

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Valentina Stackl, EarthRights International, (202) 466-5188 x100, valentina@earthrights.org
Late yesterday, a federal judge dismissed a sprawling racketeering lawsuit filed against Krystal Two Bulls, an Oglala Lakota and Northern Cheyenne organizer, Greenpeace, and others, by Energy Transfer-- the corporation behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The dismissal was unusually swift, coming just three days after the final defendant's motion to dismiss was briefed.
"Loss. Defeat. Dismissal. This is what happens when greedy corporations go after Indigenous women grounded in the power of Prayer, the power of relationship building, and the power of collective organizing," said Krystal Two Bulls after learning of her victory. "Not only was my right to free speech upheld by this decision, but also my rights as an Indigenous woman to steward this land. Now, more than ever, we ALL need our Rights to share our voices uplifted, supported and protected."
Lawyers for Ms. Two Bulls argued that the allegations against her consisted entirely of constitutionally protected activity and did not even come close to racketeering. Energy Transfer sought to hold her liable under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act for millions of dollars of supposed damages from the protests. In the decision, Judge Billy Roy Wilson noted the "hyperbole" in Energy Transfer's filing and explained, "[d]onating to people whose cause you support does not create a RICO enterprise... Posting articles written by people with similar beliefs does not create a RICO enterprise." Attorneys say the entire lawsuit was an attempt to recast collective political action as an unlawful conspiracy.
"Energy Transfer failed in its embarrassing and expensive attempt to silence organizers who stand for justice," said Astha Sharma Pokharel, a legal fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Their baseless lawsuit should never have been filed, but yesterday's victory will only strengthen the movements they tried so hard to suppress."
Lawyers say the lawsuit was a textbook example of a "strategic lawsuit against public participation," or SLAPP, a form of legal bullying. The goal of a SLAPP is not to win, but to burden the defendants with costly and time-intensive litigation procedures, while creating a chilling effect that discourages others from speaking out on issues of public concern. The Judge's swift dismissal suggests that the federal judiciary may be losing patience with these abusive tactics.
"This is a major win not just for Krystal Two Bulls but for all those that corporations have tried to silence, simply because they have exercised their rights to speak out against injustice and environmental abuse, " said Marco Simons, General Counsel at EarthRights international. This decision to dismiss Energy Transfer's vengeful lawsuit sends a clear message to others considering such tactics: U.S. courts will not help corporations deny the people's First Amendment rights.
Ms. Two Bulls is represented by attorneys with EarthRights International and the Center for Constitutional Rights, both members of the Protect the Protest task force. Protect the Protest was created in 2018 to end the use of SLAPPs against those working in the public interest.
For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights' case page and EarthRights International's case page.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464"Meta’s reported plans to introduce this technology into broadly available consumer products is a red line society must not cross."
The ACLU and a coalition of 75 other rights organizations on Tuesday issued a warning to tech giant Meta about its plan to install facial recognition technology onto its artificial intelligence-powered eyeglasses.
In a letter organized by the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the groups said adding facial recognition technology to Meta's Ray-Ban and Oakley glasses would pose a grave threat to Americans' privacy.
"People should be able to move through their daily lives," the letter states, "without fear that stalkers, scammers, abusers, federal agents, and activists across the political spectrum are silently and invisibly verifying their identities and potentially matching their names to a wealth of readily available data about their habits, hobbies, relationships, health, and behaviors."
When it comes to specific dangers posed by embedding this technology into the company's products, the letter points to the potential for scammers to use it to "find out, quickly and in complete stealth, not just the name of the person sitting next to them on the subway—but their address, marital status, social media profiles, workplace, income, hobbies, health information, and habits."
Because of this, the letter says that "Meta’s reported plans to introduce this technology into broadly available consumer products is a red line society must not cross."
Blocking facial recognization technology from Meta glasses "is a prerequisite for a free and safe society," reads the letter.
The letter concludes with a series of demands, including that Meta stop any plans to attach facial recognition technology to its products; publicly disclose any past instances of Meta glasses being used for stalking and harassment; and reveal any "past or ongoing" discussions with law enforcement agencies such as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement about deploying the technology.
Cody Venzke, senior staff attorney working on surveillance, privacy, and technology issues for the ACLU, described facial recognition technology as "inherently invasive and unethical," and said adding it to a widely available consumer product "would vastly increase the risk of harm to individuals, families, and our democracy itself."
Kade Crockford, director of technology and justice programs at the ACLU of Massachusetts, argued that "the American people have not consented to this massive invasion of privacy," which is why Meta must abandon plans to deploy it.
"Stalkers and scammers would have a field day with this technology," Crockford said. "Federal agents could use it to harass and intimidate their critics. It’s dangerous and dystopian, and Meta must disavow it."
One expert said the videos have gone viral by "hitting on points of disaffection in the United States."
Iran's foreign ministry is accusing YouTube of trying to "suppress the truth" by banning the account responsible for a series of viral Lego-style animations mocking the US-Israeli war.
The small team known as Explosive Media has racked up tens of millions of views across several platforms, with slickly produced music videos mercilessly lampooning the Trump administration and glorifying Iran's struggle against the US and Israel's attacks that began at the end of February.
Last week, Explosive Media had its channel suspended from YouTube for "violent content," which its owners disputed. "Are our LEGO-style animations actually violent?” the group asked on social media.
On Monday, Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, joined the criticism of the ban.
