If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Supreme Court has decided not to review the case of a Massachusetts educator who argued that she was wrongfully dismissed over TikTok videos expressing views on gender issues. Former Hanover Public Schools teacher Kari MacRae had hoped the justices would use her case to affirm the free speech rights of public employees, especially when their opinions are voiced outside the workplace and before employment. MacRae’s social media posts included commentary and memes that sparked controversy. One video criticized Rachel Levine, a transgender official in the Biden administration. Another featured a panda bear alongside text stating, “Dude, racism is stupid. I am black, white, and Asian. But everyone loves me.” Get the background on this story here. In a separate post, she remarked on modern parenting challenges: “I feel bad for parents nowadays. You have to be able to explain the birds & the bees . . . The bees & the bees . . . The birds & the birds . . . The birds that used to be bees . . . The bees that used to be birds . . . The birds that look like bees . . . Plus bees that look like birds but still got a stinger!!!” Although the Court declined to take up her appeal and no justice publicly opposed that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement voicing unease with how lower courts handled the matter. We obtained a copy of the statement for you here. Thomas pointed out that punishing government workers for expressing views contrary to their employer’s stance threatens fundamental free speech protections. Thomas warned, “It undermines core First Amendment values to allow a government employer to adopt an institutional viewpoint on the issues of the day and then when faced with a dissenting employee, portray this disagreement as evidence of disruption.” Thomas also stressed the troubling nature of MacRae’s situation, as her views were shared before she joined the school district. “And, the problem is exacerbated in the case of an employee such as MacRae, who expressed her views only outside the workplace and before her employment,” he added. While Thomas agreed that MacRae’s petition did not squarely present the broader constitutional questions necessary for the Court to step in, he indicated readiness to take up a future case. He highlighted the danger of government employers using “unsupported claims of disruption in particular to target employees who express disfavored political views.” He emphasized that the value of speech should not be discounted based on its tone. “I do not see how the tone of MacRae’s posts can bear on the weight of her First Amendment interest,” Thomas wrote, adding that, “Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection.” Thomas further argued that humor or provocative language does not lessen constitutional protections. He stated, “The inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” Referring to past rulings, he noted, “Humor, satire, and even personal invective can make a point about a matter of public concern.” Challenging the justification provided by the lower court for upholding MacRae’s dismissal, Thomas criticized reliance on speculative disruption. “The First Circuit accordingly should have discarded factors whose disruptive potential was purely speculative, such as the fact that ‘some students and staff . . . were aware of’ [MacRae’s] posts or that ‘students [were overheard] discussing her social media activity.’” Finally, Thomas framed MacRae’s case as part of a growing trend. “This case is the latest in a trend of lower court decisions that have misapplied our First Amendment precedents in cases involving controversial political speech,” he observed, suggesting that without stronger guidance, public employers might increasingly attempt to silence disfavored views under the guise of preventing disruption. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Fired Over a Meme: The Free Speech Fight the Justices Passed Up appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Bryan Kohberger to Plead Guilty (Victim's Family Upset)

