censorship

TikTok users “absolutely justified” for fearing MAGA makeover, experts say

censorship, Donald Trump, First Amendment, Jeffrey Epstein, Policy, tiktok / Paul Patrick / January 27, 2026

Spectacular coincidence or obvious censorship?

TikTok’s tech issues abound as censorship fears drive users to delete app.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

TikTok wants users to believe that errors blocking uploads of anti-ICE videos or direct messages mentioning Jeffrey Epstein are due to technical errors—not the platform seemingly shifting to censor content critical of Donald Trump after he hand-picked the US owners who took over the app last week.

However, experts say that TikTok users’ censorship fears are justified, whether the bugs are to blame or not.

Ioana Literat, an associate professor of technology, media, and learning at Teachers College, Columbia University, has studied TikTok’s politics since the app first shot to popularity in the US in 2018. She told Ars that “users’ fears are absolutely justified” and explained why the “bugs” explanation is “insufficient.”

“Even if these are technical glitches, the pattern of what’s being suppressed reveals something significant,” Literat told Ars. “When your ‘bug’ consistently affects anti-Trump content, Epstein references, and anti-ICE videos, you’re looking at either spectacular coincidence or systems that have been designed—whether intentionally or through embedded biases—to flag and suppress specific political content.”

TikTok users are savvy, Literat noted, and what’s being cast as “paranoia” about the app’s bugs actually stems from their “digital literacy,” she suggested.

“They’ve watched Instagram suppress Palestine content, they’ve seen Twitter’s transformation under Musk, they’ve experienced shadow-banning and algorithmic suppression, including on TikTok prior to this,” Literat said. “So, their pattern recognition isn’t paranoia, but rather digital literacy.”

Casey Fiesler, an associate professor of technology ethics and internet law at the University of Colorado, Boulder, agreed that TikTok’s “bugs” explanation wasn’t enough to address users’ fears. She told CNN that TikTok risks losing users’ trust the longer that errors damage the perception of the app.

“Even if this isn’t purposeful censorship, does it matter? In terms of perception and trust, maybe,” Fiesler told CNN.

Some users are already choosing to leave TikTok. A quick glance at the TikTok subreddit shows many users grieving while vowing to delete the app, Literat pointed out, though some are reportedly struggling to delete accounts due to technical issues. Even with some users blocked from abandoning their accounts, however, “the daily average of TikTok uninstalls are up nearly 150 percent in the last five days compared to the last three months,” data analysis firm Sensor Tower told CNN.

A TikTok USDS spokesperson told Ars that US owners have not yet made any changes to the algorithm or content moderation policies. So far, the only changes have been to the US app’s terms of use and privacy policy, which impacted what location data is collected, how ads are targeted, and how AI interactions are monitored.

For TikTok, the top priority appears to be fixing the bugs, which were attributed to a power outage at a US data center. A TikTok USDS spokesperson told NPR that TikTok is also investigating the issue where some users can’t talk about Epstein in DMs.

“We don’t have rules against sharing the name ‘Epstein’ in direct messages and are investigating why some users are experiencing issues,” TikTok’s spokesperson said.

TikTok’s response came after California governor Gavin Newsom declared on X that “it’s time to investigate” TikTok.

“I am launching a review into whether TikTok is violating state law by censoring Trump-critical content,” Newsom said. His post quote-tweeted an X user who shared a screenshot of the error message TikTok displayed when some users referenced Epstein and joked, “so the agreement for TikTok to sell its US business to GOP-backed investors was finalized a few days ago,” and “now you can’t mention Epstein lmao.”

As of Tuesday afternoon, the results of TikTok’s investigation into the “Epstein” issue were not publicly available, but TikTok may post an update here as technical issues are resolved.

“We’ve made significant progress in recovering our US infrastructure with our US data center partner,” TikTok USDS’s latest statement said. “However, the US user experience may still have some technical issues, including when posting new content. We’re committed to bringing TikTok back to its full capacity as soon as possible. We’ll continue to provide updates.”

TikTokers will notice subtle changes, expert says

For TikTok’s new owners, the tech issues risk confirming fears that Trump wasn’t joking when he said he’d like to see TikTok be tweaked to be “100 percent MAGA.”

Because of this bumpy transition, it seems likely that TikTok will continue to be heavily scrutinized once the USDS joint venture officially starts retraining the app on US data. As the algorithm undergoes tweaks, frequent TikTok users will likely be the first to pick up on subtle changes, especially if content unaligned with their political views suddenly starts appearing in their feeds when it never did before, Literat suggested.

Literat has researched both left- and right-leaning TikTok content. She told Ars that although left-leaning young users have for years loudly used the app to promote progressive views on topics like racial justice, gun reforms, or climate change, TikTok has never leaned one way or the other on the political spectrum.

Consider Christian or tradwife TikTok, Literat suggested, which grew huge platforms on TikTok alongside leftist bubbles advocating for LGBTQ+ rights or Palestine solidarity.

“Political life on TikTok is organized into overlapping sub-communities, each with its own norms, humor, and tolerance for disagreement,” Literat said, adding that “the algorithm creates bubbles, so people experience very different TikToks.”

Literat told Ars that she wasn’t surprised when Trump suggested that TikTok would be better if it were more right-wing. But what concerned her most was the implication that Trump viewed TikTok “as a potential propaganda apparatus” and “a tool for political capture rather than a space for authentic expression and connection.”

“The historical irony is thick: we went from ‘TikTok is dangerous because it’s controlled by the Chinese government and might manipulate American users’ to ‘TikTok should be controlled by American interests and explicitly aligned with a particular political agenda,’” Literat said. “The concern was never really about foreign influence or manipulation per se—it was about who gets to do the influencing.”

David Greene, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which fought the TikTok ban law, told Ars that users are justified in feeling concerned. However, technical errors or content moderation mistakes are nearly always the most likely explanations for issues, and there’s no way to know “what’s actually happening.” He noted that lawmakers have shaped how some TikTok users view the app after insisting that they accept that China was influencing the algorithm without providing evidence.

“For years, TikTok users were being told that they just needed to follow these assumptions the government was making about the dangers of TikTok,” Greene said. And “now they’re doing the same thing, making these assumptions that it’s now maybe some content policy is being done either to please the Trump administration or being controlled by it. We conditioned TikTok users to basically to not have trust in the way decisions were made with the app.”

MAGA tweaks risks TikTok’s “death by a thousand cuts”

TikTok USDS likely wants to distance itself from Trump’s comments about making the app more MAGA. But new owners have deep ties with Trump, including Larry Ellison, the chief technology officer of Oracle, whom some critics suggest has benefited more than anyone else from Trump’s presidency. Greene noted that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is a key investor in Silver Lake. Both firms now have a 15 percent stake in the TikTok USDS joint venture, as well as MGX, which also seems to have Trump ties. CNBC reported MGX used the Trump family cryptocurrency, World Liberty Financial, to invest $2 billion in Binance shortly before Trump pardoned Binance’s CEO from money laundering charges, which some viewed as a possible quid pro quo.

