iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

Trump filed multiple actions to keep the case out of federal court, and there was a lot of litigation over which court should hear it.

000

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

The leader of the free world lost in two separate legal cases over his efforts to suppress "fake news." In the span of eight hours.

0100

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Real credit on this goes to @ctfitzpatrick.bsky.social and others on the team. They did the heavy lifting. I’m just a glorified cheerleader on this one.

150

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

"This case is different. This suit involves speech on a matter of public interest and concern, and allowing a legally faulty claim like this to proceed carries a cost ... because defending it can discourage others from reporting on and debating public affairs."

1607

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

BREAKING: An Iowa state court dismisses President Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer (represented by @thefireorg.bsky.social) and the Des Moines Register newspaper, a victory for First Amendment rights. Opinion here: www.fire.org/research-lea...

This case sets a President, a member of Congress, and a former state senator against a pollster and a newspaper, and it arises out of an election. A case of that kind invites the reader to look for a political result. The Court’s role is narrower. It is to sit as an impartial arbiter, to apply the law without passion or prejudice, and to rule without regard to the politics of the day. As such, the only question before the Court is whether the Petition states a claim the law recognizes. At its core, the Plaintiffs’ Petition seeks to stretch both Iowa statutory and common law beyond their current bounds, turning speech that enjoys the highest category of First Amendment protection into a liability. After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court must conclude that the protection is too great and the reach is too far. The case must therefore be dismissed.

141127266

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

Trump says he will appeal decision on his media ban. The court has not yet ruled—he just knows he is going to lose.

“Truth”: As expected, Fake News CNN,
Politico (Pay back the 8 Million Dollar contribution made by the U.S.
Government to keep them afloat!), and MSNOW (formerly known as MSDNC!), have brought suit to gain access to the White House, and your President, ME! They have drawn a great Judge, for them, a man who ruled in favor of Jim Acosta, who now seems to have disappeared from the Planet. The Judge's name is Tim Kelly, and he was, sadly, appointed by
"TRUMP." In other words, almost without question and, as usual, we'll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown

1295

Reposted by Adam Steinbaugh

NPR @npr.org · 16/09/2026

ICE agents turned up at David Streever's home over a harsh email he sent to an ICE official. Now a court order prevents the federal government from making additional threats against him. n.pr/4irNxUL

n.pr

Judge blocks DHS from acting against a man over a harsh email to an ICE official

ICE agents turned up at David Streever's home over a harsh email he sent to an ICE official. Now a court order prevents the federal government from making additional threats against him.

351361358

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

BREAKING: Federal court stops ICE from enforcing a "WARNING NOTICE" it issued to a Rochester man over an email criticizing ICE's director: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... A First Amendment victory by @thefireorg.bsky.social

Applying this standard, Mr. Streever is likely to succeed in showing that Defendants engaged in coercion, rather than persuasion. OPR did not ask kindly if Mr. Streever would tone down his rhetoric. It dispatched two agents to his home for an unannounced visit where they delivered a “WARNING NOTICE.” Compl., Ex. 2 (emphasis in original). Although that notice “request[ed]” that Mr. Streever “discontinue” his political expression, it characterized that

political expression as potentially violating federal law which “could subject [him] to both federal and state prosecution.” Id. (emphasis in original). The notice practically shouts that Mr. Streever may be prosecuted if he continues to engage in his political speech. Even if Defendants’ benign explanation of the notice were plausible, Mr. Streever “reasonably understood [the notice] to convey a threat of adverse government action,” namely prosecution. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n, 602 U.S. at 191. And no one disputes that prosecution would constitute an adverse government action for First Amendment purposes. See City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462–63 (1987) (“The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”); Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 235 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding that “threats of prosecution” from a sheriff constituted coercion under the First Amendment). Mr. Streever is therefore likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

615241

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

An Emergency old enough to vote, drink, and rent a car.

1258

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 04/09/2026

The power company abandoned its quest for a preliminary injunction — but is continuing its SLAPP lawsuit against newspapers and a FOIA requestor. Its CEO says that its SLAPP lawsuit is the “right thing” to do. www.entergy.com/blog/message...

You may also be wondering why we sought legal action to keep this information out of public view – because it is confidential customer information that was inadvertently shared outside of our control. If a news outlet was trying to publish your confidential data, just as was done here, we’d take action to safeguard your information. We take the protection of your information seriously not just because we are bound by state law to do so, but because it’s the right thing to do.

2154

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

If the government publicly releases information -- even if it's really sensitive and shared by mistake -- courts cannot order the genie back into the bottle. See, for example, Florida Star v. BJF, where police accidentally revealed the name of a rape victim. www.fire.org/supreme-cour...

