Tributes pour in for 3 Doors Down singer who helped "redefine mainstream rock music"

Queer icon Roddy Bottom of Faith No More recalls the "ugly" side of hair metal

A federal grand jury has indicted an Ohio man for threatening to kill Vice President JD Vance, but added charges of possessing child pornography, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

'Fake news is not getting a free pass anymore'

The London Metropolitan Police restricted the “Walk with Jesus” procession, originally planned for Tower Hamlets, a predominantly Muslim area in East London. The Jan. 31 U.K. Independence Party-affiliated event was moved to Central London, where a few hundred people marched from Marble Arch to Trafalgar Square, led by Nick Tenconi. No major incidents were reported, but the event’s proximity to a pro-Palestine demonstration led to 14 arrests across the city. Critics say police actions favor Muslim sensitivities over Christian traditions, fueling concerns about free expression and religious equality. Organizers intended to hold a straightforward procession within Tower Hamlets, a diverse borough with a significant Bangladeshi Muslim population and differing cultural norms. This marks the second recent UKIP event to be blocked, following the “Mass Deportations Tour” in October. Such interventions are interpreted as preemptive measures targeting groups perceived as provocative, regardless of whether the events are peaceful or faith-based. Police cited past counter-protests as justification, but critics call this a “heckler’s veto” and question police neutrality. Tommy Robinson, a prominent figure known for expressing concerns about mass immigration and the perceived Islamization of the U.K., publicized the ban in contrast to permitted Muslim processions such as Shia marches. He recounted his initial aversion to the church until a prison pastor introduced him to the Bible. Although not an organizer, Robinson’s commentary highlights the broader cultural tensions and amplifies the perspectives of working-class communities who feel alienated by these changes. Perceptions of favoritism were also evident during the December Whitehall carol service, “United for Christ this Christmas,” organized by Robinson, which featured hymns and bible readings. Despite its peaceful nature and attendance of approximately 2,000 people, police classified the event as a protest and deployed significant resources. Critics argue that this classification reflects bias, with authorities treating Christian gatherings with suspicion while being more accepting of Islamic events. This situation is cited as an example of the politicization of religious events associated with conservative groups. This situation reflects broader societal tensions, as England, historically defined by Christian traditions, now includes areas such as Tower Hamlets that are described by some as “no-go zones” for Christians, with associated risks of violence. The existence of such zones is seen as challenging the concept of shared public spaces within a tolerant society. Reports show rising Christian nationalism and concern about Islamization. Left-wing groups like Hope Not Hate warn against divisive religious mobilization, but critics say these groups oppose patriotic, faith-based movements. Critics also say these restrictions create a two-tier policing system, undermining liberties and public trust in equal treatment. Those critics link this to Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan’s oversight. A December Policy Exchange report slams “two-tier policing” and recommends that Khan lose control over impartiality failures. Khan denies bias, citing crime drops, but the report ties his policies to trust erosion and protest disparities. Findings spark calls for reform and transparent accountability. Examples include protected pro-Palestine marches and stricter policing of anti-immigration protests. Critics cite inconsistent responses to different groups and events, calling for change. From an American perspective, these developments are seen as analogous to the silencing of conservative and Christian voices on university campuses. In the U.K., the issue is framed as a challenge to national identity, exacerbated by perceptions of policing that prioritize Muslim communities. This situation prompts broader reflection on how increasing diversity affects the nation’s cultural heritage. The expansion of areas with significant Muslim populations is viewed by some as testing the limits of societal tolerance, particularly when demands for deference are perceived to be enforced through threats or policing practices seen as favoring Muslim communities. This dynamic raises questions about the sustainability of multiculturalism in the absence of mutual respect for longstanding traditions. Proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill regarding protests near places of worship may further institutionalize disparities and exacerbate existing societal divisions. The march signals a shift: exclusion risks confining Christian heritage to books. Without equality, Britain’s Christian principles yield to fragmentation with an Islamic veto, aided by anti-Christian police. This calls for defending fundamental values. The American experience with the First Amendment serves as a cautionary example regarding how tensions and perceived bias can undermine fundamental freedoms. These issues are increasingly relevant in global discussions on religious liberty and underscore the importance of advocating for balanced coexistence. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post London’s Restricted ‘March for Jesus’ Highlights Suspected Pro-Muslim and Anti-Christian Bias in Policing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Fake constitutionalism is increasingly becoming a problem in America. There is a marked tendency among public officials, political commentators, and media figures to invoke bogus constitutional principles or bogus interpretations of genuine constitutional principles. They do this mainly to shift blame to their political opponents or to shield the otherwise unacceptable behavior of their political allies.Fake constitutionalism undermines constitutional government by spreading misconceptions about what our Constitution means.The First Amendment certainly protects a reporter’s right to publish information. But it does not protect unlawful activity in pursuit of information.Regrettably the First Amendment has become one of the most fruitful areas in which fake constitutionalism thrives. It is now commonplace for Americans — even constitutional lawyers — to make inflated claims about the protections afforded by the First Amendment, extending its scope far beyond the safeguards America’s founders had in mind when they debated and wrote this essential provision of our Constitution. The most recent case in point is the misplaced outrage over the supposed violations of the First Amendment involved in the arrest of Don Lemon.Lemon, formerly of CNN, was taken into custody on Jan. 30 for his part in disrupting a service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lemon accompanied and filmed protesters who stormed the service to express their disapproval of Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minneapolis. (An elder of the church is reportedly an ICE agent.) The Department of Justice has charged a number of the disruptors, including Lemon, with violating the FACE Act and conspiracy to deprive others of their civil rights — in this case, their right to gather and worship God in peace in their own church.In his statement to the media, Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, characterized his client’s arrest and the filing of federal charges against Lemon as an “unprecedented attack on the First Amendment.” “Don has been a journalist for 30 years,” Lowell continued, “and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done. The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.” Arguments to this effect have also been made by countless journalists and commentators