Greene said that EFF warned during the Supreme Court fight over the TikTok divest-or-ban law that “all you were doing was substituting concerns for Chinese propaganda, for concerns for US propaganda. That it was highly likely that if you force a sale and the sale is up to the approval of the president, it’s going to be sold to President’s lackeys.”

“I don’t see how it’d be good for users or for democracy, for TikTok to have an editorial policy that would make Trump happy,” Greene said.

If suddenly, the app were tweaked to push more MAGA content into more feeds, young users who are critical of Trump wouldn’t all be brainwashed, Literat said. They would adapt, perhaps eventually finding other apps for activism.

However, TikTok may be hard to leave behind at a time when other popular apps seem to carry their own threats of political suppression, she suggested. Beyond the video-editing features that made TikTok a behemoth of social media, perhaps the biggest sticking point keeping users glued to TikTok is “fundamentally social,” Literat said.

“TikTok is where their communities are, where they’ve built audiences, where the conversations they care about are happening,” Literat said.

Rather than a mass exodus, Literat expects that TikTok’s fate could be “gradual erosion” or “death by a thousand cuts,” as users “likely develop workarounds, shift to other platforms for political content while keeping TikTok for entertainment, or create coded languages and aesthetic strategies to evade detection.”

CNN reported that one TikTok user already found that she could finally post an anti-ICE video after claiming to be a “fashion influencer” and speaking in code throughout the video, which criticized ICE for detaining a 5-year-old named Liam Conejo Ramos.

“Fashion influencing is in my blood,” she said in the video, which featured “a photo of Liam behind her,” CNN reported. “And even a company with bad customer service won’t keep me from doing my fashion review.”

Short-term, Literat thinks that longtime TikTok users experiencing inconsistent moderation will continue testing boundaries, documenting issues, and critiquing the app. That discussion will perhaps chill more speech on the platform, possibly even affecting the overall content mix appearing in feeds.

Long-term, however, TikTok’s changes under US owners “could fundamentally reshape TikTok’s role in political discourse.”

“I wouldn’t be surprised, unfortunately, if it suffers the fate of Twitter/X,” Literat said.

Literat told Ars that her TikTok research was initially sparked by a desire to monitor the “kind of authentic political expression the platform once enabled.” She worries that because user trust is now “damaged,” TikTok will never be the same.

“The tragedy is that TikTok genuinely was a space where young people—especially those from marginalized communities—could shape political conversations in ways that felt authentic and powerful,” Literat said. “I’m sad to say, I think that’s been irretrievably broken.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

TikTok users “absolutely justified” for fearing MAGA makeover, experts say Read More »

DHS keeps trying and failing to unmask anonymous ICE critics online

censorship, DHS, First Amendment, ice, immigration and customs enforcement, Policy / Mike M. / January 23, 2026

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has backed down from a fight to unmask the owners of Instagram and Facebook accounts monitoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in Pennsylvania.

One of the anonymous account holders, John Doe, sued to block ICE from identifying him and other critics online through summonses to Meta that he claimed infringed on core First Amendment-protected activity.

DHS initially fought Doe’s motion to quash the summonses, arguing that the community watch groups endangered ICE agents by posting “pictures and videos of agents’ faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things.” This was akin to “threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties,” DHS alleged. DHS’s arguments echoed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who has claimed that identifying ICE agents is a crime, even though Wired noted that ICE employees often post easily discoverable LinkedIn profiles.

To Doe, the agency seemed intent on testing the waters to see if it could seize authority to unmask all critics online by invoking a customs statute that allows agents to subpoena information on goods entering or leaving the US.

But then, on January 16, DHS abruptly reversed course, withdrawing its summonses from Meta.

A court filing confirmed that DHS dropped its requests for subscriber information last week, after initially demanding Doe’s “postal code, country, all email address(es) on file, date of account creation, registered telephone numbers, IP address at account signup, and logs showing IP address and date stamps for account accesses.”

The filing does not explain why DHS decided to withdraw its requests.

However, previously, DHS requested similar information from Meta about six Instagram community watch groups that shared information about ICE activity in Los Angeles and other locations. DHS withdrew those requests, too, after account holders defended their First Amendment rights and filed motions to quash their summonses, Doe’s court filing said.

DHS keeps trying and failing to unmask anonymous ICE critics online Read More »

Lawsuit: DHS wants “unlimited subpoena authority” to unmask ICE critics

censorship, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, First Amendment, ice, Policy / Rejus Almole / January 13, 2026

Defending online anonymity

DHS is weirdly using import/export rules to expand its authority to identify online critics.

A Border Patrol Tactical Unit agent sprays pepper spray into the face of a protestor attempting to block an immigration officer vehicle from leaving the scene where a woman was shot and killed by a federal agent earlier, in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. Credit: Star Tribune via Getty Images / Contributor | Star Tribune

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is fighting to unmask the owner of Facebook and Instagram accounts of a community watch group monitoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in Pennsylvania.

Defending the right to post about ICE sightings anonymously is a Meta account holder for MontCo Community Watch, John Doe.

Doe has alleged that when the DHS sent a “summons” to Meta asking for subscriber information, it infringed on core First Amendment-protected activity, i.e., the right to publish content critical of government agencies and officials without fear of government retaliation. He also accused DHS of ignoring federal rules and seeking to vastly expand its authority to subpoena information to unmask ICE’s biggest critics online.

“I believe that my anonymity is the only thing standing between me and unfair and unjust persecution by the government of the United States,” Doe said in his complaint.

In response, DHS alleged that the community watch group that posted “pictures and videos of agents’ faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things,” was akin to “threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties.” Claiming that the subpoena had nothing to do with silencing government critics, they argued that a statute regulating imports and exports empowered DHS to investigate the group’s alleged threats to “assault, kidnap, or murder” ICE agents.

DHS claims that Meta must comply with the subpoena because the government needs to investigate a “serious” threat “to the safety of its agents and the performance of their duties.”

On Wednesday, a US district judge will hear arguments to decide if Doe is right or if DHS can broadly unmask critics online by claiming it’s investigating supposed threats to ICE agents. With more power, DHS officials have confirmed they plan to criminally prosecute critics posting ICE videos online, Doe alleged in a lawsuit filed last October.

DHS seeking “unlimited subpoena authority”

DHS alleged that the community watch group posting “pictures and videos of agents’ faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things,” was akin to “threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties.” Claiming that the subpoena had nothing to do with silencing government critics, they argued that DHS is authorized to investigate the group and that compelling interest supersedes Doe’s First Amendment rights.

According to Doe’s most recent court filing, DHS is pushing a broad reading of a statute that empowers DHS to subpoena information about the “importation/exportation of merchandise”—like records to determine duties owed or information to unmask a drug smuggler or child sex trafficker. DHS claims the statute isn’t just about imports and exports but also authorizes DHS to seize information about anyone they can tie to an investigation of potential crimes that violate US customs laws.

