On March 31, The Free Press published an article by Jacob Siegel accusing “people” of trying to “censor” his book reviews. Your email newsletter to subscribers led with this story, calling it a “surreal” case in which a review of his book was “purged” from the magazine The Baffler after “a person mentioned in the text requested a correction.” Yet based on an email I received from the man who wrote the review in The Baffler, it was he who requested his own review be pulled—undermining the premise of the essay and the promotional email.

I was that person who requested a correction, and thus was falsely maligned for supposedly pursuing “censorship.” I requested a correction—only a correction—because Siegel’s book, The Information State, makes allegations about me and my work that appear to have led multiple reviewers to draw strikingly similar erroneous conclusions. A correction request in response to error is not censorship—it is counterspeech. Issuing a warranted correction is ethical journalism. The Washington Free Beacon, for example, issued a correction on the review published about the book, in line with its editorial standards. The Baffler chose to remove its review.

Siegel’s article implies that I was involved in The Baffler’s editorial decision to pull the review. I was not; it is my understanding that the reviewer himself asked that his review be taken down. This understanding is based on a private email which I did not feel comfortable forwarding to Siegel in response to the list of questions he emailed me, giving me 90 minutes to respond. I am disclosing this now only because Siegel’s public account in The Free Press unfairly shifted responsibility for the decision onto me, and I believe it’s important to correct the record: There was no plot to censor his book review.

Yet Siegel posted on X that “a figure connected to the U.S. government [pressured] a publication to remove its review of my book,” and the review was “censored the next day . . .apparently at the behest of Renée DiResta.”

The claims in his X posts are false. They’ve likely helped Siegel sell some books, at my expense. His promotion of his theory, and essay, certainly generated attacks. While it is true that I did “did not deny asking The Baffler to pull its review” in response to Siegel’s list of questions, I denied it repeatedly on social media, by phone, and via email to Free Press editors. No independent fact-checker contacted me before publication. (The essay now includes the following update as a parenthetical: “After publication, DiResta told The Free Press that she did not ask The Baffler to pull the review, but rather only requested a correction.”)

Siegel implies in his article that my fact-check requests are unwarranted, too. I’ve misinterpreted what he wrote, he suggests. I want to address that claim here as well, so readers understand what I requested be corrected.

Siegel spends multiple pages in his book building a character sketch of me as someone who “came to lead” what he calls “perhaps the largest censorship initiative in existence.” He is referring to my work with the Election Integrity Project, a nonpartisan coalition that tracked and occasionally flagged election rumors to platforms during the 2020 election. It was a project narrowly scoped to claims that sought to either mislead people about where or how to vote, or that tried to preemptively delegitimize the election results. He then describes the work that this supposed massive censorship machine did, leveraging innuendo strategically: Over a hundred EIP employees supposedly maintained round-the-clock coverage monitoring social media platforms, sending takedown requests that platforms acted on within the hour. In the next sentence, he drops a statistic: EIP “classified 21,897,364 tweets” as “misinformation incidents.”

Read in sequence, the implication is that this was the scale of some “censorship” operation. Some reviewers, and readers on X, have processed it that way, writing that EIP flagged or censored 22 million tweets. That never happened. Hence my correction requests.

Siegel knows that the 22 million figure actually describes a postelection dataset of the most viral rumors of the 2020 cycle. It was not a count of items flagged to platforms at all; that count was 4,800 URLs, including 2,890 tweets. Platforms ignored 65 percent of those, and removed approximately 10 percent. The rest were mostly labeled. I explained this to Siegel personally. Somehow, the smaller number and enforcement stats didn’t make it into the book.

In his Free Press article, Siegel argues he never said the EIP censored or flagged 22 million tweets. If so, he should have welcomed—or initiated—corrections in The Baffler’s, the Free Beacon’s, and the Brownstone Institute’s reviews himself. He should also have Henry Holt, his publisher, fix the manuscript. But the problem is, the number supports the “mass censorship” conspiracy theory. This is Schrödinger’s statistic: large enough to support claims of a massive censorship operation as innuendo, but something totally innocent when one presses for details.

The question discerning readers should ask is: If you knew EIP never flagged nor censored 22 million tweets, what exactly justifies calling EIP “perhaps the largest censorship initiative in existence”?

