Faith, politics and the First Amendment: Reporting the flash points

By EditorUpdated on . Posted on

In early summer 2025, the boundaries of the First Amendment in the United States were questioned yet again.

In Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton (as in Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law requiring pornographic websites to verify users’ ages, praised by supporters as a way to protect children but also criticized as a form of government overreach and limitation on free speech.  And in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court sided with parents who argued they should be able to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ+ inclusive books that conflicted with their religious beliefs.

Later in the year, debates over expression then spilled into pop culture when late-night host Jimmy Kimmel was suspended after a monologue criticizing conservative reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death. At the same time, Kirk’s campus appearances and the public response to his killing reignited old arguments about protected political speech and civility. 

Together, each speaks to how the First Amendment’s promises — that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” nor “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — remain central to America’s ongoing disputes over the politics of freedom. 

Religion is not new to the conversation. It has long touched the constitutional nerves that animate such discussions in American public life. Questions about prayer in schools, abortion protests or blasphemy once divided communities in much the same way debates over gender, sexuality, antisemitism and online speech do today. 

In this source guide, ReligionLink provides background, tips, suggestions, related stories and relevant sources to help you report the fault lines in the current debates around the First Amendment’s limits and liabilities.

Background

When reporting on this topic, journalists must first understand the First Amendment’s dual command when it comes to religion (among others): that government can neither establish a religion nor prohibit its free exercise.

First, the “establishment clause” acts as a so-called wall of separation. The establishment cause means government cannot favor religion over nonreligion. Thus, when covering issues such as mandatory school prayer, public displays of the Ten Commandments or the use of taxpayer funds for religious institutions, the core question is whether the government is endorsing or coercing religious belief.

Second, the “free exercise clause” protects the right of individuals to live out their faith as they choose. The legal tension is between an individual’s religious conscience and the state’s compelling interest in maintaining order, health or nondiscrimination. Stories about refusal of services based on religious objections, religious exemptions from general laws (such as health mandates) or disputes over zoning for worship spaces fall under this clause.

A critical narrative distinction is that an establishment-clause violation is about government overreach, while a free-exercise claim is about individual rights burdened by the government. Reporting must be precise about which standard applies to avoid false equivalence. 

Furthermore, it’s important to recall that the First Amendment was designed to constrain government actors — public schools, state agencies, elected officials — not necessarily private companies or individuals. That line, however, has become increasingly blurred. When a state pressures a social media platform to remove content, or when a university disciplines a student or professor for political speech, questions arise about whether state power is indirectly limiting free expression. Recent controversial examples include professors removed for comments on gender identity and conflicts in the Middle East at Texas A&M (a public university) and Georgetown University (a private, Jesuit institution). Understanding where those boundaries lie, and where they have been shifting, will be a telling aspect of our reporting going forward.

Private platforms, meanwhile, operate under different obligations. Though they face public scrutiny and government regulation, decisions to suspend a talk show host, remove a controversial post or adjust an algorithm designed to moderate content and comments are not constitutional violations. But they often carry cultural, economic and political consequences. In practice, the public increasingly treats these corporate policies as if they are extensions of state control.

The result is that free speech debates in 2025 often merge government, private enterprise and public opinion into a single, uneasy conversation.

These domestic arguments are also shaped by international currents. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and the European Union’s Digital Services Act have imposed new regulations on platforms to remove harmful or illegal content. U.S. politicians and advocacy organizations cite these laws as both models and warnings.  On the one hand, they can be lauded as examples of how democracies can protect citizens from hate speech and abuse online. On the other hand, critics decry what they see as the erosion of open debate. Because the same corporations operate across borders, rules written in London or Brussels inevitably affect what users see in Los Angeles or Dallas.

There have been numerous incidents being held up as test cases for the state of free speech and free expression of religion in European contexts. For example, in the United Kingdom, so-called silent prayer protests outside abortion clinics, where “safe access zones” are implemented to protect people accessing services from harassment, have become a flashpoint. While proponents of silent prayer argue it is a form of free speech being unfairly restricted, opponents maintain that such protests, even if silent, can be intimidating and influence, harass or impede a person’s access to health care.