NPR Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep joined Semafor’s Mixed Signals podcast hosts Max Tani and Ben Smith last Friday to discuss the current battle over NPR’s public funding. There were several puzzling claims made throughout, including claims that Fox’s personnel decisions and Hunter Biden laptop coverage are analogous to NPR’s. Tani tried to goad Inskeep into labeling Republicans hypocrites on the matter of defunding, “You interview a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives, on your show, you mentioned that you interviewed Steve Bannon, recently. I'm really curious if any of the folks that you have interviewed, particularly on the right, you know, and who have been maybe satisfied and thought that your coverage has been fair, if any of those people are the people who are out there today, you know, calling for the defunding of NPR.” Steve Bannon appeared on NPR? So what? If a Democrat appeared on Fox, would a liberal say that makes Fox neutral?     As it was, Inskeep danced around the subject, claiming, “I don't know that I want to accuse anyone specifically of hypocrisy on this issue,” before recalling NPR’s 2010 firing of Juan Williams: I do recall, this was years ago now, there was an earlier controversy involving NPR and its dismissal of Juan Williams, who was also a Fox News contributor. We could do an entire other podcast episode about that, but we'd have to burn it afterwards. But in any case, it was a big controversy, and I went in to see a member of Congress for a face-to-face interview, and we sat down, and the first thing he wanted to tell me is, he says, ‘Juan Williams is a personal friend of mine and I'm outraged. It is just awful what you've done.’ And then we began the conversation, and we're doing the interview, and in the middle of the interview, he digressed from the actual topic of the interview because he was reminded of a story he'd heard on Morning Edition that morning and wanted to talk all about it, and this is not entirely uncommon. Inskeep then continued, “There are people in the House of Representatives who voted against federal funding for their local public radio stations. Remember, this is local funding, who were on NPR last week, and that's fine, by the way. I don't, you're not required to vote some way to be on NPR. We want to hear from everybody. We want to hear from you even if you hate public broadcasting, and I would encourage everybody to engage in that way.” Local NPR stations pay fees to the national organization in order to air its programming, so that’s not completely true. However, Smith and Tani then tried to compare the private Fox with the public NPR, with Smith beginning, “Yeah, that was another era. You know, now, Juan Williams is, you know, attacked on Fox for being too left-wing, so—” and Tani adding, “Well, he's gone from Fox for that reason.” Juan Williams was on Fox News last week, so not only did Smith and Tani confuse private and public, they didn’t even have their facts right. Neverthless, Smith wondered, “I wonder if your Republican friends also protested to Fox over that?” Inskeep mused, “Well, that's an interesting point,” before trying to compare NPR to Fox in another way, “One of the popular criticisms of NPR in recent years is ‘you didn't cover the Hunter Biden laptop story.’ My understanding is that Fox didn't initially cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. I think a lot of media didn't because it didn't know. You could criticize whether NPR should have covered it more later. We can have a whole discussion about individual stories, but I don't know, just, we can focus on the coverage or a particular story rather than the label you want to put on somebody.” It was on October 22, 2020, that Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel claimed they didn’t want to waste people’s time by covering the laptop story. On October 23, the New York Times ran a headline lamenting, “Fox News is covering Hunter Biden Claims More Than 2016 WikiLeaks Emails.” Even if Inskeep was right, however, that would not matter. NPR has a pattern of behavior that goes beyond just one story. NPR has run stories in defense of eco-terrorism and looting and aired audio of abortions. It is a left-wing outlet, and an occasional Republican guest trying to break the bubble doesn’t change that. Here is a transcript for the June 27 show: Semafor Mixed Signals 6/27/2025 31 Minutes, 43 Seconds MAX TANI: You interview a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives, on your show, you mentioned that you interviewed Steve Bannon, recently. I'm really curious if any of the folks that you have interviewed, particularly on the right, you know, and who have been maybe satisfied and thought that your coverage has been fair, if any of those people are the people who are out there today, you know, calling for the defunding of NPR. STEVE INSKEEP: Oh, I don't know that I want to accuse anyone specifically of hypocrisy on this issue. I have always been aware that