Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis put his signature on the state’s new budget last week and tucked inside is a provision worth celebrating. State agencies in Florida are now barred, for a second straight year, from hiring advertising firms that use “misinformation” ratings to decide which news outlets deserve ad dollars and which don’t. I’ll be upfront with you: I’m a co-founder of the Independent Media Council, the coalition that has pushed hard for this policy, precisely because I’ve seen how media blacklists are used against conservative outlets like the Daily Signal. How NewsGuard Monitors Media My enthusiasm for such a provision comes not only from my personal experience, but also because the underlying problem is real and getting worse with the growing use of AI agents. Outfits like NewsGuard, Ad Fontes Media, and the Global Disinformation Index built businesses around slapping scores on news organizations—supposedly measuring “reliability” or “brand safety.” Their scoring system functions as a censorship mechanism, giving advertising firms an excuse to spend money with left-leaning outlets while starving conservative and independent publishers of revenue. The people running these rating operations aren’t neutral referees. The Media Research Center has published multiple studies documenting that NewsGuard’s scores consistently favor left-of-center outlets over their conservative counterparts. The political hacks from @NewsGuardRating claim they’ll help you decide what news outlets you can trust. In reality, you shouldn’t trust anything from this overtly biased organization. Thanks to @theMRC, we now have proof of NewsGuard’s left-wing leanings. https://t.co/EYem5eaHIR— Rob Bluey (@RobertBluey) January 6, 2023 One such analysis found NewsGuard awarded left-leaning outlets an average score of 91 out of 100, compared to just 66 for conservative outlets. An organization with that kind of lopsided grading has no business telling anyone which news outlets to trust. It’s precisely what we’ve experienced at the Daily Signal, and it’s why I’m grateful to DeSantis for signing a budget that puts an end to this practice. Momentum Is Building Against Blacklists Florida lawmakers have given other states a model to follow. For the second straight year, those lawmakers wrote the anti-censorship provision into the state budget, making Florida one of the first government entities to acknowledge that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to blacklist media outlets. “By signing this provision for a second year, Florida is sending a clear message that taxpayer-funded advertising should be focused on reaching the broadest possible audience, not filtered through politically motivated media blacklist systems,” Christine Czernejewski, spokesperson for the Independent Media Council, said in a statement. The ripple effects are already visible beyond Tallahassee. Earlier this year, West Virginia passed its own First Amendment Preservation Act to guard against the same kind of government-enabled viewpoint discrimination. Congress has included similar language in the National Defense Authorization Act, cutting off the Pentagon’s ability to funnel huge sums of ad spending through firms that use these biased scoring systems. Under the direction of Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, the FTC announced in April that it was taking action against the advertising industry’s practices, including how merger reviews and enforcement actions touch on viewpoint-based discrimination. These steps collectively point to a positive trend after years of complaints by conservative media outlets. A Fight With National Consequences The truth is that a rigged system doesn’t just hurt conservative media; it harms every publisher and creator who isn’t part of the legacy media establishment that these rating agencies seem to favor. More states should now follow Florida’s example—and the IMC is intent on making that a reality. “What began as a first-in-the-nation effort is increasingly becoming a national movement,” Czernejewski said. “Policymakers across the country are recognizing that government advertising dollars should not be used to subsidize censorship or reward organizations that discriminate based on viewpoint.” I’ve seen firsthand what it costs when these blacklists go unchecked—and I’ve also seen what’s possible when lawmakers finally decide taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be part of the problem. The rest of the country is watching—it’s time to act.

