News God of War God of War Series Adaptation Rises From the Ashes With Ronald D. Moore as Showrunner Gods are back on the (streaming) menu By Molly Templeton | Published on October 23, 2024 Comment 0 Share New Share Just last week, Amazon and Sony’s adaptation of the PlayStation game God of War ran into what seemed like a very large roadbump: The two studios parted ways with their showrunner, Rafe Judkins (Wheel of Time), and executive producers Hawk Ostby and Mark Fergus (The Expanse). The three were first announced as in talks to create the show all the way back in March of 2022, and officially brought on board last December. But as quickly as a project falls apart, it all comes back together: Variety reports that the architect of the Cylon plan himself, Ronald D. Moore, is God of War’s new showrunner, executive producer, and writer. Moore was a writer for several Star Trek shows (and Roswell and Carnivale) before developing the Battlestar Galactica reboot in 2003. More recently, he developed the Outlander adaptation and created For All Mankind. Both series led to spinoffs: Outlander: Blood of My Blood is due next year, and a For All Mankind spinoff about the Soviet space program is also in the works. When the God of War series was first announced, the studios offered this description: Kratos, aka the God of War, who after exiling himself from his blood-soaked past in ancient Greece, hangs up his weapons forever in the Norse realm of Midgard. When his beloved wife dies, Kratos sets off on a dangerous journey with his estranged son to spread her ashes from the highest peak—his wife’s final wish. Kratos soon realizes the journey is an epic quest in disguise, one which will test the bonds between father and son, and force Kratos to battle new Gods and monsters for the fate of the world. It will be interesting to see how quickly things do or don’t move forward now.[end-mark] The post <i>God of War</i> Series Adaptation Rises From the Ashes With Ronald D. Moore as Showrunner appeared first on Reactor.

Column Science Fiction Film Club They Live: We’re Here to Chew Bubblegum and Challenge Systemic American Economic Inequality OBEY. CONSUME. CONFORM. WATCH TELEVISION. By Kali Wallace | Published on October 23, 2024 Credit: Universal Pictures Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Universal Pictures They Live (1988) Directed by John Carpenter. Written by John Carpenter, based on the short story “Eight O’Clock in the Morning” by Ray Nelson. Starring Roddy Piper, Keith David, and Meg Foster. In 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for re-election, conservative columnist George Will went to a concert. He enjoyed the show quite a lot, and he went home to write a column about how whiny blue-collar workers should love America as much as this rock star and “his merry band.” The rock star in question was Bruce Springsteen, and the song that Will so famously misinterpreted as glowingly, cheerfully patriotic was “Born in the U.S.A.,” a song that is about the ways the United States failed its working-class young men, first by sending them to fight in Vietnam, then by abandoning them to hardship and despair when they returned. Will may have had a great time raging at the concert, but he clearly wasn’t listening very closely to any of the lyrics besides the chorus. As far as I can tell, Reagan never played “Born in the U.S.A.” during his campaign. His campaign staff did reach out to Springsteen for use of the song and an endorsement; Springsteen’s people declined, and Springsteen almost immediately became more outspoken about his progressive politics. Reagan did reference Springsteen in a speech in New Jersey, but even at the time people found it bizarre. Reagan was campaigning on a platform of hope and abundance, and Springsteen’s music is not exactly characterized by a portrayal of America that fits that vision. But that didn’t stop other Republican politicians, including Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan, from using “Born in the U.S.A.” in their own future campaigns. We’re not here to talk about the Boss and his music. But the decades-long misappropriation of “Born in the U.S.A.” is the most infamous example of a trend that has been around for ages and won’t be going away anytime soon: people misinterpreting art for political messages that are obviously contrary to what that art actually stands for. American conservatives are particularly notorious for it—I’ll leave it to psychologists and sociologists to figure out why—but they aren’t the only ones who do it. It happens all the time. It’s probably happened five times since I started writing this paragraph. We can’t talk about They Live (1988) without talking about the intersection of art and politics, particularly in the U.S., and particularly in the 1980s. It is a very political movie with a very deliberate political message. It is also a movie that people wanting to convey a very different political message have since tried to co-opt—unsuccessfully, as it turns out, but we’ll get to that. Let’s back up and start at the beginning. In the