Multiple participants at the ongoing annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, suggested instituting free speech limitations as a way to deal with alleged hate speech and the continuing polarization of opinions.
While speaking at “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation” panel, Vera Jourova, vice president for values and transparency at the European Commission, pushed for containing free speech rights on the continent by citing the need to control hate speech, and predicted the United States would follow suit with similar anti-constitutional speech regulatory measures.
“We need the people who understand our language and the case law in the country, because what qualifies as hate speech, illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the United States, we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law,” Jourova said. “We need the platforms to simply work with the language and identify such cases. The AI would be too dangerous.”
Who is in charge of your children? That has been a perennial question that has grown in importance over the last few years. When I was a child, it was understood that, with rare exceptions, parents were in charge of a child’s upbringing. This included medical, religious, and educational decisions. However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts. What happens when the goal of the experts differs from those of the parents? Who decides the future of the rising generations? It was understood that the state acted in loco parentis, in place of the parents, only for the safety of the child. A recent case in U.S. District Court shows that be it health departments, child services, schools, or even the courts. Government not only believes they know better than the parents, they are more than willing to act in loco parentis tyrannis.
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8897
With the release of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there has been a lot of speculation and downright assertions about our future. With over 30 years of experience in Information Technology (IT), not more than a passing understanding of AIs, I've come to the conclusion that much of what I've heard is more science fiction than fact. A recent court case decided in the D.C. District Court revolved around one very important question. Do AIs have rights?
In this third installment of the three-part series on the branches of government, we look at the role of the third and weakest branch. At least that is what our Founding Fathers thought of it. What is the role of the federal judiciary? What are the extent of their powers, how do they related to the other two branches of government, and why is a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary critical if the United States is to remain a constitutional republic?
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8575
Most of us believe that our state legislatures are making our laws. But what if that is only partially true? What if a third-party was making the laws for your state? Would you be OK with that? Would you be concerned to find out that two private entities are making the laws your state uses regarding commerce?
https://constitutionstudy.com/2025/11/10/496-third-party-laws/
With all of the talk and reactions to Zohran Mamdani becoming the new Mayor of New York City, one question seems to keep coming to the fore. Is socialism the future of politics in America? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
They weren’t presidential or even a mid-term elections earlier this week, but there is still a lot we can learn from them. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