incensed by the idea that a journalist might be held to account for his unlawful behavior.Contrary to Lowell, the First Amendment does not afford any protection to journalism as an activity or to journalists as a class. Instead it protects certain more narrowly defined activities, namely speech and publication. This is evident from the language the framers of the amendment chose to express their meaning: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”RELATED: Unsealed indictment against Don Lemon cites his own comments on livestream from ‘takeover’ at church Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty ImagesThe scope of the First Amendment’s protection is also indicated by the early controversies over its meaning, most notably the debates over the Sedition Act of 1798. Celebrated American statesmen and jurists like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison condemned the act, while others of equal stature, such as Alexander Hamilton and Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, defended it. The argument concerned the extent to which the government could punish certain kinds of publications. No one at the time, however, suggested that the First Amendment protected otherwise unlawful acts done in the pursuit of publishing information.The narrow — and reasonable — original understanding of the First Amendment is also evident in the works of the great early American legal commentators such as Justice Joseph Story. In his celebrated “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” Story wrote:It is plain ... that the language of [the First Amendment] imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, or property, or reputation; and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace.As Story’s remarks make clear, even the right to speak and publish is limited by certain principles necessary to a just public order and the protection of other essential rights. Even more to the present purpose is Story’s argument that the First Amendment protects only the right to speak and publish — that is, rights that belong to every man, not just to journalists.Rejecting this traditional understanding of the First Amendment and accepting the Abbe Lowell version would lead to ridiculous and unacceptable consequences. It would mean that professional journalists must be treated as a privileged class and must be allowed to break the law in the pursuit of a story. But practically nobody thinks this should be the case, and it is certainly not how the law operates in its ordinary course.If a reporter is speeding at 100 miles per hour through a town to get to the scene of an important story, he will be stopped by the police and charged with violating the speed limit and reckless driving. If this reporter were to cause an accident and kill someone, he would be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter — and the fact that he committed the crime in connection with his desire to engage in activities that the First Amendment protects would be totally irrelevant to his defense.The First Amendment certainly protects a reporter’s right to publish information. It does not, however, protect unlawful activity undertaken in pursuit of information, which is often protected by principles of privacy and ownership recognized in law. Lemon and the protesters are guilty of the same misconduct, and the First Amendment is of no help to either.It is undoubtedly a news event when a potential candidate for public office meets with advisers at his home to decide whether to launch a campaign. But this would not give someone like Don Lemon the right to barge into the home over the objections of those who live there and “cover” the event. He would be guilty of trespassing or home invasion and liable to legal punishment.This example points to the inadequacy of the arguments made by those who have condemned the disruption of the church service but claimed that Lemon, as a journalist, should not be among those charged. Such defenders seem to think that the other disruptors did something unlawful but that Lemon was merely there to report on the event. But his relevant actions were the same as those of the others involved. They came into the church uninvited during a service at which the worshipers had been peacefully conducting their own business — and in fact exercising a constitutional right clearly stated in the First Amendment. This disruption, of which Lemon was a part, prevented the congregants from carrying on the activities they had a right to pursue. Charging the other protesters but not Lemon would treat him as a member of a privileged class that has a right to break the law.This would introduce an unacceptable incoherence into our constitutional law. To the extent that the protesters wanted to make a political point, they also held views protected by the First Amendment. They erred, however, in choosing an unlawful method by which to make their complaints heard — just as Lemon erred in the method by which he tried to get his story. Lemon and the protesters are guilty of the same misconduct, and the First Amendment is of no help to either.Suppose a case in which the legal and constitutional issues are the same, but the actors’ political identities are different. Suppose, for example, a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, outraged by federal civil rights enforcement, decides to disrupt the service at a predominantly African-American church, of which a federal civil rights lawyer is a member. Suppose further that the Klan brings along a sympathetic reporter and storms the church, shouting insults, while the reporter films the whole shameful episode. Would any decent American think this action was a legitimate form of First Amendment-protected “protest”? Or that the reporter who tagged along should be immune to the charges that would properly be filed against the other participants? Of course not.RELATED: When worship is interrupted, neutrality is no longer an option Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty ImagesRecall further Justice Story’s observation that the First Amendment’s protection of the right to speak and publish belongs to “every man.” This is a key principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in modern times. The great liberal Justice William Brennan, on more than one occasion, remarked that the First Amendment protects all Americans equally, not just the members of the professional, credentialed press. A blogger or a concerned citizen who circulates a newsletter has all the same First Amendment rights as someone who works for the New York Times or CNN.This point is essential to further clarifying the unacceptable consequences that would result if we accepted the First Amendment defense of Don Lemon’s role in the Minnesota church disruption. Because the amendment protects all Americans, and not only professional journalists, defending Lemon’s conduct as an activity protected by the First Amendment would mean that everybody could break the law and then claim to be engaged in “reporting.” Any concerned citizen with a recording device or a pad of paper could walk into a neighbor’s home, a local church, or, for that matter, the offices of CNN and then claim First Amendment immunity for disrupting the lives of other Americans pursuing legitimate activities. No sensible person would embrace such a chaotic standard, which is certainly not required by the First Amendment.Justice Story observed in his account of the First Amendment that “the exercise of a right is essentially different from an abuse of it. The one is no legitimate inference from the other.” Story continued, “Common sense here promulgates the broad doctrine: so exercise your freedom, as not to infringe the rights of others, or the public peace and safety.” This is the way the founders thought about the rights they enshrined in the Constitution, and it is the only way to think about them that is consistent with a decent public order in which the rights of all are safe.Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