beginning, sci fi writer and cartoonist Ray Nelson published a short story called “Eight O’Clock in the Morning” in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction in 1963. Several years later, in 1986, Nelson and artist Bill Wray adapted that story into a comic called “Nada” for the sci fi comics anthology Alien Encounters. (The comic is incomplete in that link; it’s missing the first page/opening scene.) Nelson’s story, in both formats, is about a man named George Nada who discovers that the world is secretly controlled by aliens who have hypnotized humans into not noticing their presence. He spends the story trying to reveal them to the rest of the world. Stories about aliens secretly controlling humanity are pretty common in sci fi, especially in the post-World War II era, when the tension and paranoia of the Cold War led to books like Robert Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters (1951) and Jack Finney’s The Body Snatchers (1954), and movies like It Came From Outer Space (1953), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, based on Finney’s novel), and Quartermass II (1955). Like a lot of ’50s Cold War sci fi, these stories often have a political theme, although sometimes the allegories are a bit muddled. To this day people still argue about whether the 1956 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is pro- or anti-McCarthyism. (I think we’ll watch that one for this film club soon. I’m on an alien invasion kick lately.) Nelson’s story is not obviously political, except in that very ’60s way of portraying a man trying to liberate people from a powerful and controlling authority. The 1986 comic version is more or less identical, although it leans a bit more into the horror and absurdity, with a sort of noir style to the artwork. The story didn’t become a pointed political allegory until John Carpenter got a hold of it. He read the comic when it came out, when he was actively looking for ideas and inspiration for a low-budget film. He acquired the rights to both the story and the comic, and he wrote the screenplay. The screenplay is credited to “Frank Armitage,” but that’s a case of Carpenter using a pseudonym—something he has done several times over the years. The name “Frank Armitage” is a reference to the H.P. Lovecraft story The Dunwich Horror, which Carpenter has said he picked simply because he likes Lovecraft’s work. (In 1994, Carpenter would direct In the Mouth of Madness, which references and incorporates many Lovecraft stories.) When Carpenter was casting They Live, he wanted somebody who didn’t have a Hollywood aura about them (which meant, among other things, he wasn’t going to call up his BFF Kurt Russell). He met Canadian pro wrestler “Rowdy” Roddy Piper in 1987. Carpenter was a wrestling fan, and Piper was looking to do more acting, so Piper’s manager introduced them over dinner. Carpenter asked, “Want to be in my movie?” and Piper, who had no idea who Carpenter was, basically thought, “Why the hell not?” and the rest is history. Yes, I’m paraphrasing, but honestly, according to both of them that’s about how it went. A fairly high-profile professional wrestler is perhaps an odd choice for a character who is meant to be a working-class everyman, but I can appreciate the logic. Carpenter wanted somebody a little unpolished, a little rough around the edges—somebody who could convincingly portray a regular guy who also happens to be capable of kicking ass. That ordinariness is central to the story Carpenter wanted to tell. And, yes, the bubblegum line came from Piper. When the film opens, Nada (the film never uses his name, but it’s listed in the credits) is new to Los Angeles, homeless and jobless. All he wants is a chance to do an honest day’s work for honest pay. He meets Frank (Keith David), a guy in a very similar position, on a construction site, and Frank brings him to Justiceville, a homeless encampment that provides Nana with a place to stay and a bit of community support. The camp featured in the movie is a real one, filmed on site in Los Angeles; the residents were hired as extras for the movie. That realism, combined with the bluesy score by Carpenter and Alan Howarth, firmly ground the film in a very particular corner of the American experience. These are hard times for a lot of people. Mills are closing, jobs are scarce, families are living in shantytowns, and people with almost nothing are constantly bombarded by media and advertisements telling them that success in life is defined by buying more, acquiring more, having more. This is the height of the extravagant ’80s, but the film’s point of view is centered far, far away from the worlds of Risky Business (1983) or Wall Street (1987). Nada has no time to settle into his new life, because there are strange things afoot. A pirate television signal cuts into regular broadcasts to warn people about some shadowy force that is controlling people. Nada notices suspicious goings on at the church across the street, and when he investigates he discovers that one of the men from the camp, Gilbert (Peter Jason), is working