GET THE APP
Friday, September 19, 2025

Category: 1A
September 3, 2025
1A
News
UK

WATCH: Nigel Farage Defends Free Speech Before House Judiciary Committee.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: A House Judiciary Committee hearing transformed into a debate over online content rules and their impact on Western values after Reform Party leader Nigel Farage testified on the erosion of free speech rights in the United Kingdom.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Nigel Farage, Jim Jordan (R-OH), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and others.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: September 3, 2025, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “We’ve kind of forgotten the Voltairian principles that we will fight and defend to the death your right to say something that we fundamentally disagree with. That is the absolute foundation, if you think about it, of free speech, of democracy, of living in freedom.” – Nigel Farage

🎯IMPACT: The hearing intensified the debate on censorship in the United Kingdom and online speech regulations.

IN FULL

Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee by Nigel Farage, leader of Britain’s populist Reform Party, on the state of free speech in his country on Wednesday quickly turned into a debate over online content rules and their impact on Western freedoms. Farage raised cases like those of Graham Linehan, an Irish comedy writer arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport for social media posts about transgenderism that he sent while in the United States, and Lucy Connolly, a mother of young children imprisoned for making unflattering comments about asylum seekers in the wake of a mass stabbing in Southport, England.

“We’ve kind of forgotten the Voltairian principles that we will fight and defend to the death your right to say something that we fundamentally disagree with. That is the absolute foundation, if you think about it, of free speech, of democracy, of living in freedom,” Farage told the committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).

Of Linehan’s case in particular, he stressed, “He’s not even a British citizen. He’s an Irish citizen. This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow that has said things online that the British government and British police don’t like,” adding: “At what point did we become North Korea? Well, I think [Linehan] found that out two days ago.”

Farage criticized Britain’s new Online Safety Act and similar censorship regulations in the European Union (EU), warning Europe was falling into an “awful, authoritarian situation” and cautioning America not to go down the same path.

Committee member Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who has clashed with Farage before, attempted to undermine the Brexit champion, suggesting he did not really believe in free speech because he once opposed allowing pro-Palestinian protesters to demonstrate practically on top of a Remembrance Sunday service honoring Britain’s war dead. Raskin also interrogated Farage over his party supposedly not giving interviews or press credentials to certain media outlets and journalists, although the Democrat failed to explain how this would be comparable to law enforcement arresting social media users for “grossly offensive” posts.

The hearing is ongoing…

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
September 3, 2025
1A
UK

Nigel Farage to Warn Congress of British Government’s ‘War on Freedom.’

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: Reform Party leader Nigel Farage is set to speak at the U.S. Congress, accusing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer of a “war on freedom” and calling for the U.S. to impose penalties on countries restricting free speech.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Nigel Farage, Sir Keir Starmer, arrested comedy writer Graham Linehan, and others.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Farage will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., later today.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “The Graham Linehan case is yet another example of the war on freedom in the UK.” – Nigel Farage

🎯IMPACT: The testimony follows the arrest of Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at London’s Heathrow airport, over social media posts critical of transgenderism.

IN FULL

Reform Party leader Nigel Farage will address the Judiciary Committee in the U.S. today, where he will accuse Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, of the far-left Labour Party, of waging a “war on freedom.” He is expected to call on the Trump administration to impose diplomatic and trade sanctions on countries that curb free speech, spotlighting the recent case of Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan being arrested by five armed police officers at London’s Heathrow Airport for posts on X (formerly Twitter) critical of transgenderism.

“The Graham Linehan case is yet another example of the war on freedom in the UK,” Farage is expected to tell Congress. He will also address the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, a mother with young children who was prosecuted after calling for “mass deportations now” and saying she would not care if asylum hotels were burned down following the murder of multiple little girls by a migration-background teenager in Southport, England.

“Free speech is a fundamentally British value. We would do well to remember that every signatory of the American Declaration of Independence was, after all, a British subject,” he is expected to say.

Sir Mark Rowley, who leads London’s Metropolitan Police force, has claimed his officers are in an “impossible position” due to the various laws against “grossly offensive” communications and inciting “hatred” in Britain—although there is no law forcing them to aggressively pursue people for speech crimes when assaults, burglaries, and other crimes most members of the public would consider more important usually go unsolved and often uninvestigated.

