正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

It is astounding how easily people confuse two very different acts. We asked to explain it in simple terms: A civilian wearing a mask at a protest is exercising a constitutional right. The First Amendment protects anonymous speech and peaceful assembly. Americans have long had the right to criticize...

WalshFreedom's profile picture

Joe Walsh

493,979 subscribers

24,857 次观看 • 7 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育健康养生
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🚨🇺🇸 THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT A GUN DEBATE. IT'S A POWER DEBATE. The Minnesota man seen armed against ICE is a reminder that the Second Amendment exists because power overreaches. If the government can use lethal force without consequence, what limits it?
1:27

🚨🇺🇸 THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT A GUN DEBATE. IT'S A POWER DEBATE. The Minnesota man seen armed against ICE is a reminder that the Second Amendment exists because power overreaches. If the government can use lethal force without consequence, what limits it?

AMANI

23,355 次观看 • 8 个月前

The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly. It does not protect mobs invading private property. You cannot storm a church and call it free speech. That is a violation of civil rights.
1:27

The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly. It does not protect mobs invading private property. You cannot storm a church and call it free speech. That is a violation of civil rights.

Sheriff Mark Lamb

47,824 次观看 • 8 个月前

RFK Jr: “Tim Walz has said that he doesn't think that the First Amendment protects misinformation or disinformation, that the government gets to decide what kind of speech is protected.” “Kamala Harris has said the same thing; that if you promote misinformation we're going to punish you, you've abused your privilege. In other words to her, the First Amendment is a privilege not a right.” “When we give government the power to be the arbiter of what speech is protected and which isn't, then that is the end of democracy.”
1:23

RFK Jr: “Tim Walz has said that he doesn't think that the First Amendment protects misinformation or disinformation, that the government gets to decide what kind of speech is protected.” “Kamala Harris has said the same thing; that if you promote misinformation we're going to punish you, you've abused your privilege. In other words to her, the First Amendment is a privilege not a right.” “When we give government the power to be the arbiter of what speech is protected and which isn't, then that is the end of democracy.”

End Tribalism in Politics

187,411 次观看 • 2 年前

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: ICE, CAMERAS & PHONES (U.S. Constitution — First & Fourth Amendments) No crime. No obstruction. Here is the clear constitutional ground from 1️⃣ Can ICE remove or break your door camera? No. The Fourth Amendment protects your home and property from unreasonable search or seizure. Your door camera is your property. It cannot be dismantled, covered, or destroyed without a judicial warrant signed by a judge. 2️⃣ Can ICE stop you from filming? No. The First Amendment protects your right to record government officials performing their duties in public spaces. 3️⃣ Can ICE confiscate your phone? Not without proper legal authority. The Fourth Amendment protects your phone — and its digital contents — from warrantless search or seizure. Stay calm. Assert your rights clearly. Do not consent. Help get PAXIS into the hands of every immigrant and ally:
0:53

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: ICE, CAMERAS & PHONES (U.S. Constitution — First & Fourth Amendments) No crime. No obstruction. Here is the clear constitutional ground from 1️⃣ Can ICE remove or break your door camera? No. The Fourth Amendment protects your home and property from unreasonable search or seizure. Your door camera is your property. It cannot be dismantled, covered, or destroyed without a judicial warrant signed by a judge. 2️⃣ Can ICE stop you from filming? No. The First Amendment protects your right to record government officials performing their duties in public spaces. 3️⃣ Can ICE confiscate your phone? Not without proper legal authority. The Fourth Amendment protects your phone — and its digital contents — from warrantless search or seizure. Stay calm. Assert your rights clearly. Do not consent. Help get PAXIS into the hands of every immigrant and ally:

Joe Walsh

38,860 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨BREAKING: (CHICAGO SUBURBS) ICE agents pulled a GUN, and a TASER, on unarmed U.S. citizens for recording them from a public sidewalk… while threatening, “you aren’t going to like the outcome.” In the video, legal observers are standing on a public sidewalk recording ICE agents. The agents stop, get out of their cars, and approach THEM. One agent has his GUN drawn, another has his TASER drawn. The agents tell the legal observers to stop following them. A U.S. citizen responds: “We aren’t doing anything illegal. It’s totally legal to follow you.” He is correct. The First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement, and federal agents, carrying out their duties in public. And federal regulations specifically recognize that people can record publicly accessible federal activity from public sidewalks, and streets, when they aren’t impeding or disrupting operations. Then, the agent says: “Stop following us, you aren’t going to like the outcome.” That is a serious First Amendment retaliation issue. And then it gets even more dangerous. The same armed federal agents, who just threatened these people with weapons and retaliation… surround the citizens’ car and claim THEY are blocking traffic. But look at the video. The only people blocking traffic are the ICE agents… who have now boxed in the citizens’ car. Agents cannot detain someone because they don’t like being watched. A vehicle stop requires reasonable suspicion of an actual legal violation. And recording and observing ICE agents, from a public place, is not obstruction. It is not illegal. Government agents are supposed to be accountable to the people… not the other way around. The First Amendment protects your right to watch and record your government. The Fourth Amendment limits the government’s power to stop and detain you. And neither one comes with an ICE exception.
1:05

🚨BREAKING: (CHICAGO SUBURBS) ICE agents pulled a GUN, and a TASER, on unarmed U.S. citizens for recording them from a public sidewalk… while threatening, “you aren’t going to like the outcome.” In the video, legal observers are standing on a public sidewalk recording ICE agents. The agents stop, get out of their cars, and approach THEM. One agent has his GUN drawn, another has his TASER drawn. The agents tell the legal observers to stop following them. A U.S. citizen responds: “We aren’t doing anything illegal. It’s totally legal to follow you.” He is correct. The First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement, and federal agents, carrying out their duties in public. And federal regulations specifically recognize that people can record publicly accessible federal activity from public sidewalks, and streets, when they aren’t impeding or disrupting operations. Then, the agent says: “Stop following us, you aren’t going to like the outcome.” That is a serious First Amendment retaliation issue. And then it gets even more dangerous. The same armed federal agents, who just threatened these people with weapons and retaliation… surround the citizens’ car and claim THEY are blocking traffic. But look at the video. The only people blocking traffic are the ICE agents… who have now boxed in the citizens’ car. Agents cannot detain someone because they don’t like being watched. A vehicle stop requires reasonable suspicion of an actual legal violation. And recording and observing ICE agents, from a public place, is not obstruction. It is not illegal. Government agents are supposed to be accountable to the people… not the other way around. The First Amendment protects your right to watch and record your government. The Fourth Amendment limits the government’s power to stop and detain you. And neither one comes with an ICE exception.

Jesus Freakin Congress

141,820 次观看 • 2 个月前

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:
2:26

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Colion Noir

108,813 次观看 • 20 天前

We asked about the legality of this situation. What is legal: 1. You can film ICE. You have a First Amendment right to record federal agents performing their duties in public, as long as you do not physically interfere. 2. You can use profanities against ICE. Profanity alone is protected speech under the First Amendment. Speech does not become illegal simply because it is offensive. It becomes unlawful only if it constitutes a true threat, incitement, or physical obstruction. What is illegal: 1. ICE cannot stop and detain people based on race. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component prohibits racial profiling by federal officers. Detaining someone solely because they are Latino or appear to be Latino is unconstitutional. 2. ICE cannot point weapons to intimidate the public without an objectively reasonable belief of an immediate safety threat. Drawing or pointing firearms, pepper ball guns, or chemical spray are uses of force. Under the Supreme Court standard in Graham v. Connor, force must be “objectively reasonable” based on the totality of the circumstances. Filming from a safe distance and shouting profanities, without threatening conduct, does not by itself constitute an immediate threat. Help get PAXIS into the hands of every immigrant and ally:
1:37