with some other people on some secretive project. Nada isn’t the only one who notices. The police are watching as well. The sequence in which the militarized police force bulldozes Justiceville, brutally beats the residents, and raids a Black church is incredibly upsetting—maybe even more so now than it was thirty-six years ago, because nothing in the last thirty-six years has made such events less common or likely. The reason for both the show of force and the resistance to it becomes apparent after Nada manages to get away. He finds a box of sunglasses in the now-ruined church and discovers, entirely by accident, that the sunglasses allow him to see the real world, a world that brainwashing has hidden from people. The city is filled with subliminal messages everywhere, on billboards, on magazine stands, in grocery stores, on television: OBEY, CONSUME, CONFORM, MARRY AND REPRODUCE. NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT. DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY. Just in case those messages aren’t clear enough, a glimpse of money in a man’s wallet reveals THIS IS YOUR GOD. Along with the subliminal messages, Nada also discovers that a large number of people around him are not human. They are aliens masquerading as human. Naturally, he finds this rather upsetting. He reacts as anyone would: by telling an alien in a grocery store that she looks like she fell in cheese dip. (I can’t help it. I love this movie’s terrible, cringey one-liners.) They Live was made on a pretty small budget ($3-4 million, depending on who you ask). It was filmed on location in Los Angeles, with very few sets. A number of the props came from other movies, because secondhand props are cheaper than new ones. The sunglasses were a leftover from Carpenter’s Big Trouble in Little China (1986), and the alien communication devices come from Ghostbusters (1984). According to Carpenter, the most expensive part of the production was the creation of certain shots of the hidden world. The scene in the grocery store, in which every single item on the shelves has a subliminal message when viewed through the sunglasses, was one of the few sets they had to build from scratch. One of favorite details about the production of They Live is about a member of the crew: Jeff Imada, a stuntman and actor who has worked on dozens of movies over the past few decades. He’s the fight choreographer behind They Live’s legendary six-minute alley fight scene between Nada and Frank. Imada worked with Piper and David for three or four weeks to practice every beat (pun intended) of that scene, which is still counted among favorite fight scenes every time audiences and critics are asked. Why is the fight so long? Wrong question! If you have the power to film a six-minute fight scene in which a WWE wrestler and a classically-trained stage actor beat each other senseless in a garbage-filled Los Angeles alley due to a disagreement about one man’s unwillingness to put on a pair of cheap plastic sunglasses, the only question to ask yourself is: Why not? But aside from the fight, this is a detail I love: Imada also plays the aliens. Not all of them, but most of them. Any time there is a close-up shot or a speaking part, that’s Jeff Imada. Apparently, Carpenter wasn’t happy with the actors he hired for those parts, so he just stuck Imada in hideous makeup and a series of outfits (both men’s and women’s) and filmed him over and over again. Carpenter has never shied away from stating exactly who those aliens represent. They are the yuppies of the ’80s. They are Gordon Gecko and Patrick Bateman. They are the supporters of Ronald Reagan’s economic policies, the ones who promoted deregulation for the benefit of the rich and powerful, the ones who promised trickle-down economics knowing full well that nothing would ever trickle down. They are the Americans who prioritize wealth and consumerism over everything else, including the lives of other people and the health of the planet. They are the wealthy and powerful who view the poor and marginalized as nothing but populations to be exploited for wealth and power. One of the alien newscasters even references Reagan’s “Morning in America” campaign ad. The allegory doesn’t end there. In the film, the aliens need human collaborators. There’s where characters like Holly Thompson (Meg Foster) and the construction foreman (Norman Alden) come in, the working people who know about the aliens and side with them. These are the people who are in reality closer to being homeless than they are to being rich and powerful, but still align themselves with the rich and powerful who are actively exploiting them. (Aside: Sure, she joined the aliens in the end, but the scene in which Holly pushes Nada out of her window is completely awesome. Yes, girl, that is the appropriate response to having an armed kidnapper and carjacker in your house!) The point is, none of the movie’s meaning is subtle. Subtlety hasn’t left the building, because subtlety was never in the building in the first place. This is an example of a sci fi story that was