there are Republicans who listen as well as Democrats. In recent years, I think the Democrats have been more numerous. There's a lot of reasons for that we could get into, but there are Republicans who listen, including Republican lawmakers, influential people, and I appreciate that. I do recall, this was years ago now, there was an earlier controversy involving NPR and its dismissal of Juan Williams, who was also a Fox News contributor. We could do an entire other podcast episode about that, but we'd have to burn it afterwards. But in any case, it was a big controversy, and I went in to see a member of Congress for a face-to-face interview, and we sat down, and the first thing he wanted to tell me is, he says, “Juan Williams is a personal friend of mine and I'm outraged. It is just awful what you've done.” And then we began the conversation, and we're doing the interview, and in the middle of the interview, he digressed from the actual topic of the interview because he was reminded of a story he'd heard on Morning Edition that morning and wanted to talk all about it, and this is not entirely uncommon. There are people in the House of Representatives who voted against federal funding for their local public radio stations. Remember, this is local funding, who were on NPR last week, and that's fine, by the way. I don't, you're not required to vote some way to be on NPR. We want to hear from everybody. We want to hear from you even if you hate public broadcasting, and I would encourage everybody to engage in that way.  SMITH: Yeah. INSKEEP: You know, I don't want to accuse anybody now of particular hypocrisy, but just be aware that lots of different kinds of people pay attention to NPR. BEN SMITH: Yeah, that was another era. You know, now, Juan Williams is, you know, attacked on Fox for being too left-wing, so— MAX TANI: Well, he's gone from Fox for that reason. SMITH: Right, driven out of Fox for being left-wing. INSKEEP: Oh, he’s driven out of Fox. Okay. Okay, TANI: Yeah. SMITH: Yes. INSKEEP: Well for a while, he was, kind of, the house liberal. He was open about that, but I guess too liberal. SMITH: I wonder if your Republican friends also protested to Fox over that? TANI: Stood up for him. Yeah, exactly. INSKEEP: Well, that's an interesting point, and I’ll just mention another thing. One of the popular criticisms of NPR in recent years is “you didn't cover the Hunter Biden laptop story.” My understanding is that Fox didn't initially cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. I think a lot of media didn't because it didn't know. You could criticize whether NPR should have covered it more later. We can have a whole discussion about individual stories, but I don't know, just, we can focus on the coverage or a particular story rather than the label you want to put on somebody.

CBS Evening News closed out June, on Monday, by decrying federal budget cuts eliminating two Department of Agriculture food programs totally $1 billion. The report, delivered by correspondent Meg Oliver, dismissed the fact that they were both temporary COVID-era programs. Yet, she had the audacity to lament that “farmers and frontline workers [were left] to pick up the pieces while people go hungry.” But the report curiously failed to mention how many people the programs actually helped to feed. “It`s been a month since Elon Musk left Washington, but the impact of his DOGE budget cutting is just beginning to be felt,” anchor John Dickerson glibly announced. “In tonight`s ‘Eye on America’ Meg Oliver looks at the real-life impact of eliminating two programs that helped feed the hungry.” Oliver tagged along with Maile Auterson and “an employee” as they drove “hundreds of miles across Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas delivering fresh produce to food deserts” a few times a week. “Her nonprofit helps underserved schools, food pantries and senior centers such as this one in Ava, Missouri, where, for many, it`s the only place to get a hot meal,” she tugged on the heartstrings, omitting how many were actually helped. Partway through the report, Oliver admitted that the programs were “implemented by the Biden administration in response to the pandemic” and carried a hefty price tag of $1 billion. In an interview with CBS, Auterson, who made money from the programs, insisted that the programs were still needed years after the pandemic was over: OLIVER: Who are you leaving out there without food? AUTERSON: Some of the most food-insecure people, some of the most vulnerable people, children, the elderly. OLIVER: The USDA has said these were pandemic relief programs, and that`s over, so it`s time to move on. AUTERSON: Yeah, we are not past the effects of the pandemic.     