We asked about the legality of this situation. What is legal: 1. You can film ICE. You have a First Amendment right to record federal agents performing their duties in public, as long as you do not physically interfere. 2. You can use profanities against ICE. Profanity alone is protected speech under the First Amendment. Speech does not become illegal simply because it is offensive. It becomes unlawful only if it constitutes a true threat, incitement, or physical obstruction. What is illegal: 1. ICE cannot stop and detain people based on race. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component prohibits racial profiling by federal officers. Detaining someone solely because they are Latino or appear to be Latino is unconstitutional. 2. ICE cannot point weapons to intimidate the public without an objectively reasonable belief of an immediate safety threat. Drawing or pointing firearms, pepper ball guns, or chemical spray are uses of force. Under the Supreme Court standard in Graham v. Connor, force must be “objectively reasonable” based on the totality of the circumstances. Filming from a safe distance and shouting profanities, without threatening conduct, does not by itself constitute an immediate threat. Help get PAXIS into the hands of every immigrant and ally:

Joe Walsh

31,580 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨This is one of the most disturbing ICE brutality videos I’ve seen in a long time… Another angle of this incident shows ICE agents suddenly rushing protesters outside the Newark ICE Facility, then continuously shoving U.S. citizens toward the wheels of a MOVING TRUCK… until an activist’s LEG is run over. And the most disturbing part? The protesters are not charging the agents… The agents are the ones creating the escalation. And not only that, they are forcing civilians backward toward a MOVING VEHICLE, escalating a situation that was not violent until THEY made it violent. That is reckless, dangerous force. So, let’s go over the obvious constitutional violations happening in this video… 1. First Amendment violations, because Americans have the constitutional right to peacefully protest the government. 2. Fourth Amendment violations, because federal agents cannot use excessive or objectively unreasonable force against nonviolent civilians. 3. Fifth Amendment due process concerns, because the government cannot arbitrarily target, intimidate, or assault citizens exercising protected rights. 4. Federal officers can also face liability under 18 U.S. Code § 242 for depriving people of constitutional rights “under color of law.” When armed federal agents create chaos themselves, then use that chaos to justify violence against civilians, that is an abuse of power. Call your representatives. Demand accountability.
0:46

🚨This is one of the most disturbing ICE brutality videos I’ve seen in a long time… Another angle of this incident shows ICE agents suddenly rushing protesters outside the Newark ICE Facility, then continuously shoving U.S. citizens toward the wheels of a MOVING TRUCK… until an activist’s LEG is run over. And the most disturbing part? The protesters are not charging the agents… The agents are the ones creating the escalation. And not only that, they are forcing civilians backward toward a MOVING VEHICLE, escalating a situation that was not violent until THEY made it violent. That is reckless, dangerous force. So, let’s go over the obvious constitutional violations happening in this video… 1. First Amendment violations, because Americans have the constitutional right to peacefully protest the government. 2. Fourth Amendment violations, because federal agents cannot use excessive or objectively unreasonable force against nonviolent civilians. 3. Fifth Amendment due process concerns, because the government cannot arbitrarily target, intimidate, or assault citizens exercising protected rights. 4. Federal officers can also face liability under 18 U.S. Code § 242 for depriving people of constitutional rights “under color of law.” When armed federal agents create chaos themselves, then use that chaos to justify violence against civilians, that is an abuse of power. Call your representatives. Demand accountability.

Jesus Freakin Congress

368,532 次观看 • 4 个月前

ICE agents put a child in a chokehold, took his iPhone, and sold it for $250. Read that again. A child. A citizen. Brutalized. Phone stolen and flipped for cash. ICE are criminals. This isn’t “enforcement.” This is what abuse of power looks like. Use - The Constitution doesn’t disappear because someone wears a badge. The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful seizure. The Fifth protects due process. Those rights apply to everyone — especially a minor who is a U.S. citizen. WANNA KNOW HOW TO FIGHT ICE:
1:06

ICE agents put a child in a chokehold, took his iPhone, and sold it for $250. Read that again. A child. A citizen. Brutalized. Phone stolen and flipped for cash. ICE are criminals. This isn’t “enforcement.” This is what abuse of power looks like. Use - The Constitution doesn’t disappear because someone wears a badge. The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful seizure. The Fifth protects due process. Those rights apply to everyone — especially a minor who is a U.S. citizen. WANNA KNOW HOW TO FIGHT ICE:

Joe Walsh

114,535 次观看 • 5 个月前

The Supreme Court is already decided this… SCOTUS and 1st Amendment Press • Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.” The press’s core protection is the right to communicate information once obtained, not a right to collect it from the government. • Pell v. Procunier (1974) and related cases: The press has no constitutional right to information or locations not available to the public generally. • Zemel v. Rusk (1965): “Entry into the White House [is not] a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”
3:30

The Supreme Court is already decided this… SCOTUS and 1st Amendment Press • Houchins v. KQED (1978): The First Amendment does not require the government to give the press access to information or places under government control. It “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.” The press’s core protection is the right to communicate information once obtained, not a right to collect it from the government. • Pell v. Procunier (1974) and related cases: The press has no constitutional right to information or locations not available to the public generally. • Zemel v. Rusk (1965): “Entry into the White House [is not] a First Amendment right. The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”

GRANDPA’s FREE ADVICE

45,106 次观看 • 8 天前

🚨BREAKING: A video shows an ICE agent driving an SUV onto a PUBLIC SIDEWALK… and INTO A U.S. CITIZEN… all because peaceful protesters were watching ICE operate, in their neighborhood, on Friday night… in Frederick, Maryland. And notice in the video that there was no one blocking ICE vehicles, or attacking them… or preventing them from driving down the street. These people were standing on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, documenting federal agents operating in their neighborhood. An agent can be heard ordering them to “get off the property… or they will be arrested” as the vehicle drives down the SIDEWALK… and hits a person. And then it gets even worse. After agents forced people off the sidewalk, protesters moved to the home agents were apparently targeting. Agents then moved in with batons… punching, kicking, and dragging people away, as agents tried to enter the private home… without showing a warrant. And after all of that… ICE DIDN’T ARREST ANYONE. And it is STILL unclear whether ICE even had a judicial warrant authorizing them to enter that private home in the first place. This situation is exactly why we have a Constitution… It is supposed to protect ordinary people from the government abusing its power. The First Amendment is supposed to protect our right to protest, and document what our government is doing. The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches, seizures, and excessive force. So, why the hell are we watching federal agents drive into people on sidewalks, beat protesters, force their way onto private property, and into a private home… without showing a judicial warrant? If the Constitution is supposed to protect us from this, why isn’t it?
2:26

🚨BREAKING: A video shows an ICE agent driving an SUV onto a PUBLIC SIDEWALK… and INTO A U.S. CITIZEN… all because peaceful protesters were watching ICE operate, in their neighborhood, on Friday night… in Frederick, Maryland. And notice in the video that there was no one blocking ICE vehicles, or attacking them… or preventing them from driving down the street. These people were standing on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, documenting federal agents operating in their neighborhood. An agent can be heard ordering them to “get off the property… or they will be arrested” as the vehicle drives down the SIDEWALK… and hits a person. And then it gets even worse. After agents forced people off the sidewalk, protesters moved to the home agents were apparently targeting. Agents then moved in with batons… punching, kicking, and dragging people away, as agents tried to enter the private home… without showing a warrant. And after all of that… ICE DIDN’T ARREST ANYONE. And it is STILL unclear whether ICE even had a judicial warrant authorizing them to enter that private home in the first place. This situation is exactly why we have a Constitution… It is supposed to protect ordinary people from the government abusing its power. The First Amendment is supposed to protect our right to protest, and document what our government is doing. The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches, seizures, and excessive force. So, why the hell are we watching federal agents drive into people on sidewalks, beat protesters, force their way onto private property, and into a private home… without showing a judicial warrant? If the Constitution is supposed to protect us from this, why isn’t it?

