This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is David with a comment about the murder of Renee Good by ICE:

Kristi Noem is right about one thing:

It was an act of domestic terrorism.

Indeed. And that is the main purpose of ICE as it is currently being deployed.

In second place, it’s That One Guy with a comment about culpability for Trump’s actions:

An entire congress and military worth of collaborators

As horrible as Trump is never forget…

The republican controlled congress could have stopped him at any time but chose not to.

The US military could have responded to his orders to bomb boats on nothing but a declaration of guilt, finish off the survivors the one time there were any, and invade another country and kidnap it’s leader but chose not to.

Trump is responsible for a whole slew of horrible things but without a lot of people in the government and military backing him up the amount of damage he could do would be drastically lower, meaning they share just as much if not more responsibility for what has, is, and will happen as he does.

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Thad about the fear of impeaching Trump and getting President Vance:

Vance is just as evil as Trump and not as stupid (low bar), but nobody likes him. He doesn’t have Trump’s cult. He wouldn’t be able to wield stochastic terrorism as effectively as Trump does. And in the hypothetical event that Trump’s been successfully removed from office, that means Senate Republicans are finally done being a rubber stamp for him, a guy who was extremely popular with their supporters, so I wouldn’t expect them to be a rubber stamp for Vance, a guy who isn’t.

All that said, I have a hard time believing that’s going to happen. They didn’t support his impeachment after he tried to have them murdered; I don’t think there’s anything that will make them support it. I think the likelier path toward President Vance is that Trump dies in office. I’m not talking about violence; I’m saying look at that motherfucker, he looks like he could keel over any day.

Next, it’s MrWilson with a comment about the ridiculous proposal from Arizona to study “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and the broad definition it uses:

Not only can that broad definition apply to his base, but it also can apply to authentic reactions to Trump’s actually inhumane cruelty and greed, such that it’s a rational response that a moral person would experience, and not derangement at all. Which is why the derangement smear is such bullshit.

Pretending someone is irrational if they don’t like a person who is intentionally hurting others is derangement. And it’s not like Trump’s cruelty is in dispute. His base loves that he is cruel (to other people). “This is what I voted for,” as they remind us when people get kidnapped and sent to torture camps.

But it’s just another cognitive dissonance stance that they wear proudly. He’s both absurdly cruel and you’re crazy for getting upset that he’s absurdly cruel.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment about New York’s law requiring websites to post warnings about social media addiction:

Techdirt is way too addictive to my taste.
See you in court Mike.

In second place, it’s Pixelation with a comment about Hilton Hotels:

Hey Hilton, you are providing the wrong kind of ICE. We want only the other kind in your hotels.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of jokes about journalists reporting LLM generations as “admissions” and “apologies”. First up is tanj with one comparison:

I asked my Magic 8 Ball to comment on this and it responded “Outlook not so good”.
Fortunately, I use Thunderbird.

Finally, it’s an anonymous commenter with a not-dissimilar joke:

It’s an apology in the same sense that a speak-and-spell can get married by saying “I do”.

That’s all for this week, folks!