However, it seems to make no sense, Doe argued, that Congress would “silently embed unlimited subpoena authority in a provision keyed to the importation of goods.” Doe hopes the US district judge will agree that DHS’s summons was unconstitutional.

“The subscriber information for social media accounts publishing speech critical of ICE that DHS seeks is completely unrelated to the importation/exportation of merchandise; the records are outside the scope of DHS’s summons power,” Doe alleged.

And even if the court agrees on DHS’s reading of the statute, DHS has not established that unmasking the owner of the community watch accounts would be relevant to any legitimate criminal investigation, Doe alleged.

Doe’s posts were “pretty innocuous,” lawyer says

To convince the court that the case was really about chilling speech, Doe attached every post made on the group’s Facebook and Instagram feeds. None show threats or arguably implicit threats to “assault, kidnap, or murder any federal official,” as DHS claimed. Instead, the users shared “information and resources about immigrant rights, due process rights, fundraising, and vigils,” Doe said.

Ariel Shapell, an attorney representing Doe at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, told Ars that “if you go and look at the content on the Facebook and Instagram profiles at issue here, it’s pretty innocuous.”

DHS claimed to have received information about the group supposedly “stalking and gathering of intelligence on federal agents involved in ICE operations.” However, Doe argued that “unsurprisingly, neither DHS nor its declarant cites any post even allegedly constituting any such threat. To the contrary, all posts on these social media accounts constitute speech addressing important public issues fully protected under the First Amendment,” Doe argued.

“Reporting on, or even livestreaming, publicly occurring immigration operations is fully protected First Amendment activity,” Doe argued. “DHS does not, and cannot, show how such conduct constitutes an assault, kidnapping, or murder of a federal law enforcement officer, or a threat to do any of those things.”

Anti-ICE backlash mounting amid ongoing protests

Doe’s motion to quash the subpoena arrives at a time when recent YouGov polling suggests that Americans have reached a tipping point in ending support for ICE. YouGov’s poll found more people disapprove of how ICE is handling its job than approve, following the aftermath of nationwide anti-ICE protests over Renee Good’s killing. ICE critics have used footage of tragic events—like Good’s death and eight other ICE shootings since September—to support calls to remove ICE from embattled communities and abolish ICE.

As sharing ICE footage has swayed public debate, DHS has seemingly sought to subpoena Meta and possibly other platforms for subscriber information.

In October, Meta refused to provide names of users associated with Doe’s accounts—as well as “postal code, country, all email address(es) on file, date of account creation, registered telephone numbers, IP address at account signup, and logs showing IP address and date stamps for account accesses”—without further information from DHS. Meta then gave Doe the opportunity to move to quash the subpoena to stop the company from sharing information.

That request came about a week after DHS requested similar information from Meta about six Instagram community watch groups that shared information about ICE activity in Los Angeles and other locations. DHS withdrew those requests after account holders defended First Amendment rights and filed motions to quash the subpoena, Doe’s court filing said.

It’s unclear why DHS withdrew those subpoenas but maintained Doe’s. DHS has alleged that the government’s compelling interest in Doe’s identity outweighs First Amendment rights to post anonymously online. The agency also claimed it has met its burden to unmask Doe as “someone who is allegedly involved in threatening ICE agents and impeding the performance of their duties,” which supposedly “touches DHS’s investigation into threats to ICE agents and impediments to the performance of their duties.”

Whether Doe will prevail is hard to say, but Politico reported that DHS’s “defense will rest on whether DHS’s argument that posting videos and images of ICE officers and warnings about arrests is considered criminal activity.” It may weaken DHS’s case that Border Patrol Tactical Commander Greg Bovino recently circulated a “legal refresher” for agents in the field, reminding them that protestors are allowed to take photos and videos of “an officer or operation in public,” independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported.

Shapell told Ars that there seems to be “a lot of distance” between the content posted on Doe’s accounts and relevant evidence that could be used in DHS’s alleged investigation into criminal activity. And meanwhile, “there are just very clear First Amendment rights here to associate with other people anonymously online and to discuss political opinions online anonymously,” Shapell said, which the judge may strongly uphold as core protected activity as threats of government retaliation mount.

“These summonses chill people’s desire to communicate about these sorts of incredibly important developments on the Internet, even anonymously, when there’s a threat that they could be unmasked and investigated for this really core First Amendment protected activity,” Shapell said.

A win could reassure Meta users that they can continue posting about ICE online without fear of retaliation should Meta be pressed to share their information.

Ars could not immediately reach DHS for comment. Meta declined to comment, only linking Ars to an FAQ to help users understand how the platform processes government requests.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Lawsuit: DHS wants “unlimited subpoena authority” to unmask ICE critics Read More »

Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month

agentic AI, AI, AI image generator, AI in education, AI regulation, AI security, Anthropic, Biz & IT, censorship, Deepfakes, Department of Defense, elon musk, Gemini, Google, grok, machine learning, openai, Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, Policy, xAI / Paul Patrick / January 13, 2026

On Monday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he plans to integrate Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, into Pentagon networks later this month. During remarks at the SpaceX headquarters in Texas reported by The Guardian, Hegseth said the integration would place “the world’s leading AI models on every unclassified and classified network throughout our department.”

The announcement comes weeks after Grok drew international backlash for generating sexualized images of women and children, although the Department of Defense has not released official documentation confirming Hegseth’s announced timeline or implementation details.

During the same appearance, Hegseth rolled out what he called an “AI acceleration strategy” for the Department of Defense. The strategy, he said, will “unleash experimentation, eliminate bureaucratic barriers, focus on investments, and demonstrate the execution approach needed to ensure we lead in military AI and that it grows more dominant into the future.”

As part of the plan, Hegseth directed the DOD’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office to use its full authority to enforce department data policies, making information available across all IT systems for AI applications.

“AI is only as good as the data that it receives, and we’re going to make sure that it’s there,” Hegseth said.

If implemented, Grok would join other AI models the Pentagon has adopted in recent months. In July 2025, the defense department issued contracts worth up to $200 million for each of four companies, including Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and xAI, for developing AI agent systems across different military operations. In December 2025, the Department of Defense selected Google’s Gemini as the foundation for GenAI.mil, an internal AI platform for military use.

Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month Read More »

The science of how (and when) we decide to speak out—or self-censor

censorship, Human behavior, mathematical modeling, psychology, Science, Social Media / Paul Patrick / December 30, 2025

The US has adopted more of a middle ground approach, essentially letting private companies decide what they wanted to do. Daymude and his co-authors wanted to investigate these markedly different approaches. So they developed a computational agent-based simulation that modeled how individuals navigate between wanting to express dissent versus fear of punishment. The model also incorporates how an authority adjusts its surveillance and its policies to minimize dissent at the lowest possible cost of enforcement.

“It’s not some kind of learning theory thing,” said Daymude. “And it’s not rooted in empirical statistics. We didn’t go out and ask 1000 people, ‘What would you do if faced with this situation? Would you dissent or self-censor?’ and then build that data into the model. Our model allows us to embed some assumptions about how we think people behave broadly, but then lets us explore parameters. What happens if you’re more or less bold? What happens if punishments are more or less severe? An authority is more or less tolerant? And we can make predictions based on our fundamental assumptions about what’s going to happen.”