Siegel appears angry that the real person behind his fictionalized character is pushing back against errors and innuendo. So, he’s constructed a narrative in which corrective action is recast as proof of the conspiracy he alleges. If I ask for fixes, I am “suppressing” his work. If a publication—or a reviewer—independently decides the claims don’t hold up, that is the information state at work.

This is not a defense of free speech. It is immunity from scrutiny.

The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article.

What this means is that it is now illegal in Finland for Christians to defend traditional Christian teaching about homosexuality. You can’t write or speak about the matter without risking arrest. This, in Europe, in 2026.

Räsänen, a physician by training, wrote the pamphlet in 2004 to inform debate within the Finnish Lutheran Church over the church’s policy on homosexuality and related issues, like gay marriage and adoption. Räsänen is theologically conservative, and explained at length traditional Christian teaching about sexuality and how, in her opinion, it should inform Christian thinking about the law.

Read more

Last week, I published a book called The Information State: Politics in the Age of Total Control. It describes how, as technology has advanced, American politics and government have been transformed by the shift in societal power from visible laws and institutions to opaque forms of digital and informational control.

As I explain in the book, one of the consequences of this shift has been the ability of the government-tech alliance—what I call “the information state”—to carry out mass censorship online over the past decade. This point was noted in a generally positive review of the book that ran on March 24 in a left-wing magazine called The Baffler. The information state, noted academic Richard Greenwald in his review, rests on “twin pillars—censorship and propaganda.”

So I could only savor the irony when, less than a day later, the magazine purged the review from its website.

What happened? Did The Baffler censor me? Did they censor the reviewer who, while criticizing parts of the book, also called it “at once a sweeping history of technocratic governance, a detailed exposé of the counter-disinformation apparatus, and an urgent meditation on what it means to live in a society organized around information as its ruling principle”?

I had written for The Baffler myself once before, in 2018. Perhaps, in the intervening years, someone at the magazine detected evidence that I hold unacceptable opinions. But if that were the case, why publish the review of my book in the first place?

If you’re looking for an answer, you won’t find it on The Baffler’s website. All it has, in place of the purged piece, is an editor’s note informing visitors that the magazine removed the review “after determining that it does not meet The Baffler’s fact-checking standards.” That is the kind of cryptic statement that raises more questions than it answers. Is the magazine accusing me of having made factual errors in my book, or is it leveling that claim at Greenwald? (Greenwald declined to comment for this article.) It’s impossible to say, because the note never specifies the facts that it purports to dispute.

To say that this is unusual by the standards of magazine publishing undersells it by a wide margin. Removing an already-published book review without so much as specifying the offense is not something done by any publication interested in maintaining a reputation as intellectually open and honest. Deleting articles after publication reeks of censorship. It erodes the trust of readers who are left to wonder what other machinations influence the publication’s editorial decisions. It tends to turn off independent-minded writers, who will reasonably suspect that their own work could be next on the chopping block.

Instead, when errors are found, editors generally add updates or corrections to an article so that readers can see both what it got wrong and what the publication now asserts is factually correct. If a magazine publishes something that generates significant controversy among readers or within its own staff—as happens frequently these days—the liberal thing to do is to publish a counterargument. To cite a “fact-checking” error without elaborating what it is leaves the public even less informed than before; it is an incoherent pretext and self-refuting by its own standards.

So, I set out to find what really happened.

Read more

I noticed it especially in Megyn Kelly’s defense of Tucker Carlson, when she claimed that my issue with him—and recently, her—all boiled down to Israel. To be clear, Megyn is lying, and so is Tucker. They’re just lying. I started criticizing Tucker for his economic programs back in 2018. In the more recent, post–Fox News iteration, my critique centered on his trip to Russia to interview and suck up to Vladimir Putin while touting the magic of Moscow subways, and on his decision to host and effectively platform Nick Fuentes. My critique of Tucker has nothing to do with Israel; it’s about the fact that he gave a significant platform to one of America’s most prominent antisemites and largely laundered that Nazi’s views in the process.

I gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation on December 17, 2025, in which I argued at length that Tucker is not, in any meaningful sense, a traditional conservative. He has become a conspiratorial near-anarchist committed to tearing down the fundamental institutions of the United States. Go watch that speech. Israel is mentioned once in 35 minutes of material that is entirely about Tucker’s worldview and its departure from traditional conservatism.