Five Years Ago

This week in 2021, 60 Minutes aired some pure misleading moral panic about Section 230, while Parler (remember Parler?) was desperately seeking attention by pretending it didn’t need Section 230, and Ajit Pai grew a last-minute backbone and refused to move forward with Trump’s 230 attack. Lawmakers were complaining about Comcast’s expanded usage caps while AT&T was bringing its own caps back after temporarily suspending them due to COVID. But surely the most notable event was the January 6th attack on the Capitol building, which we wrote about at length and which also led to Twitter’s decision to ban Donald Trump from the platform.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2016, Homeland Security admitted that it seized a hip-hop blog for five years despite no evidence of infringement, the Authors Guild predictably asked the Supreme Court to overturn the fair use ruling on Google Books, and the US Copyright Office was asking for public comments on the DMCA’s notice and takedown procedures. Richard Prince was finally sued (again) for copyright infringement over his “Instagram” art piece, while a skeptical judge gave PETA a second chance to make its nutty argument about copyright in the infamous monkey selfie. And we wrote about how the TPP was explicitly tossing out public interest in favor of corporate interests.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2011, the new congressional leadership was prioritizing the investigation of Wikileaks, an anonymous Senator killed the Senate’s proposed whistleblower protection law, and we debunked the myth that Wikileaks was putting lives in danger in Zimbabwe. As for those domain seizures that Homeland Security would later quietly reverse course on, at this point they were still clamming up about their obvious errors while we wrote about how much those legal and technical errors mattered and how it appeared they invented a non-existent rule about criminal contributory infringement. Also, this was the week a new report argued that Andrew Wakefield’s infamous study linking vaccines to autism was not just a mistake, but an outright fraud.

Rinse, lather, repeat. That is supposed to be the self-serving message on the back of a shampoo bottle, but it can easily be applied to Senator Bill Cassidy’s response to all the bullshit RFK Jr. continues to pull when it comes to vaccines.

The last time we saw this was back in October of last year. In the wake of an absolutely insane press conference in which Kennedy and Trump decided to point the finger at Tylenol, of all things, as a major cause of autism spectrum disorder, Cassidy bravely took to social media and the radio to criticize the HHS Secretary for essentially not having a single fucking idea about which he was speaking… and then he did absolutely fuck all about it. And now, days after Kennedy’s CDC altered the agency’s childhood vaccine schedule recommendations, he’s once more out in public spilling all kinds of words in response.

Cassidy, a physician and longtime proponent of vaccinations, said this move will “make America sicker.”

“As a doctor who treated patients for decades, my top priority is protecting children and families. Multiple children have died or were hospitalized from measles, and South Carolina continues to face a growing outbreak. Two children have died in my state from whooping cough. All of this was preventable with safe and effective vaccines,” Cassidy wrote on the social media platform X.

“The vaccine schedule IS NOT A MANDATE. It’s a recommendation giving parents the power. Changing the pediatric vaccine schedule based on no scientific input on safety risks and little transparency will cause unnecessary fear for patients and doctors, and will make America sicker,” he added.

Well, gosh golly gee, Senator, if only there was someone in some kind of position of power that could actually do something about it. Maybe a respected figure in the Republican majority, one who is a doctor by background and who cast and whipped up critical votes to confirm Kennedy’s appointment, who could do more than offer stern warnings about how horrible this is all going to be. I’d like to find someone like that and implore them to take action. Like… any action. Do literally anything other than flap their lips, as though that were accomplishing anything.

The incredible part of all of this is the context in which Kennedy’s betrayal of Cassidy has occurred. According to Cassidy, Kennedy committed to the following, either in confirmation hearings or to him personally:

1. Not changing vaccine review processes or slowing down vaccine approvals
2. Leave the CDC’s ACIP committee unchanged
3. Not changing the CDC website’s language debunking misinformation about vaccines and autism
4. Basing vaccine approvals and schedule recommendations on established and peer-reviewed science

Lie, lie, lie, and lie! It’s a superfecta of broken promises made to a sitting senator that has the stature, standing, and ability to do something about it. He could back the effort to impeach Kennedy, as he absolutely should. He could hit him in funding. He could haul him before Congress and demand answers, using his bully pulpit to expose the dangers further than some ExTwitter posts.

“Senator Cassidy put his personal political preservation above all by casting the deciding vote to confirm RFK Jr., even after raising many valid concerns over Kennedy’s pursuit of a dangerous anti-vaccine agenda,” said Kayla Hancock, Director of Public Health Watch, a project of Protect Our Care. “It is obvious that Kennedy was always hellbent on pushing vaccine misinformation to AmericansAmericans no matter how much the data and science show them to be safe and effective. And now, with each new baseless attack on vaccine safety and efficacy that  Secretary Kennedy carries out — like gutting the child vaccine schedule — more American lives are needlessly put in jeopardy. Dr. Cassidy knows this better than anyone, and it’s time he backs up his empty words of ‘concern’ with serious action.”