In an attempt to counter Farage, Prime Minister Starmer claims the Brexit champion is being “unpatriotic” by raising Britain’s erosion of free speech, with the notionally right-wing Conservative (Tory) Party that governed the country before Labour echoing the same talking points.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
August 28, 2025
1A
TECH

4Chan, Kiwi Farms Take Legal Action Against Britain for Infringing First Amendment.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: Online forums 4Chan and Kiwi Farms filed a lawsuit against British communications regulator Ofcom over alleged violations of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: 4Chan, Kiwi Farms, Ofcom, and the federal court in Washington, D.C.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed recently in Washington, D.C., following the British government’s implementation of the censorious Online Safety Act last month.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Ofcom’s conception of keeping users safe is keeping them safe from encountering points of view of which Ofcom disapproves.” – Legal filing by 4Chan and Kiwi Farms.

🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit challenges the application of the Online Safety Act to U.S.-based platforms, raising questions about jurisdiction and free speech rights.

IN FULL

Controversial online forums 4Chan and Kiwi Farms have filed a lawsuit in federal court against British communications regulator Ofcom, arguing that the British government’s recently enacted Online Safety Act violates the free speech rights of American citizens. The lawsuit seeks to block Ofcom from enforcing the law against the two U.S.-based websites.

The Online Safety Act, which came into effect last month, grants Ofcom broad authority to censor digital platforms with significant British user bases or target audiences, regardless of where the platforms are based. According to the legal filing, Ofcom has already issued notices to both 4Chan and Kiwi Farms, threatening criminal penalties and investigations if they fail to comply with their censorship regime.

In their complaint, the platforms argue that the law is being misused to infringe upon the constitutional rights of Americans. “Ofcom’s ambitions are to regulate internet communications for the entire world, regardless of where these websites are based or whether they have any connection to the UK,” the filing states. They further claim that the law is designed to “target the free speech rights of American citizens,” even though the platforms operate in accordance with U.S. law.

A spokesman for Ofcom defended the regulator’s actions, saying, “Under the Online Safety Act, any service that has links with the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world it is based. The Act does not, however, require them to protect users based anywhere else in the world.”

The legislation has sparked widespread backlash in the United States and the United Kingdom alike. Critics argue that the law imposes broad censorship measures under the guise of online safety. The Act allows Ofcom to mandate content removal and impose age restrictions, with penalties for non-compliance reaching up to £18 million (~$24.3 million) or 10 percent of a company’s global revenue. Users in Britain have already reported being blocked from accessing political content, including videos of anti-immigration protests. X owner and tech billionaire Elon Musk publicly criticized the law, saying its “purpose is suppression of the people.”

Earlier this month, a British court upheld the law after the Wikimedia Foundation challenged its implications for user privacy and freedom of expression. Meanwhile, U.S. officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, have raised alarms about the global impact of British censorship. “We… know that there have been infringements of free speech that actually affect not just the British… but also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens,” Vance said in February, warning that Britain is on a “dangerous path” with respect to regulating speech online.

Image by Ivan Radic.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
August 21, 2025
1A
UK

Woman Imprisoned for Anti-Immigration Social Media Post Released.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: A woman convicted of “inciting racial hatred” via a social media post following the mass murder of young girls in Southport, England, by a teen of migrant background has been released from prison after serving 40 percent of her sentence.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Lucy Connolly, 42, a mother and wife of a Northampton town councillor, and various legal and political figures, including Judge Melbourne Inman and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Connolly posted to X (formerly Twitter) on July 29, 2024, and she was arrested on August 6, 2024. She was released from His Majesty’s Prison (HMP) Peterborough in August 2025.

🎯IMPACT: The case has reignited debates over free speech and two-tier justice in the United Kingdom.

IN FULL

A British woman who was imprisoned for a social media post calling for mass deportations has been released early, with her case having ignited fierce debate over what critics are calling the UK’s two-tier justice system.

Lucy Connolly, 42, was freed from HMP Peterborough after serving roughly 13 months of a 31-month sentence for “inciting racial hatred.” Connolly was convicted over a tweet posted after the Southport stabbing attack in 2024, where three young girls were brutally killed by the son of two Rwandan asylum seekers.

The post read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f**king hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it.”