Megyn’s claims are even more dishonest. My actual critique of her began when I asked publicly why she wouldn’t call out Candace Owens for implicating Erika Kirk in the murder of Charlie Kirk. That was it. I also challenged Candace on why she wouldn’t call out Tucker for platforming Nick Fuentes. Fuentes despised Charlie Kirk, and the enmity was mutual.

Megyn responded by claiming I was mischaracterizing what Candace had actually said—that Candace was, in her own way, defending Erika Kirk. That claim has not aged well.

Read more

The actions of protesters and politicians, during and in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have become real-world lessons in the law of speech. The clashes have demonstrated which types of speech aren’t protected, along with passionate, angry, and unsettling speech that is protected. We’ve also gotten a chilling reminder of what goes wrong when the government pretends not to know the difference.

For starters, the Justice Department has issued grand jury subpoenas to Minnesota governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey, and at least three other Democratic officials in the state, as part of an investigation into whether state and local officials obstructed federal immigration enforcement. Grand jury matters are secret, so we may never see the subpoenas themselves. But the public justification keeps circling back to speech. Federal officials have portrayed Walz’s and Frey’s criticisms of ICE as incitement, which is not protected by the First Amendment.

Read more

Higgins’s case against me concerns my involvement with the Twitter Files—a trove of the social media website’s internal communications that Musk sent to reporters, including me, after he acquired the company in 2022. I took significant heat for my coverage, which included Twitter employees’ deliberations about whether to suppress the report about Hunter Biden’s laptop during the 2020 election. IRS agents made an unannounced visit to my home the day I testified in Congress about my findings, and delegate Stacey Plaskett falsely accused me of perjury and threatened to jail me.

Despite this, Higgins says I sold out—literally—by working on the Twitter Files. He claims that I “fully dispensed with any pretense of challenging power” after having “cash[ed] in” with my “benefactor,” Musk.

I’ve never taken money from Musk or any other “tech billionaire on the right,” as Higgins implies. And his lie isn’t harmless. The impressions of trading content for cash—or “selling jeans,” as the Russians call it—is extremely damaging to a reporter’s reputation. So I sued Higgins and Bold Type Books, a division of Hachette, in November for defamation.

I kept the lawsuit largely between us, but Higgins went public recently with a post on his Substack complaining, “Yes, I’m being sued by Matt Taibbi.” The post set off a wave of jeers from the online left-wing peanut gallery, who claim to think my legal challenge clashes with my avowed commitment to freedom of speech. “Not the guy free speech guy [sic]”, said influencer Sabrina “Sabby Sabs” Salvati, adding a laugh emoji. “Even if you disagree with Eoin’s book’s conclusion that Taibbi has sold out, it should be legal to make that criticism and Taibbi should respond by rebutting the claim not running to the courts,” said Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson, among many other critics.

Read more

Sooner or later—and it’s usually sooner—the censors start finding “objectionable” material everywhere they look.

Including, we discovered recently, in The Free Press. Specifically, TGIF, Nellie Bowles’ witty take on the week’s news, is being censored in the UK.

This is because the UK this summer put in force its Online Safety Act, an omnibus law sold to the British public as providing protection for children against pornography, suicide promotion, and similarly dangerous materials. Ofcom (the “Office of Communications”), Britain’s media regulator, summarized the law in a few screenfuls of material, helpfully pointing out that the new law can keep children from seeing content that might promote, say, eating disorders.

Read more

If that sentence sounds familiar, it’s because this was the second time Docherty has been arrested, for exactly the same reason.

In February, as my colleague Madeleine Kearns reported, Docherty was put in handcuffs and taken to a police station—because she had been silently holding the same sign outside the same hospital.

“I didn’t speak about abortion,” Docherty told The Free Press yesterday through her legal counsel. “I simply offered anyone the chance to chat about anything.”

Read more

Linehan’s supposed crime? A series of posts on X deemed anti-trans by British authorities. As the Metropolitan Police put it, Linehan was under arrest on “suspicion of inciting violence.”

The closest he gets to that in his offending posts is a call to “make a scene, call the cops, and if all else fails, punch him in the balls” if any of his followers encounter a biological man “in a female-only space.” (It’s perhaps worth noting, again, that he is a comedy writer.)

