Daniel Watts, free speech lawyer

09/19/2025

"“The threat is real,” says Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment lawyer who’s argued more than a dozen free speech cases before the Supreme Court.
To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law, lines were clearly crossed. “The government, including the FCC, never can impose sanctions for the views expressed,” he says. “But that is exactly what Carr threatened and ABC capitulated.”..
Yes, Carr’s threat likely violates the First Amendment, legal scholars say, but that only matters if Disney is willing to go to court. The entertainment giant had clear incentives to fold. It has ambitions, perhaps ones that will require regulatory approval in the near future, outside of ABC. There’s the looming threat of government retaliation if it didn’t suspend Kimmel...
If it does sue, which is very unlikely, Disney could lean on precedent created by an unlikely ally: The National Rifle Association. In a case before the Supreme Court last year, the justices unanimously found that the gun group’s First Amendment rights were violated when New York state officials coerced private companies into blacklisting it. The takeaway, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, is that the constitution “prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech.”
There are obvious parallels, says Eugene Volokh, a professor at U.C.L.A. law school and influential conservative blogger. “It’s clear that the FCC used coercive pressure — the threat of investigation or cancelling the Nextstar, Tegna merger,” he says.
It’s true that Kimmel’s remarks about the political affiliation of Kirk’s shooter were incorrect. It matters to get things right. But Carr’s intervention thrusts the FCC — and government — into a miscast role as the arbiter of truth. There’s a right to speculate on current events, even if it later turns out to be wrong.
“We’ve never been in a situation like this,” Abrams says. “It’s a real body blow to free expression.”"

09/19/2025

Dangerous language coming from Republicans (except for Rand Paul), who are surrendering any high ground on free speech they might've had"

"Republicans who consider themselves defenders of unfettered speech are getting more comfortable with limiting it. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told Semafor that “an FCC license, it’s not a right. It really is a privilege.”

“Under normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right. And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore,” Lummis added.

“I feel like something’s changed culturally. And I think that there needs to be some cognizance that things have changed,” she added. “We just can’t let people call each other those kinds of insane things and then be surprised when politicians get shot and the death threats they are receiving and then trying to get extra money for security.”

One Republican said she no longer considers the First Amendment to “be sort of the ultimate right,” as she would “in normal circumstances.”

07/03/2025

$1 million lawsuit filed on behalf of a U.S. citizen detained in Los Angeles after recording a raid at a local Home Depot store.

While Job Garcia, 37, a Ph.D. student and photographer, was recording an arrest, immigration officers threw Garcia on the ground, then knelt on his back and neck as they handcuffed him for recording the raid and advising a commercial truck driver being questioned not to exit his vehicle or answer questions from law enforcement.

He was held in custody for more than 24 hours.

“Border Patrol and ICE punished me for informing others of their rights and for exercising my own rights,” Garcia said in a Wednesday release.

“Border Patrol and ICE punished Job Garcia simply for exercising his right to record a discriminatory immigration raid at Home Depot,” said Ernest Herrera, MALDEF Western Regional Counsel.

Press release: https://www.maldef.org/2025/07/maldef-takes-a-step-toward-civil-rights-lawsuit-on-behalf-of-u-s-citizen-detained-by-ice/

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5382868-u-s-citizen-seeks-1-million-after-arrest-detention-for-recording-immigration-raid/

LOS ANGELES – A Latino civil rights organization is taking a first step toward a civil lawsuit and asking the federal government to pay damages of $1 million to a United States citizen who was assaulted and unlawfully detained by federal immigration officers in front of a Home Depot.

05/06/2025

As an undergraduate, he battled administrative efforts to censor TV broadcasts and student publications. Late nights were spent scrolling the internet and cold-calling local lawyers in search of anyone to defend them.

“No one ever answered,” he recalls. “FIRE would write letters, but they didn’t litigate back then and the ACLU was spread thin. We were on our own.”

It was a lonely education but a clarifying one. Watts decided to go to law school. “I wanted to be the kind of lawyer who would pick up the phone,” he says.

