Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

GOA attorney Rob Olson defended GOA's First Amendment rights before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. GOA's rights have been infringed by ATF HQ's unconstitutional "gag order." This prevents us from printing the news about an unlawful ATF spy program we uncovered.🤯

Gun Owners of America

465,216 subscribers

47,366 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

UNDEFEATED: It was early Friday morning that my attorney, Benjamin Barr, called me with the news neither of us will ever forget: we had just overturned the verdict against me in Democracy Partners v. O’Keefe before the hostile D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This established undercover reporting as protected by the First Amendment in federal court as a matter of law. This video captures the moment it sank in. Shock. Emotion. Vindication.

UNDEFEATED: It was early Friday morning that my attorney, Benjamin Barr, called me with the news neither of us will ever forget: we had just overturned the verdict against me in Democracy Partners v. O’Keefe before the hostile D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This established undercover reporting as protected by the First Amendment in federal court as a matter of law. This video captures the moment it sank in. Shock. Emotion. Vindication.

James O'Keefe

431,714 views • 1 day ago

A great ruling by the SCOTUS today! By issuing a summary reversal, the High Court showed just how out of touch the D.C. Court of Appeals is. We cannot leave common sense and victims’ rights at the door of soft on crime ideology. This is good news for the District. ⚖️

A great ruling by the SCOTUS today! By issuing a summary reversal, the High Court showed just how out of touch the D.C. Court of Appeals is. We cannot leave common sense and victims’ rights at the door of soft on crime ideology. This is good news for the District. ⚖️

US Attorney Pirro

216,709 views • 4 months ago

Today we returned to the High Court following AfriForum’s attempt to interdict the court order. On March 3, the City obtained an order to immediately evacuate unlawful occupants from Melgisedek to a temporary place of shelter. We have full confidence in the judiciary and won’t be deterred by this. City of Tshwane

Today we returned to the High Court following AfriForum’s attempt to interdict the court order. On March 3, the City obtained an order to immediately evacuate unlawful occupants from Melgisedek to a temporary place of shelter. We have full confidence in the judiciary and won’t be deterred by this. City of Tshwane

Kholofelo Morodi

21,006 views • 5 months ago

I have been charged in a federal indictment sought by the Department of Justice. This political prosecution is an attack on all of our First Amendment rights. I’m not backing down, and we’re going to win.

I have been charged in a federal indictment sought by the Department of Justice. This political prosecution is an attack on all of our First Amendment rights. I’m not backing down, and we’re going to win.

Kat Abughazaleh

7,486,129 views • 10 months ago

Since Oracles takeover of TT videos of Minneapolis have been suppressed, blocking us from seeing what’s happening in our own country. ICE continues their unlawful occupation o Minneapolis and protesters continue to resist. Today, ICE and the Sheriff’s department assaulted and arrested protesters exercising their first amendment rights. This is Trump’s America! FUCK ICE!

Since Oracles takeover of TT videos of Minneapolis have been suppressed, blocking us from seeing what’s happening in our own country. ICE continues their unlawful occupation o Minneapolis and protesters continue to resist. Today, ICE and the Sheriff’s department assaulted and arrested protesters exercising their first amendment rights. This is Trump’s America! FUCK ICE!

Subi-doo 🐸

15,348 views • 6 months ago

Dear World, This is what's happening in Pakistan today, whole state machinery has refused to conduct elections. Essentially meaning that they've denied people from their civil rights. They've literally attacked the residence of former PM Imran Khan, who has been demanding nothing but fair & free elections which have already been ordered by the apex court of Pakistan. UN Human Rights, Amnesty International South Asia, Regional Office Human Rights in the EU, Human Rights Watch, IHRF, UN Human Rights Council, António Guterres, BBC News (World), CNN International Fox News, The New York Times, Mehdi Hasan

Dear World, This is what's happening in Pakistan today, whole state machinery has refused to conduct elections. Essentially meaning that they've denied people from their civil rights. They've literally attacked the residence of former PM Imran Khan, who has been demanding nothing but fair & free elections which have already been ordered by the apex court of Pakistan. UN Human Rights, Amnesty International South Asia, Regional Office Human Rights in the EU, Human Rights Watch, IHRF, UN Human Rights Council, António Guterres, BBC News (World), CNN International Fox News, The New York Times, Mehdi Hasan