Jesus Freakin Congress

31,930 次观看 • 25 天前

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents were filmed, once again, assaulting U.S. citizens outside the Kane County Courthouse, in St. Charles, Illinois. In the video, ICE agents are arresting a man while people film the arrest. A person tries to get information from the man, when an ICE agent suddenly moves toward her and another woman, pushes them back, while pointing an expandable baton at them, in a threatening manner. One woman tells the agent that she has a right to record… which he responds by shoving her. The agent then threatens the person filming, pointing his baton at them, and yells, “don’t follow me.” As if simply observing law enforcement is a crime… especially when there’s a clear physical barrier separating them. The First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement in public. People filming, and not physically interfering, are exercising protected speech. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures and excessive force. Physical pushing and threatening citizens with a baton, when they are not resisting or obstructing, raises serious questions about whether force is being used lawfully, or as intimidation. Excessive force standards, used by federal law enforcement, requires any force to be objectively reasonable based on an actual threat or interference… not simply the presence of people recording, or criticizing them. So, once again… Filming and observing is not interference. Standing in public is not a threat. And this is not about “respecting authority.” It’s about whether constitutional rights still apply when citizens are watching government agents do their jobs.
0:37

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents were filmed, once again, assaulting U.S. citizens outside the Kane County Courthouse, in St. Charles, Illinois. In the video, ICE agents are arresting a man while people film the arrest. A person tries to get information from the man, when an ICE agent suddenly moves toward her and another woman, pushes them back, while pointing an expandable baton at them, in a threatening manner. One woman tells the agent that she has a right to record… which he responds by shoving her. The agent then threatens the person filming, pointing his baton at them, and yells, “don’t follow me.” As if simply observing law enforcement is a crime… especially when there’s a clear physical barrier separating them. The First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement in public. People filming, and not physically interfering, are exercising protected speech. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures and excessive force. Physical pushing and threatening citizens with a baton, when they are not resisting or obstructing, raises serious questions about whether force is being used lawfully, or as intimidation. Excessive force standards, used by federal law enforcement, requires any force to be objectively reasonable based on an actual threat or interference… not simply the presence of people recording, or criticizing them. So, once again… Filming and observing is not interference. Standing in public is not a threat. And this is not about “respecting authority.” It’s about whether constitutional rights still apply when citizens are watching government agents do their jobs.

Jesus Freakin Congress

42,879 次观看 • 4 个月前

Lara Logan explains how Islam commands the “overthrow of the existing government” Muslims migrate to Lara Logan “Islam is not a religion. It's a civilization. This is a very significant difference because people think that under the First Amendment of The United States that the protection, the freedom of religion means that you have the freedom to use religion to enforce and advance a political ideology, even where it means the overthrow of the existing government. And that is not the case. Islam defines itself as a civilization, and religion is really part of that, but it is not the defining thing, and why does it matter so much? Well, because the civilization of Islam is governed by Sharia. And by that, I mean Sharia law. Right. And you cannot have Sharia law coexisting with the constitution and American law. Those two things are diametrically opposed in every single respect. They're not even vaguely tied to each other — This is so what we have allowed in The United States, we have allowed first amendment protection. — Islam is a political organization that uses the religion as a cover and as a front”
1:14

Lara Logan explains how Islam commands the “overthrow of the existing government” Muslims migrate to Lara Logan “Islam is not a religion. It's a civilization. This is a very significant difference because people think that under the First Amendment of The United States that the protection, the freedom of religion means that you have the freedom to use religion to enforce and advance a political ideology, even where it means the overthrow of the existing government. And that is not the case. Islam defines itself as a civilization, and religion is really part of that, but it is not the defining thing, and why does it matter so much? Well, because the civilization of Islam is governed by Sharia. And by that, I mean Sharia law. Right. And you cannot have Sharia law coexisting with the constitution and American law. Those two things are diametrically opposed in every single respect. They're not even vaguely tied to each other — This is so what we have allowed in The United States, we have allowed first amendment protection. — Islam is a political organization that uses the religion as a cover and as a front”