Meanwhile, in Finland, a case involving conservative member of Parliament Päivi Räsänen and free Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, who were charged with “agitation against a minority group” for expressing Christian views on marriage and sexuality, is now going to the country’s Supreme Court. Both lower courts unanimously acquitted them, but the state prosecutor has appealed the case. If successful, the Räsänen team — coordinated by ADF International — may take it to European courts next, raising the specter of a significant precedent that would have ramifications across Europe and the Atlantic. 

Other relevant examples may include a range of religion and religion-related issues such as cases criminalizing desecrating the Quran, workplace restrictions on religious symbols or Holocaust denial.

Tips and suggestions

The task for journalists is to report these conflicts with nuance and depth.

That means grounding stories in lived experience — parents, students, teachers, moderators, politicians or comedians — whose speech is under scrutiny and whose lives can often be too quickly summed up in headlines or sound bites, being sure to situate moments of controversy within broader legal and historical frameworks.

Of course, just like with religious doctrine, you have to explain the subtleties and shades of the law to your readers to the best of your ability. Relying on sources and experts to clarify and interpret, explain why the First Amendment applies in one case and not another, or how courts balance religious liberty against public interest, helps readers understand not only what is happening but why it matters. The best reporting will not flatten the conflict into left versus right or free speech versus censorship. Instead, it will report the multiple, often conflicting principles at stake: protecting minors and minoritized groups, respecting the free practice of religion, maintaining equality and preserving open expression.

The words we use also matter. Language such as “censorship” or “banned” can obscure rather than clarify, especially when private actors make decisions. More neutral descriptions such as “removed,” “restricted” or “suspended” help readers see the distinctions between government and corporate action. The aim is not to strip stories of emotion or urgency, but to describe events accurately enough that readers can interpret and decide on their own.

It’s also important to remember and forefront continuity. The particular politics and technologies of our time may have changed, but the underlying questions in the current debates around free speech echo much older ones: Who decides what can be said? When does protection of belief become suppression of speech? And how does a pluralistic society maintain both religious liberty and expressive freedom under the same legal umbrella? The First Amendment has never provided easy answers. It only establishes the configuration in which those conflicts play out.

What perhaps distinguishes 2025 is the pace and reach of the discourse, with debates unfolding across global platforms and transnational media landscapes, all boosted by algorithmic amplification. What once played out in a local school board meeting can now mobilize millions online overnight.

For reporters, that may be the most important and enduring takeaway. Fights over free speech are an ongoing negotiation between law, religion and power. Covering it well means doing more than describing controversy. It means reporting how the arguments happening in a courtroom, a classroom, a late-night monologue or in the digital court of opinion are part of a much deeper American religious story.

Reporting, analysis and commentary

News and reportage

Analysis and commentary

Relevant sources

  • Floyd Abrams

    Floyd Abrams is an attorney at Cahill Gordon & Reindel in New York City. He is an expert on the First Amendment and free speech. For 15 years he served as the William J. Brennan Jr. Visiting Professor of First Amendment Law at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.

  • Alliance Defending Freedom

    The Alliance Defending Freedom is a watchdog group that was founded by Bill Bright, the evangelical minister who started Campus Crusade for Christ, and several other evangelical leaders. It concerns itself with three main issues: religious liberty, “sanctity of life” and traditional marriage. It is based in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Kristen Waggoner is CEO, president and general counsel. Use the website for media.

    Contact: 480-444-0020.

  • American Civil Liberties Union

    The ACLU addresses hate speech in its work on free speech, religion, LGBT rights, human rights and racial justice.

  • Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty

    The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty is an umbrella organization of 15 Baptist bodies that work to promote religious liberty. They advise member denominations on religious liberties issues. It is based in Washington, D.C. Its executive director is Amanda Tyler, with J. Brent Walker serving as a consultant to the organization.

  • Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

    The Becket Fund is a public-interest law firm in Washington, D.C., that works to protect the free expression of all religious traditions. For interviews, contact Ryan Colby.

  • Caroline Mala Corbin

    Caroline Mala Corbin is a law professor at the University of Miami who specializes in First Amendment issues, including free speech and religious freedom. She regularly joins amicus briefs on religious issues that are filed with the Supreme Court.

  • Dangerous Speech Project

    The Dangerous Speech Project works to prevent violence by diminishing the harmful effects of inflammatory public speech without harming freedom of expression. The project’s focus countries include Canada, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and the U.S.

    Contact Susan Benesch.

  • Aaron Fisher

    Aaron Fisher is an assistant district attorney in Manhattan. Fisher interned at the U.S. Department of Defense, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (Eastern District of New York) and the New York State Inspector General’s Office. He is particularly interested in the intersections of criminal law, national security, First Amendment issues, politics and tech policy.

  • FoRB Women’s Alliance

    FoRB Women’s Alliance is an international community of religious freedom and human rights advocates seeking to advance, facilitate and support solutions for freedom of religion or belief for women.

  • Nazila Ghanea

    Nazila Ghanea is the United Nations’ special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. She is professor of international human rights law and director of the Master of Science in international human rights law at the University of Oxford.

  • Kevin Goldberg

    Kevin Goldberg a vice president and First Amendment expert at Freedom Forum, where he works to educate the public on the importance of the First Amendment and oversees Freedom Forum’s network of experts on issues of free expression and its relation to religious and other forms of speech.

  • John Inazu

    John Inazu is a professor of law and religion at Washington University in St. Louis, where he also teaches political science. He specializes in legal issues related to the First Amendment’s free speech, assembly and religious freedom protections.

  • Irene Khan

    Irene Khan is the United Nations’ special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression and an advocate for human rights who formerly led Amnesty International. Contact is through the U.N. Office for the High Commissioner on Human Rights.

  • Douglas Laycock

    Douglas Laycock is Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia and an authority on religious liberty. He is the author of several books and articles on law and religion and co-edited a collection of essays on same-sex marriage and religious freedom.

  • Rebecca S. Markert

    Rebecca S. Markert serves as vice president and legal director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Previously, she was legal director for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. She is an expert on First Amendment litigation and has worked on cases related to religion in public schools and religious symbols on government property. Contact through Liz Hayes, AU’s associate vice president of communications.

  • Richard Moon

    Richard Moon is a legal expert and emeritus professor at the University of Windsor who focuses on freedom of expression, conscience and religion, with numerous publications on the topic.

  • James C. Phillips

    James C. Phillips is an academic affiliate of Schaerr Jaffe Law in San Francisco who has worked on over 30 matters at the U.S. Supreme Court. He was an assistant professor of law at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, where he teaches courses in civil procedure and law and religion. His research topics include constitutional interpretation, law and corpus linguistics, the First Amendment, Supreme Court oral argument and empirical studies examining discrimination.

  • Erin D. Singshinsuk

    Erin Singshinsuk serves as executive director of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. She is responsible for directing the day-to-day operations of the commission and managing its staff.

  • Tad Stahnke

    Tad Stahnke directs the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s international educational outreach as well as its Initiative on Holocaust Denial and Antisemitism. He is also an expert in international human rights law with a focus on religion-state issues and freedom of religion or belief.

  • Asma Uddin

    Asma Uddin is the author of When Islam Is Not a Religion: Inside America’s Fight for Religious Freedom. She previously served as counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, where she focused on both international and American religious liberty advocacy. Uddin has extensive knowledge of religious freedom law and a track record of defending religious minorities, and she often speaks on on issues of gender and faith.

  • Xiangnong (George) Wang

    Xiangnong (George) Wang is a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, with a focus on privacy and security.

Related ReligionLink content