests, but said “the actions of a relative few does not give DHS carte blanche to unleash near-lethal force on crowds of third parties in the vicinity.”  

In taking such actions, Vera wrote, federal officers have “endangered” peaceful protesters, journalists and the broader public. 

“The First Amendment demands better,” he wrote.  

USA TODAY reached out to the police department and the DHS for comment.  

“There’s an old line in policing: We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,” Adam Rose, press rights chair of the Los Angeles Press Club, said in a news release following the rulings. “Press organizations have been trying to help LAPD for years take the easy way, just asking them to train officers and discipline offenders. They wouldn’t stop resisting. LAPD failed to police themselves. Now a judge is doing it for them.” 

The First Amendment Coalition filed the federal lawsuit against the police department in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of the press club and the independent media outlet Status Coup in mid-June.  

Days later, a similar lawsuit was filed against Noem over what the plaintiffs, which include the Los Angeles Press Club and the NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America, described as federal officers’ unconstitutional actions against journalists.

Vera issued a temporary restraining order in the LAPD case on July 10 that barred officers from using less-lethal munitions against journalists not posing a threat to law enforcement. The plaintiffs later accused the department of violating the order by hitting journalists with batons and arresting them during an August protest.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/09/15/lapd-dhs-la-press-club-court-wins/86112156007

Money Talks News: Foreign Students Face New Reality: 6,000 Visas Revoked for Law Breaking

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/foreign-students-face-new-reality-6-000-visas-revoked-for-law-breaking/vi-AA1LRsYP

“Between 200 and 300 students lost visas over [so called] terrorism support allegations.”

Supporting the Palestinians — especially the Gazans who are being abused and slaughtered by the thousands — is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment. So much for the “Land of the Free”.