Let one hundred flowers bloom

According to their model, the most extreme case is an authoritarian government that adopts a draconian punishment strategy, which effectively represses all dissent in the general population. “Everyone’s best strategic choice is just to say nothing at this point,” said Daymude. “So why doesn’t every authoritarian government on the planet just do this?” That led them to look more closely at the dynamics. “Maybe authoritarians start out somewhat moderate,” he said. “Maybe the only way they’re allowed to get to that extreme endpoint is through small changes over time.”

Daymude points to China’s Hundred Flowers Campaign in the 1950s as an illustrative case. Here, Chairman Mao Zedong initially encouraged open critiques of his government before abruptly cracking down aggressively when dissent got out of hand. The model showed that in such a case, dissenters’ self-censorship gradually increased, culminating in near-total compliance over time.

But there’s a catch. “The opposite of the Hundred Flowers is if the population is sufficiently bold, this strategy doesn’t work,” said Daymude. “The authoritarian can’t find the pathway to become fully draconian. People just stubbornly keep dissenting. So every time it tries to ramp up severity, it’s on the hook for it every time because people are still out there, they’re still dissenting. They’re saying, ‘Catch us if you dare.’”

The science of how (and when) we decide to speak out—or self-censor Read More »

“Yo what?” LimeWire re-emerges in online rush to share pulled “60 Minutes” segment

CBS News, censorship, Donald Trump, government censorship, LimeWire, peer-to-peer networks, Policy, torrents / Rejus Almole / December 23, 2025

Early 2000s tool LimeWire used to pirate episode

As Americans scrambled to share the “Inside CECOT” story, assuming that CBS would be working in the background to pull down uploads, a once-blacklisted tool from the early 2000s became a reliable way to keep the broadcast online.

On Reddit, users shared links to a LimeWire torrent, prompting chuckles from people surprised to see the peer-to-peer service best known for infecting parents’ computers with viruses in the 2000s suddenly revived in 2025 to skirt feared US government censorship.

“Yo what,” one user joked, highlighting only the word “LimeWire.” Another user, ironically using the LimeWire logo as a profile picture, responded, “man, who knew my nostalgia prof pic would become relevant again, WTF.”

LimeWire was created in 2000 and quickly became one of the Internet’s favorite services for pirating music until record labels won a 2010 injunction that blocked all file-sharing functionality. As the Reddit thread noted, some LimeWire users were personally targeted in lawsuits.

For a while after the injunction, a fraction of users kept the service alive by running older versions of the software that weren’t immediately disabled. New owners took over LimeWire in 2022, officially relaunching the service. The service’s about page currently notes that “millions of individuals and businesses” use the global file-sharing service today, but for some early Internet users, the name remains a blast from the past.

“Bringing back LimeWire to illegally rip copies of reporting suppressed by the government is definitely some cyberpunk shit,” a Bluesky user wrote.

“We need a champion against the darkness,” a Reddit commenter echoed. “I side with LimeWire.”

“Yo what?” LimeWire re-emerges in online rush to share pulled “60 Minutes” segment Read More »

Man sues cops who jailed him for 37 days for trolling a Charlie Kirk vigil

censorship, charlie kirk, Donald Trump, false arrest, meme, Policy, social media censorship / Rejus Almole / December 17, 2025

While there’s no evidence of anyone interpreting the meme as a violent threat to school kids, there was a “national uproar” when Bushart’s story started spreading online, his complaint noted. Bushart credits media attention for helping to secure his release. The very next day after a local news station pressed Weems in a TV interview to admit he knew the meme wasn’t referencing his county’s high school and confirm that no one ever asked Bushart to clarify his online remarks, charges were dropped, and Bushart was set free.

Morrow and Weems have been sued in their personal capacities and could “be on the hook for monetary damages,” a press release from Bushart’s legal team at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) said. Perry County, Tennessee, is also a defendant since it’s liable for unconstitutional acts of its sheriffs.

Perry County officials did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Bushart suffered “humiliating” arrest

For Bushart, the arrest has shaken up his life. As the primary breadwinner, he’s worried about how he will support himself and his wife after losing his job while in jail. The arrest was particularly “humiliating,” his complaint said, “given his former role as a law enforcement officer.” And despite his release, fear of arrest has chilled his speech, impacting how he expresses his views online.

“I spent over three decades in law enforcement, and have the utmost respect for the law,” Bushart said. “But I also know my rights, and I was arrested for nothing more than refusing to be bullied into censorship.”

Bushart is seeking punitive damages, alleging that cops acted “willfully and maliciously” to omit information from his arrest affidavit that would’ve prevented his detention. One of his lawyers, FIRE senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh, said that a win would protect all social media meme posters from police censorship.

“If police can come to your door in the middle of the night and put you behind bars based on nothing more than an entirely false and contrived interpretation of a Facebook post, no one’s First Amendment rights are safe,” Steinbaugh said.

Man sues cops who jailed him for 37 days for trolling a Charlie Kirk vigil Read More »

He got sued for sharing public YouTube videos; nightmare ended in settlement

censorship, copyright, ed tech, education technology, free speech, Policy, proctorio, youtube / Rejus Almole / November 19, 2025

Librarian vows to stop invasive ed tech after ending lawsuit with Proctorio.

Librarian Ian Linkletter remains one of Proctorio’s biggest critics after 5-year legal battle. Credit: Ashley Linkletter

Nobody expects to get sued for re-posting a YouTube video on social media by using the “share” button, but librarian Ian Linkletter spent the past five years embroiled in a copyright fight after doing just that.

Now that a settlement has been reached, Linkletter told Ars why he thinks his 2020 tweets sharing public YouTube videos put a target on his back.

Linkletter’s legal nightmare started in 2020 after an education technology company, Proctorio, began monitoring student backlash on Reddit over its AI tool used to remotely scan rooms, identify students, and prevent cheating on exams. On Reddit, students echoed serious concerns raised by researchers, warning of privacy issues, racist and sexist biases, and barriers to students with disabilities.

At that time, Linkletter was a learning technology specialist at the University of British Columbia. He had been aware of Proctorio as a tool that some professors used, but he ultimately joined UBC students criticizing Proctorio, as, practically overnight, it became a default tool that every teacher relied on during the early stages of the pandemic.

To Linkletter, the AI tool not only seemed flawed, but it also seemingly made students more anxious about exams. However, he didn’t post any tweets criticizing the tech—until he grew particularly disturbed to see Proctorio’s CEO, Mike Olsen, “showing up in the comments” on Reddit to fire back at one of his university’s loudest student critics. Defending Proctorio, Olsen roused even more backlash by posting the student’s private chat logs publicly to prove the student “lied” about a support interaction, The Guardian reported.

“If you’re gonna lie bro … don’t do it when the company clearly has an entire transcript of your conversation,” Olsen wrote, later apologizing for the now-deleted post.