Over the past 15 years, Watts has built a robust legal career defending the First Amendment rights of students and journalists across California, arguing an anti-SLAPP case before the California Supreme Court and even running for governor in 2021 on a platform of “Free Speech. Free College.”

Now, through Tritons United for Free Speech, Watts is channeling those lessons into a new kind of advocacy. The group’s mission is threefold: educate students about the history of free speech, especially at UCSD; reform campus policies that stifle free expression; and connect students under fire with alumni who can offer legal aid, journalistic expertise, or public advocacy.

“Students are like a country without an army,” says Watts. “They have moral suasion, but they lack resources — funding for litigation, experience navigating bureaucracy, or simply the wisdom of age. Alumni bring all that, as well as staying power and historical memory.”

UCSD alumni dedicated to defending the individual rights of free speech and academic freedom to all members of the UCSD community, promoting a campus culture of respect for these rights, and providing the means to preserve them. Click to read Tritons United for Free Speech, a Substack publication. L...

04/21/2025

"In the US, it’s entirely within your rights to peacefully demonstrate in public. The basic act of assembling and protesting the government’s actions is unquestionably protected, according to the First Amendment Coalition, a California nonprofit that’s committed to protecting freedom of speech. Also, as a general matter, “people have the right to film or otherwise document things that are happening in the public space,” says David Snyder, director of the FAC.

That said, if it comes down to a matter of force and you are physically outmatched, you may have to weigh the risks to your immediate personal safety, potentially have your notes or phone stripped from you, and pursue legal action later on. Also, Snyder notes, the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect protesters who engage in unlawful activity, which includes destroying property or assaulting other people.

According to the ACLU, you are able to protest at government buildings with a few caveats. Your free-speech rights are the strongest when you protest in “traditional public forums” like public streets and parks or on sidewalks outside government buildings. Also, you cannot block access to government buildings or otherwise get in the way of activities being performed at the building. (Other than being very noisy, of course.)..
If you are an immigrant to the US with a valid visa, First Amendment rights to free speech and protest apply to you too. While those rights may apply, they only really matter if they are not violated, which feels more and more uncertain in an administration that has demonstrated increasing eagerness to sweep up and deport people who were not born in this country.

The ACLU has a helpful list of what your rights are as an immigrant in the US. If law enforcement stops you or detains you, you can remain silent and ask to talk to an attorney. If an officer wants to search you or your belongings, you have the right to say no. If an immigration agent asks for your papers, you have to present them, but you don’t have to say much else. Some states require you to tell an officer your name when being detained, but other than that you don’t have to provide any more information until you meet with an attorney.

Still, Ayda Akalin, a managing attorney at LandUS Law who specializes in immigration law, says that if you’re on a student visa or any kind of nonimmigrant visa like an H-1B visa or an O-1 visa, they should “think twice before going to a protest.” Her advice extends to social media activity, Akalin says, or posting images of yourself and others in your network. “You want to avoid sharing anything that could be perceived—even remotely—as incitement, advocating for the overthrow of the government, or associating with groups designated as unlawful or terrorist under US law.”

This is especially important since the US Citizenship and Immigration Services just said that the DHS would be monitoring the social media of immigrants for anything perceived to be antisemitic activity. (This includes “aliens applying for lawful permanent resident status, foreign students and aliens affiliated with educational institutions linked to antisemitic activity,” the announcement reads.)

“It’s very hard for me as an attorney to say, ‘Do not exercise your First Amendment rights,’ especially given that students protesting has a historic significance in this country,” Akalin says. “But I do think people just need to be aware of the risks.”

She suggested one way that citizens can show support for those who may be especially vulnerable at protests: Carry a red card. These free, printable cards are available at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and display a brief explanation of citizen and non-citizen rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. One side of the card is in English; the other, your native language. They’re meant to be presented when someone in a vulnerable position is confronted by law enforcement, but if every single person at a protest carries one, then it creates a kind of solidarity amongst the crowd and creates consistency in the response to law enforcement.

In general, be mindful of what’s happening around you. If the cops demand people to disperse and you hold a visa, you’re probably better off leaving. If you’re arrested for ignoring instructions or inciting violence, your immigration status could be revoked."