Instead, we have Cassidy’s mere words. Inaction is tacit endorsement, as far as I’m concerned. And every day that goes by in which Cassidy continues to not lift a single finger to protect his own constituents at a minimum, and all Americans more generally, is another violation of the Hippocratic Oath he once took.

It’s “do no harm”, Senator. Not “do nothing.”

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.

In this sponsored Spotlight episode of Ctrl-Alt-Speech, host Ben Whitelaw talks to Oversight Board co-chair Paolo Carozza (Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana) and Board member Julie Owono (Executive Director of Internet Without Borders and research affiliate at Berkman Klein Centre) about the Board’s five-year journey and its plans for the future.

Together, Ben, Paolo and Julie discuss the Board’s recently published report, From Bold Experiment to Essential Institution, and what it means to call Board “essential” in today’s ever-evolving internet landscape. They also talk about how the Board has changed, the criticisms it faces around cost and influence, and what comes next in 2026 and beyond.

This episode is brought to you in partnership with the Oversight Board. To sponsor a Spotlight episode of Ctrl-Alt-Speech, get in touch via email (podcast@ctrlaltspeech.com) or visit ctrlaltspeech.com

Fair use is not just an excuse to copy—it’s a pillar of online speech protection, and disregarding it in order to lash out at a critic should have serious consequences. That’s what we told a federal court in Channel 781 News v. Waltham Community Access Corporation, our case fighting copyright abuse on behalf of citizen journalists.

Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC), a public access cable station in Waltham, Massachusetts, records city council meetings on video. Channel 781 News (Channel 781), a group of volunteers who report on the city council, curates clips from those recordings for its YouTube channel, along with original programming, to spark debate on issues like housing and transportation. WCAC sent a series of takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), accusing Channel 781 of copyright infringement. That led to YouTube deactivating Channel 781’s channel just days before a critical municipal election. Represented by EFF and the law firm Brown Rudnick LLP, Channel 781 sued WCAC for misrepresentations in its takedown notices under an important but underutilized provision of the DMCA.

The DMCA gives copyright holders a powerful tool to take down other people’s content from platforms like YouTube. The “notice and takedown” process requires only an email, or filling out a web form, in order to accuse another user of copyright infringement and have their content taken down. And multiple notices typically lead to the target’s account being suspended, because doing so helps the platform avoid liability. There’s no court or referee involved, so anyone can bring an accusation and get a nearly instantaneous takedown.

Of course, that power invites abuse. Because filing a DMCA infringement notice is so easy, there’s a temptation to use it at the drop of a hat to take down speech that someone doesn’t like. To prevent that, before sending a takedown notice, a copyright holder has to consider whether the use they’re complaining about is a fair use. Specifically, the copyright holder needs to form a “good faith belief” that the use is not “authorized by the law,” such as through fair use.

WCAC didn’t do that. They didn’t like Channel 781 posting short clips from city council meetings recorded by WCAC as a way of educating Waltham voters about their elected officials. So WCAC fired off DMCA takedown notices at many of Channel 781’s clips that were posted on YouTube.

WCAC claims they considered fair use, because a staff member watched a video about it and discussed it internally. But WCAC ignored three of the four fair use factors. WCAC ignored that their videos had no creativity, being nothing more than records of public meetings. They ignored that the clips were short, generally including one or two officials’ comments on a single issue. They ignored that the clips caused WCAC no monetary or other harm, beyond wounded pride. And they ignored facts they already knew, and that are central to the remaining fair use factor: by excerpting and posting the clips with new titles, Channel 781 was putting its own “spin” on the material – in other words, transforming it. All of these facts support fair use.

