The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's (LPNH) X account—which has become infamous for its bigoted and controversy-ridden posts—is finally gone. But the state's spurious role in its banning raises free speech concerns.

Last week, New Hampshire Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to X's safety team, asking the company to suspend the account. Ayotte's letter made mention of several clear violations of X's content policies: "This account has openly called for the assassination of elected officials from the New Hampshire Democratic Party, has said it condones murdering elected officials for their policy positions, and most recently threatened a member of House leadership.…I'm calling on X to remove [the posts] and suspend the account immediately." 

The letter referenced one particularly bold post from September (which the account later deleted). The post read: "We openly support the assassination of basically every elected democrat in New Hampshire. But if you don't have the balls to do it, then you should probably vote GOP." 

X suspended the account the day after Ayotte sent the letter.

The removal of the LPNH account has likely elicited a sigh of relief from the Libertarian Party's (L.P.) leadership, which has repeatedly tussled with LPNH over its extreme rhetoric, undermining of L.P. candidates, and constant creation of P.R. crises for the party. In 2024, the LPNH endorsed Donald Trump for president instead of Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, pushing the Libertarian National Committee to disaffiliate LPNH from the L.P.'s structure this past May. The Granite State Libertarian Party was designated the state's new L.P. affiliate in September.

Even though the LPNH has clearly violated X's terms and does not adhere to the most basic requirements for L.P. membership (such as pledging to uphold the nonaggression principle), the government should not tell private firms when to enforce their own policies. This sentiment was shared by Granite State L.P., which recently said in a social media post, "While a private company has a right to remove someone screaming about setting people on fire…the government should play zero part in that decision."

Jeremy Kauffman, the chair of the LPNH, is outraged but unsurprised, posting on Sunday that he and the LPNH are "exploring a lawsuit against the New Hampshire government." He tells Reason, "Ayotte's letter was a classic example of jawboning. When a governor sends a demanding letter like this to a private company, there is a clear implicit threat attached."

Speaking to Reason, Trace Mitchell, a technology and free speech expert at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, defines jawboning as, "when the government, through veiled threats or direct coercion, pressures a private entity to take an action that the government could not lawfully take or mandate itself." 

In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make recommendations to private companies if those recommendations come with legal repercussions—even implied or veiled repercussions. Doing so would qualify as jawboning, which violates the First Amendment. Though Ayotte's letter could be construed as extralegal pressure, it does not imply a punishment for noncompliance and likely falls short of legally recognized jawboning.

Addressing Kauffman's proposed lawsuit, Mitchell says, "In this case he would likely have to show there is something beyond this letter…[like] outside communications, emails or text with X." 

Safety officers at X provided no comment to Reason to justify the suspension. It is not clear whether there was any external communication involved beyond the letter. Without a more definite connection between Ayotte's request and X's decision, Kauffman may struggle to win in court. Still, that doesn't make the governor's request any less concerning. 

While Ayotte's letter was a surprise, it was not unprecedented. As social media has become the public forum, all levels of government have tried to regulate what is said there. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal officials under the Biden administration were revealed to be in near-constant communication with major social media firms, encouraging and recommending that misinformation be removed from the platforms. Many of these recommendations were paired with implied threats to review the firms' legal immunity for content posted on their platforms, which spawned a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court in 2024. 

Although the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, some lawmakers have taken action to address concerns over jawboning, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) introducing the JAWBONE Act in June. The bill would make it easier for members of the public to sue government officials who pressure media networks, as well as require increased transparency for all federal communications to media networks.

Even if Kauffman cannot find legal remit, Ayotte's letter was a troubling move for the future of internet speech. Many of the offending posts referenced were months old or had been deleted before the letter was sent. The LPNH has likely been violating X's content policy for years, but X only took action after the government instructed it to.

You don't need a judge to see how that might be concerning. 

The post X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The French reporter was set to cover Israel's election, while the U.S. researcher said she was questioned about her criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza; four foreign journalists were denied entry last week

Two activists have been ordered by DOJ to testify in mysterious grand jury proceedings regarding their involvement in efforts to deface an Israeli weapons manufacturing facility in New Hampshire, after feds had sought in an earlier trial to obtain sentences of 37 years for them.

A Bogotá court ordered the National Museum to safeguard nearly 30 removed works as professors protested the government’s decision.

---

A Bogotá court has ordered Colombia’s National Museum to preserve nearly 30 artworks removed from its exhibitions, prohibiting further alterations or removals without legal authorization amid growing protests over the government’s decision to take down pieces related to the armed conflict, feminism and LGBTQ+ communities.

