The John Oliver lawsuit saga is one of the most talked about free speech battles in modern media history. Coal baron Bob Murray sued John Oliver and HBO over a 2017 segment on Last Week Tonight, and the case became a landmark test of First Amendment rights for satirical commentary.
This article covers every major lawsuit involving John Oliver through 2026. You will learn who filed cases against him, what the courts decided, and why these rulings still shape free speech law today.
Here is a fact that might surprise you. Murray Energy, the company that sued Oliver, spent millions on litigation and later filed for bankruptcy. Oliver, meanwhile, devoted an entire follow-up segment to the lawsuit, complete with a giant squirrel in a suit.
If you want the full picture of what happened, who won, and what it all means right now, keep reading.
John Oliver Lawsuit 2026: What You Need to Know Now
As of 2026, no active lawsuits against John Oliver remain pending in any U.S. court. The major cases that made headlines have all been resolved, with Oliver and HBO prevailing in every significant legal challenge.
The most famous case, filed by coal CEO Bob Murray, ended after years of litigation. Murray’s claims were dismissed, and subsequent appeals failed. Murray himself passed away in October 2020, and his company had already filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019.
No new lawsuits have been filed against Oliver or Last Week Tonight in 2025 or early 2026. The legal precedents set by his earlier cases continue to be cited in free speech litigation across multiple states.
| Detail | Status in 2026 |
|---|---|
| Active Lawsuits Against Oliver | None |
| Most Recent Resolved Case | Murray v. HBO (dismissed) |
| New Legal Threats in 2025/2026 | None publicly reported |
| Precedent Status | Actively cited in anti-SLAPP cases |
For anyone searching for a current legal battle, the story right now is about the lasting impact of past rulings rather than any new courtroom drama.
The John Oliver Lawsuit Explained
The John Oliver lawsuit refers primarily to the defamation case filed by Robert E. Murray against HBO, John Oliver, and several show writers in June 2017. Murray claimed that a segment on Last Week Tonight about the coal industry was false, defamatory, and intentionally harmful.
The segment aired on June 18, 2017. Oliver spent over 24 minutes criticizing coal industry practices, safety records, and Murray personally. He discussed mine collapses, worker safety violations, and Murray’s political influence.
Murray’s legal team filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. They chose West Virginia deliberately because the state did not have an anti-SLAPP statute at the time, which would have allowed Oliver’s team to get the case dismissed quickly.
The case became a national conversation about whether powerful corporations could use lawsuits to silence journalists and comedians. Legal experts widely described it as a textbook SLAPP suit, designed to intimidate rather than win on the merits.
Key fact: Murray’s legal team sent a cease and desist letter to HBO before the segment even aired, and Oliver read it on camera during the broadcast.
Who Sued John Oliver and Why
Bob Murray, then CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, was the primary plaintiff who sued John Oliver. Murray Energy was the largest privately held coal company in the United States at the time of filing.
Murray claimed the Last Week Tonight segment contained false statements of fact about him personally and about his company’s safety record. Specifically, he objected to Oliver’s discussion of a 2007 mine collapse at the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, which killed six miners and three rescue workers.
Oliver had suggested on the show that Murray’s claim about an earthquake causing the collapse was disputed by seismologists. Murray said this was defamatory. He also objected to being mocked with a giant squirrel character named “Mr. Nutterbutter” who told Murray various colorful things on air.
Other parties named in the lawsuit included:
- HBO (as the broadcast network)
- Writers and producers of the specific episode
- Time Warner (HBO’s parent company at the time)
Murray sought compensatory and punitive damages. The exact dollar figure demanded was not always specified in public filings, but the claims were substantial enough to signal serious litigation intent.
Key Takeaway: Bob Murray filed the biggest lawsuit against John Oliver over a 2017 coal industry segment, naming HBO and show writers as co-defendants in West Virginia state court.
John Oliver Bob Murray Lawsuit: The Biggest Case
The John Oliver Bob Murray lawsuit became the defining legal fight of Oliver’s career. Filed on June 21, 2017, just three days after the coal segment aired, the case was Murray Energy Corporation v. HBO.
Murray’s complaint ran dozens of pages. It alleged defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The filing specifically targeted statements Oliver made about mine safety, Murray’s personal behavior, and the Crandall Canyon disaster.