conceived, developed, and created, from start to finish, with a particular theme in mind. Carpenter has said this repeatedly over the years, in countless interviews. He liked Nelson’s comic, and he saw it as an opportunity to explore this political allegory. He was angry and alarmed at how the ideals of the previous decades, such as the communal counterculture of the ’60s and the civil rights movement, had given way to unrestrained, obsessive consumerism wrapped up in the fervor of evangelicalism. I like They Live a lot, cheesy one-liners and six-minute fight scenes and surprise defenestration and all, but I can also see why some critics found it clunky. There are stories from the ’80s about how executives at Universal (being rich yuppies themselves) had been uncertain about the film’s theme and had suggested giving the aliens a motivation beyond money. (In the original story and comic, the aliens also eat people.) Carpenter didn’t want that, however, and stuck with the message of characterizing the aliens as colonizers with no goal other than to exploit Earth for wealth. It was only some twenty years after the movie’s release that people began to claim the film had an entirely different meaning. I don’t care to give attention to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, but the short version is that neo-Nazis decided that the movie is about Jewish people secretly controlling the world, because that’s what neo-Nazis think everything is about. This was tied into the rise of other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, such as notable asshole David Icke’s shapeshifting lizard people nonsense. This misinterpretation never spread broadly, but it pops up from time to time, not in the sense of gaining true mainstream traction, but in the sense of movie fans being reminded, yet again, that people on the internet often say and believe disgusting things. Every time this interpretation returns, there is generally prompt and exasperated correction; searching online leads to at least half a dozen articles in various publications that explain, in great detail, why it’s wrong. So this isn’t so much a case of a posteriori interpretations ruining the legacy of a movie. The movie’s legacy is just fine, for the most part. Like many John Carpenter movies, They Live has grown to become a beloved cult classic over time, and the majority of people have no trouble understanding what it’s about. It just also gets roped into being an example of what happens when people who are determined to do harm seize onto a misinterpretation of a piece of media or art. Leaving that aside, I think They Live is an interesting example of the limits of using a sci fi premise as a political allegory. There are always going to be limits to any metaphor that divides people into us and them. This is especially true in speculative fiction, when exaggerated characteristics drawn from human behavior are assigned to fictional species and monsters. Sometimes the result of trying to walk this line in sci fi is very complex and nuanced, and sometimes it is not. They Live is not. It expands on the source material, but it leaves its nuance behind with its subtlety. And that’s fine, because it’s an action movie with blister-faced aliens who look like they fell in cheese dip, not a rigorous sociopolitical op-ed. To watch the movie and pick apart how convincing one finds its central thesis is to miss the point entirely. There is a reason the film focuses on the character of Nada, a man of immediate action and violent reaction, and not members of the established resistance. They Live is not about how systemic economic oppression can be understood and the myriad imperfect ways of dismantling it. That’s a different story, for a different film. They Live is an expression of frustration, a scream into the void about how fucking unfair it is to be told that success comes from following the rules and working hard, only to realize that the people who make the rules and dictate your hard work have been exploiting you for their own benefit all along. And, in the end, it doesn’t offer a simple conclusion. We don’t know what happens after the aliens’ presence is revealed. We don’t know if Nada and Frank and the resistance—none of whom survive the movie—achieve any sort of lasting change in the end. We see that the aliens are revealed, but not what happens next. Nada dies after all the violence, all the brutality and death, all the fear and betrayal, all the horror and anger, and he dies without knowing whether humans will rise up against the aliens—or if they’ll simply shrug and go about their lives. What do you think of They Live? Its theme, its epic fight scene, its aliens? Its terrible (amazing) dialogue? Or that wonderful soundtrack with its electro-synth blues? Next week: What’s that?!—oh, never mind. I just thought I saw a dude in a mask lurking behind that hedge. Watch Halloween on Fubo, AMC+, Shudder, Indieflix, Cultpix, Amazon.[end-mark] The post <i>They Live</i>: We’re Here to Chew Bubblegum and Challenge Systemic American Economic Inequality appeared first on Reactor.