“That set me off, and I was just like, this is completely unacceptable for a CEO to be going after our students like this,” Linkletter told Ars.

The more that Linkletter researched Proctorio, the more concerned he became. Taking to then-Twitter, he posted a series of seven tweets over a couple days that linked to YouTube videos that Proctorio hosted in its help center. He felt the videos—which showed how Proctorio flagged certain behaviors, tracked “abnormal” eye and head movements, and scanned rooms—helped demonstrate why students were so upset. And while he had fewer than 1,000 followers, he hoped that the influential higher education administrators who followed him would see his posts and consider dropping the tech.

Rather than request Linkletter remove the tweets—which was the company’s standard practice—Proctorio moved quickly to delete the videos. Proctorio supposedly expected that the removals would put Linkletter on notice to stop tweeting out help center videos. Instead, Linkletter posted a screenshot of the help center showing all the disabled videos, while suggesting that Proctorio seemed so invested in secrecy that it was willing to gut its own support resources to censor criticism of their tools.

Together, the videos, the help center screenshot, and another screenshot showing course material describing how Proctorio works were enough for Proctorio to take Linkletter to court.

The ed tech company promptly filed a lawsuit and obtained a temporary injunction by spuriously claiming that Linkletter shared private YouTube videos containing confidential information. Because the YouTube videos—which were public but “unlisted” when Linkletter shared them—had been removed, Linkletter did not have to delete the seven tweets that initially caught Proctorio’s attention, but the injunction required that he remove two tweets, including the screenshots.

In the five years since, the legal fight dragged on, with no end in sight until last week, as Canadian courts tangled with copyright allegations that tested a recently passed law intended to shield Canadian rights to free expression, the Protection of Public Participation Act.

To fund his defense, Linkletter said in a blog announcing the settlement that he invested his life savings “ten times over.” Additionally, about 900 GoFundMe supporters and thousands of members of the Association of Administrative and Professional Staff at UBC contributed tens of thousands more. For the last year of the battle, a law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright, agreed to represent him on a pro bono basis, which Linkletter said “was a huge relief to me, as it meant I could defend myself all the way if Proctorio chose to proceed with the litigation.”

The terms of the settlement remain confidential, but both Linkletter and Proctorio confirmed that no money was exchanged.

For Proctorio, the settlement made permanent the injunction that restricted Linkletter from posting the company’s help center or instructional materials. But it doesn’t stop Linkletter from remaining the company’s biggest critic, as “there are no other restrictions on my freedom of expression,” Linkletter’s blog noted.

“I’ve won my life back!” Linkletter wrote, while reassuring his supporters that he’s “fine” with how things ended.

“It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why Proctorio is a nightmare for students,” Linkletter wrote. “I can say everything that matters about Proctorio using public information.”

Proctorio’s YouTube “mistake” triggered injunction

In a statement to Ars, Kevin Rockmael, Proctorio’s head of marketing, suggested that the ed tech company sees the settlement as a win.

“After years of successful litigation, we are pleased that this settlement (which did not include any monetary compensation) protects our interests by making our initial restraining order permanent,” Rockmael said. “Most importantly, we are glad to close this chapter and focus our efforts on helping teachers and educational institutions deliver valuable and secure assessments.”

Responding to Rockmael, Linkletter clarified that the settlement upholds a modified injunction, noting that Proctorio’s initial injunction was significantly narrowed after a court ruled it overly broad. Linkletter also pointed to testimony from Proctorio’s former head of marketing, John Devoy, whose affidavit “mistakenly” swearing that Linkletter was sharing private YouTube videos was the sole basis for the court approving the injunction. That testimony, Linkletter told Ars, suggested that Proctorio knew that the librarian had shared videos the company had accidentally made public and used it as “some sort of excuse to pull the trigger” on a lawsuit after Linkletter commented on the sub-Reddit incident.

“Even a child understands how YouTube works, so how are we supposed to trust a surveillance company that doesn’t?” Linkletter wrote in his blog.

Grilled by Linkletter’s lawyer, Devoy insisted that he was not “lying” when he claimed the videos Linkletter shared came from a private channel. Instead—even though he knew the difference between a private and public channel—Devoy claimed that he made a simple mistake, even suggesting that the inaccurate claim was a “typo.”

Linkletter maintains that Proctorio’s lawsuit had nothing to do with the videos he shared—which his legal team discovered had been shared publicly by many parties, including UBC, none of which Proctorio decided to sue. Instead, he felt targeted to silence his criticism of the company, and he successfully fought to keep Proctorio from accessing his private communications, which seemed to be a fishing expedition to find other critics to monitor.

“In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, one of the purposes of the lawsuit was to have a chilling effect on public discourse around proctoring,” Linkletter told Ars. “And it worked. I mean, a lot of people were scared to use the word Proctorio, especially in writing.”

Joe Mullin, a senior policy analyst who monitored Linkletter’s case for the nonprofit digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, agreed that Proctorio’s lawsuit risked chilling speech.

“We’re glad to see this lawsuit finally resolved in a way that protects Ian Linkletter’s freedom to speak out,” Mullin told Ars, noting that Linkletter “raised serious concerns about proctoring software at a time when students were subjected to unprecedented monitoring.”

“This case should never have dragged on for five years,” Mullin said. “Using copyright claims to retaliate against critics is wrong, and it chills public debate about surveillance technology.”

Preventing the “next” Proctorio

Linkletter is not the only critic to be targeted by Proctorio, Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director for a nonprofit digital rights group called Fight for the Future, told Ars.

Holland’s group was subpoenaed in a US fight after Proctorio sent a copyright infringement notice to Erik Johnson, a then-18-year-old college freshman who shared one of Linkletter’s screenshots. The ensuing litigation was similarly settled after Proctorio “threw every semi-plausible legal weapon at Johnson full force,” Holland told Ars. The pressure forced Johnson to choose between “living his life and his life being this suit from Proctorio,” Holland said.

Linkletter suspected that he and Johnson were added to a “list” of critics that Proctorio closely monitored online, but Proctorio has denied that such a list exists. Holland pushed back, though, telling Ars that Proctorio has “an incredibly long history of fudging the truth in the interest of profit.”

“We’re no strangers to Proctorio’s shady practices when it comes to oppressing dissent or criticism of their technologies,” Holland said. “I am utterly not shocked that they would employ tactics that appear to be doing the same thing when it comes to Ian Linkletter’s case.”

Regardless of Proctorio’s tactics for brand management, it seems clear that public criticism has impacted Proctorio’s sales, though. In 2021, Vice reported that student backlash led some schools to quickly abandon the software. UBC dropped Proctorio in 2021, too, citing “ethical concerns.”

Today, Linkletter works as an emerging technology and open education librarian at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT). While he considers himself an expert on Proctorio and continues to give lectures discussing harms of academic surveillance software, he’s ready to get away from discussing Proctorio now that the lawsuit has ended.