If you’re planning to hit the streets, here’s what you need to know.

03/27/2025

UC Davis dissolved its law school's student government. The Law Students Association had amended its constitution to ban the use of funds for events involving pro-Israel speakers or companies that do business with or in Israel. https://theaggie.org/2025/03/18/law-student-association-at-king-hall-adopts-boycott-divest-and-sanctions-legislature/

https://davisvanguard.org/2025/03/uc-davis-dissolves-law-student-association-that-supports-gaza-war-israel-boycott/

The student government voted in private, approving legislature to boycott Israel academically and fiscally; LSA member discusses campus administration

03/25/2025

"In its attempt to deport Khalil, the government has thus far focused solely on Khalil’s protected speech rather than charging him with criminal behavior. An administration official told The Free Press that the “allegation here is not that he was breaking the law,” and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Khalil faces deportation because he was “siding with terrorists” and “distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas.”

The Supreme Court held in 1945 that non-citizens are entitled to full First Amendment protections. And those protections cover unpopular expression, especially when that expression is political speech. The Supreme Court held in its landmark Texas v. Johnson decision that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.”

The administration is relying on a rarely used Cold War-era statute that empowers the secretary of state to deport a lawfully present non-citizen if the secretary determines their “presence or activities” has a “potentially serious” effect on America’s foreign policy. The administration claims that authority extends even to deporting green card holders for protected speech.

FIRE disagrees. The statute is unconstitutionally vague and gives the secretary of state unfettered discretion to deport lawful permanent residents without giving them notice of what conduct triggers expulsion. Not only does the First Amendment trump a Cold War-era statute, but the sweeping authority the administration claims it confers “places free expression in mortal peril,” as FIRE’s brief argues.

The brief also explains that the contours of the United States’ foreign policy are ever-changing and provide no meaningful guidance as to what opinions lawful permanent residents may or may not voice. If lawfully present non-citizens can be deported simply for endangering American “foreign policy,” the only sure way to avoid deportation is to self-censor and not voice any opinions.

“No one in the United States of America should fear a midnight knock on their door because they voiced an opinion the government doesn’t like,” Fitzpatrick said. “Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States.”

FIRE’s brief analogized the administration’s approach to Article 51 of the Chinese Constitution, which warns that exercising “freedom” must not conflict with the “interests” of the government. “Allowing the government to step in as a censor when it believes free speech threatens the government’s interests is a loophole with an infinite diameter,” Fitzpatrick said. “It has no place in America’s tradition of individual liberty.”

If Khalil’s deportation proceeds, the chilling effect will be profound for other international students who are presently studying at American universities.

“Other foreign college students will have good reason to fear criticizing the American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media,” FIRE attorney Colin McDonell said. “Holding students engaged in basic political expression to different standards based on their citizenship status is poisonous to free speech on campus.”"

Khalil’s arrest is an affront to the First Amendment and the cherished American principle that the government may not punish people based on their opinions.

03/24/2025

"The lawsuit is the latest recent instance of defamation and other legal actions that Mr. Trump and his allies have filed against news outlets and journalists whose coverage they claim was misleading or inaccurate.

Mr. Trump, for example, has outstanding lawsuits against CBS News, The Des Moines Register, CNN and the group that awards the Pulitzer Prizes. Mr. Trump’s advisers have also repeatedly threatened or filed such lawsuits. As recently as Friday, Elon Musk warned that one was “inbound” after a former congressman criticized him on television.

The legal actions and threats have coincided with efforts by the Trump administration to constrain mainstream news organizations. The White House has restricted The Associated Press’s access to the president. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating broadcasters. And Mr. Trump and allies like Mr. Musk have railed against news outlets and individual journalists, including by falsely claiming that they are government propaganda outfits.

To win defamation lawsuits, public figures like Mr. Trump and Mr. LaCivita must prove that defendants knew that what they were writing was false or acted with reckless disregard for its accuracy. That high bar was erected in a series of Supreme Court precedents that Mr. Trump and his allies are pushing to overturn."