If you’re ever wondering how far dogs will go to (literally and figuratively) to bark at birds, then you have your answer right here. On Monday, October 14, a white dog was spotted by a paraglider atop The Great Pyramid Of Giza, the tallest man-made structure for around 4,000 years and one of the Seven Wonders of the World, to bark at birds. In the jaw-dropping footage, the paraglider, Marshall Mosher, is seen soaring high in the desert sky over the largest Egyptian pyramid, when he zoomed in on the top of the pyramid to find a dog just casually roaming its apex. “A dog climbed all the way up the Great Pyramid of Giza!” Mosher wrote in the caption of the video, uploaded on Instagram. The footage has since gone viral and garnered almost 800,000 likes on Instagram. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Marshall Mosher (@marshallmosher) Many on the platform have joked about the bizarre situation. One user wrote, “If he pees there all Egypt belongs him.” While another user said the dog is the Egyptian god, Anubis. “Not a dog. That is the egiptian God Anubis. He is considered the guide of the dead in the afterlife and the protector of the tombs. That’s why it is over the piramid.” However, some can’t help but show concern about the dog’s well-being and if it was able to safely climb back down. Thankfully, Mosher did a few more follow up videos on his encounter with the dog, to ensure users that the dog is safe. In the first follow-up video, Marshal showed a footage of him with pyramid dogs, who apparently live in the area, and of him paragliding again, and going back to the apex of the pyramid. Unfortunately, the dog on top of the pyramid was no longer there. “I have no idea how he climbed that… so crazy,” Mosher said. This caused more concern from users. So, Mosher uploaded a second follow-up video of him paragliding again above the pyramids showing the pooch casually climbing back down the pyramid. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Marshall Mosher (@marshallmosher) “During the annual @skyone.egy paramotor event over the pyramids, we spotted a dog who had climbed all the way to the top of the Great Pyramid of Khafre!” Mosher wrote in the caption of his video. “After going back up to look for it, we got another siting of it running back down. He apparently lives up there :)” And in the final follow-up video, Mosher shows a clip of the dog climbing down the pyramid again, but this time, almost reaching its base. “Just as these ancient monuments have stood the test of time, built stone by stone through sheer will, grit, and vision, we too can create lasting legacies when we pursue our dreams relentlessly,” Mosher wrote. “Whether that dream is to fly over the pyramids or a dog’s dream to have the most epic view in all of Egypt!”

Burn It Down, Salt the Earth: The Sickest Anti-Trump Hoax Yet

Tuesday Was a Microcosm of Everything Wrong with the Democrats' Closing Pitch

“I had to get through a ceremony… and the ceremony was to get burned.”

The unexpected discovery calls into question the assumption black holes are formed through supernovae, with accompanying disruption to nearby stars.

Remember the good ole days when polite society, even rude society, did not tolerate mental breakdowns in public? Blubbering in front of people used to be embarrassing, and rightfully so.  But now, with the help of social media, it’s not only cool to lose our collective crap, it’s encouraged!  Related: Woke of the Weak: It's NOT okay NOT to be okay. The Self Love Movement Made It Cool to Be Nuts On this episode of Woke of the Weak, I cover a trend of Victim influencers who treat the entire internet like their own personal therapists.