Noting that 8,000 farmers received money from the programs, Oliver spoke with one farmer who rented out more land thinking that the money would continue to flow: OLIVER: When they introduced these programs, how did it impact your farm? GRAZNAK: It was huge. I knew I could produce this and that they would be able and interested in buying it. OLIVER: She rented an extra 16 acres to harvest more onions, garlic, and peppers to keep up with demand. GRAZNAK: A quarter of my annual sales were going to those programs. And when they said that money is gone, I thought, ‘oh, my God.’ Well, now what do I do? Of course, the tragedy here was the unchecked federal spending giving the farmers the false impression that the funds would be limitless (and go on indefinitely) and they could expand to extract more of the funds. “Will you be able to still feed people this year?” Oliver teed up Auterson. “We are going to, but not nearly as many,” Auterson responded. That exchange left Oliver close out the report by lamenting: “Leaving farmers and frontline workers to pick up the pieces while people go hungry.” It’s worth pointing out that while Auterson said they’re not going to be able to feed “nearly as many people” and Oliver proclaimed people will “go hungry,” they never actually gave a number (or even an approximation) for how many have been fed over the years nor how many would be forced to go without in the future. Both were very important bits of information to give the public the full picture. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CBS Evening News June 30, 2025 6:51:22 p.m. Eastern JOHN DICKERSON: It`s been a month since Elon Musk left Washington, but the impact of his DOGE budget cutting is just beginning to be felt. In tonight`s “Eye on America,” Meg Oliver looks at the real-life impact of eliminating two programs that helped feed the hungry. [Cuts to video] MEG OLIVER: Four days a week, Maile Auterson and an employee drive hundreds of miles across Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas delivering fresh produce to food deserts. WOMAN: Those are gorgeous. OLIVER: Her nonprofit helps underserved schools, food pantries and senior centers such as this one in Ava, Missouri, where, for many, it`s the only place to get a hot meal. MAILE AUTERSON (Springfield Community Gardens): We are trying the best we can without the funding. OLIVER: Auterson`s nonprofit relies on USDA grants to distribute produce to schools in low-income communities. But in March, the USDA abruptly canceled those two national food programs implemented by the Biden administration in response to the pandemic and totaling $1 billion. The agency says it`s a decision to “return to long-term, fiscally responsible initiatives.” Who are you leaving out there without food? AUTERSON: Some of the most food-insecure people, some of the most vulnerable people, children, the elderly. OLIVER: The USDA has said these were pandemic relief programs, and that`s over, so it`s time to move on. AUTERSON: Yeah, we are not past the effects of the pandemic. OLIVER: The USDA grants helped Auterson buy food from small farms such as Liz Graznak`s. LIZ GRAZNAK (Farmer): It was devastating. I don`t know those families, but I know those families are desperate for the food that they were getting. OLIVER: The subsidies implemented in 2022 were set to be extended for another three years. When they introduced these programs, how did it impact your farm? GRAZNAK: It was huge. I knew I could produce this and that they would be able and interested in buying it. OLIVER: She rented an extra 16 acres to harvest more onions, garlic, and peppers to keep up with demand. GRAZNAK: A quarter of my annual sales were going to those programs. And when they said that money is gone, I thought, ‘oh, my God.’ Well, now what do I do? OLIVER: Nationwide, more than 8,000 small farmers were supported by the programs. Advocates warn, the cuts could ripple through food deserts, rural communities, and urban areas, where access to healthy food is miles away. With food insecurity in Missouri above the national average at 15 percent, local farmers here help bridge the gap. Will you be able to still feed people this year? AUTERSON: We are going to, but not nearly as many. OLIVER: Leaving farmers and frontline workers to pick up the pieces while people go hungry. For “Eye on America,” I`m Meg Oliver in Jamestown, Missouri.