The post was deleted a few hours later, but it triggered swift police action. Connolly was arrested just days later, on August 6, 2024. Connolly, who is married to a local councillor for the Conservative Party in Northampton, pleaded guilty, in large part because she was refused bail—despite being a nonviolent first-time offender—and faced a lengthy spell in jail ahead of her trial, possibly as long as a reduced sentence for pleading guilty.

Many have noted that the draconian length of her sentence—31 months—was far longer than many sentences handed to pedophiles and violent criminals. Notably, Salman Iftikhar, a Pakistani businessman with the British equivalent of a green card, in recent weeks received only 15 months for physically accosting an air stewardess, calling her a “white sheep-shagging bitch,” and threatening that she would be “gang raped and set on fire” after the hotel she was staying at was “blown up.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, of the far-left Labour Party, defended the conviction during Prime Minister’s Questions, stating, “I am strongly in favor of free speech… but I am equally against incitement to violence against other people. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.”

The Trump administration in the United States takes the view that you cannot claim to be in favor of free speech while imprisoning people for social media commentary, with a recent State Department human rights report warning of “serious restrictions on freedom of expression” in Britain that have “worsened” under Starmer.

Connolly will complete the remainder of her sentence out on license in the community, with the possibility of being returned to prison if she breaches her license conditions.

Image by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street. 

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
August 18, 2025
1A
News

Germany Dismisses U.S. Free Speech Concerns Despite Rising Social Media Arrests.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: German officials have pushed back at a U.S. State Department human rights report that claims the country is suppressing free speech online.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: State Department, German government officials, German federal spokesman Steffen Meyer.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: August 2025, Germany and the United States.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “A very high degree of freedom of expression prevails, and we will continue to defend this in every possible way,” claimed German federal spokesman Steffen Meyer.

🎯IMPACT: The pushback comes as German citizens continue to be arrested for social media posts branded hate speech or public insults by German government officials.

IN FULL

German authorities have dismissed accusations in a recent U.S. State Department human rights report that alleges the country is suppressing free expression, particularly on social media. The U.S. report expressed concern that German authorities are restricting public discourse in the name of combating hate speech.

“There is no censorship here in Germany,” said government spokesman Steffen Meyer, representing Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s cabinet. “A very high degree of freedom of expression prevails, and we will continue to defend this in every possible way,” Meyer claimed.

However, so-called hate speech against immigrants and other groups is indeed an arrestable offense in Germany, as are public insults, particularly against politicians and other officials. In one instance, a 64-year-old man was fined €825 (around $962) and police raided his home after he shared a meme that labeled former Economy Minister Robert Habeck a “professional idiot.”

In one particularly egregious case, a German woman was imprisoned for defamation after she called an immigrant gang rapist a “disgraceful rapist pig” and “disgusting freak”—getting a harsher punishment than the rapist himself, who received only a suspended sentence.

Vice President J.D. Vance has sharply criticized Europe’s handling of free speech, including in Germany. During a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, he asserted, “Across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” He blamed European governments for using “ugly, Soviet‑era words like misinformation and disinformation” to suppress dissenting viewpoints, arguing that such practices protect entrenched interests, not democracy.

“The threat that I worry the most about vis‑à‑vis Europe is not Russia… It’s the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values,” he said. He emphasized that “democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters.”

Vance later questioned whether the U.S. taxpayer should continue defending Germany if “you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet.”

Image by Michael Lucan.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
August 13, 2025
1A
UK

Trump Admin Slams British Censorship Regime in Human Rights Report.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. State Department released its annual Human Rights Report, highlighting serious and growing restrictions on freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The State Department, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s government in the United Kingdom, and individuals targeted by the British government for their speech.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: The report was released on August 12, 2025, with the relevant sections focusing on events in the United Kingdom.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Societies are strengthened by free expression of opinion, and government censorship is intolerable in a free society.” – State Department Press Secretary Tammy Bruce

🎯IMPACT: The report underscores growing concerns about free speech collapsing in Britain.

IN FULL

The Trump administration has raised concerns about the collapse of free speech protections in the United Kingdom, warning that government censorship is becoming more widespread. In its annual Human Rights Report, the U.S. State Department cited “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression” in Britain, adding that the situation had “worsened” in 2024 following Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s election win last July, returning the leftist Labour Party to power for the first time in 14 years.