“I think I will continue to pay attention to what they do and say, and if there’s any new reports of harm that I can elevate,” Linkletter told Ars. “But I have definitely made my points in terms of my specific concerns, and I feel less obliged to spend more and more and more time repeating myself.”

Instead, Linkletter is determined to “prevent the next Proctorio” from potentially blindsiding students on his campus. In his role as vice chair of BCIT’s educational technology and learning design committee, he’s establishing “checks and balances” to ensure that if another pandemic-like situation arises forcing every student to work from home, he can stop “a bunch of creepy stuff” from being rolled out.

“I spent the last year advocating for and implementing algorithmic impact assessments as a mandatory thing that the institute has to do, including identifying how risk is going to be mitigated before we approve any new ed tech ever again,” Linkletter explained.

He also created the Canadian Privacy Library, where he posts privacy impact assessments that he collects by sending freedom-of-information requests to higher education institutions in British Columbia. That’s one way local students could monitor privacy concerns as AI use expands across campuses, increasingly impacting not just how exams are proctored, but how assignments are graded.

Holland told Ars that students concerned about ed tech surveillance “are most powerful when they act in solidarity with each other.” While the pandemic was widely forcing remote learning, student groups were able to successfully remove harmful proctoring tech by “working together so that there was not one single scapegoat or one single face that the ed tech company could go after,” she suggested. Those movements typically start with one or two students learning how the technology works, so that they can educate others about top concerns, Holland said.

Since Linkletter’s lawsuit started, Proctorio has stopped fighting with students on Reddit and suing critics over tweets, Holland said. But Linkletter told Ars that the company still seems to leave students in the dark when it comes to how its software works, and that “could lead to academic discipline for honest students, and unnecessary stress for everyone,” his earliest court filing defending his tweets said.

“I was and am gravely concerned about Proctorio’s lack of transparency about how its algorithms work, and how it labels student behaviours as ‘suspicious,’” Linkletter swore in the filing. One of his deleted tweets urged that all schools have to demand transparency and ask why Proctorio was “hiding” information about how the software worked. But in the end, Linkletter saw no point in continuing to argue over whether two deleted tweets re-posting Proctorio’s videos using YouTube’s sharing tool violated Proctorio’s copyrights.

“I didn’t feel too censored,” Linkletter told Ars. “But yeah, I guess it’s censorship, and I do believe they filed it to try and censor me. But as you can see, I just refused to go down, and I remained their biggest critic.”

As universities prepare to break ahead of the winter holidays, Linkletter told Ars that he’s looking forward to a change in dinner table conversation topics.

“It’s one of those things where I’m 41 and I have aging parents, and I’ve had to waste the last five Christmases talking to them about the lawsuit and their concerns about me,” Linkletter said. “So I’m really looking forward to this Thanksgiving, this Christmas, with this all behind me and the ability to just focus with my parents and my family.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

He got sued for sharing public YouTube videos; nightmare ended in settlement Read More »

Man finally released a month after absurd arrest for reposting Trump meme

censorship, Donald Trump, facebook, meme, Policy, Social Media, true threats / Paul Patrick / October 30, 2025

Bodycam footage undermined sheriff’s “true threat” justification for the arrest.

The saga of a 61-year-old man jailed for more than a month after reposting a Facebook meme has ended, but free speech advocates are still reeling in the wake.

On Wednesday, Larry Bushart was released from Perry County Jail, where he had spent weeks unable to make bail, which a judge set at $2 million. Prosecutors have not explained why the charges against him were dropped, according to The Intercept, which has been tracking the case closely. However, officials faced mounting pressure following media coverage and a social media campaign called “Free Larry Bushart,” which stoked widespread concern over suspected police censorship of a US citizen over his political views.

How a meme landed a man in jail

Bushart’s arrest came after he decided to troll a message thread about a Charlie Kirk vigil in a Facebook group called “What’s Happening in Perry County, TN.” He posted a meme showing a picture of Donald Trump saying, “We should get over it.” The meme included a caption that said “Donald Trump, on the Perry High School mass shooting, one day after,” and Bushart included a comment with his post that said, “This seems relevant today ….”

His meme caught the eye of the Perry County sheriff, Nick Weems, who had mourned Kirk’s passing on his own Facebook page, The Intercept noted.

Supposedly, Weems’ decision to go after Bushart wasn’t due to his political views but to receiving messages from parents who misread Bushart’s post as possibly threatening an attack on the local Perry County High School. To pressure Bushart to remove the post, Weems contacted the Lexington Police Department to find Bushart. That led to the meme poster’s arrest and transfer to Perry County Jail.

Weems justified the arrest by claiming that Bushart’s meme represented a true threat, since “investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community,” The Tennessean reported. But “there was no evidence of any hysteria,” The Intercept reported, leading media outlets to pick apart Weems’ story.

Perhaps most suspicious were Weems’ claims that Bushart had callously refused to take down his post after cops told him that people were scared that he was threatening a school shooting.

The Intercept and Nashville’s CBS affiliate, NewsChannel 5, secured bodycam footage from the Lexington cop that undermined Weems’ narrative. The footage clearly showed the cop did not understand why the Perry County sheriff had taken issue with Bushart’s Facebook post.

“So, I’m just going to be completely honest with you,” the cop told Bushart. “I have really no idea what they are talking about. He had just called me and said there was some concerning posts that were made….”

Bushart clarified that it was likely his Facebook posts, laughing at the notion that someone had called the cops to report his meme. The Lexington officer told Bushart that he wasn’t sure “exactly what” Facebook post “they are referring to you,” but “they said that something was insinuating violence.”

“No, it wasn’t,” Bushart responded, confirming that “I’m not going to take it down.”

The cop, declining to even glance at the Facebook post, told Bushart, “I don’t care. This ain’t got nothing to do with me.” But the officer’s indifference didn’t stop Lexington police from taking Bushart into custody, booking him, and sending him to Weems’ county, where Bushart was charged “under a state law passed in July 2024 that makes it a Class E felony to make threats against schools,” The Tennessean reported.

“Just to clarify, this is what they charged you with,” a Perry County jail officer told Bushart—which was recorded on footage reviewed by The Intercept—“Threatening Mass Violence at a School.”

“At a school?” Bushart asked.

“I ain’t got a clue,” the officer responded, laughing. “I just gotta do what I have to do.”

“I’ve been in Facebook jail, but now I’m really in it,” Bushart said, joining him in laughing.

Cops knew the meme wasn’t a threat

Lexington police told The Intercept that Weems had lied when he told local news outlets that the forces had “coordinated” to offer Bushart a chance to delete the post prior to his arrest. Confronted with the bodycam footage, Weems denied lying, claiming that his investigator’s report must have been inaccurate, NewsChannel 5 reported.

Weems later admitted to NewsChannel 5 that “investigators knew that the meme was not about Perry County High School” and sought Bushart’s arrest anyway, supposedly hoping to quell “the fears of people in the community who misinterpreted it.” That’s as close as Weems comes to seemingly admitting that his intention was to censor the post.