Usman

343,221 views • 3 years ago

🚨THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL IN D.C.: Appellate Judge says, “…This could be the end of muckraking” The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case involving James O’Keefe and Democracy Partners that could determine whether undercover journalism remains legal in Washington, D.C. The issue at hand is whether reporters can be punished not for defamation, but for the act of going undercover and whether alleged “harm” can be blamed on the investigation itself rather than the publication, effectively sidestepping First Amendment protections. Before a panel of three judges on the Federal Appeals Court Thursday were two issues. Issue 1: Can an undercover reporter be accused of fraud for misrepresenting themselves during investigative journalism? We argue that any “harm” comes from the publication, not the investigation, and is fully protected by the First Amendment. Issue 2: Can a fiduciary duty be imposed on a part-time, unpaid intern who never signed an NDA? We say no, such a duty cannot be unilaterally forced on someone in these circumstances. “That’s what investigative journalists do. This determination by this court decides whether undercover reporting can exist in the nations capital moving forward.” - James O’Keefe’s attorney Ben Barr Michael Casey

🚨THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL IN D.C.: Appellate Judge says, “…This could be the end of muckraking” The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case involving James O’Keefe and Democracy Partners that could determine whether undercover journalism remains legal in Washington, D.C. The issue at hand is whether reporters can be punished not for defamation, but for the act of going undercover and whether alleged “harm” can be blamed on the investigation itself rather than the publication, effectively sidestepping First Amendment protections. Before a panel of three judges on the Federal Appeals Court Thursday were two issues. Issue 1: Can an undercover reporter be accused of fraud for misrepresenting themselves during investigative journalism? We argue that any “harm” comes from the publication, not the investigation, and is fully protected by the First Amendment. Issue 2: Can a fiduciary duty be imposed on a part-time, unpaid intern who never signed an NDA? We say no, such a duty cannot be unilaterally forced on someone in these circumstances. “That’s what investigative journalists do. This determination by this court decides whether undercover reporting can exist in the nations capital moving forward.” - James O’Keefe’s attorney Ben Barr Michael Casey

O’Keefe Media Group

47,113 views • 7 months ago

🚨THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL IN D.C.: Appellate Judge says, “…This could be the end of muckraking” The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case involving James O’Keefe and Democracy Partners that could determine whether undercover journalism remains legal in Washington, D.C. The issue at hand is whether reporters can be punished not for defamation, but for the act of going undercover and whether alleged “harm” can be blamed on the investigation itself rather than the publication, effectively sidestepping First Amendment protections. Before a panel of three judges on the Federal Appeals Court Thursday were two issues. Issue 1: Can an undercover reporter be accused of fraud for misrepresenting themselves during investigative journalism? We argue that any “harm” comes from the publication, not the investigation, and is fully protected by the First Amendment. Issue 2: Can a fiduciary duty be imposed on a part-time, unpaid intern who never signed an NDA? We say no, such a duty cannot be unilaterally forced on someone in these circumstances. “That’s what investigative journalists do. This determination by this court decides whether undercover reporting can exist in the nations capital moving forward.” - James O’Keefe’s Attorney Ben Barr Michael Casey

🚨THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL IN D.C.: Appellate Judge says, “…This could be the end of muckraking” The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case involving James O’Keefe and Democracy Partners that could determine whether undercover journalism remains legal in Washington, D.C. The issue at hand is whether reporters can be punished not for defamation, but for the act of going undercover and whether alleged “harm” can be blamed on the investigation itself rather than the publication, effectively sidestepping First Amendment protections. Before a panel of three judges on the Federal Appeals Court Thursday were two issues. Issue 1: Can an undercover reporter be accused of fraud for misrepresenting themselves during investigative journalism? We argue that any “harm” comes from the publication, not the investigation, and is fully protected by the First Amendment. Issue 2: Can a fiduciary duty be imposed on a part-time, unpaid intern who never signed an NDA? We say no, such a duty cannot be unilaterally forced on someone in these circumstances. “That’s what investigative journalists do. This determination by this court decides whether undercover reporting can exist in the nations capital moving forward.” - James O’Keefe’s Attorney Ben Barr Michael Casey

James O'Keefe

211,707 views • 7 months ago

Ewa Krajewska of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association on the Federal Appeals Court Emergencies Act decision "We are very pleased with the Federal Court of Appeals decision." "The Court also found that this was not a national emergency, that existing laws that were available to both Canada and the provinces could have dealt with the problems faced by the blockades and the convoy." "The Court found that the measures, which essentially prohibited anyone from participating in an assembly that may may lead to a breach of the peace, was unconstitutional." "The Court also found that the government's measures to call upon financial institutions to provide private, confidential and personal financial information of protesters to the RCMP and CSIS violated people's rights from unreasonable search." Ewa Krajewska 🇺🇦