Instead, WCAC focused only on the fact that the clips they targeted were not altered further or put into a larger program. Looking at just that one aspect of fair use isn’t enough, and changing the fair use inquiry to reach the result they wanted is hardly the way to reach a “good faith belief.”

That’s why we’re asking the court to rule that WCAC’s conduct violated the law and that they should pay damages. Copyright holders need to use the powerful DMCA takedown process with care, and when they don’t, there needs to be consequences.

Reposted from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

If you want to understand how far MAGA Republicans have strayed from any actual “free speech” principles, look no further than this: Congress issued a subpoena to Rolling Stone journalist Seth Harp, because he posted on X a publicly available online biography of someone involved in the illegal and unconstitutional kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro. There was no private information shared. There was no “doxxing” in any sense of the word.

Just to be crystal clear about what we’re talking about here: a member of Congress subpoenaed a journalist and referred him for criminal prosecution for posting information that was publicly available on a university website. Information that a university proudly displays on its own website. Information that, even if it were classified (which it isn’t), would still be constitutionally protected to publish.

Yet, because MAGA folks always need to attack anyone who makes them look silly, they went crazy. First, they got X to lock his account until he deleted the post. Harp explained how there’s no way you could consider this to be doxxing.

If you can’t read that screenshot, Harp’s detailed explanation of why he did nothing wrong is quite thorough and quite obviously true:

Yesterday, X admins locked my account and required me to delete certain posts in order to log back in. No explanation was given, but I had posted the publicly available, online bio of a Delta Force commander, a full-bird colonel, whose identity is not classified and which anyone skilled at FOIA can ascertain.

In no way did I “doxx” the officer. I did not post any personally identifying information about him, such as his birthday, social security number, home address, phone number, email address, the names of his family members, or pictures of his house. What I posted is still online on Duke University’s website for all the world to see.

If you serve in the US military, your personnel documents are public records, as they should be. Because I served in the Army myself, anyone can obtain my records, which show the units in which I served. Nothing exempts Delta Force from this basic transparency.

To illustrate these points, I also posted the records of deceased special operators, obtained through FOIA, that specifically say “Delta Force” on them, unredacted. In the spirit of fairness, I also posted my own service record. X required me to delete those posts, too.

Nothing about this should distract from the larger issue: Delta Force, acting on President Trump’s unlawful orders, which contravened every principle of international law and sovereignty, as well as the Congress’s prerogative to declare war, invaded Venezuela, killed scores of Venezuelans who posed no threat to the United States, and kidnapped the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, as well as his wife.

Every civilian official and military officer in the American chain of command who participated in this outrageously illegal and provocative act of war – which a supermajority of Americans oppose is the legitimate subject of journalistic scrutiny, and X has no business censoring my timely and accurate reporting.

And just to underscore how ridiculous this entire affair is: Duke University, apparently spooked by the controversy, has now scrubbed the bio from its website. The officer’s name and photo remain, but the biographical text—which revealed nothing even remotely sensitive—has been deleted. So Luna’s intimidation campaign worked, at least in getting a university to memory-hole publicly available information about one of its own fellows. This is exactly how chilling effects operate in practice.

And, for that, he gets a subpoena driven by MAGA Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who falsely claimed he was “leaking classified information.” She then followed it up by referring Harp to the DOJ:

That’s Rep. Luna misleading everyone and misrepresenting what Harp did, saying:

I have referred Seth Harp to the DOJ for investigation and to pursue criminal charges regarding the intentional publication of information related to Operation Absolute Resolve, including the doxxing of a U.S. Delta Force operator. That conduct is not protected journalism. It was reckless, dangerous, and put American lives at risk. The First Amendment does not give anyone a license to expose elite military personnel, compromise operations, or assist our adversaries under the guise of reporting.

Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate when national security is endangered, and no one is above oversight. It is also well within my constitutional authority to work with the DOJ to ensure that justice is served. I look forward to the results of a very thorough investigation and the potential filing of charges for violations of multiple U.S. codes.