The Perry County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

According to The Tennessean, the law that landed Bushart behind bars has been widely criticized by First Amendment advocates. Beth Cruz, a lecturer in public interest law at Vanderbilt University Law School, told The Tennessean that “518 children in Tennessee were arrested under the current threats of mass violence law, including 71 children between the ages of 7 and 11” last year alone.

The law seems to contradict Supreme Court precedent, which set a high bar for what’s considered a “true threat,” recognizing that “it is easy for speech made in one context to inadvertently reach a larger audience” that misinterprets the message.

“The risk of overcriminalizing upsetting or frightening speech has only been increased by the Internet,” SCOTUS ruled. Justices warned then that “without sufficient protection for unintentionally threatening speech, a high school student who is still learning norms around appropriate language could easily go to prison.” They also feared that “someone may post an enraged comment under a news story about a controversial topic” that potentially gets them in trouble for speaking out “in the heat of the moment.”

“In a Nation that has never been timid about its opinions, political or otherwise, this is commonplace,” SCOTUS noted.

Dissenting judges, including Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, thought the ruling went too far to protect speech, however. They felt that so long as a “reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence,” that supposedly objective standard could be enough to criminalize speech like Bushart’s.

Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told The Intercept that “people’s performative overreaction is not a sufficient basis to limit someone else’s free speech rights.”

“A free country does not dispatch police in the dead of night to pull people from their homes because a sheriff objects to their social media posts,” Steinbaugh said.

Man resumes Facebook posting upon release

Chris Eargle, who started the “Free Larry Bushart” Facebook group, told The Intercept that Weems’ story justifying the arrest made no sense. Instead, it seemed like the sheriff’s actions were politically motivated, Eargle suggested, intended to silence people like Bushart with a show of force demonstrating that “if you say something I don’t like, and you don’t take it down, now you’re going to be in trouble.”

“I mean, it’s just control over people’s speech,” Eargle said.

The Perry County Sheriff’s office chose to remove its Facebook page after the controversy, and it remains down as of this writing.

But Weems logged onto his Facebook page on Wednesday before Bushart’s charges were dropped, The Intercept reported. The sheriff seemingly stuck to his guns that people had interpreted the meme as a threat to a local school, claiming that he’s “100 percent for protecting the First Amendment. However, freedom of speech does not allow anyone to put someone else in fear of their well being.”

For Bushart, who The Intercept noted retired from decades in law enforcement last year, the arrest turned him into an icon of free speech, but it also shook up his life. He lost his job as a medical driver, and he missed the birth of his granddaughter.

Leaving jail, Bushart said he was “very happy to be going home.” He thanked all his supporters who ensured that he would not have to wait until December 4 to petition for his bail to be reduced—a delay which the prosecution had sought shortly before abruptly dismissing the charges, The Intercept reported.

Back at his computer, Bushart logged onto Facebook, posting first about his grandkid, then resuming his political trolling.

Eargle claimed many others fear posting their political opinions after Bushart’s arrest, though. Bushart’s son, Taylor, told Nashville news outlet WKRN that it has been a “trying time” for his family, while noting that his father’s release “doesn’t change what has happened to him” or threats to speech that could persist under Tennessee’s law.

“I can’t even begin to express how thankful we are for the outpour of support he has received,” Taylor said. “If we don’t fight to protect and preserve our rights today, just as we’ve now seen, they may be gone tomorrow.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Man finally released a month after absurd arrest for reposting Trump meme Read More »

4chan fined $26K for refusing to assess risks under UK Online Safety Act

4chan, censorship, FCC, First Amendment, free speech, Kiwi Farms, Ofcom, online safety act, Policy, united kingdom / Mike M. / October 13, 2025

The risk assessments also seem to unconstitutionally compel speech, they argued, forcing them to share information and “potentially incriminate themselves on demand.” That conflicts with 4chan and Kiwi Farms’ Fourth Amendment rights, as well as “the right against self-incrimination and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution,” the suit says.

Additionally, “the First Amendment protects Plaintiffs’ right to permit anonymous use of their platforms,” 4chan and Kiwi Farms argued, opposing Ofcom’s requirements to verify ages of users. (This may be their weakest argument as the US increasingly moves to embrace age gates.)

4chan is hoping a US district court will intervene and ban enforcement of the OSA, arguing that the US must act now to protect all US companies. Failing to act now could be a slippery slope, as the UK is supposedly targeting “the most well-known, but small and, financially speaking, defenseless platforms” in the US before mounting attacks to censor “larger American companies,” 4chan and Kiwi Farms argued.

Ofcom has until November 25 to respond to the lawsuit and has maintained that the OSA is not a censorship law.

On Monday, Britain’s technology secretary, Liz Kendall, called OSA a “lifeline” meant to protect people across the UK “from the darkest corners of the Internet,” the Record reported.

“Services can no longer ignore illegal content, like encouraging self-harm or suicide, circulating online which can devastate young lives and leaves families shattered,” Kendall said. “This fine is a clear warning to those who fail to remove illegal content or protect children from harmful material.”

Whether 4chan and Kiwi Farms can win their fight to create a carveout in the OSA for American companies remains unclear, but the Federal Trade Commission agrees that the UK law is an overreach. In August, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson warned US tech companies against complying with the OSA, claiming that censoring Americans to comply with UK law is a violation of the FTC Act, the Record reported.

“American consumers do not reasonably expect to be censored to appease a foreign power and may be deceived by such actions,” Ferguson told tech executives in a letter.

Another lawyer backing 4chan, Preston Byrne, seemed to echo Ferguson, telling the BBC, “American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail.”

4chan fined $26K for refusing to assess risks under UK Online Safety Act Read More »

Elon Musk’s “thermonuclear” Media Matters lawsuit may be fizzling out

ad boycott, censorship, Donald Trump, elon musk, federal trade commission, ftc, Policy, trump administration, Twitter, twitter ad boycott, X / Paul Patrick / August 19, 2025

Judge blocks FTC’s Media Matters probe as a likely First Amendment violation.

Media Matters for America (MMFA)—a nonprofit that Elon Musk accused of sparking a supposedly illegal ad boycott on X—won its bid to block a sweeping Federal Trade Commission (FTC) probe that appeared to have rushed to silence Musk’s foe without ever adequately explaining why the government needed to get involved.

In her opinion granting MMFA’s preliminary injunction, US District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan—a Joe Biden appointee—agreed that the FTC’s probe was likely to be ruled as a retaliatory violation of the First Amendment.

Warning that the FTC’s targeting of reporters was particularly concerning, Sooknanan wrote that the “case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation,” where it’s reasonable to conclude that conservative FTC staffers were perhaps motivated to eliminate a media organization dedicated to correcting conservative misinformation online.

“It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,” Sooknanan wrote. “And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.”

FTC staff social posts may be evidence of retaliation

In 2023, Musk vowed to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit because advertisers abandoned X after MMFA published a report showing that major brands’ ads had appeared next to pro-Nazi posts on X. Musk then tried to sue MMFA “all over the world,” Sooknanan wrote, while “seemingly at the behest of Steven Miller, the current White House Deputy Chief of Staff, the Missouri and Texas Attorneys General” joined Musk’s fight, starting their own probes.