A second consideration undergirding the Daily Mail principle is the fact that punishing the press for its dissemination of information which is already publicly available is relatively unlikely to advance the interests in the service of which the State seeks to act. It is not, of course, always the case that information lawfully acquired by the press is known, or accessible, to others. But where the government has made certain information publicly available, it is highly anomalous to sanction persons other than the source of its release. We noted this anomaly in Cox Broadcasting: "By placing the information in the public domain on official court records, the State must be presumed to have concluded that the public interest was thereby being served." 420 U. S., at 495. The Daily Mail formulation reflects the fact that it is a limited set of cases indeed where, despite the accessibility of the public to certain information, a meaningful public interest is served by restricting its further release by other entities, like the press. As Daily Mail observed in its summary of Oklahoma Publishing, "once the truthful information was `publicly revealed' or `in the public domain' the court could not constitutionally restrain its dissemination." 443 U. S., at 103.

First is the manner in which appellant obtained the identifying information in question. As we have noted, where the government itself provides information to the media, it is most appropriate to assume that the government had, but failed to utilize, far more limited means of guarding against dissemination than the extreme step of punishing truthful speech. That assumption is richly borne out in this case. B. J. F.'s identity would never have come to light were it not for the erroneous, if inadvertent, inclusion by the Department of her full name in an incident report made available in a pressroom open to the public. Florida's policy against disclosure of rape victims' identities, reflected in § 794.03, was undercut by the Department's failure to abide by this policy. Where, as here, the government has failed to police itself in disseminating information, it is clear under Cox Broadcasting, Oklahoma Publishing, and Landmark Communications that the imposition of damages against the press for its subsequent publication can hardly be said to be a narrowly tailored means of safeguarding anonymity. See supra, at 534-535. Once the government has placed such information in the public domain, "reliance must rest upon the judgment of those who decide what to publish or broadcast," Cox Broadcasting, 420 U. S., at 496, and hopes for restitution must rest upon the willingness of the government to compensate victims for their loss of privacy and to protect them from the other consequences of its mishandling of the information which these victims provided in confidence.

1344

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Entergy is asking for is a prior restraint. That's the "most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." fire.org/supreme-cour... Even Walter Sobchak knows that.

Screenshot of the Big Lebowski's Walter Sobchak telling a waitress that the "Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint." He's not *wrong*...

1365

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

The lawsuit says that Arkansas' public energy commission "mistakenly" released records in response to a FOIA request by Jessica Kivell, who provided them to journalists. Here's the complaint: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... But the motion for a TRO? That's sealed.

storage.courtlistener.com

Complaint – #1 in Entergy Arkansas LLC v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Inc (E.D. Ark., 4:26-cv-00899) – CourtListener.com

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Entergy Arkansas LLC against All Defendants. ( Fee $405, Receipt Number LIT15782.) Summons...

1154

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Appalling: Energy company drags a mother into federal court, trying to stop her from sharing FOIA'd records -- records the state *gave her* -- about an Arkansas data center. And it wants the court to censor newspaper coverage. She left the courtroom "weeping loudly." arktimes.com/arkansas-blo...

Sasser’s piece revealed that despite claims made during Entergy’s and Google’s fervid PR campaign, Google will not be picking up the total cost for a new solar array being built to feed its new data center’s enormous electricity appetite. Google will pay for only a third of the new solar plant. The mistakenly shared documents also revealed that the West Memphis data center will eventually slurp up the entirety of the electricity produced by the solar array.

Sasser’s story sent Entergy into a panic that trade secrets contained in the mistakenly shared documents might slice mightily into their profits and inhibit future development potential. Entergy attorneys and officials showed up to the courthouse Tuesday with aims to lock down the documents in question to prevent any more of the information from making its way into the public eye.

Kivell, visibly scared and overwhelmed by the legal drama she seemed to have stumbled into, arrived to the 4 p.m. hearing in her work scrubs after making arrangements to have her husband pick up their 2-year-old daughter from daycare. Kivell did not have legal representation present at the hearing.

The nearly 4-hour-long evening hearing in Rudofsky’s court included public arguments by both Marts and John Adams, an attorney representing the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The closed-door portion of the hearing included testimony from Kivell, and perhaps others. Kivell was weeping loudly when she left the hearing briefly, and at one point fell to the ground in the hallway on her way out of the court house. She returned shortly thereafter, still weeping.

310270

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

This is an important, targeted strike at the authority the federal government is using to harass non-citizens for speech. Solid First Amendment victory.

