Your fact-checks will appear here
2003 film
Legal restrictions on wearing and tactical personal protective equipment (PPE) at public protests vary widely: many state and local "anti‑mask" statutes either bar masks in public or criminalize weari...
is a protected civic right but it is not absolute: governments can impose narrow, content‑neutral “” restrictions and property owners may set rules on their land . Organizers who prepare logistics, un...
Briefly visiting a clear‑web nudist website by itself has not been shown in the provided reporting to be a routine basis for arrest; legal Q&A sources consistently conclude that accidental or momentar...
On today’s books, penalties for wholly AI‑generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) can be lighter than for material involving real children because prosecutors sometimes must charge under differen...
The number of images in a child sexual abuse material (CSAM) case matters to prosecutors, victims and courts—but not in a simple “more images = automatic extra years” formula; sentencing outcomes refl...
Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021, “Save America” speech included a mix of scripted language (“peacefully and patriotically”) and unscripted, more combative lines — notably “We’re going to walk down to t...
Victims’ identities in Jeffrey Epstein-related court records remain a contested mix of redactions and targeted disclosures: courts have ordered the release of many names in some filings while others h...
A preponderance of official investigations, reporting and statements from participants concludes that summoned a crowd to with repeated false claims about the election, used violent and provocative rh...
Legal Observer (LO) reports—notes, photos, video, and witness statements gathered by trained observers—are routinely created to serve as documentary evidence in both criminal defenses and civil lawsui...
When victims or eyewitnesses supply videotaped accounts but publicists or intermediaries seek to monetize or control distribution, , legal and ethical frameworks, and source-handling practices to auth...
Academic researchers have rarely—and only sporadically—directly asked protesters the simple question “Were you paid to attend?” The scholarly literature emphasizes survey methods, motivations, and par...
Paying people to attend protests raises a tangle of ethical questions—about authenticity, manipulation, and equity—and free‑speech tensions involving state and private regulation, audience disruption,...
Federal U.S. law does not create a general crime called “hate speech”; the First Amendment protects hateful expression except where it falls into narrow categories such as incitement to imminent lawle...
U.S. courts have generally protected controversial and hateful political speech by public figures and private citizens unless it meets narrow exceptions like incitement to imminent lawless action or t...
Constitutional protections—principally the First Amendment’s free‑speech guarantee and the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation and disqualification provisions—shape how and when the government can br...
Parody and satire are generally protected under the First Amendment, but protection is not absolute: courts have repeatedly treated parody as a form of expressive criticism that enjoys broad protectio...
The October 18 “No Kings” protests were principally framed as a nationwide pushback against President Trump’s policies and leadership style, with demonstrators demanding resistance to heightened immig...
The materials proffer three competing narratives: one set of documents and statements asserts the US has moved to designate as a domestic terrorist organization and directs agencies to dismantle it ; ...