But Musk’s “thermonuclear” attack—attempting to fight MMFA on as many fronts as possible—has appeared to be fizzling out. A federal district court preliminarily enjoined the “aggressive” global litigation strategy, and the same court issued the recent FTC ruling that also preliminarily enjoined the AG probes “as likely being retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment.”

The FTC under the Trump administration appeared to be the next line of offense, supporting Musk’s attack on MMFA. And Sooknanan said that FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson’s own comments in interviews, which characterized Media Matters and the FTC’s probe “in ideological terms,” seem to indicate “at a minimum that Chairman Ferguson saw the FTC’s investigation as having a partisan bent.”

A huge part of the problem for the FTC was social media comments posted before some senior FTC staffers were appointed by Ferguson. Those posts appeared to show the FTC growing increasingly partisan, perhaps pointedly hiring staffers who they knew would help take down groups like MMFA.

As examples, Sooknanan pointed to Joe Simonson, the FTC’s director of public affairs, who had posted that MMFA “employed a number of stupid and resentful Democrats who went to like American University and didn’t have the emotional stability to work as an assistant press aide for a House member.” And Jon Schwepp, Ferguson’s senior policy advisor, had claimed that Media Matters—which he branded as the “scum of the earth”—”wants to weaponize powerful institutions to censor conservatives.” And finally, Jake Denton, the FTC’s chief technology officer, had alleged that MMFA is “an organization devoted to pressuring companies into silencing conservative voices.”

Further, the timing of the FTC investigation—arriving “on the heels of other failed attempts to seek retribution”—seemed to suggest it was “motivated by retaliatory animus,” the judge said. The FTC’s “fast-moving” investigation suggests that Ferguson “was chomping at the bit to ‘take investigative steps in the new administration under President Trump’ to make ‘progressives’ like Media Matters ‘give up,'” Sooknanan wrote.

Musk’s fight continues in Texas, for now

Possibly most damning to the FTC case, Sooknanan suggested the FTC has never adequately explained the reason why it’s probing Media Matters. In the “Subject of Investigation” field, the FTC wrote only “see attached,” but the attachment was just a list of specific demands and directions to comply with those demands.

Eventually, the FTC offered “something resembling an explanation,” Sooknanan said. But their “ultimate explanation”—that Media Matters may have information related to a supposedly illegal coordinated campaign to game ad pricing, starve revenue, and censor conservative platforms—”does not inspire confidence that they acted in good faith,” Sooknanan said. The judge considered it problematic that the FTC never explained why it has reason to believe MMFA has the information it’s seeking. Or why its demand list went “well beyond the investigation’s purported scope,” including “a reporter’s resource materials,” financial records, and all documents submitted so far in Musk’s X lawsuit.

“It stands to reason,” Sooknanan wrote, that the FTC launched its probe “because it wanted to continue the years’ long pressure campaign against Media Matters by Mr. Musk and his political allies.”

In its defense, the FTC argued that all civil investigative demands are initially broad, insisting that MMFA would have had the opportunity to narrow the demands if things had proceeded without the lawsuit. But Sooknanan declined to “consider a hypothetical narrowed” demand list instead of “the actual demand issued to Media Matters,” while noting that the court was “troubled” by the FTC’s suggestion that “the federal Government routinely issues civil investigative demands it knows to be overbroad with the goal of later narrowing those demands presumably in exchange for compliance.”

“Perhaps the Defendants will establish otherwise later in these proceedings,” Sooknanan wrote. “But at this stage, the record certainly supports that inference,” that the FTC was politically motivated to back Musk’s fight.

As the FTC mulls a potential appeal, the only other major front of Musk’s fight with MMFA is the lawsuit that X Corp. filed in Texas. Musk allegedly expects more favorable treatment in the Texas court, and MMFA is currently pushing to transfer the case to California after previously arguing that Musk was venue shopping by filing the lawsuit in Texas, claiming that it should be “fatal” to his case.

Musk has so far kept the case in Texas, but risking a venue change could be enough to ultimately doom his “thermonuclear” attack on MMFA. To prevent that, X is arguing that it’s “hard to imagine” how changing the venue and starting over with a new judge two years into such complex litigation would best serve the “interests of justice.”

Media Matters, however, has “easily met” requirements to show that substantial damage has already been done—not just because MMFA has struggled financially and stopped reporting on X and the FTC—but because any loss of First Amendment freedoms “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

The FTC tried to claim that any reputational harm, financial harm, and self-censorship are “self-inflicted” wounds for MMFA. But the FTC did “not respond to the argument that the First Amendment injury itself is irreparable, thereby conceding it,” Sooknanan wrote. That likely weakens the FTC’s case in an appeal.

MMFA declined Ars’ request to comment. But despite the lawsuits reportedly plunging MMFA into a financial crisis, its president, Angelo Carusone, told The New York Times that “the court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration.”

“We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American,” Carusone said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Elon Musk’s “thermonuclear” Media Matters lawsuit may be fizzling out Read More »

X sues to block copycat NY content moderation law after California win

censorship, content moderation, elon musk, First Amendment, hate speech, new york, Policy, Social Media, Twitter, X, x corp / Rejus Almole / June 18, 2025

“It is our sincere belief that the current social media landscape makes it far too easy for bad actors to promote false claims, hatred and dangerous conspiracies online, and some large social media companies are not able or willing to regulate this hate speech themselves,” the letter said.

Although the letter acknowledged that X was not the only platform targeted by the law, the lawmakers further noted that Musk taking over Twitter spiked hateful and harmful content on the platform. They said it seemed “clear to us that X needs to provide greater transparency for their moderation policies and we believe that our law, as written, will do that.”

This clearly aggravated X. In their complaint, X alleged that the letter made it clear that New York’s law was “tainted by viewpoint discriminatory motives”—alleging that the lawmakers were biased against X and Musk.

X seeks injunction in New York

Just as X alleged in the California lawsuit, the social media company has claimed that the New York law forces X “to make politically charged disclosures about content moderation” in order to “generate public controversy about content moderation in a way that will pressure social media companies, such as X Corp., to restrict, limit, disfavor, or censor certain constitutionally protected content on X that the State dislikes,” X alleged.

“These forced disclosures violate the First Amendment” and the New York constitution, X alleged, and the content categories covered in the disclosures “were taken word-for-word” from California’s enjoined law.

X is arguing that New York has no compelling interest, or any legitimate interest at all, in applying “pressure” to govern social media platforms’ content moderation choices. Because X faces penalties up to $15,000 per day per violation, the company has asked for a jury to grant an injunction blocking enforcement of key provisions of the law.

“Deciding what content should appear on a social media platform is a question that engenders considerable debate among reasonable people about where to draw the correct proverbial line,” X’s complaint said. “This is not a role that the government may play.”

X sues to block copycat NY content moderation law after California win Read More »