RELATED: De La Espriella’s Cultural Counterrevolution In Colombia Kicks Off

The 24th Family Court of Bogotá issued the precautionary measures in response to a constitutional protection petition filed by Gabriel Becerra Yáñez, secretary-general of the Unión Patriótica party, and members of the León Zuleta and Revolución en Rosa collectives.

Judge César Enrique Osorio Ortiz ordered the museum to keep the affected works in appropriate conservation conditions and prohibited the institution from moving, destroying, altering, deaccessioning or returning them to third parties. The museum must also preserve all records, exhibition plans, minutes and communications related to the removals.

The court gave the museum’s management 24 hours to submit a detailed report identifying the works’ current locations and conservation conditions, including items removed from exhibition rooms and the Miguel Ángel Díaz memorial garden. The report must also identify the authority responsible for ordering their removal.

🇨🇴 Seis museos de arte moderno de Colombia cuestionaron el retiro de al menos 30 piezas históricas del Museo Nacional en Bogotá. #teleSUR #Colombia #Cultura pic.twitter.com/dsicaHCuPI

— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) October 18, 2026

Text Reads: Six modern art museums in Colombia questioned the removal of at least 30 historical pieces from the National Museum in Bogotá.

The dispute began last week after President Abelardo de la Espriella ordered nearly 30 works removed from the museum’s permanent exhibitions. His office characterized the pieces as an “ode to terrorism.” The works address historical memory of Colombia’s armed conflict, feminist demands, LGBTQ+ rights and the 2016 peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Court cites constitutional protection for historical memory

In its ruling, the court emphasized that artistic expressions connected to historical memory, truth-seeking and symbolic reparation for victims are protected under Colombia’s Constitution.

The decision cited the Constitutional Court’s recognition that such works serve a broader public purpose.

“Artistic expressions associated with processes of historical memory, extrajudicial truth and symbolic reparation for victims are not merely cultural manifestations, but constitutionally protected instruments for building collective memory, dignifying victims and ensuring guarantees of non-repetition,” the ruling stated.

The judge added that these expressions warrant enhanced protection because of their close links to the fundamental rights to truth, historical memory, artistic freedom of expression and symbolic reparation for victims.

The court found reasonable grounds to suspect that these rights had been violated and warned that further harm could occur without immediate conservation measures. It said the precautions were necessary, urgent and proportionate to prevent irreparable damage while the case is considered on its merits.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Pacto Histórico Oficial (@pactohistoricooficial)

Text Reads: Historical memory cannot be erased!
The justice system accepted our legal petition and ordered the protection of the works removed from the National Museum, the halting of any further unjustified removals, and the preservation of the garden dedicated to Miguel Ángel Díaz.
The memory of the victims and the rights that have been won must be defended!

The petition names both the Ministry of Cultures, the Arts and Knowledge and the National Museum. Each has one business day to respond, submit evidence and clarify whether administrative decisions authorized the removals, as well as the degree of institutional autonomy between the two bodies.

The proceedings also involve President de la Espriella, Bogotá’s Secretariat for Women, the Sexual Diversity Directorate of the District Planning Secretariat, the Secretariat for Social Integration, the Sí Mujer Foundation and the Colombian Communist Party. These parties were also given one business day to submit evidence.

Professors hold classes outside museum in protest

The legal challenge comes as opposition to the removals has spread beyond the courtroom. On Monday, university professors moved their classes to the steps of the National Museum, holding open-air lectures to discuss the government’s decision and what they described as censorship.

Academics from several disciplines used an amplification system to address the public. The sessions took place under the watch of numerous officers from the National Anti-Riot Unit (Unadi), the same force deployed during large demonstrations outside the museum over the weekend.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Pacto Histórico Oficial (@pactohistoricooficial)

Text Reads: ABELARDO DE LA ESPRIELLA SEEKS TO ERASE HISTORICAL MEMORY
The president has ordered the removal of images and references to Carlos Pizarro Leongómez—former M-19 commander and a key figure in the peace process—from government-controlled public spaces. This decision follows the provisional suspension of the designation of his hat as a piece of cultural heritage, and comes amid a visit to the Ministry of Culture, during which he also lashed out against inclusive language.
Arguing that “terrorists” should not occupy public spaces, the government is attempting to dictate which parts of history deserve to be remembered.
Memory cannot be erased by decree. History cannot be rewritten from a position of power.