126461

Reposted by Adam Steinbaugh

Conor Fitzpatrick @ctfitzpatrick.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

VICTORY! Tonight, a federal court ruled in favor of a @thefireorg.bsky.social lawsuit and held the statutes the Trump administration is using for speech-based deportations violate the First Amendment

113042

Reposted by Adam Steinbaugh

David J. Bier @davidjbier.bsky.social · 19/08/2026

ICE admitted in court that it did, in fact, track down this man at his hotel with his 7-year-old daughter and gave him a threatening letter because he sent ICE Director Todd Lyons this email.

23617224

Reposted by Adam Steinbaugh

NPR @npr.org · 17/08/2026

Federal officials acknowledged that ICE special agents tracked a New York man to his house, the airport and a hotel to question him about a critical email he sent to the former head of ICE in January. n.pr/4g0bGQG

n.pr

DHS defends investigating agency critics and giving them warning notices

32322157

Reposted by Adam Steinbaugh

Patrick Monahan @pattymo.com · 23/02/2025

TOWN BULLY (NOTICING REACHER): Who’s this, your boyfriend? REACHER (BLOTTING OUT SUN): No,

464613618

Reposted by Adam Steinbaugh

Conor Fitzpatrick @ctfitzpatrick.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

This morning @thefireorg.bsky.social filed an amicus brief explaining why the First Amendment prohibits deporting lawfully present noncitizens based on protected speech. The brief covers the Framers’ backlash to the Alien Friends Act, which authorized Pres. Adams to deport “dangerous” aliens

1103

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Another day, another threat of another bogus defamation lawsuit from the leader of the free world. Federal anti-SLAPP statute when?

“Truth” post: Chandler Hall, representing, on Television, the foolish Center for American Lack of Progress, stated that adding the National Guard to Cities, including our now Great Again, Washington, D.C., had “NO impact on Crime.” How crazy is that. Hall was met with furious dissent. The report is just another Radical Left SCAM, as are the people who fund this gaggle of Lunatics, including George Soros, Bill and Melinda Gates, Google, Apple, Visa, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, WellsFargo, Bank of America, Walmart, Toyota, T-Mobile, and NBC Universal. Foreign support includes the Embassy of Japan, the Korea Foundation, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (Taiwan), and the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates. The Dumocrats love it, and are against anything “TRUMP.” These people, and others like them, are so bad for our Country. Their stated course is anything to hate or demean “TRUMP.” This will be met with a lawsuit, which is being drawn now. I am also strongly considering adding some of the contributors to this Fake Organization. Crime is way down since I took Office, and they know it. Liars, at this level, must be held accountable! President DONALD J. TRUMP

2279

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 08/08/2026

Yes, a public university is bound by the First Amendment; no, this is not incitement; yes, the First Amendment protects people who "celebrate" or "urge violence"; yes, it applies beyond arrests; no, that's not what the marketplace of ideas analogy means; no, this is not a "positive" for free speech.

1130

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 08/08/2026

Hitting every branch as it falls out of the Wrong Tree pjmedia.com/tim-o-brien/...

To start with, the First Amendment covers government censorship, and does not govern whether a university or college is compelled to let anyone who wants to speak there have a platform.

The First Amendment provides no protection to anyone who might incite others to break the law or cause violence. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The First Amendment does not provide protections for anyone who knowingly supports designated terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, or ISIS. It doesn’t protect those who celebrate attacks on civilians or urge violence against specific ethnic groups.

So, what to make of this? I’d say it’s a net positive for conservatives and for free speech. While Piker has a right to say whatever he wants to say without fear of government censorship or being arrested, he’s not entitled to whatever forums he chooses. In the marketplace of ideas, if the market rejects Piker’s toxic speech, that’s saying something. And don’t for one minute think universities aren’t part of that marketplace.

1181

Reposted by Adam Steinbaugh

Liz Dye @lizdye.bsky.social · 10/07/2026

Excellent coverage of the ongoing hearing in Trump's trollsuit against the Des Moines Reg and pollster Ann Selzer for whiffing a 2024 poll. Trump calls it a violation of the IA consumer fraud statute — a gross assault on the 1st Amendment. But also, any harm was to the campaign, not him personally.

612427

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 08/07/2026

“The purpose of the government’s intimidation tactics is clear: not only to terrorize the immediate critic into silence but also to send a message to others. In other words, to build the foundation of a police state.” wapo.st/4ybPSZa

wapo.st

Opinion | The Trump administration is cracking down on dissent. That’s chilling.

The government’s flagrant violations of the First Amendment threaten the heart of the American experiment.

0149

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 07/07/2026

BREAKING: Eleventh Circuit keeps Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" on ice, holding that university faculty are not government mouthpieces subject to the government's dictates. Solid victory for the First Amendment. www.fire.org/research-lea...

fire.org

Opinion - Eleventh Circuit - Novoa v. Diaz

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in Novoa v. Diaz.