A former teacher in Michigan is accused of having sex with a 16-year-old male student, WDIV-TV reported.Jocelyn Sanroman, 26, of Pontiac is accused of having a sexual relationship with the teen in 2023 while she taught at Oakside Prep Academy in Waterford Township, WDIV added. Waterford Township is about 40 minutes northwest of Detroit.'This defendant is accused of using her position of authority to exploit a minor victim.'Sanroman confided in a fellow teacher that she was having sex with a student, and that teacher in turn told police, the station said, citing prosecutors.Sanroman was arraigned Monday on three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, WJBK-TV reported.If convicted, she faces up to 15 years in prison, WDIV said.The Oakland County Sheriff's Office on Tuesday told Blaze News that Sanroman turned herself in Monday. Jail records indicate she was booked Monday morning and released Monday afternoon. The sheriff's office added to Blaze News that while Sanroman didn't post bond, she's responsible for a $20,000 personal bond if she doesn't appear at her July 10 probable cause conference.RELATED: Florida middle school teacher sent nude photo, engaged in 'lewd conduct' with 14-year-old student: Police "Any time any member of the school staff, teacher, coach, is trying to develop a relationship with you, it doesn’t matter who initiates it; it’s a crime," Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald told WJBK in a separate story.McDonald added to WJBK that while a 16-year-old can consent, it's different when the other party is a teacher.The prosecutor noted to WJBK that she also was a teacher when she was the suspect's age, "but I'm also a parent.""School is supposed to be someplace where your kids feel safe," McDonald added to WJBK.“This defendant is accused of using her position of authority to exploit a minor victim,” McDonald noted to WDIV. “These allegations represent the ultimate breach of trust placed in educators by parents and the community. As a former teacher myself, I applaud the teacher who contacted police about this situation, protecting other students from further exploitation.”A news crew from WJBK paid a visit to the former teacher's home but said no one was there.RELATED: Ex-head counselor at all-boys' Catholic HS pleads guilty to sexual abuse of student after nude pics, office tryst revealed An Oakside Prep Academy spokesperson told WJBK that school officials "acted immediately after learning about these allegations." The spokesperson added to WJBK that "these are troubling allegations that are unsettling to everyone in our school community" and that students' "safety and well-being remains our top priority."News of this latest teacher-student sex scandal comes on the heels of a headline-grabbing case out of New York state where a 22-year-old now-former school district employee is accused of sending nude photos of herself to a 14-year-old boy.RELATED: School district speaks out after now-former employee, 22, accused of sending nude photos of herself to 14-year-old boy Anamaria Milazzo. Image source: Chemung County (N.Y.) Sheriff’s OfficeThe Chemung County Sheriff’s Office last month said Anamaria Milazzo from the town of Elmira was arrested on charges of disseminating indecent material to minors in the second degree — a class E felony — and endangering the welfare of a child, which is a class A misdemeanor.The Daily Voice said Milazzo was arrested June 16 and that she had worked as a teaching assistant since December 2024. Milazzo was issued an appearance ticket to appear in the Wellsburg Village Court at a later date, the sheriff's office said.The school district in question — the Greater Southern Tier Board of Cooperative Educational Services — noted in a statement provided to WETM-TV last week that Milazzo "was put on leave as soon as we were first made aware of the allegations by law enforcement and has not been present at BOCES since that time. She has resigned and will not be returning to campus."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales serves as vice president for an organization called the Texas Family Project, which is dedicated in part to saving children from the grip of leftist indoctrination.This work often brings them to “all-ages” Pride events held in the great state of Texas.And as Pride Month ends, the organization was looking forward to getting “a little rest from having to infiltrate all of the disgusting Pride festivals happening across the state” — but it appears that won’t be possible.This is because Pride Houston 365 claims that “Pride is not just for June anymore.”“Yes, they say that Pride is actually to take place all year long. So, sorry for your eyeballs, sorry for my eyeballs,” Gonzales comments, disturbed.Texas Family Project executive director Kaden Lopez ventured to one of Pride Houston 365’s most recent “all-ages” events, and what he encountered was terrifying to say the least.“Our editors felt the need to censor this — I guess you’re welcome — but that was like full butt crack with a thong going up the rear,” Gonzales says, commenting on video footage Lopez got of the “family-friendly” event.As kids and baby strollers wander in and out of the shots, barely clothed they/thems pass by and women make out on stage, as music with lyrics like “head down, ass up, that’s the way I like to f**k” blasts from the speakers.“And there is, of course, the ‘family fun zone’ with all the bubbles for the kids,” Gonzales says, adding, “How far away was that from the free rapid HIV test?”“It was kind of far from the HIV test, but it was right next to the stage,” Lopez explains, noting that it was the stage where the women were making out, twerking, and singing horribly inappropriate songs.“It was kids' zone, little pathway, and then stage,” he adds.“Some adult perverts in the kids' zone along with the kids,” Brady Gray, president of Texas Family Project, chimes in.“This all started with, ‘We just want to get married,’ you know. These Pride festivals started in the ’70s with a few hundred people that’d go have a march, and nobody paid any attention to it. Still, not enough people are paying attention to it, but we’re a far cry from a few hundred people in a march,” he adds.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

