Lord Rami Ranger, a prominent British Indian businessman and peer, is challenging the UK Forfeiture Committee’s decision to revoke his CBE, citing violations of free speech and due process. He plans legal action, including a judicial review and appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing the committee’s actions undermine British democracy.
Two prominent members of the British Indian community, Lord Rami Ranger and Anil Bhanot, have had their CBE and OBE honors revoked by King Charles III following investigations into alleged misconduct. The decision sparks debate about free speech and the British honours system.
Columbia University has agreed to pay a $395,000 settlement to a Jewish student who was wrongfully suspended for 18 months after using fart spray during a protest against the Gaza war. The university initially accused the student of a ‘chemical attack’ and faced criticism for disproportionately disciplining Jewish students, drawing parallels to antisemitic incidents on campus. The case has sparked controversy and raised questions about free speech and the handling of protests on college campuses.
Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar and Fox News contributor, reflects on the rising tide of anger and division in the US political landscape. He contrasts this with the hope and gratitude expressed by a new citizen, who, having escaped a country where free speech is stifled, finds America’s political discourse perplexing. Turley argues that the true essence of America lies in its founding principles and the constant influx of individuals who choose it, even amidst its imperfections.
Ohio Senator JD Vance, a prominent Republican figure, has launched a scathing critique of Vice President Kamala Harris’s speaking style and the Democratic Party’s stance on free speech during a recent interview with Joe Rogan. Vance, known for his outspoken nature, accused Harris of using excessive verbosity to obscure meaning and criticized the Democratic Party’s alleged embrace of silencing dissenting voices.
FIRE president Greg Lukianoff warns of a growing trend in America where words are increasingly equated with violence. He argues that this dangerous conflation undermines free speech and democracy, ultimately creating a climate where violence becomes more likely. He uses personal anecdotes and historical examples to illustrate the crucial distinction between words and actions, emphasizing that while words can be hurtful, they should not be considered equivalent to physical harm.
Jeff Bezos’ decision to prevent The Washington Post from endorsing a presidential candidate in the 2024 election has sparked a media storm. Critics, mostly from the left, accuse Bezos of bowing to pressure from right-wing voices and argue that the paper should be actively involved in opposing Donald Trump. However, Bezos’ stance, coupled with Elon Musk’s similar actions at X (formerly Twitter), could signal a turning point in media landscape, potentially ushering in a new era of neutrality and objectivity.
CNN’s removal of far-right activist Ryan Girdusky for a racist remark against progressive commentator Mehdi Hasan has ignited a debate about the media’s responsibility in tackling extremism. Former Republican operative Matthew Sheffield argues that mainstream media struggles to find balanced panelists due to the prevalence of extremism within the Republican party and that the ‘both sides’ narrative often leads to the amplification of harmful views.
A dress designer in Occoquan, Virginia, has been forced to remove Trump-supporting signs from his business and residence after a local woman called the police. The designer, Andre Soriano, who is known for creating the ‘Make America Great Again’ dress worn by singer-songwriter Joy Villa at the 2017 Grammys, claims he was targeted for exercising his First Amendment rights.
Jack Sweeney, the student who gained notoriety for tracking the private jets of billionaires and celebrities, including Elon Musk and Taylor Swift, has raised questions about the motives behind the removal of his accounts on Meta platforms. Sweeney believes someone influential pressured Meta to take action, but he lacks evidence. This incident highlights the ongoing debate surrounding privacy versus public interest, especially in the digital age.