227191

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 06/07/2026

This morning, we filed a federal lawsuit challenging what DHS is doing to David Streever: www.fire.org/news/ice-law...

822159

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 29/06/2026

I yell “fire!” in crowded theaters all the time

1150

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 28/06/2026

"Dear sir, please destroy evidence of the crime we think you committed." Uh, no?

010

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 28/06/2026

This email is not a threat. It's moral condemnation. It's political hyperbole. It's exactly in line with what the Supreme Court said was protected by the First Amendment in Watts v. United States: www.fire.org/supreme-cour...

The incident which led to petitioner's arrest occurred on August 27, 1966, during a public rally on the Washington Monument grounds. The crowd present broke up into small discussion groups and petitioner joined a gathering scheduled to discuss police brutality. Most of those in the group were quite young, either in their teens or early twenties. Petitioner, who himself was 18 years old, entered into the discussion after one member of the group suggested that the young people present should get more education before expressing their views. According to an investigator for the Army Counter Intelligence Corps who was present, petitioner responded: "They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J." "They are not going to make me kill my black brothers."

[T]he statute initially requires the Government to prove a true "threat." We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U. S. 53, 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President."

151817296

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 28/06/2026

Here is the "WARNING NOTICE" federal agents hand-delivered. "YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW" It's the second of these notices I am aware of. If you've received one, please get in touch: fire.org/alarm

WARNING NOTICE

YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is responsible for protecting ICE, its employees, and its facilities against internal and external threats. OPR is responsible for enforcing crimes against the United States as authorized under Title 19 of the U.S. Code and as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, including criminal investigations into threats made against ICE personnel. OPR has identified an email sent to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, which it has reason to believe may constitute a violation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Accordingly, OPR is requesting that you promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior.

This Notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties. 18 U.S.C. § 115(a). You are further advised that knowingly making restricted personal information about a covered person, or their immediate family member, publicly available with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that person; or with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, or intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that person violates federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 119. Violations of these or related laws could subject you to both federal and state prosecution.

OPR has documented the delivery of this Notice to you. Receipt of this Notice will be taken into consideration, should you continue to be involved in any criminal activities described above....

751648590

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 28/06/2026

After federal agents shot Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, a New Yorker sent ICE's director an email in January comparing him to a Nazi. This week, DHS agents stalked him across New York. His home. A hotel. They gave his wife a letter warning of criminal prosecution. www.syracuse.com/news/2026/06...

“You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher.

“The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall. Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.

“You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.”

21057882593

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

A free America doesn’t dispatch federal law enforcement agents to intimidate someone for an Instagram post of publicly available information. www.fire.org/news/stateme...

33723

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

Would be interested in talking with them (or their attorney if they're represented) -- adam@fire.org

4271

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

Maybe? But the lawyers who filed the lawsuit have since withdrawn and been replaced, so this is at least getting through multiple attorneys.

010

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

I don’t think this one was a problem with not understanding technology. Censorship is often ineffective because it’s infeasible to censor lots of people, but in this instance the only nonpublic entity with the video is the newspaper.

100

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

No — we sued over a similar California law and the state didn’t even fight it.

020

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

Right — and it tries to shift the burden to the press to justify the prior restraint (in that it wants more information about the newspaper’s source).

120

Adam Steinbaugh @adamsteinbaugh.bsky.social · 24/06/2026

A lot about the brief is wrong, but this is wildly misleading. These are two cases -- one of them the seminal prior restraint case -- in which the Supreme Court *rejected* prior restraints. So I guess it's true that courts have issued prior restraints... that were then overturned.

3. The injunctive relief sought is not an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court’s TRO and the requested injunctive relief are not unconstitutional prior restraints because they are narrowly tailored. A prior restraint is an “administrative and judicial order[s] forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.” Murray v. Lawson, 138 N.J. 206, 221 (1994) (citing Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 555 (1993)). However, not all injunctions that “incidentally affect expression” are prior restraints. Id. at 222 (citing Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 U.S. 753 (1994)). Although there is no precise test, the Supreme Court has considered a number of factors in determining whether a restriction is a prior restraint. Id. One such factor is whether the restraint prevents the expression of a message. Id. (citing Madsen, 512 U.S. at 766); see also Alexander 509 U.S. at 557-558. “[T]he Supreme Court has consistently found (often without discussion) that injunctions are prior restraints if they forbid entirely the publication of a message.” Id. Indeed, courts have frequently enjoined media where the injunction had only a minor or indirect effect on speech. See e.g. CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315 (1994) (enjoining CBS from airing video taken at meat-packing company); Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (enjoining news media from publishing or broadcasting accounts of defendant's confessions and admissions until jury was impaneled).

3193