Catalina Muñoz Rojas, an associate professor in the Department of History and Geography at the University of the Andes and an organizer of the classes, said the removed works were part of exhibitions developed over years to reflect the pluralism and diversity enshrined in Colombia’s 1991 Constitution.

She argued that the president’s intervention disrupted democratic, participatory curatorial processes involving communities from across the country. The professors plan to continue their educational activities throughout the week, engaging members of the public and the officers stationed outside the museum. Organizers urged the officers to respect the peaceful, academic nature of the protest.

Ana López, a resident of Colombia who attended the demonstrations, described the government’s decision as arbitrary and authoritarian, warning of the risk of more sweeping censorship aimed at silencing the country’s cultural and social diversity.

The removals have also prompted public criticism from Colombia’s modern art museums and the Colombian committee of the International Council of Museums (ICOM Colombia), alongside protests outside the institution.

The court’s precautionary measures will remain in force while it considers the petition’s merits. The proceedings will address the legal basis for the removals and allegations that the decision violated rights related to historical memory, artistic expression and symbolic reparation.

Selina Cartmell announces season including Stockport-set version of Phaedra myth by Simon Stephens

A theatre boss has promised to channel the “pioneering spirit of Manchester” and be “brave and fearless” as she unveiled a new season of work, two years after a deeply damaging censorship row.

Selina Cartmell, the artistic director of the Royal Exchange in Manchester, revealed details of 2027-28 productions that include a retelling of the Munich air disaster and a modern Stockport-set version of the ancient Greek myth Phaedra.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

© Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

© Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

The award-winning Irish novelist faces possible arrest if she enters the UK. Yet, Britain has welcomed the ex-commander of Syria’s al-Qaeda offshoot with open arms, writes Fatima Bhutto.

Sadiq Khan's Culture Team has blocked Charlotte Gill on X after she flagged their bonkers £500,000 woke grants – funding queer birding, doll workshops and a solarpunk festival. Your money at work.

The post Why Was I Blocked on X by the Mayor of London’s Culture Team? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Haaretz: "If there is one thing clear from Netanyahu's recent behavior and declarations, it's that there is no ploy, no manipulation, no lie he wouldn't use, if it keeps him out of a cell"

As a free speech absolutist, Elon Musk is making a mistake going after Nitter, says Dr R P. He should instead be praising the site that helps users speak freely, uninhibited by login screens that undermine their privacy.

The post Musk’s Perplexing Battle With Nitter and the Problem With Locking the Internet Behind Login Screens appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

The article argues that British scrutiny of alleged Russian interference overlooks what it describes as more extensive Israeli, billionaire and US influence operations affecting UK politics, media and public debate.

Maj. Jason Watson was arrested after he participated in a news conference calling for Trump to be removed from office over his launching of military actions against Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without congressional authorization

Major drivers of the repression include pressure from wealthy pro-Israel donors, government interference, and the political loyalties of university administrators and trustees, according to a new report.

Graham Linehan, the Father Ted creator, may have been unfairly arrested by the Metropolitan Police because of his gender-critical views, the police watchdog has said.

The post Metropolitan Police May Have Unfairly Arrested Linehan Over Gender Critical Views, Says Watchdog appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

After Trump banned CNN, MSNow and Politico from press access to the presidency, even Fox boycotted the White House. The press needs to show the same backbone when it comes to Gaza. Major news organizations need to boycott Israel until it opens up Gaza to international coverage

The Supreme Court’s decision to force Palestinian politician Sami Abu Shehadeh out of the upcoming Israeli elections is the latest sign that there is no place for Palestinian citizens of Israel in the ‘Jewish and democratic’ state.

The Social Reckoning, Aaron Sorkin's latest jab at Big Tech, is conceived as a political and social prosecution of Facebook.

The social network and its owner, Mark Zuckerberg, in the movie's view, are responsible for the spread of misinformation, the decline of journalism, the polarization of the electorate, and the radicalization of specific individuals who go on to commit heinous acts of anti-democratic violence. In its final moments, the film strongly implies that Facebook and its engagement-boosting algorithms are directly responsible for the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Donald Trump, the election-losing president whose incendiary speech and repeated falsehoods about the results of the 2020 election preceded the riot, is never named in the movie. In a movie that positions itself as bold and brave, it's an omission of stunning, and revealing, cowardice. 