CBS’s Stephen Colbert once again turned The Late Show into The Late DNC Show on Tuesday as he invited Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman to the program to beg reluctant voters to pick Kamala Harris in two weeks. With the context that Fetterman’s career began with a one-vote mayoral victory, Colbert opened up the floor, “Do you have anything to say to the people out there who might be feeling a little weary of politics and are thinking about staying home and not voting at all?”     Fetterman urged, “Quite literally, I wouldn't have the honor of sitting in this chair next to you if one single person stayed home that day in May of 2005 and I won by one literal vote and if that didn't happen, the chain was broken and I never would've have had the career. I wouldn't be that Pennsylvania senator and I wouldn't be able to make sure that Kamala Harris is going to be our next president, going across Pennsylvania to make sure that happens.” Colbert then sought to do more strategizing, “Is there early voting in Pennsylvania? Do you know, senator, does Pennsylvania have early voting?” Fetterman took the opportunity to remind people what he considered to be a blot on Trump’s first term, “Yes. They do, absolutely. In fact, when I was lieutenant governor, Governor Wolf put that in and it made it possible to really do that during the pandemic as well too. People can't forget that too. That’s part of why would anybody go back to Trump in 2020? That was the pandemic. We couldn't be doing this right now four years ago, having this conversation.” Colbert then moved onto the matter of how Pennsylvania counts their votes, deciding not the counter that the present conversation would not be happening four years ago regardless of who the president was and proving, yet again, late night is where Democrats go for free air time and friendly interviews. Here is a transcript for the October 22-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 10/23/2024 12:18 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Do you have anything to say to the people out there who might be feeling a little weary of politics and are thinking about staying home and not voting at all? JOHN FETTERMAN: Quite literally, I wouldn't have the honor of sitting in this chair next to you if one single person stayed home that day in May of 2005 and I won by one literal vote and if that didn't happen, the chain was broken and I never would've have had the career. I wouldn't be that Pennsylvania senator and I wouldn't be able to make sure that Kamala Harris is going to be our next president, going across Pennsylvania to make sure that happens. COLBERT: Is there early voting in Pennsylvania? Do you know, senator, does Pennsylvania have early voting? FETTERMAN: Yes. They do, absolutely. In fact, when I was lieutenant governor, Governor Wolf put that in and it made it possible to really do that during the pandemic as well too. People can't forget that too. That’s part of why would anybody go back to Trump in 2020? That was the pandemic. We couldn't be doing this right now four years ago, having this conversation.

For our first annual Free Speech Awards, the Media Research Center (MRC) is honoring 35 champions of the First Amendment, including five members of the U.S. Senate (announced Monday), and 10 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (announced posted Tuesday), 10 additional public officials today and 10 outstanding advocates of free speech in non-governmental organizations on Thursday. Today, we are honoring 10 public officials who have fought to protect free speech in America through their positions in state and non-legislative federal governments. The MRC’s inaugural 2024 Free Speech Awards recipients include Ken Paxton, Ashley Moody,  Andrew Bailey, Brendan Carr, Bryan Hughes, Ron Desantis, Greg Abbott, Paul Kanitra, Dave Yost and Jeff Landry.  In announcing the Free Speech Award winners, MRC Founder and President Brent Bozzell said, “The 2024 MRC Free Speech Awards are not just for Washington insiders. The 2024 Top 10 Political Leaders were instrumental in protecting freedoms nationwide. Some of the best defenders of the First Amendment are on the state level or agencies.”  Bozell continued: “This past year, we saw Governors Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott, and Jeff Landry fight Big Tech censorship. Attorneys General Ken Paxton, Ashley Moody, Andrew Bailey, and Dave Yost took the fight to Big Tech, bringing lawsuits and challenging them. For his part, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has done yeoman’s work in defending free speech, as have state legislators Bryan Hughes of Texas and Paul Kanitra of New Jersey.” Three of the 10 public officials receiving awards have faced online censorship as documented by MRC Free Speech America’s exclusive CensorTrack database. ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Governor Greg Abbott Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has led the Lone Star State since 2014. During his tenure, he has worked bipartisanly, developed Texas’s infrastructure, and created a successful economy. Earlier this year, TIME magazine recognized Abbot as one of the most influential people in the world.    