LAWSUIT: Eight officers raided his home before dawn. His offense? He filmed an officer speeding, criticized him when he got to a drive-thru, and embarrassed the department. In a free country, criticizing police shouldn’t end in handcuffs. In 2022, Joshua Gibbons filmed a Kingsport, Tennessee police SUV speeding without lights or sirens, violating state law. He caught up with the officer at a drive-thru and had salty words about his disregard for the law. That exchange lasted all of one minute. The consequences for Joshua lasted four years. After someone complained about a different video — an officer flipping Gibbons off — police scoured Gibbons’ YouTube channel for ammunition. Before dawn the next morning, while Gibbons was still in bed, eight armed officers raided his mother’s home to arrest him — for speeding using a cellphone while driving, and disorderly conduct. A judge dismissed the speeding and cellphone charges but convicted him of disorderly conduct, saying he was “offended by the way” Gibbons was “talking to that officer.” Gibbons appealed. At a second trial, a jury again found him guilty. In June, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed that conviction and dismissed the charge. The court found “no evidence” that Gibbons’ criticism prevented anyone from doing anything lawful. The court recognized — as many courts had held — that even “profane and insulting” words alone aren’t a crime, especially when directed at police officers, who are trained to exercise restraint. With FIRE’s help, Gibbons is suing to vindicate his First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects your right to film and criticize police. Kingsport PD needs to hear that message loud and clear.

"Press access is a privilege, not a right." This is the most common objection to the argument that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by banning news outlets it doesn't like from the White House. But the fact that you don't have a right to something in the first place doesn't mean the government can take it away to punish you for exercising your First Amendment rights. Federal courts have reaffirmed this principle many times. Nobody has an automatic right to a property tax exemption. But in Speiser v. Randall (1958), the Supreme Court held that California could not deny one to residents who refused to sign a loyalty oath. Nobody has a right to a government contract. But in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996), the Supreme Court held that a Kansas county could not cancel a trash-hauling contract just because the contractor wrote editorials criticizing the county government. The same principle applies in other contexts. Nobody has a right to be a professor at a public university. But firing a professor over his liberal or conservative beliefs would violate the First Amendment. A driver's license may be a privilege. That doesn't mean the state can revoke your license just because you criticized the governor. If the rule were otherwise, the government would have enormous power to do exactly what the First Amendment forbids it from doing: punish Americans for saying things the government doesn't like.

Court orders are not optional. The law requires all Americans to abide by court rulings, regardless of whether they disagree with the ruling. Refusal to abide by a court ruling has a name: contempt. And contempt has clear consequences. Judge Kelly explicitly ordered the Trump administration to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” CNN, MS NOW, and Politico’s “hard pass” credentials to the White House. Refusing to abide by Judge Kelly's clear order would be a dangerous escalation and an affront to the rule of law.

"America is NOT better off with presidents treating press credentials as rewards for softball questions and fawning coverage. Today’s decision reinforces that our free and independent press is a fundamental part of our constitutional framework." –@WillatFIRE

When the White House opens the briefing room to the press, the Bill of Rights comes in, too. The president can’t ban reporters from the White House because he doesn’t like the stories they write.

Dive deeper: fire.org/research-learn/trum…

The Trump White House media ban has raised lots of questions. Thankfully, FIRE is here with the answers. Join us tomorrow as we break down what happened, why it matters, and what the First Amendment has to say about it! REGISTER ➡️ thefire-org.zoom.us/webinar/…

Incredibly disappointing. Discouraged by the student senate’s flagrant viewpoint discrimination this month, @whitmancollege Republican Club members have decided not to resubmit the club for official recognition. Chilled into silence. This is what happens when the censors win.

"The government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. . . . It is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government. "This isn't Russia. This isn't China. This is America." 🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick 📺: @ThisWeekABC @jonkarl

It makes a First Amendment lawyer’s job easy when the president announces that he’s engaging in viewpoint discrimination. 🎙️: @glukianoff 📺: @smerconish @CNN

"How terrible would it be to live in a country where every newspaper and every reporter has to parrot what the government says? That may be fine in China and Russia, but it is not how we do things here in America." 🎙️: @CTFitzpatrick 📺: @TheLeadCNN

When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary. Press credentials aren’t a reward for loyalty to the government. A free, even adversarial, press is a sign of our country’s strength. The public deserves to hear about its government from independent voices, not just its leader’s loyalists and allies.