Unless Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., secretly works for the Democratic National Committee, he must bring the SAVE America Act back to the floor and move Heaven, Earth, and—if necessary—Hell to pass and speed it to President Donald Trump for signature. The U.S. Supreme Court’s calamitous embrace of late-arriving mail-in ballots makes this urgent matter even more vital. With sincere apologies to Manfred Mann’s Earth Band: Mama always told me not to look into those mail-in ballots. But Mama, that’s where the fraud is! Far more than photo ID at the polls, SAVE’s desperately needed limits on mass-mail-in ballots will cripple the Democrats’ election-theft machine. The Left’s vote-fraud apparatus promiscuously blasts mail-in ballots across states and cities (often to voters who have relocated or died), vacuums them in via drop boxes and ballot hustlers, and then delivers them via largely unpoliced and accurately dubbed “ballot dumps.” These magic ballots dribble in for days after polls close. They reliably favor Democrat candidates.  That’s why Republicans’ election night smiles too often turn to frowns as Tuesday evening triumphs fade into Friday afternoon failures. Provided, in most cases, that ballots are postmarked by Election Day, the states of Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia receive and count those that arrive after polls close—sometimes ludicrously so. The National Council of State Legislatures reports that California, New York, and Oregon accept such ballots for up to seven days. Alaska and Maryland: 10 days. Illinois: 14 days. Washington: 21 days. That is three weeks later than “The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year,” as 2 U.S. Code § 7 has defined Election Day since 1875. In 2026, Washington state will accept mail-in ballots until November 26—two days before Thanksgiving! But wait. It gets worse. According to NCSL, in the swing state of Nevada, “Ballots with unclear postmarks received by the third day following the election are deemed to have been postmarked on or before Election Day.” New Jersey is even more loose: “Mail delivered ballots without postmarks that arrive within 48 hours of the close of the polls will be considered valid.” Inexplicably, SCOTUS splashed holy water on this diabolical mess. States now will be free to continue, and presumably extend, these disgrace periods, thanks to the 5-4 majority opinion by conservative frenemy Justice Amy Coney Barrett (in cahoots with hit-or-miss Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal stalwarts Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor).  Among other things, these five justices inexplicably argued that “The Constitution thus envisions a system in which receipt of votes is necessarily divorced from voting.” Huh? Left unconfronted, Watson v. Republican National Committee will allow just enough pro-Democrat magic ballots to drift in and defeat Republicans in close races. As Justice Samuel Alito stated in his dissent, “Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections. Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.”  Alito added: “In 2005, a committee chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker found that absentee voting was ‘the largest source of potential voter fraud’ in American elections.” Unless Thune wants to spend the next two years trapped in U.S. Senate trials after President Trump’s third, fourth, and fifth impeachments by Hakeem Jeffries’ Democrat House, he needs to hop off his tanning bed, wrap up the slothful Senate’s latest hiatus (this is Day 12 of an 18-day vacation), and adopt the SAVE America Act. If he doesn’t, Barrett’s blessed magic ballots will turn election night into Ballot Counting Month and smother Republican candidates’ dreams. The SAVE Act is the shield against what Barrett and the Supreme Court unleashed on June 29: a clear and present danger to America’s next 250 years. ​ We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Americans born after the mid-1990s have lived their entire lives in a world awash with hardcore pornography. Never has so much pornography been so available to so many at so little cost. Our laws leave much pornography effectively unregulated. Our technology, especially smartphones, brings portable, private porn shops to everyone’s phone. Like today, there were no prosecutions for obscene libel in colonial America or in our early republic. Some take this as evidence that the American Founders were, like today’s progressives, indulgent toward obscenity. As I show in a new report, in reality, the lack of obscenity laws in early America speaks to the strictness of morals and the costs of publishing and distribution. There were no laws against obscenity until there was obscenity, and there was no obscenity until there was cheap printing. As new technologies reduced printing costs, the national government almost immediately banned the importation of obscene materials, and state governments regulated obscene publications. The founding generation accepted speech restrictions that furthered public morality. The Founders agreed with English jurist and legal theorist William Blackstone that the state had broad powers to regulate obscenity. In his “Commentaries,” Blackstone recognized that common law courts could sanction as libel “any writings, pictures, or the like, of an immoral or illegal tendency.” Justice James Kent similarly wrote in the American context that, to protect “the tender mercies of the young” from “gross violation[s] of decency … [t]hings which corrupt moral sentiment, as obscene actions, prints and writings … have … been held indictable.” Only after obscenity arrived, however, did the statesmen of the early republic put such principles into practice. In 1803, Connecticut passed a law forbidding the “print, import, sale, or distribution of books, pamphlets, ballads or other printed material of an immoral tendency containing obscene language, prints, or descriptions.” Criminal statutes banning obscenity were introduced in Vermont in 1821 and Massachusetts in 1835. In 1815, in Commonwealth v. Sharpless, a printmaker was indicted for displaying an obscene painting. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the conviction. In Commonwealth v. Holmes, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a conviction for publishing an illustrated edition of the erotic novel “Fanny Hill.” Consider the developments in New York when the publication of “Fanny Hill” led to public outrage and legal responses. Obscenity prosecutions in New York City increased dramatically. Eventually, New York passed an obscenity statute. By the end of the Civil War, 20 states and four territories had passed obscenity statutes. In 1842, Congress passed its first anti-obscenity statute. In 1873, Congress passed the Comstock Act, banning the delivery of obscene materials through the mail. As obscenity circulated through different media, laws were immediately passed, creating the American tradition of obscenity regulation. When radio and films arose, and later as television became popular, regulations were promulgated and implemented. Even as courts loosened the definition of obscenity, governments still regulated pornography. Throughout the 20th century, when most obscene material was in print (or later on videocassette), zoning laws forced purveyors of obscene materials to remote interstate highway exits or other similar areas, keeping most pornography away from homes. Yet this age-old consensus finally collapsed with the advent of the internet, the first technological advance made without a corresponding, effective law to regulate it. Part of the problem was that the internet cut out the middleman. People could make pornography and then distribute it to any broadband customer; no porn shop was necessary. Zoning laws could no longer cordon off obscenity. The ubiquity of the internet might have prompted the court to extend legislative powers to regulate obscenity. Internet pornography was more easily available and potentially more pervasive. The court instead rejected Congress’ efforts to regulate pornography as the internet era began. In 1996, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act and the Communications Decency Act. In 1998, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act. The courts, seemingly taken with the internet’s technological promise, struck down restrictions against online pornography and obscenity in each case. As a result, the courts permitted private, ubiquitous, and unfettered access to pornography for children and adults alike. From the Founding through most of American history, courts allowed the legislature to control pornographic material. Judicial reactions to internet pornography broke this tradition to our great detriment. Recent Supreme Court cases allowing states to require age verification for minors accessing obscene material online, however, may point toward its partial restoration. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Democrats are at a crossroads as Democratic Socialists of America candidates win primaries, even unseating incumbents. Particularly vexed are well-off Democrat politicians as the DSA engages in its war against the wealthy. Two prime examples: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and California Rep. Ro Khanna. Pritzker is a billionaire in a party that demonizes wealth. Khanna, who is also very wealthy, has been the face of going after the rich. Pritzker’s Questioned About His Billions Last week, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins spoke to Pritzker about the state of his party, including how it’s having “a moment.” “I think what’s good is that there are Democrats who are standing up and fighting, that there are Democrats who are standing up and talking about and doing something about addressing the high cost of things,” Pritzker responded. He also brought up “affordability,” attacked President Donald Trump, and claimed Democrats were the ones coming up with “solutions.” The Daily Signal’s Tony Kinnett took deep issue with claims about “solutions” during last Wednesday’s episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” reminding viewers that these far-left candidates see the answer as Medicare for All, universal housing, and taxing the rich. According to Forbes, Pritzker’s net worth is $4.3 billion. Collins then brought up New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani backing DSA candidates and how both Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., don’t even think that there should be billionaires. “What do you make of Democrats in your party as we lead up to 2026 and the midterm elections, and 2028, who rail against the billionaire class in your party?” Collins asked. He offered a convoluted response Kinnett dubbed “mental gymnastics.” “You know, I completely understand when people feel like looking at Elon Musk, and what he’s done to this country, and with [the Department of Government Efficiency] and all the things that he blurts out on his own platform on X, when people look at what the other kind of oligarch Big Tech types have done, right? Those are the examples that people have now of billionaires.” Pritzker again turned the attention away from his inherited billions to Trump. “Look at Donald Trump and the way he has treated working-class and middle-class people. The fact is that I understand why people feel as they do. But I think it’s much more about the values that you carry and then carry out,” he continued. Bernie: There should not be billionaires.Mamdani: I don’t think we should have billionaires.Pritzker: That doesn't mean me! pic.twitter.com/7aHhbObFqJ— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) July 1, 2026 “I’m sorry, if you if you having a net worth of $4.3 billion doesn’t make you one of the alleged oligarchs, what does it make you?” Kinnett reacted. Kinnett also addressed Pritzker’s response about his “values,” with an analogy to the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots. “Remember when the riots were starting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Remember those? Remember how there were people who desperately tried to paint on their windows? ‘Black Lives Matter.’ ‘We share the same values. You won’t hurt me, right?’ Guess what? Bricks also flew through those windows,” Kinnett reminded. Khanna: A Man of 3,000 Assets Kinnett later connected Pritzker’s billionaire status and the party’s demonization of the wealthy to Khanna’s crusade. In a display of being “an absolute nutcase,” Khanna gave a House floor speech promoting leftist causes, including claims about “a lopsided economy that has allowed a few people to hoard extreme wealth and power.” The Washington Free Beacon found 3,000 individual assets owned by Khanna, his wife, and their minor children, with each having checked off one of the 13 available boxes corresponding to an asset valuation range. Together, these assets are worth $103 million to more than $340 million. Khanna’s children alone were reported in 2024 to own between $26 million and more than $73 million in irrevocable trusts, Kinnett mentioned. “I mean, Mr. Oligarchy, ladies and gentlemen, I love it. I love it so much. I do. It’s hilarious. It’s a wonderful time,” he emphasized to mock the congressman.