For decades, there has been a significant group of skeptics who claim that ingredients in vaccines have led to increased rates of autism among children. They’ve pointed to past studies as proof. Yet, those in so-called “mainstream science” have said those studies are flawed. The skeptics have not been deterred, and now one is the secretary of Health and Human Services. In an episode of "The Tucker Carlson Show" podcast released Monday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told the eponymous host that he is determined to get answers. 'We’re going to do real science.' The discussion around autism and vaccines was just one part of a wide-ranging conversation between the two men. Carlson started off the discussion on vaccines and autism by asking, “One of the first things you did as secretary, I think — tell me if I'm misstating it — was commission a kind of study of autism. Can you tell us what that is? What are you seeking to do with that?”Kennedy went through the history of studies performed in the past on whether there is a link between early childhood vaccinations and autism. He claimed of studies that were conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, “They all say what the CDC wanted them to say — which is they couldn't find a link.”He then claimed that other groups, including the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, have not completely ruled out the possibility of a link. Kennedy added, “And they were highly critical of the way the CDC was making decisions about the vaccine schedule.”As the discussion continued, Kennedy laid out why he believed the decision-making process around the vaccination schedule had “essentially been captured by industry.” In other words, the very pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccines were driving the policy on when vaccines should be administered. RELATED: RFK Jr. torches vaccine panel to make consequences count again - Kennedy explained why he believes that the CDC, led by those with industry ties, eschewed the scientific method, which called for extensive studies and kept approving more vaccines to add to the schedule.He added, “None of those studies did what you would do if you wanted to find the answer — which is to compare outcomes in a fully vaccinated group to health outcomes in an unvaccinated group.”Except one. Kennedy claimed that in 1999, the CDC commissioned a study of children who had received a hepatitis vaccination as compared with those not vaccinated. He then said, “They found an 1,135% elevated risk of autism among the vaccinated children.”“It shocked them. They kept the study secret and manipulated it through five different iterations to try to bury the link,” the secretary added. Kennedy went through why he believes the CDC hid the data, noting that many independent scientists have found a “link” between some vaccinations and increased autism. Kennedy then pledged that under his watch the studies that have been recommended will be done. “We're going to do real science. And the way we’re going to do that is — we’re going to make the databases public for the first time.”RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it He pledged that data from the CDC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, private HMO data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, and more will be made available for researchers to peruse. Kennedy pledged money for grants and to do more “in-house studies ourselves,” all with a goal of having answers within six months from now — or possibly even sooner. “We should have some answers by September, some initial indicator answers. And then, over the next six months, all these large studies by independent scientists all over the world, we anticipate there will probably be about 15 different major teams who are all trying to answer this question,” said the secretary. “And within six months, we’ll have definitive answers — after September,” he concluded.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After dropping a cryptic teaser roughly 24 hours ago, a new Minecraft update has just arrived that makes one of the sandbox game’s most abundant materials much more special. Even more importantly than that, though, this game drop also adds a friendly (and remarkably helpful) new mob that has become something of a meme among the community after narrowly losing a community mob vote. Yes, the copper golem has arrived in Minecraft. Continue reading New Minecraft update adds an extremely useful new mob that's already beloved MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Minecraft seeds, Minecraft skins, Minecraft mods

DYNAMIC DUO: President Trump and Ron DeSantis Team Up to Expedite Florida Deportations (WATCH)

Televangelist Jimmy Swaggart Dead at 90