Abbott has led the fight for free speech in Texas to declare Big Tech platforms common carriers and to prevent their relentless discrimination against conservative viewpoints.  Notably, in August 2021, he signed House Bill 20 into law, which prevented Big Tech platforms from banning users based on their political views.  "We will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas, which is why I am proud to sign House Bill 20 into law to protect First Amendment rights in the Lone Star State," Abbott said in a statement announcing the law's enactment. ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Attorney General Andrew Bailey Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has worked tirelessly to protect constitutional rights, enforce laws as written and train a new generation of attorneys to carry on his work.  Bailey has defended the First Amendment against the Biden-Harris censorship regime, consistently holding Big Tech accountable for infringing upon constitutionally-protected free speech rights.  Bailey inherited and carried through the Murthy v. Missouri lawsuit, brought by his predecessor against the Biden administration in the Summer of 2022. The suit was an effort to hold the federal government accountable for pressuring social media companies to censor unfavorable stories and political speech.  “We must build a wall of separation between tech and state to preserve our First Amendment right to free, fair, and open debate,” Bailey said in a statement related to the lawsuit. “Missouri will continue to lead the way in the fight to defend our most fundamental freedoms.” ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr was nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2017 and re-nominated by President Joe Biden in 2023. Carr has leveraged his extensive experience in communications and tech since he began working for the FCC as a staffer in 2012.  Carr has been a consistent champion of free speech rights. He fought against what many have described as the weaponization of the federal government against tech mogul Elon Musk. Carr called out the FCC’s expedited and potentially unlawful handover of radio stations to leftist billionaire George Soros.  “Pressuring social media companies into censoring the constitutionally protected speech of everyday Americans is not how you protect democracy,” Carr said in response to Democratic calls for censorship on social media platforms. ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Governor Ron Desantis Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis defended his country and American freedom through his service in the U.S. Navy for which he was awarded a Bronze Star. DeSantis also worked as a federal prosecutor and represented Florida’s Sixth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives before being elected governor in 2018.  As governor, DeSantis has led the fight in the Sunshine State to prevent Big Tech platforms from censoring media outlets and political figures based on their political viewpoints. He signed SB 7072 into law, which limits Big Tech’s ability to censor users based on viewpoint discrimination, as a publisher might. DeSantis released a statement about the pro-free speech bill after he signed it in 2021, affirming: “Many in our state have experienced censorship and other tyrannical behavior firsthand in Cuba and Venezuela. If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable.” ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes (R) is a lifelong Texan, a first-generation college graduate and a lawyer who has been an advocate for traditional values. He has advocated for school choice policies, made efforts to protect women’s sports, and has received several awards for his service to his constituents, including the Visionary Leader Award and the Horizon Award.  Hughes has also been a leader in the effort to protect constitutionally-protected speech by deeming Big Tech platforms to be common carriers. He also proposed HB 7, which directly limited the ability of social media companies to block users from posting based on their political viewpoints.   The Texas senator spoke to the importance of the law when it faced a legal challenge earlier this year, saying, “Social media companies can control the outcome of an election by the messages they allow to get through and other messages that they push forward.”  ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: New Jersey Assemblyman Paul Kanitra New Jersey Assemblyman Paul Kanitra is a former councilman and mayor of Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey—and currently represents the Garden State’s 10th district. He previously worked as an aide to U.S. Representative Mike Ferguson. Kanitra has received many accolades including the Distinguished Citizen Award in 2021.  In the New Jersey Assembly, Kanitra has been a leading legislator in the fight against Big Tech censorship and has built strong coalitions to protect free speech rights. He sponsored legislation during his tenure like Assembly Action A4738, which prevents social media sites from removing users' accounts through suspension, deletion or other means.  ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Governor Jeff Landry  Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry began his career as a police officer, working his way to become sheriff deputy, a U.S. congressman and later the Pelican State’s attorney general. He was subsequently elected governor in 2023. During his stint as attorney general, Landry along with then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, launched the Murthy v. Missouri lawsuit to hold the Biden-Harris administration accountable for colluding and coercing Big Tech platforms to censor free speech.  The suit implicated defendants President Joe Biden, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. The Plaintiffs additionally brought the suit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security. Through this lawsuit and the evidence uncovered in legal discovery, it became very clear just how aggressively the Biden-Harris administration has championed censorship. In a written testimony for the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in the House of Representatives, Landry shared what his litigation uncovered: “Publicly, these federal actors have justified their deeds in the name of protecting the public against ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,’ when in fact it is done to suppress disfavored views.”   As governor, he has also spearheaded a crusade to uphold free speech rights on the Louisiana State University campus. Landry signed an Executive Order, JML 24-154, which aimed to protect all viewpoints and encouraged vigorous debate in classrooms. ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Attorney General Ashley Moody  Before being elected attorney general, Ashley Moody was a successful lawyer and judge. She worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office where she pursued the prosecution of illegal drugs, firearms and fraud. Moody became the youngest judge in Florida when she was elected to the thirteenth circuit court in 2006 and was elected attorney general in 2018.   As attorney general, Moody has consistently led the fight against Big Tech’s unlawful censorship of constitutionally-protected speech, bringing multiple lawsuits to hold Big Tech accountable for its actions. For example, Moody defended Florida Gov. DeSantis’s free speech bill against a legal challenge brought by far-left tech trade association NetChoice.  She also joined 18 other state attorneys general in their denouncement of the Biden administration's attack on free speech.  “President Biden is attempting to confuse and distort legitimate criticism and the perspective of American citizens,” Moody stated in a press release. “This authoritarian maneuver could be straight out of the novel 1984 and should frighten Americans of all political persuasions." ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Attorney General Ken Paxton  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has served as the Lone Star State’s top law enforcement official since 2014 during which time he has upheld his constituents’s constitutional rights, combated human trafficking throughout the state and led the most successful child support division in the nation. Paxton has also consistently led the fight against Big Tech’s unlawful censorship of constitutionally-protected speech, bringing multiple lawsuits to hold Big Tech accountable for their actions. In defense of the Texas free speech law signed by Texas Gov. Abbott, Paxton spoke out against Big Tech companies for wantonly censoring viewpoints that counter the left’s narrative.  “These massive corporate entities cannot continue to go unchecked as they silence the voices of millions of Americans,” Paxton said in 2022. “HB 20 was designed to protect every Texan wanting to fully express his or her First Amendment rights, and the court made the right decision in upholding the law.” He further defended this law holding Big Tech accountable in court when he was sued by far-left tech trade association NetChoice in Paxton v. NetChoice. ♦ 2024 MRC Free Speech Award Winner: Attorney General Dave Yost  Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost began his public service career as a Delaware County, Ohio auditor, eventually pursuing the attorney general's office, which he won in 2019. He rose to national prominence because of his emphasis on the rule of law, stating that “the same rules for everybody” was a guiding principle.    Yost has also led the fight against Google, the most prominent source of censorship in America, by bringing litigation to declare it a common carrier in Ohio. This would make the tech giant subject to government regulation which is the first step to blocking Google censorship in the future. The case, Ohio v. Google, is ongoing and is anticipated to go to trial next year. Yost also wrote an amicus brief to the Supreme Court advocating for free speech when it was deciding Murthy v. Missouri. “The federal government doesn’t get to play referee on the field of public discourse,” Yost said. “If you let them decide what speech is OK, one day yours might not be.” MRC Free Speech America Assistant Editor Luis Cornelio and Staff Writer Tom Olohan contributed to this report.