One of California’s wealthiest and safest cities descended into chaos over the Independence Day weekend after a social media-fueled “teen takeover” led to more than 400 arrests, an officer being struck by a mortar firework, and the looting of a grocery store. Authorities in California were forced to shut down businesses from Newport Pier to Pacific Coast Highway due to non-residents wreaking havoc on July 4th.Hundreds of people reportedly swarmed police officers and threw debris at them before fighting each other.Newport Beach… pic.twitter.com/fWjZZpzgaU— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 5, 2026 According to Newport Beach city officials, thousands of unruly juveniles and young adults gathered near the Newport Pier on July 4. As the crowd grew, fireworks were launched into the crowd and at police officers. An officer was struck by a mortar, roadways were blocked, emergency vehicles were delayed, and a nearby grocery store was looted. Last night, a rapidly growing crowd near Newport Pier threatened public safety after social media posts drew thousands to the area. Thanks to months of planning, 350+ officers responded quickly to restore order. Thank you to all of our local and regional first responders. pic.twitter.com/O7rcfsDeny— City of Newport Beach (@newportbeachgov) July 5, 2026 Police made 402 arrests over the weekend, including roughly 200 people who refused lawful dispersal orders. The total was a dramatic increase from approximately 60 arrests made during the same holiday weekend last year. So-called teen takeovers have become increasingly common in Southern California in recent years. Organized primarily through social media, the gatherings often draw hundreds—or even thousands—of teenagers and young adults to beaches, malls, or entertainment districts, overwhelming local police and, in some cases, escalating into violence or vandalism. In a statement to the Daily Signal, Newport Beach Mayor Lauren Kleiman said the city had anticipated large Independence Day crowds and had already taken additional precautions following similar issues in recent years. “I am proud of the way our Newport Beach Police Department handled and diffused a bad situation induced by inciting posts on social media that could have escalated into one with tragic outcomes,” she said. “Saturday’s examples of disrespect and destruction in our city were scary, saddening, and totally unacceptable.” “For many years, Newport has seen more than its fair share of overzealous young people partying over the 4th of July and spring break,” Kleiman added. “But, after witnessing last year’s lawlessness trend, the Council did not hesitate to take immediate action.” These actions included stricter penalties, additional police resources, partnerships with outside agencies, and the city’s “Not-in-Newport” public awareness campaign. However, Kleiman said despite the city’s preparations ahead of the holiday weekend, it was “no match” for the juveniles who incited chaos. “All of these efforts were no match for these anarchic youth who had no respect for the hundreds of law enforcement officers from 17 agencies. Today we turn our focus to how to prevent this type of incident in the future and protecting our beautiful city,” she said. Newport Beach is not the only California city dealing with the trend. In mid-June, Long Beach experienced a similar incident when more than 200 minors gathered, resulting in fights and five teens being cited for violating curfew. #BREAKING: Over 200 "teens" swarmed a Long Beach CA neighborhood during a "teen takeover" and then began BEATING EACH OTHER IN THE STREETS AND TRIED TO ROB PEOPLE!!!…ZERO ARRESTS!!!It took officers 3 HOURS to clear the streets, hours the police chief says were stolen from… pic.twitter.com/ls7UJmvf8m— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) June 13, 2026 Long Beach Police Chief Wally Hebeish stressed the strain that “teen takeovers” have on first responders. “Large-scale disturbances like this deplete our resources and divert our officers from addressing other safety concerns in Long Beach, including emergency responses. We will maintain an enhanced presence throughout the weekend, and any form of violent behavior or law violations will not be tolerated,” he said. As cities across Southern California grapple with increasingly disruptive youth riots, experts are asking what’s driving the trend, and whether it can be stopped. Steve Smith, an expert at the Pacific Research Institute with over 20 years of experience in domestic and international policing and investigation, says teens and young adults often seek validation online through attention-grabbing posts. The posts may showcase their appearance, experiences, or risky behaviors in an attempt to generate online views and reactions. “The transformation has been from fun group activities to antisocial ones,” Smith told the Daily Signal. “A flash mob dance at a mall is fun. A drunken mob at the beach might not be fun, especially for a bystander, but it’s going to generate a lot of clicks and likes.”