The report criticized the United Kingdom’s controversial Online Safety Act, which allegedly aims to tackle harmful online content, such as child pornography, but has drawn criticism for stifling political speech on issues such as immigration. It also examines the British government’s response to the mass murder of young children by the son of two asylum seekers in Southport, England, accusing officials of using the incident to suppress speech.

While not named in the report, Lucy Connolly, a former childminder and wife of a Conservative Party councillor, was reportedly of interest to the White House. Connolly was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for a post on X after the Southport killings, in which she wrote: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

Critics claim her sentence is part of a “two-tier justice” system, with some voices facing harsher consequences than others for speech. For instance, Salman Iftikhar, a Pakistani businessman with the British equivalent of a green card, received only 15 months for physically accosting a white air stewardess and telling her she would be “dragged by [her] hair” from the specific hotel where cabin crew were staying and “gang raped and set on fire”. He added that “the white sheep-shagging bitch will be dead. The floor of [her] hotel will be blown up and it will disappear.”

The U.S. report also referenced Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old veteran convicted in 2023 for silently praying outside an abortion clinic in memory of his aborted son. His case was cited by Vice President J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, where he warned that Britain was facing a “crisis of censorship.”

State Department Press Secretary Tammy Bruce said: “We consider freedom of expression to be a foundational component of a functioning democracy,” adding: “Societies are strengthened by free expression of opinion, and government censorship is intolerable in a free society.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
August 11, 2025
1A
Religion

Supreme Court Petitioned to Revisit Gay Marriage Decision.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: Kim Davis, a former Kentucky clerk, has filed a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that her First Amendment rights protect her from liability for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Kim Davis, her attorney Mathew Staver, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Davis’s petition was filed last month, with the case potentially being heard by the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “If there ever was a case of exceptional importance… this should be it.” – Mathew Staver

🎯IMPACT: If accepted, this case could challenge the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

IN FULL

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who became widely known in 2015 for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses due to her religious beliefs, has taken her case to the Supreme Court. Filed last month, her petition argues that the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom should shield her from personal liability in denying the licenses.

Davis’s legal team, led by attorney Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, is also challenging the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage across the United States. In the petition, Staver described the ruling as “egregiously wrong” and referred to former Justice Anthony Kennedy‘s majority opinion as “legal fiction.”

“The mistake must be corrected,” Staver wrote, emphasizing the broad implications of the case. He continued, “If there ever was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

“I’m hoping that we’ll obviously get justice in this case for Kim Davis, but that the religious accommodation that she obtained for all clerks in Kentucky is extended to everyone across the country, whether they’re a clerk or not,” Staver added.

Davis’s case not only seeks to clear her name but also aims to revisit and potentially overturn the landmark pro same-sex marriage ruling issued during the Obama-Biden administration. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it would mark the first significant challenge to the Obergefell decision.

The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for both religious liberty and the legal definition of marriage in the United States. Observers are now waiting to see if the Supreme Court will take up the case.

Image by Photo Phiend.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
July 31, 2025
William Upton
1A
UK

Democrat Jamie Raskin Backs UK Govt’s Censorship Law.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is backing the British government’s Online Safety Act—a censorship law which critics argue stifles free speech and is aimed at harming U.S.-based social media and technology companies—after a blow-up with Reform Party leader Nigel Farage.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Reps. Jamie Raskin, Eric Swalwell, Jasmine Crockett, and Jim Jordan; Nigel Farage, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and British Technology Secretary Peter Kyle.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: Raskin’s embrace of the Online Safety Act came during a congressional delegation trip to the UK this week.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “We thought there were some very good things in the Online Safety Act…” — Rep. Jamie Raskin

🎯IMPACT: The Democratic Party’s embrace of UK-style censorship is well outside the American legal mainstream regarding free speech rights and appears to be driven almost entirely by Raskin and others’ desire to undermine President Donald J. Trump.

IN FULL

Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is backing Britain’s far-left Labour Party government on the Online Safety Act—a censorship law that stifles free speech and harms U.S.-based social media and technology companies. The Maryland Democrat’s embrace of British censorship came this week as American lawmakers traveled to Great Britain on a congressional delegation led by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH).