Ewa Krajewska of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association on the Federal Appeals Court Emergencies Act decision "We are very pleased with the Federal Court of Appeals decision." "The Court also found that this was not a national emergency, that existing laws that were available to both Canada and the provinces could have dealt with the problems faced by the blockades and the convoy." "The Court found that the measures, which essentially prohibited anyone from participating in an assembly that may may lead to a breach of the peace, was unconstitutional." "The Court also found that the government's measures to call upon financial institutions to provide private, confidential and personal financial information of protesters to the RCMP and CSIS violated people's rights from unreasonable search." Ewa Krajewska 🇺🇦

cbcwatcher

11,837 views • 7 months ago

I also want to live with my family in peace, but the Saudi government has turned our lives into hell because of tweets about women’s rights. I do not know why, until now, Saudi ambassadors have not been expelled from all countries that respect human rights, its membership in the United Nations has been withdrawn, and it has been classified as an extremist, terrorist regime that violates human rights and only uses and understands the language of violence against women and their rights. They turned the lives of me and my sisters, Maryam and Manahel , into arrests, torture, travel bans, and political asylum. All this hell, my friends, we have been living in since 2016 until now. Just because of tweets about women's rights!!! I cannot believe how an extremist regime that lacks the language of dialogue and is only good at violence, oppression, destruction, and human rights violations continues to remain a member of the United Nations until now. #freemanahel #saudi هيئة حقوق الإنسان رئاسة أمن الدولة محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal) منظمة العفو الدولية الأمم المتحدة UN Human Rights Council The Guardian BBC News (UK) Sky News Yahoo The New York Times CNN Breaking News Newcastle United CNN Breaking News UN Human Rights Human Rights Watch UN Human Rights RightWomenRightNow UNECE Dunja Mijatovic EU Fundamental Rights ➡️ #HumanRights Commissioner for Human Rights

I also want to live with my family in peace, but the Saudi government has turned our lives into hell because of tweets about women’s rights. I do not know why, until now, Saudi ambassadors have not been expelled from all countries that respect human rights, its membership in the United Nations has been withdrawn, and it has been classified as an extremist, terrorist regime that violates human rights and only uses and understands the language of violence against women and their rights. They turned the lives of me and my sisters, Maryam and Manahel , into arrests, torture, travel bans, and political asylum. All this hell, my friends, we have been living in since 2016 until now. Just because of tweets about women's rights!!! I cannot believe how an extremist regime that lacks the language of dialogue and is only good at violence, oppression, destruction, and human rights violations continues to remain a member of the United Nations until now. #freemanahel #saudi هيئة حقوق الإنسان رئاسة أمن الدولة محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal) منظمة العفو الدولية الأمم المتحدة UN Human Rights Council The Guardian BBC News (UK) Sky News Yahoo The New York Times CNN Breaking News Newcastle United CNN Breaking News UN Human Rights Human Rights Watch UN Human Rights RightWomenRightNow UNECE Dunja Mijatovic EU Fundamental Rights ➡️ #HumanRights Commissioner for Human Rights

فوز العتيبي

35,987 views • 2 years ago

We need to have an honest conversation about the Callais decision, the state of voting rights, and where we go from here. One thing I know for sure — I'm done with this court. Their corruption. The lifetime appointments that protect them. Their abuse of power has to end.

We need to have an honest conversation about the Callais decision, the state of voting rights, and where we go from here. One thing I know for sure — I'm done with this court. Their corruption. The lifetime appointments that protect them. Their abuse of power has to end.

Lauren Underwood

30,518 views • 3 months ago

We have written to the Speaker demanding an update from the Executive in regard to the commitments it made on 5th Dec 2023, before Parliament of Uganda relating to our comrades who have been missing for nearly 4 years, plus the unabated violation of human rights by state actors.

We have written to the Speaker demanding an update from the Executive in regard to the commitments it made on 5th Dec 2023, before Parliament of Uganda relating to our comrades who have been missing for nearly 4 years, plus the unabated violation of human rights by state actors.

Mathias Mpuuga

104,021 views • 2 years ago

.Rep. Pramila Jayapal: “There is no court order that can bring people back from the dead after they have been shot.” This hearing exposes a five-alarm fire for the First Amendment in America. While Republicans import foreign witnesses to talk about the "threat to free speech" coming from abroad, Trump’s ICE and Border Patrol agents are assaulting protesters right here in America and killing U.S. citizens for exercising their rights.

.Rep. Pramila Jayapal: “There is no court order that can bring people back from the dead after they have been shot.” This hearing exposes a five-alarm fire for the First Amendment in America. While Republicans import foreign witnesses to talk about the "threat to free speech" coming from abroad, Trump’s ICE and Border Patrol agents are assaulting protesters right here in America and killing U.S. citizens for exercising their rights.