The position Linehan finds himself in is all too common. Under the guise of protecting “public safety,” British authorities now routinely question or arrest people for online speech. According to The Times of London, police in the UK now make more than 30 arrests a day for purportedly offensive posts on social media.

J.K. Rowling’s blunt response to Linehan’s detainment was right: “What the fuck has the UK become? This is totalitarianism. Utterly deplorable.”

Read more

Then he became one of Britain’s most outspoken critics of trans ideology. First Linehan was criticized for a 2008 episode of The IT Crowd which activists called transphobic when it re-aired years later. Then, in 2018, Linehan praised as “heroes” protesters at London’s Pride Parade who had carried banners that read “transactivism erases lesbians.” Ever since, Linehan has been the target of a relentless campaign by trans activists. He has been sued, repeatedly banned from X, and ostracized from the showbiz community. Linehan has said that accusations of transphobia have made it impossible for him to find work in Britain. Last year, he moved to the United States.

On Monday, Linehan was arrested by British police at Heathrow Airport, thrown in a cell, then rushed to the hospital for dangerously high blood pressure. All of this for the crime of three posts on X in April.

Today, we bring you Graham Linehan’s story, told from his hospital bed. —The Editors

Something odd happened before I even boarded my flight from Arizona to London. When I handed over my passport at the gate, the official told me I didn’t have a seat and had to be re-ticketed. At the time, I thought it was just the sort of innocent snafu that makes air travel such a joy. But in hindsight, it was clear I’d been flagged. Someone, somewhere, had made a phone call.

The moment I stepped off the plane at Heathrow, five armed police officers were waiting. They escorted me to a private area and told me I was under arrest for three posts on X. In a country where pedophiles escape prison, where knife crime is out of control, the state had mobilized five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer for these three posts (and no, I promise you, I am not making this up).

Read more

At his sentencing, a UK district judge told Coskun that his protest was “provocative,” concluding that he had been driven by “a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.” But in the account below, Coskun insists that he was attacking ideas, not people. He warns that the same religious authoritarianism he fled in his home country is now infecting his adoptive country, too.

This piece was originally published in The Spectator.

—The Editors

My name is Hamit Coskun, and I’ve just been convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offense. My “crime”? Burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. Moments later, I was attacked by a man in full view of the street. I was hospitalized. Then I was arrested.

Some may say that book burning is a poor substitute for reasoned debate. I would counter that it was a symbolic, nonviolent form of expression intended to draw attention to the ongoing move from the secularism of my country of birth to a regime that embraces hard-line Islam.

That act of expression constituted political protest, and the law, as I understood it, was on my side. Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance makes clear that legitimate protest can be offensive—and on occasion must be—if it is to be effective. In that spirit, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects not just polite expression but expression that offends, shocks, or disturbs. Political expression, above all, is meant to enjoy the strongest protection.

Alas, the judge ruled otherwise. And the reasoning deployed to convict me raises troubling questions about whether Britain is witnessing the quiet return of blasphemy laws.

Read more

They asked me to delete this part of the speech. I declined. My lecture was canceled.

Read more

In the span of one week in March 2020, the entire school system in America shut down. The academic year for more than 50 million students was over, blasting a hole in the calendar three months wide. A master switch had been flipped by the governors of every state—a vast, unprecedented exercise of authority.

While we were told the decision was based on science—and was for our own good—there was no evidence for the benefits of what would soon become lengthy school closures. Well before we shut down our schools, evidence from outside the U.S. showed that children were largely unaffected by Covid-19, and that they were not the primary drivers of transmission.

After a brief shutdown, many of Europe’s schools reopened in the spring, welcoming back millions of children, and the data show what happened next: a long decline in cases. European Union ministers announced in May, and again in June, that they had seen no negative impact on society from opening schools. Their comments should have made headlines and quelled concerns in the U.S. Instead, they were largely ignored by our officials and the mainstream media.

Read more

Khalil, a green card holder, Columbia University graduate, and chief organizer of the anti-Israel campus riots that ensued after October 7, was detained by ICE agents twelve days ago and is currently being held by the U.S. government in a Louisiana jail.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said the arrest was “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting antisemitism,” and connected to “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

As of yesterday, a federal judge denied the administration’s request to dismiss Khalil’s challenge to his arrest. It’s just the beginning of what is sure to be a long and complicated legal battle.