On Sept. 30, 2023, shots rang out after a football game in Georgia, WSB-TV reported.Emmanuel Dorsey — just 14 years old — was killed outside the Griffin-Spalding game, the station said.'Jurors are just fed up.'The suspect was 17-year-old Kaomarion Kendrick.Arrest warrants stated that Kendrick had a gun with him at the game, WXIA-TV reported, adding that when the game was over, a fight broke out between "two rival cliques."During that fight, officers said Kendrick pulled out the gun, after which Dorsey and others fled, WXIA said, adding that warrants indicate Dorsey was shot in the neck and face.The documents also note that while both teens were not gang members, the two groups they were hanging around were rival gangs, WXIA noted.RELATED: 'Hellhounds coming for you': Loved ones of grandmother murdered in carjacking blast her 'demon' teen killer at his sentencing Kaomarion KendrickImage source: Spalding County (Ga.) Sheriff's OfficeWSB said Kendrick spent eight days on the run before being captured in Henry County.Officials said at the time of his arrest that Kendrick was armed with a Glock handgun modified with a full-auto switch, WXIA said.WSB reported that a Spalding County jury last week convicted Kendrick of a long list of charges, including felony murder and three counts of violation of the RICO Act.With that, Kendrick was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole — followed by another 85 years, WSB said.RELATED: Teen Islam convert, an ISIS backer, carried out deadly stabbing after kid mocked his faith: Police A WAGA-TV video report about Kendrick's sentence indicated that prosecutors depicted him as a "stone-cold killer," "unrepentant," and "unremorseful, even at trial."David Studdard, acting district attorney, told WAGA that "jurors are just fed up" with the deadly violence and "hear this over and over and over, and they've just had it with this kind of thing."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The frontman had revealed in May 2025 that he had been diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer. The post 3 Doors Down Singer Brad Arnold Dies at 47 Following Cancer Battle appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Olympic ‘Women’s’ Boxing ‘Champion’ Imane Khelif Admits the Obvious And Conservatives Take a Victory Lap