I have confirmation that the DOJ has received the letter, and we look forward to their findings.

The only truthful part of that is that she has, in fact (ridiculously), referred Harp to the DOJ.

She’s wrong on every other account. He did not “doxx” anyone. And even if he was revealing “information related to Operation Absolute Resolve,” that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

It’s not even a close call. We did this 55 years ago in the Pentagon Papers case, where the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that of course the First Amendment protects journalists publishing even secret government documents about military operations (which isn’t even what Harp did here)—documents that were actually classified, unlike the public university bio that Harp posted.

Take a moment to review all this: In 1971, the Nixon administration tried to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers—genuinely secret documents about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court told Nixon to pound sand. Now, in 2026, we have a member of Congress going even further, not just trying to stop publication (which already failed half a century ago), but criminally referring a journalist for publishing information that was publicly available on a university website.

In a concurring opinion in the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Hugo Black wrote poetically about the power of the First Amendment protecting journalists especially when they are embarrassing the government:

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

Rep. Luna either hasn’t read that, doesn’t understand it, or doesn’t care. Because what she is engaging in is out-and-out harassment of journalists doing their jobs, in an effort to intimidate and chill speech of reporters who report information that Luna and the MAGA Trump world would prefer not see the light of day.

That’s not how this works. It’s not how journalism works. It’s not how the First Amendment works, and it’s not how free speech works.

As Seth Stern from Freedom of the Press said in response to this:

Journalists don’t work for the government and can’t ‘leak’ government information — to the contrary, it’s their job to find and publish the news, whether the government wants it made public or not. Identifying government officials by name is not doxxing or harassment, no matter how many times Trump allies say otherwise. Reporters have a constitutional right to publish even classified leaks, as long as they don’t commit any crimes to obtain them, but Harp merely published information that was publicly available about someone at the center of the world’s biggest news story.

You may recall that after the election in 2024, President Trump demanded that Republicans in the Senate kill the PRESS Act, which had been approved in the house with broad bipartisan support. That law, which would make it even more explicit how the First Amendment protects journalists was killed because Trump and the MAGA base have known all along that they need to violate the First Amendment rights of journalists to try to intimidate and silence them.

This fits a pattern that’s become impossible to ignore: the same people who spent years screaming about “big tech censorship” and “free speech” are now wielding actual government power to silence journalists who embarrass them. The same crowd that insisted Trump would “bring free speech back” is now cheering as he and his congressional allies deploy subpoenas and criminal referrals against reporters.

Remember, it was just a few years ago that Rep. Luna herself was apoplectically accusing the Biden administration of colluding with Twitter to censor users… because she didn’t understand what Jira is. Yet, here, she’s helping the bastardized remains of Twitter, X, silence a journalist herself.

In normal times you could trust that the DOJ would laugh at Rep. Luna’s call for prosecution. But these aren’t normal times. We’ve seen case after case after case of the DOJ bringing bogus, bullshit federal criminal cases against perceived enemies for no reason other than intimidation. That most of those cases are failing in the courts is besides the point. The process itself is the punishment.

And here, Rep. Luna is holding the censor’s axe, abusing her power as an elected official to intimidate and suppress the speech of journalists who were just reporting publicly available information. The First Amendment doesn’t stop applying just because the subject of journalism is inconvenient for the government. But Luna and her MAGA colleagues seem to think it does—or at least, they’re betting that their base won’t care about constitutional principles when it’s “their guy” doing the censoring.

The Courses Digest, Labs Digest, and Exams Digest Bundle gives you unlimited access to expertly crafted online courses, interactive labs and study tools. Whether you’re aiming for industry-recognized certifications or expanding your tech expertise, this bundle will help you get there with courses on CompTIA, AWS, Microsoft, Cisco, Salesforce, and more. It’s on sale for $69.97 for a very limited time.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.