We have covered this story extensively in The Free Press. We’ve broken news on the administration’s plans to use Khalil’s case as a blueprint for more arrests. Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld explained the thorny legal complexities that make this such a challenging case.

But there’s a more important, more basic question than whether deporting Khalil is technically legal, or how the government might go about doing it, and that is: Would his deportation be good or bad for America? Just because the government can do something—and in this case, that is fiercely contested—doesn’t mean it should.

Is deportation a reasonable exercise of our national sovereignty to protect the United States from somebody who despises—and wants to destroy—our culture and values?

Or is this a disturbing move intended to chill political speech—including by Americans—that violates one of our most precious freedoms?

Those are the questions debated in today’s installment of Free Press Fight Club.

Arguing in favor of Khalil’s deportation is Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy. He sees the move as a righteous act of self-defense. Taking the other side is The Free Press’s Eli Lake, who despises everything Khalil stands for, but believes his detention sets a dangerous precedent.

—The Editors

Read more

Khalil, a recent graduate from Columbia University, has played a leading role in the anti-Israel protests there. He is said to be the primary spokesperson and negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which describes itself as “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.” The group has been the engine behind much of the chaos on Columbia’s campus since October 7—including the encampments and takeover of Hamilton Hall last spring, Barnard’s Milbank Hall last month, and Milstein Library just last week, where Khalil allegedly led the occupation efforts.

Khalil was suspended from Columbia last April for his participation in the protests, but the school reversed his suspension the next day. Arrested on March 8, Khalil is currently being detained in Louisiana. On March 10, a federal judge in New York stayed his deportation pending a hearing.

Read more

Her crime?

Standing outside a Glasgow hospital where abortions are performed and holding up a sign that said: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.”

Read more

That’s what Lord Jonathan Sumption thinks about Hong Kong’s abuse of the law—and how it’s silencing anyone opposed to the Chinese Communist Party.

A former member of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court, Sumption became a “nonpermanent judge” on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal in December 2019.

But Sumption isn’t just any judge. He’s a famed medieval historian, and he is widely agreed to be among the best lawyers of his generation. An article in The Guardian almost a decade ago referred to him as “the brain of Britain.” He has also built a career as an independent-minded, free thinker—one who railed against Covid lockdowns and affirmative action-type quotas, but who has also fiercely criticized Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Sumption, to put it simply, is nearly impossible to define into neat partisan labels.

His role in Hong Kong was to sit on a few cases on the territory’s highest court each month to ensure they complied with the country’s Basic Law and other statutes. He told me he thought he would have a positive impact on the legal system in the territory, which used to be a British colony until it was handed back to China in 1997.

But last year, he witnessed a situation “so unattractive” he didn’t “want to be part of it anymore.”

Read more

Today, Rupa returned to Capitol Hill to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. The purpose of the hearing was to investigate the “censorship-industrial complex” under former President Joe Biden, with the implication that we had turned a new page—that the censorship was over. Rupa’s testimony focused, once again, on developments outside the U.S.—in Canada, and in Europe and Australia. Her subtext was: If you think you’re impervious to the illiberal tide, you’re not.

And just as important a point: American leadership is needed now more than ever. “I want to emphasize that there is nothing wrongheaded about standing up for the liberties that you, the Americans, have so valiantly defended for so long,” Rupa told the committee.

You can scroll down to read Rupa’s remarks in full, or click to watch the video of her testimony above. It runs about six-and-a-half minutes, and it perfectly embodies the independent, nonpartisan journalism that we strive for every day at The Free Press. If you, too, value that kind of journalism, please consider becoming a paid subscriber today.

Subscribe now

Rupa’s Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee:

What if I were to ask you what are the most repressive governments around the world when it comes to freedom?

Who suppresses freedom of speech and enterprise the most?

You’d surely say North Korea. Iran. Russia.

But what if I told you Germany should be on that list? That France should be on that list—and many other EU countries? Oh, and that Canada, where I’m from, should be on that list, too?

Read more

Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the Manhattan Institute, and Robert Shibley, special counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, are normally allies when it comes to freedom of expression. But on Trump’s plan to crack down on pro-Hamas foreign students, they sharply disagree.

Read more

Gow, you may recall, had been the longest-serving chancellor in the university system’s recent history, but was booted from that po…

Read more