"In a land that proudly hosts Pixar, DreamWorks Animation, and The Walt Disney Company, an independent animated YouTube channel—which had organically grown by depicting US aggression and warmongering, and garnered millions of viewers—was abruptly shut down!!" he wrote on social media.
"Why?!" Baghaei said. “Simply to suppress the truth about their ‘illegal war’ on Iran and shield the American administration’s false narrative from any competing voice.”
While Explosive Media's content can no longer be viewed on YouTube—which is owned by Google—it appears unaffected on other major platforms like Instagram, X, and TikTok, where it has garnered millions of views.
The videos appear aimed at a US audience, often leaning into jokes and memes about the personal foibles of those leading the war.
They frequently reference the familiar accusation that President Donald Trump launched the war to distract from the growing scrutiny of his connections to the late multimillionaire sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. Another video takes aim at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's history of alcoholism and accusations of serial adultery and sexual misconduct.
The videos also portray a strident pro-Iran message. Following the announcement of a ceasefire last week, a video declared that “Iran won” the war. Others have shown Iranian missiles hitting the White House or heading toward Tel Aviv.
The videos also seize on growing domestic outrage over the US government's devotion to Israel, which it implies is controlling Trump and dragging the US into a war against its interests. One video, uploaded last week, portrays Trump being literally walked like a dog by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Your government is run by pedophiles. They ordered you to die for Israel," repeats one video's chorus.
A spokesperson for the team, who identified himself as "Mr. Explosive" in an interview with the BBC, has described his group as "totally independent." But he did say that the Iranian government is a “customer,” implying possible collaboration.
Explosive Media has denied any links with the Iranian government. Responding to a journalist at The Associated Press who said the sophistication of the videos suggests government involvement, the group's official X account replied, "We’ve told you—and other journalists—multiple times that we are independent. Yet you keep repeating the same false claim, insisting that we are connected to the government."
It added: "Western media shows no real commitment to truth—they simply repeat their own baseless claims until they start to sound like facts."
While the Trump administration often portrays the war as a clash of civilizations, the videos posted by Explosive show the American people in a sympathetic light.
Though the videos pull no punches toward their leaders, ordinary Americans are portrayed protesting the Trump administration or fearful about being sent to fight in a foreign war by an administration that promised to end such conflicts.
Polls show that the majority of Americans disapprove of the war and fear it escalating. Moustafa Ayad, a researcher with the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, told WIRED that the videos have likely gotten so much attention because they tap into this discontent.
"People are disengaging from some of the real conflict content and looking for something that can distill what's happening quickly and in a language and tone that they understand, and that's what those Lego videos are doing,” he said. "They're making it easily accessible to understand the conflict from Iran's point of view, and it's hitting on points of disaffection in the United States at the same time. It's working on two fronts.”
"People in the United States are literally skipping meals and the Republican Congress won’t even hold a hearing about this unplanned disastrous war," said one critic.
A Republican senator on Tuesday tried to sell wary Americans on President Donald Trump's war with Iran by telling them that national security is more important than any financial pain they're feeling in the form of higher energy costs.
During an appearance on Newsmax's "Wake Up America" program, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) tried to assuage Americans' concerns about the spike in gas prices caused by the war by informing viewers that the US is "the leading producer of oil in the world, we're exporting more than we're importing."
Sen. Roger Marshall: "I'm sorry that gas prices are going up, but help is on the way, and your national security is even more important than your pocketbook." pic.twitter.com/GSUEDVHQml
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 14, 2026
The US exporting more of its own oil to foreign countries whose regular supplies have been disrupted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz does nothing to lower US gas prices and, if anything, will push them higher.
As a Monday Wall Street Journal article explained, "prices at the pump are poised to keep rising if the US exports more oil and gas and drains its inventories," especially since "the jump in exports doesn’t yet correspond to an increase in US oil production."
Later in the segment, Marshall acknowledged that Americans were feeling pain at the gas pump, but he said it was worth it to stop the supposed threat from Iran, which did not attack the US and, according to US intelligence estimates, was not close to producing nuclear weapons.
"I'm sorry that gas prices are going up," he said. "But help is on the way, and your national security, yes, is even more important than your pocketbook."
Marshall's claims about the Iran War being worth the cost came days after Harvard Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes, an expert in war budgeting, estimated the total cost of the conflict would top $1 trillion.
Criminal defense attorney Sara Spector pounced on Marshall's comments as symbolic of Republicans' tone deafness to Americans' economic concerns.
"Octogenarians are door dashing to pay for medical bills," she remarked, "and Senator Marshall wants you to pay for a war while Donald Trump golfs and attends VIP sporting events. Wow!"
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives in Missouri, noted that the GOP-run Congress isn't even having hearings where elected representatives can ask Trump administration officials about the war.
"People in the United States are literally skipping meals and the Republican Congress won’t even hold a hearing about this unplanned disastrous war," Wellman wrote. "No, we won’t accept anymore assurances or urges to sacrifice for the greater good when the leaders won’t even respect us enough to go under oath and tell us why."
Jennifer Schulze, a former local TV news executive, pointed out that the claims about the Iran War being essential to US security were totally false.
"Iran was not: 1.) close to having a nuclear weapon; 2.) Posing an imminent threat to the US," she wrote.
Jon Bauman, president of Social Security Works PAC, said Marshall's claim that high gas prices are worth the cost of launching an unprovoked war with Iran was a "losing argument."