Rebecca Kennison
@rrkennison.bsky.social
Digital content editor at @columbiauniversity.bsky.social's Health Sciences Library by day, nonprofit entrepreneur by night.
"The news" is kind of broad, but here's a screenshot of a Google search I just did ... Seems to be plenty of coverage.
October 30, 2025 at 8:38 PM
"The news" is kind of broad, but here's a screenshot of a Google search I just did ... Seems to be plenty of coverage.
Even Jesus believed in the separation of church and state.
October 20, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Even Jesus believed in the separation of church and state.
Looks like Columbia University has yet another president — and a new fundraising model!
October 20, 2025 at 1:50 PM
Looks like Columbia University has yet another president — and a new fundraising model!
October 18, 2025 at 10:12 PM
![Still from video shot of the #NoKings protest in Gurnee, Illinois, with handmade signs reading, "No [intentionally blurred out] way," "Fight for the things you care about," a crown in a circle with a red line through it and the word "kings," "No kings, no tyrants, no dictators," "HANDS OFF!" printed over the top of numerous words, "Trump is the true enemy within — resist authoritarian tactics," and "America, we in danger, girl!"](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rpmrndoz3bzl5gdq7troboro/bafkreickuv5sa3qhbpn4d2dnqzmcsbstmnj5hdgsqwexp7rkppn55k3zjm@jpeg)
October 18, 2025 at 10:06 PM
October 18, 2025 at 9:51 PM
October 18, 2025 at 9:24 PM
![Still from video of Gurnee, Illinois, #NoKings protest with handmade signs reading "ICE [minus sign] due process [equal sign] Gestapo" and "Trump profits on hate. 74M bought it. No one is illegal on stolen ground."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rpmrndoz3bzl5gdq7troboro/bafkreiakgr5hchwcduuw3q3wi3c2p6amzguh2fv5izmryp65hpluwsptbi@jpeg)
October 18, 2025 at 9:04 PM
October 18, 2025 at 8:58 PM
October 18, 2025 at 8:47 PM
October 18, 2025 at 8:37 PM
October 18, 2025 at 8:28 PM
Another still from the video: "Jesus never said f*ck the poor the rich need it more" and "Orange lies matter."
October 18, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Another still from the video: "Jesus never said f*ck the poor the rich need it more" and "Orange lies matter."
Great signs, as this still from the video shows.
October 18, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Great signs, as this still from the video shows.
Amen, Judge Young.
October 1, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Amen, Judge Young.
THIS! THIS! THIS!
(Including the assertion that even McCarthyism didn't go this far.)
(Including the assertion that even McCarthyism didn't go this far.)
October 1, 2025 at 5:46 PM
THIS! THIS! THIS!
(Including the assertion that even McCarthyism didn't go this far.)
(Including the assertion that even McCarthyism didn't go this far.)
Who are acting as terrorists now?
October 1, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Who are acting as terrorists now?
Succinct analysis: "In short, if it looked like the Executive Orders might have disapproved of it, that was potential grounds for deportation."
Your daily reminder that EOs are not laws and should not be treated as such.
Your daily reminder that EOs are not laws and should not be treated as such.
![From: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.261.0.pdf
Case 1:25-cv-10685-WGY Document 261 Filed 09/30/25 Pages 131 and 132 of 161
Despite the apparent good intentions and professionalism of the Public Officials’ subordinates, the Court saw virtually no evidence that anyone along the way seriously questioned whether pure political speech in support of Palestine or against Israel could be construed as support for terrorism, whether support for terrorism as such could be grounds for the adverse actions that were contemplated, or whether any targeted individual had met any circumscribed, ascertainable standard of speech or conduct that might be grounds for these actions. Trial produced no evidence that the challenged procedures contemplated the speech to have been as incitement to imminent violence or, per the terms of an older test, clear and present danger. Rather, the subordinates spoke the language of “violat[ing]” the Executive Orders, as if they were the law, and of “align[ing] with the executive order’s focus on deporting ‘Hamas sympathizers,’” as if “Hamas sympathizers” were a self-interpreting term. They appear to have treated “antisemitism,” which, however heinous, is, without more, protected speech, as something that, in essence, one simply knows when one sees it. In short, if it looked like the Executive Orders might have disapproved of it, that was potential grounds for deportation.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rpmrndoz3bzl5gdq7troboro/bafkreieyxm3ygepnmu66eukt7pze5eo76ozrkfrlpc5a5cuvv662cdurr4@jpeg)
October 1, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Succinct analysis: "In short, if it looked like the Executive Orders might have disapproved of it, that was potential grounds for deportation."
Your daily reminder that EOs are not laws and should not be treated as such.
Your daily reminder that EOs are not laws and should not be treated as such.
This argument — that the fundamental purpose of free speech is not simply the right to opine as you wish, but to engage in political discussion, both as speakers and as listeners — is one I find particularly compelling. How can you learn from those with other views than yours if only some can speak?
![From: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.261.0.pdf
Case 1:25-cv-10685-WGY Document 261 Filed 09/30/25 Pages 123 and 124 of 161
Lastly, as is relevant to its analysis below, this Court observes that, on its face, the First Amendment does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens; rather, it states simply, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech[.]” U.S. Const. amend. I. As the Supreme Court’s now frequently cited statement in Bridges v. Wixon confirmed, this text at least arguably implies that “[f]reedom of speech . . . is accorded aliens residing in this country.” 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945). It also suggests something a little less obvious, but still worth saying, which is that its chief concern is with the character and quality of the “speech” that occurs on American soil, in what Justice Holmes called “free trade in ideas,” which is “the best test of truth,” Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919), and ensuring that Congress may not twist that speech in the federal government’s preferred direction. In other words, as Professor Zechariah Chafee Jr. put it, the First Amendment declares a “national policy in favor of the public discussion of all public questions.” Freedom of Speech in War Time, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 932, 934, 956 (1919); see also Mandel, 408 U.S. at 775 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two
sides of the same coin. But the coin itself is the process of thought and discussion. The activity of speakers becoming listeners and listeners becoming speakers in the vital interchange of thought is the ‘means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.’ Its protection is ‘a fundamental principle of the American government.’ The First Amendment means that Government has no power to thwart the process of free discussion[.]” (citations omitted)).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rpmrndoz3bzl5gdq7troboro/bafkreigug6ng7gkxpe5psyi2jw3lqsiaodz2k3kvilup4px2wnybutlfji@jpeg)
October 1, 2025 at 5:01 PM
This argument — that the fundamental purpose of free speech is not simply the right to opine as you wish, but to engage in political discussion, both as speakers and as listeners — is one I find particularly compelling. How can you learn from those with other views than yours if only some can speak?