The lawsuit accuses the news site of knowingly publishing false information about how much Chris LaCivita, a Trump campaign manager, was paid by the campaign.

03/20/2025

"The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.

At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn't protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled "harassment." Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute's well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.

Yet the administration's March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies—including the demand that, within one week, it "provide a full plan" to place an entire "department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years"—as "a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University's continued financial relationship with the United States government."

Under Title VI, the government may not cut off funds until it has

1) conducted a program-by-program evaluation of the alleged violations;
2) provided recipients with notice and "an opportunity for hearing";
limited any funding cutoff "to the particular program, or part thereof, in which…noncompliance has been…found"; and
3) submitted a report explaining its actions to the relevant committees in Congress at least thirty days before any funds can be stopped.

These requirements aim to ensure that any withdrawal of funds is based on genuine misbehavior on the university's part—on illegal toleration of discriminatory conduct, not just on allowance of First Amendment–protected expression. The requirements aim to make clear to recipients of federal funds just what behavior can form the basis for sanctions. And each of the requirements aims to make sure that the sanction fits the offense.

Yet here the sanction was imposed without any agency or court finding that Columbia violated Title VI in its response to antisemitic harassment or discrimination. Even to the extent that some protesters' behavior amounted to illegal harassment of Jewish students, no agency and no court has concluded that Columbia illegally failed to reasonably respond to such discriminatory behavior—much less failed to act at a level justifying withdrawal of nearly half a billion dollars in funds. The government's action therefore risks deterring and suppressing constitutionally protected speech—not just illegal discriminatory conduct."

Published this morning in the New York Review of Books: We write as constitutional scholars—some liberal and some conservative—who seek to defend academic

03/20/2025

"In announcing the arrest, the Department of Homeland Security accused Mr. Khalil of aligning himself with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Voicing support for such causes is not, however, a crime, and the Supreme Court has declared all manner of hateful speech to be protected by the First Amendment, including cheering the deaths of soldiers at their funerals and, in certain cases, cross burnings.

“It can’t be a crime — or even a civil offense — simply to hold and express heinous views,” said Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand whose college speeches have been the targets of protesters and have sometimes been threatened with violence.

Ms. Coulter, an immigration hard-liner who acknowledged that she had rarely heard of a deportation that she didn’t support, said the president would be setting a terrible precedent by making protected speech — as offensive as it may be — a reason for deporting a legal green card holder like Mr. Khalil.

But Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, said that the law is not always clear when the speech of noncitizens is at issue. And he said that Mr. Trump’s attempts to punish noncitizens seemed consistent in many ways with powers that Congress had already given presidents.

Does that mean that Mr. Khalil can be deported for protesting, which is a constitutionally protected act? “The only honest answer,” Mr. Volokh said, “is we don’t know.”

Conservatives have tested the scope of the First Amendment in other ways recently. Ed Martin, the Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told the dean of Georgetown University Law Center that he had begun an “inquiry” into the school’s teaching and promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion — and insisted that he would not hire students from any university that continues to offer such programs."

President Trump and state politicians are pushing new laws and policies that crack down on curriculum, protests and speakers.

02/12/2025

"As lawyer David Loy of the First Amendment Coalition points out, KCBS has the First Amendment right to report on matters of public interest, including immigration and ICE activity.

"That specifically includes law enforcement operations occurring in a public place. The First Amendment protects the right to report the news. And part of the news is what the government is doing to enforce the law at any level local, state or federal, civil, criminal, and immigration," he explained.

He underlined that the government does not have the authority to dictate how the press or news agencies report information."

A San Francisco radio station is under scrutiny by the FCC for allegedly broadcasting the live locations of immigration agents.

04/14/2024

"While the case settled quickly, it highlights the potential for future litigation over whether AI-generated imitations could be considered parodies allowed under fair use. Shows like Saturday Night Live have long been allowed to impersonate public figures on those grounds, but there have yet to be major legal tests of generative AI tools creating similar impressions – a situation that Schiller argues is fundamentally different from when a human does it."

Suit claimed Dudesy podcast violated Carlin’s copyright, calling it ‘a casual theft of a great American artist’s work’