To bring Trump into the picture would have complicated Sorkin's just-so story, in which Facebook's refusal to fact-check political ads and decision to boost engagement through a change in its recommendation algorithm are the central, and, at least within the movie's narrow frame, even sole cause of all that ails American democracy. Sorkin's story has no room for nuance or ambiguity, no interest in the larger political-social dynamics at work in the late 2010s and early 2020s, no time for disconfirming data that violates his narrative. He has found a pure villain in Facebook's founder, and that's the only story he wants to tell. 

Like so many of Sorkin's films, The Social Reckoning is structured around what amounts to a trial, in this case a mock congressional hearing set up for Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, in advance of an appearance on Capitol Hill. The action inside that room is informed by a larger story that revolves around Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz's (played by Jeremy Allen White) quest to understand and uncover documentation that led to his award-winning investigative series, The Facebook Files. Horwitz works with Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook engineer who has concerns about the company's practices and begins leaking information in hopes of causing internal change. She's an anxious, socially awkward recluse; he's a tech-ignorant reporter who ended up on the Big Tech beat. The pairing allows Sorkin to build scene after scene of exposition and explanation, in which Haugen details various Facebook technical decisions believed to have dire social consequences. 

Most notable among these is an algorithmic switch to something called "MSI," or "meaningful social interactions." Essentially, the network prioritized depth of engagement over simple likes, leading to a boost in usage, as well as an increase in exposure to radical groups and content. The movie poses as a sophisticated journalistic explainer, but its core argument is quite simple: Facebook changed its algorithm in a way that benefited the company but harmed society by pushing content from hate groups and other disreputable types. That, in turn, led to January 6. Case closed. 

But what if the case isn't so simple? In these pages, Elizabeth Nolan Brown has outlined the many ways in which social media algorithms, especially on Facebook, have been unjustly maligned: Instead of causing polarization by locking people into narrow political bubbles, they can offer greater exposure to opposing views and even promote democratic virtues. The supposed negative effects of tech on children are, at minimum, disputed and in most cases probably overstated; some studies suggest that tech can enhance youth mental health. It's notable that Sorkin's story uses the violent calamity of January 6—a truly dark day for America—as his climactic argument. He can't use the election of 2020, because that election was won by Joe Biden. So he falls back to the ugliness of the riot, while ignoring Donald Trump. 

The movie is framed in personal terms via the story of one woman's radicalization. The woman—rich, white, entitled, casually racist during a drunken encounter with cops that she films and posts on social media—turns out to be a friend of Haugen's, which is what drives her to go public about her employer. Sorkin uses the woman as a symbol of all that Facebook has done wrong; she's a consequence of Zuckerberg's disregard for democracy and truth.  

But in real life, Haugen's never-named radicalized friend was a man, not a woman, who became obsessed with conspiratorial notions about politics, not a racist social-media troll. Sorkin's film is fiction, a dramatic retelling of events rather than a just-the-facts journalistic account, so it doesn't quite need to be held to the same standard. But it's notable that he has to massage the details in order to make his point. Perhaps he's doing so in service of a deeper truth. But that deeper truth isn't strictly true. 

Humans are messy and complicated, and so is democracy. But Sorkin can't handle those complications. Instead, he delivers a smug, simplistic narrative that traffics in borderline misinformation while pretending to crusade for the truth. Maybe what we really need is a reckoning with Aaron Sorkin. 

The post Aaron Sorkin's New Anti-Facebook Movie Is a Stunning Act of Self-Satisfied Cowardice appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Oxford University has told staff not to use common phrases such as "learn the ropes" or "find your feet" over fears they confuse foreign students, sparking concern at the new scheme of language policing.

The post Oxford Tells Staff Not to Use Common Phrases Like “Learn the Ropes” for Fear of Confusing Foreign Students appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce faces criminal charges for standing silently on a street, saying nothing and obstructing no one. Whatever your views on abortion, CJ Strachan argues that criminalising silent prayer is not who we are.

The post When Prayer Becomes a Crime: This is Not British appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

A councillor has been punished for raising safeguarding concerns about an LGBTQ stall displaying a large purple dildo next to a children’s colouring area at a family library. With the help of the FSU, he's fighting back.

The post Councillor Sues Devon Council After Being Punished for Criticising Gay Sex Stall Next to Children’s Colouring Area in Family Library appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Professor Roger Watson reviews The Trials of Maurice Brophy, the new novel by Marcus Bland about a Cambridge academic whose life spirals after he finds himself summarily cancelled over his research on Wagner.

The post An Ode to Cancel Culture appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.