House Judiciary Dems

16,191 views • 6 months ago

This week, AAGHarmeetDhillon joins us on The Arena. We discuss the Trump Administration’s overhaul of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, internal resistance, consent decrees, California’s defiance of SCOTUS, and more. Tune in! 00:00 - Intro 00:26 - Harmeet Dhillon Joins the Show 03:53 - How Do You Overhaul an Entrenched Civil Rights Division? 09:12 - Staff Departures and Internal Resistance 11:29 - Attorney Ethics and Leaks to the Media 16:26 - Dismantling Consent Decrees 20:08 - Schools, Parents’ Rights, and Gender Policy 24:01 - Why Is DEI Unconstitutional? 27:20 - Is the Second Amendment a Civil Right? 36:14 - Why Young Conservative Lawyers Should Enter Civil Rights 40:42 - How Do You Make Change Last? 46:44 - Closing Remarks with Harmeet Dhillon 47:31 - Bad Legal Takes! 53:08 - California Defies the Supreme Court on Parents’ Rights 56:25 - Outro

This week, AAGHarmeetDhillon joins us on The Arena. We discuss the Trump Administration’s overhaul of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, internal resistance, consent decrees, California’s defiance of SCOTUS, and more. Tune in! 00:00 - Intro 00:26 - Harmeet Dhillon Joins the Show 03:53 - How Do You Overhaul an Entrenched Civil Rights Division? 09:12 - Staff Departures and Internal Resistance 11:29 - Attorney Ethics and Leaks to the Media 16:26 - Dismantling Consent Decrees 20:08 - Schools, Parents’ Rights, and Gender Policy 24:01 - Why Is DEI Unconstitutional? 27:20 - Is the Second Amendment a Civil Right? 36:14 - Why Young Conservative Lawyers Should Enter Civil Rights 40:42 - How Do You Make Change Last? 46:44 - Closing Remarks with Harmeet Dhillon 47:31 - Bad Legal Takes! 53:08 - California Defies the Supreme Court on Parents’ Rights 56:25 - Outro

The Arena America First Legal

266,711 views • 3 months ago

NEW: Jonathan Turley shreds the Supreme Court's decision to allow the U.S. government to demand the removal of 'misinformation' on social media. The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s communications with social media giants about removing Covid-19 "misinformation" did *not* violate the First Amendment. "This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing." "It's been called Orwellian by lower court judges. And what the court is saying is that we won't hear you on this issue 'cause you're not the right litigants." "I testified about this in Congress, that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they're barred from doing directly."

NEW: Jonathan Turley shreds the Supreme Court's decision to allow the U.S. government to demand the removal of 'misinformation' on social media. The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s communications with social media giants about removing Covid-19 "misinformation" did not violate the First Amendment. "This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing." "It's been called Orwellian by lower court judges. And what the court is saying is that we won't hear you on this issue 'cause you're not the right litigants." "I testified about this in Congress, that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they're barred from doing directly."

Collin Rugg

1,052,703 views • 2 years ago

Greg Abbott signed an EO labeling CAIR terrorists. CAIR already beat him in court 3x for violating the 1st Amend: - IHRA order criminalizing criticism of Israel - 2x over anti-BDS laws requiring no-boycott pledges Israel shills are celebrating but he’ll be sued for the 4th time CAIR (a muslim civil liberties org) has challenged several Texas policies under Governor Greg Abbott that they argue violate the First Amendment by suppressing criticism of Israel or Palestinian advocacy. 1. Amawi v. Pflugerville Independent School District (2019) CAIR provided legal support and filed an amicus brief in this federal lawsuit challenging a Texas law (signed by Abbott in 2017) requiring contractors, including teachers, to certify they do not boycott Israel. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled the law unconstitutional, issuing a permanent injunction blocking its enforcement in public school contracts. This was a major First Amendment victory protecting free speech rights. 2. Hassouna v. Sheppard (2022) CAIR filed this First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of Palestinian-American engineer Rasmy Hassouna, who refused to sign a state contract pledge not to boycott Israel under the same 2017 anti-BDS law. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in CAIR's favor, granting a preliminary injunction and declaring the pledge unconstitutional as compelled speech. The court later awarded attorney fees to CAIR after appeals. 3. Democratic Socialists of America-Houston et al. v. Abbott (2024) CAIR filed this lawsuit on behalf of student groups (Students for Justice in Palestine chapters and DSA-Houston) against Abbott's Executive Order GA-44, which targeted pro-Palestinian campus activism as antisemitic. In October 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled the order unconstitutional, enjoining its enforcement and affirming that prohibitions on criticizing Israel violate free speech protections.

