Freedom speech issues

[Stavros]

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses?

In the strict sense of the word, Ayatollah Khomeini did not deliver a fatwa but merely his personal reaction to a news report about The Satanic Verses -the two are not the same. Muslims who want advice, usually on a personal matter to do with their marriage or which may arise if they are living in a non-Musim country, go to their Imam and his opinion is a fatwa -for Khomeini to sentence to Rushdie to death, think simply of a man who knows he has power encouraging others to commit murder.

[Ben]

Napolitano: A brief history of free speech in America:
A Brief History of Free Speech in America (consortiumnews.com)

[Stavros]

Napolitano: A brief history of free speech in America:
A Brief History of Free Speech in America (consortiumnews.com)

But if a foreign power is not just intervening in a US election, but doing so with the assistance of a US Citizen, is that not a violation of the law? How should the DoJ respond if it believes the law is being broken? Free speech, in this case, collides with election law-

"foreign nationals are prohibited from participating in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national may not direct, dictate, control or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committeeor political organization) with regard to the person's federal or nonfederal election-related activities. This includes decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures or disbursements in connection with any federal state or local election or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee."
FEC | Foreign nationals

And something Project 2025 wants to repeal?

"At a time of escalating global tensions and numerous verified instances of foreign interference in U.S. elections, the far right would ban U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM)—the key component in the U.S military’s arsenal for combating election-related cyberthreats—from participating in federal efforts to fortify elections. This proposal in the far right’s Project 2025 authoritarian playbook could empower foreign actors to tip the scales in U.S. elections and allow the far right to amass more power as foreign adversaries seek to divide Americans and promote extremist ideologies."
The Far Right’s Invitation for Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections - Center for American Progress

And if voting is Free Speech, is every attempt to modify voting a violation of free speech?

"It seems like an obvious proposition that a citizen registering to vote or casting a ballot is engaging in free speech, a fundamental right entitled to full protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This simple proposition is especially fitting in light of the broad First Amendment protection extended to the dollars spent in political campaigns to influence votes. But the current Supreme Court rarely scrutinizes voting regulations as it does other speech regulations. The Court treats spending to influence voters in elections—by candidates, political parties, individuals, corporations, labor unions, and others, including anonymous contributors who might well be international terrorists—as free speech entitled to robust First Amendment protection against state and federal limitation. Any limitations on such speech are subjected to strict scrutiny. Registering and voting, on the other hand, are given short shrift by the Court. Burdens on voter registration and voting are not analyzed under strict First Amendment standards, and therefore the Court has allowed states excessive latitude to restrict voters’ access to the ballot box. The Court should change course, fully acknowledge the expressive nature of voting, and grant voting the same First Amendment protections as the money spent to influence it."
Voting Is Speech | Yale Law & Policy Review (yalelawandpolicy.org)

[MrFanti]

Napolitano: A brief history of free speech in America:
A Brief History of Free Speech in America (consortiumnews.com)

Problem is....
Repubs and Dems say 'Free Speech' (as long as it aligns with their perspectives)