“We thought there were some very good things in the Online Safety Act, and there might be some problematic things,” Raskin said during an interview with the press in London. The staunchly anti-Trump Democrat added: “I think the intervention of Democrats who don’t have a dog in that fight was maybe too much for [Nigel Farage] to handle, but we did want to make some general points about the freedom of speech.”

Raskin’s reference to Reform Party leader Nigel Farage stemmed from an argument that broke out between Congressional Democrats and the Brexit leader during a meeting with British lawmakers. Farage was responding to off-topic remarks Raskin made, accusing U.S. President Donald J. Trump of being a threat to free speech. Raskin states that Farage injected during his remarks, stating, “We’re not here to talk about Donald Trump.” The Marland Democrat continued: “[Farage] said that I am a guest here, and I should act like a guest. And I told him that he was a host, and he should act like a host.”

House Democrats claim Farage accused Raskin of being “the most pig-headed person he’d ever met,” while Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) alleges, “Farage just looked unhinged and like a giant manbaby.”

For his part, Raskin defended his own outburst by dismissing Farage’s valid concerns regarding his own experience being the target of politically motivated censorship, such as debanking, by stating the incident was an “explosive reaction of one British politician who obviously didn’t want any challenge to his view that he’s a free speech victim.”

Notably, Farage has been the target of political smears because of his pro-British stances. The National Pulse reported earlier this year that Farage successfully resolved his long-standing debanking dispute with NatWest Group, nearly two years after the closure of his accounts at the bank’s Coutts subsidiary. The settlement, which includes an apology from NatWest, brings closure to a saga that led to the resignation of the bank’s former chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, in 2023.

Additionally, Farage was smeared as being “on the side” of pedophiles and extreme pornographers in comments made by British Technology Secretary Peter Kyle over the Reform leader’s pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act. The National Pulse reported Wednesday that the office of the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, approved the remarks by Kyle.

Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, often accused of taking her duties as a lawmaker less than seriously, quipped, “There was a little bit of drama, and somehow it did not involve me or Swalwell.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
July 23, 2025
1A
News

New York Pays Out $225K After Trying to Force Christian Photographer to Shoot Gay Weddings.

PULSE POINTS

âť“WHAT HAPPENED: New York agreed to pay $225,000 in legal fees to Christian wedding photographer Emilee Carpenter and promised not to enforce laws that infringed on her First Amendment rights by trying to coerce her into shooting homosexual weddings.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Emilee Carpenter, New York Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci, and the Alliance Defending Freedom.

đź“ŤWHEN & WHERE: The legal battle concluded with a consent decree following a May ruling in a New York federal court.

đź’¬KEY QUOTE: “New Yorkers can now enjoy the freedom to create and express themselves, a freedom that protects all Americans regardless of their views,” said Bryan Neihart of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

🎯IMPACT: The decision upholds First Amendment protections for creative professionals, potentially setting a significant precedent for similar cases.

IN FULL

After a four-year legal battle, the State of New York has agreed to pay Christian wedding photographer Emilee Carpenter $225,000 in legal fees and to stop enforcing laws that violate her First Amendment rights. The settlement allows Carpenter to decline photographing homosexual weddings without fear of state penalties.

The agreement, detailed in a consent decree between New York Attorney General Letitia James and Carpenter’s legal team at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), follows a ruling in May by U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci, a Barack Obama appointee, who stated it was “beyond debate” that New York cannot use public accommodations laws to “compel speech.”

“New Yorkers can now enjoy the freedom to create and express themselves, a freedom that protects all Americans regardless of their views,” ADF senior counsel Bryan Neihart stated.

The case was returned to the lower court by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s public accommodations law in the high-profile 303 Creative case, where graphic designer Lorie Smith won the right to refuse homosexual wedding clients. Colorado eventually agreed to pay Smith $1.5 million in legal expenses.

Judge Geraci issued a “narrow” preliminary injunction preventing New York from “peculiarly” targeting Carpenter. Under the consent decree, James’ office committed to refraining from applying New York’s public accommodations, discrimination, and publication laws in ways that would force Carpenter and her company to provide the same wedding and engagement photography services to homosexual couples as they do to heterosexual couples.

The agreement also affirms Carpenter’s right to “adopt their desired Beliefs and Practices policy,” to post and promote that policy publicly, and to ask potential clients “questions sufficient to determine” if they are requesting services for a homosexual wedding.

Image by Matt Cohen.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more