Greg Abbott signed an EO labeling CAIR terrorists. CAIR already beat him in court 3x for violating the 1st Amend: - IHRA order criminalizing criticism of Israel - 2x over anti-BDS laws requiring no-boycott pledges Israel shills are celebrating but he’ll be sued for the 4th time CAIR (a muslim civil liberties org) has challenged several Texas policies under Governor Greg Abbott that they argue violate the First Amendment by suppressing criticism of Israel or Palestinian advocacy. 1. Amawi v. Pflugerville Independent School District (2019) CAIR provided legal support and filed an amicus brief in this federal lawsuit challenging a Texas law (signed by Abbott in 2017) requiring contractors, including teachers, to certify they do not boycott Israel. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled the law unconstitutional, issuing a permanent injunction blocking its enforcement in public school contracts. This was a major First Amendment victory protecting free speech rights. 2. Hassouna v. Sheppard (2022) CAIR filed this First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of Palestinian-American engineer Rasmy Hassouna, who refused to sign a state contract pledge not to boycott Israel under the same 2017 anti-BDS law. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in CAIR's favor, granting a preliminary injunction and declaring the pledge unconstitutional as compelled speech. The court later awarded attorney fees to CAIR after appeals. 3. Democratic Socialists of America-Houston et al. v. Abbott (2024) CAIR filed this lawsuit on behalf of student groups (Students for Justice in Palestine chapters and DSA-Houston) against Abbott's Executive Order GA-44, which targeted pro-Palestinian campus activism as antisemitic. In October 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled the order unconstitutional, enjoining its enforcement and affirming that prohibitions on criticizing Israel violate free speech protections.

GenXGirl

23,177 views • 9 months ago

WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WALKED AROUND IN TINA PETERS APPEAL 🧵 The opinion issued by the Court of Appeals highlighted the clear and substantial violations of Tina Peters Constitutional First Amendment Rights by Judge Matthew Barrett when he sentenced her, quoting his own words when he said that Tina was "a danger to all of us." The COA used Judge Barrett's sentencing violations of Tina's free speech as the only real reasoning in their decision to remand her convictions to the district court for resentencing. Despite bringing up a number of additional issues during arguments for Tina's appeal, the court walked around rather serious ones that we well articulated in her case for appeal. This previously unreleased video highlights one such issue: BIASED JURORS. Bear in mind this recording took place after Tina Peters was found guilty with this woman being a member of the jury.

WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WALKED AROUND IN TINA PETERS APPEAL 🧵 The opinion issued by the Court of Appeals highlighted the clear and substantial violations of Tina Peters Constitutional First Amendment Rights by Judge Matthew Barrett when he sentenced her, quoting his own words when he said that Tina was "a danger to all of us." The COA used Judge Barrett's sentencing violations of Tina's free speech as the only real reasoning in their decision to remand her convictions to the district court for resentencing. Despite bringing up a number of additional issues during arguments for Tina's appeal, the court walked around rather serious ones that we well articulated in her case for appeal. This previously unreleased video highlights one such issue: BIASED JURORS. Bear in mind this recording took place after Tina Peters was found guilty with this woman being a member of the jury.

Tina Peters🇺🇸 Whistleblower of fallen Navy SEAL

140,918 views • 5 months ago

🚨🇺🇸 DOJ GOES TO WAR WITH D.C. OVER RIFLE BAN: "THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" The government just sued D.C. for blocking people from registering common rifles. D.C. has a rule that treats semi-automatic rifles like some kind of nuclear weapon. The DOJ says that’s dumb and illegal. Based on Supreme Court decisions, these guns are normal, legal, and protected. Not rare, not weird, and definitely not exotic. Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon say this is about basic rights, not loopholes. The Second Amendment doesn’t come with a fine print that says “only for antique collectors.” Source: AAGHarmeetDhillon

🚨🇺🇸 DOJ GOES TO WAR WITH D.C. OVER RIFLE BAN: "THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" The government just sued D.C. for blocking people from registering common rifles. D.C. has a rule that treats semi-automatic rifles like some kind of nuclear weapon. The DOJ says that’s dumb and illegal. Based on Supreme Court decisions, these guns are normal, legal, and protected. Not rare, not weird, and definitely not exotic. Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon say this is about basic rights, not loopholes. The Second Amendment doesn’t come with a fine print that says “only for antique collectors.” Source: AAGHarmeetDhillon

Mario Nawfal

38,919 views • 8 months ago