Wall Street Apes

400,395 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents illegally stopped a U.S. citizen, who was walking down the street, and demanded that he prove his citizenship, in Atlantic City, New Jersey. And when someone stopped to film it… an ICE agent, in an unmarked vehicle, drove directly toward them, using their vehicle to intimidate them for exercising their constitutional right to record law enforcement. In the video, ICE agents stopped a man walking down the street and demanded he show them his ID. A person driving sees this, stops their car, and begins filming from across the street. Then, another agent, sitting in an unmarked vehicle, on the other side of the street, drives directly toward the person filming, and stops inches from the side of their car. The agents eventually let the U.S. citizen go… get into the vehicle that is still parked inches from the person filming, and then wave at them like this is all some kind of joke… and drive away. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable seizures. And when armed federal agents stop someone and demand identification, that is not a casual conversation. And the First Amendment protects the right to record government agents performing their duties in public, as long as you are not actually interfering with what they are doing. (Filming from across the street is not interfering) So, when armed federal agents stop someone walking down the street and demand proof of citizenship, while another agent uses a vehicle to intimidate someone documenting it, there are some serious constitutional questions that need to be raised. You should not have to prove you belong, in your own country, to armed government agents. And you should not be intimidated for documenting them. That is what government power without accountability looks like… When the government can violate your rights, and then tell you that your only option is to comply… you no longer live in a free country.
1:48

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents illegally stopped a U.S. citizen, who was walking down the street, and demanded that he prove his citizenship, in Atlantic City, New Jersey. And when someone stopped to film it… an ICE agent, in an unmarked vehicle, drove directly toward them, using their vehicle to intimidate them for exercising their constitutional right to record law enforcement. In the video, ICE agents stopped a man walking down the street and demanded he show them his ID. A person driving sees this, stops their car, and begins filming from across the street. Then, another agent, sitting in an unmarked vehicle, on the other side of the street, drives directly toward the person filming, and stops inches from the side of their car. The agents eventually let the U.S. citizen go… get into the vehicle that is still parked inches from the person filming, and then wave at them like this is all some kind of joke… and drive away. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable seizures. And when armed federal agents stop someone and demand identification, that is not a casual conversation. And the First Amendment protects the right to record government agents performing their duties in public, as long as you are not actually interfering with what they are doing. (Filming from across the street is not interfering) So, when armed federal agents stop someone walking down the street and demand proof of citizenship, while another agent uses a vehicle to intimidate someone documenting it, there are some serious constitutional questions that need to be raised. You should not have to prove you belong, in your own country, to armed government agents. And you should not be intimidated for documenting them. That is what government power without accountability looks like… When the government can violate your rights, and then tell you that your only option is to comply… you no longer live in a free country.

Jesus Freakin Congress

115,044 次观看 • 2 个月前

RFK Jr. blasts Governor Walz for not understanding the first amendment: “We’re in a very frightening time now where we are seeing the normalization of censorship. I saw this quote Governor Walz, said last year where he said that the First Amendment is not absolute, that it does not protect misinformation or disinformation, and he is legally wrong there, it does protect that. The First Amendment protects speech, true speech, and it protects lies. It protects good speech, and it protects bad speech. It protects all speech.” They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous.” “Louis Brandeis said that the remedy for bad speech, the remedy for lies is not censorship, it's more speech. If we don't understand that, we will lose democracy for sure.”
2:43

RFK Jr. blasts Governor Walz for not understanding the first amendment: “We’re in a very frightening time now where we are seeing the normalization of censorship. I saw this quote Governor Walz, said last year where he said that the First Amendment is not absolute, that it does not protect misinformation or disinformation, and he is legally wrong there, it does protect that. The First Amendment protects speech, true speech, and it protects lies. It protects good speech, and it protects bad speech. It protects all speech.” They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous.” “Louis Brandeis said that the remedy for bad speech, the remedy for lies is not censorship, it's more speech. If we don't understand that, we will lose democracy for sure.”

End Tribalism in Politics

261,846 次观看 • 2 年前

confirms: if masked men who refuse to identify themselves are putting a mother and child into unmarked cars, it is absolutely your business. You have a First Amendment right to film ICE, or anyone else in public from a safe distance, as long as you do not interfere. Help get PAXIS into the hands of immigrants and allies. Fight ICE with the law, and the constitution:
0:48

confirms: if masked men who refuse to identify themselves are putting a mother and child into unmarked cars, it is absolutely your business. You have a First Amendment right to film ICE, or anyone else in public from a safe distance, as long as you do not interfere. Help get PAXIS into the hands of immigrants and allies. Fight ICE with the law, and the constitution:

Joe Walsh

56,882 次观看 • 2 个月前

“YOU JUST MACED ME.” “I’M GOING TO DO IT AGAIN.” An all-too-familiar story: an armed federal coward hiding behind a mask and an unarmed citizen exercising her First Amendment right to protect her neighbors. ICE Watch volunteer Linda Wolf was recording an ICE operation in New York when a masked agent sprayed her with a chemical irritant, then threatened to do it again. explains: You have a First Amendment right to record immigration agents operating in public. Chemical spray is force. Using it against a peaceful observer who poses no immediate threat violates the First and Fourth Amendments. Her response? She returned to ICE Watch the next day - your local neighborhood might have one too. PAXIS is trained on constitutional and immigration law and is free for immigrants and citizens. Keep it free:
2:03

“YOU JUST MACED ME.” “I’M GOING TO DO IT AGAIN.” An all-too-familiar story: an armed federal coward hiding behind a mask and an unarmed citizen exercising her First Amendment right to protect her neighbors. ICE Watch volunteer Linda Wolf was recording an ICE operation in New York when a masked agent sprayed her with a chemical irritant, then threatened to do it again. explains: You have a First Amendment right to record immigration agents operating in public. Chemical spray is force. Using it against a peaceful observer who poses no immediate threat violates the First and Fourth Amendments. Her response? She returned to ICE Watch the next day - your local neighborhood might have one too. PAXIS is trained on constitutional and immigration law and is free for immigrants and citizens. Keep it free:

Joe Walsh

17,916 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨 ICE THREATENS CIVILIAN OBSERVERS 🚨 Two women followed ICE agents at a safe distance. The response? “I gonna f***ing put hands on you… arrest you… take you in.” We asked to break it down: This is illegal. ✅ First Amendment — protects the right to observe ✅ Fourth Amendment — bars threats without cause ❌ 18 U.S. Code § 242 — it’s a federal crime to use a badge to silence ICE is not above the law. Witnessing is protected. Threatening is not. Support PAXIS lawful defense: 🔗 #AbolishICE #KnowYourRights #PAXIS #FirstAmendment #StopTheThreats #CivilRights
0:38

🚨 ICE THREATENS CIVILIAN OBSERVERS 🚨 Two women followed ICE agents at a safe distance. The response? “I gonna f***ing put hands on you… arrest you… take you in.” We asked to break it down: This is illegal. ✅ First Amendment — protects the right to observe ✅ Fourth Amendment — bars threats without cause ❌ 18 U.S. Code § 242 — it’s a federal crime to use a badge to silence ICE is not above the law. Witnessing is protected. Threatening is not. Support PAXIS lawful defense: 🔗 #AbolishICE #KnowYourRights #PAXIS #FirstAmendment #StopTheThreats #CivilRights

Joe Walsh

15,823 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 Today I spoke out against harassment of The Noticer and Telegram. There is only one solution to the free speech crisis in Australia - a constitutional amendment which prohibits the government from curbing what information you can and cannot access. Most constitutional amendments fail. A free speech amendment will easily win.
3:20

🚨 Today I spoke out against harassment of The Noticer and Telegram. There is only one solution to the free speech crisis in Australia - a constitutional amendment which prohibits the government from curbing what information you can and cannot access. Most constitutional amendments fail. A free speech amendment will easily win.

John Ruddick MLC - Libertarian

33,213 次观看 • 1 个月前

The First and Second amendment do not exist in a vacuum. You do not forfeit one by exercising the other. Regardless of swift changes in the White House, DOJ or the legislature, these rights must be held as absolute. "An armed people is a people whose assembly the government MUST take seriously, a disarmed people protest at the government's pleasure." -Dudley Brown
0:23

The First and Second amendment do not exist in a vacuum. You do not forfeit one by exercising the other. Regardless of swift changes in the White House, DOJ or the legislature, these rights must be held as absolute. "An armed people is a people whose assembly the government MUST take seriously, a disarmed people protest at the government's pleasure." -Dudley Brown

National Association for Gun Rights

33,180 次观看 • 5 个月前