HBO’s defense team, led by attorneys from Cravath, Swaine and Moore, one of the most powerful law firms in the country, argued that Oliver’s statements were protected opinion and satire. They said the segment was clearly comedic commentary on matters of public concern.
| Case Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Murray Energy Corp. v. HBO |
| Filed | June 21, 2017 |
| Court | Kanawha County Circuit Court, WV |
| Plaintiff | Robert E. Murray / Murray Energy |
| Defendants | John Oliver, HBO, writers, Time Warner |
| Claims | Defamation, false light, emotional distress |
| HBO’s Law Firm | Cravath, Swaine and Moore |
The case dragged on for years. It generated massive public interest and turned John Oliver into something of a folk hero for free speech advocates. Oliver referenced the lawsuit repeatedly on his show, often with gleeful defiance.
John Oliver Coal Lawsuit: What Started It All
The John Oliver coal lawsuit started with a 24-minute investigative comedy segment about the decline of the American coal industry. The segment aired on June 18, 2017, on Season 4 of Last Week Tonight.
Oliver’s team spent months researching the coal industry before the segment. They examined safety records, regulatory filings, and political donations. The segment covered multiple coal companies but focused heavily on Murray Energy as the largest private operator.
Three specific claims triggered the lawsuit:
- Oliver discussed the 2007 Crandall Canyon Mine collapse and questioned Murray’s public explanation that an earthquake caused it
- Oliver cited MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) violation records against Murray Energy operations
- Oliver used comedic devices, including the Mr. Nutterbutter squirrel character, to mock Murray personally
What made this segment different from typical late-night comedy was its depth. Oliver’s team presented actual regulatory documents on screen. They quoted specific safety citations. They showed footage of Murray making public statements.
Murray’s legal team argued this mix of fact and comedy was especially dangerous because viewers might believe factual claims embedded within a comedy format. HBO countered that no reasonable viewer would confuse a man in a squirrel suit with a factual news broadcast.
The coal industry context matters. Murray Energy employed thousands of workers. Murray himself was a vocal political donor and ally of then-President Donald Trump. The segment touched on real economic anxiety in coal country.
John Oliver Defamation Lawsuit Breakdown
The John Oliver defamation lawsuit hinged on whether Oliver’s statements were provably false assertions of fact or protected expressions of opinion. Under U.S. defamation law, this distinction determines everything.
To win a defamation case, a plaintiff must prove several things. When the plaintiff is a public figure like Bob Murray, the standard is even higher. The landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan established the “actual malice” standard.
This means Murray had to prove that Oliver either knew his statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That is an extremely high bar to clear, and it exists specifically to protect commentary about public figures.
| Legal Standard | What It Requires |
|---|---|
| Defamation (private person) | False statement, published, causing harm |
| Defamation (public figure) | All of the above, PLUS actual malice |
| Actual Malice | Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard |
| Opinion Defense | Statements of opinion cannot be defamatory |
| Fair Comment Privilege | Commentary on public matters is protected |
Murray’s team argued that Oliver presented false facts disguised as comedy. HBO’s lawyers countered that the segment clearly mixed sourced factual reporting with obvious satirical exaggeration, and that viewers understood the difference.
The court ultimately sided with Oliver. The defamation claims could not survive because Murray failed to demonstrate actual malice.
Key Takeaway: The defamation standard for public figures in America is intentionally high, and the John Oliver case reinforced that satirical commentary on public figures receives strong First Amendment protection.
John Oliver HBO Lawsuit: The Network’s Role
HBO was a named defendant in the Murray lawsuit alongside John Oliver personally. The network’s involvement was not just a legal formality. HBO funded the entire defense and stood firmly behind its host throughout the multi-year litigation.
This matters because many media companies settle lawsuits quickly to avoid legal costs, even when they believe they would win. HBO took the opposite approach. The network treated the Murray case as a matter of editorial principle and committed significant resources to fighting it.
HBO’s parent company at the time was Time Warner, which later became part of WarnerMedia under AT&T, and then eventually became part of Warner Bros. Discovery. Despite these corporate ownership changes, the legal defense never wavered.
The network’s willingness to fight had a chilling effect on future SLAPP suits against media companies. It sent a clear signal: suing HBO over satirical content would be expensive, lengthy, and likely unsuccessful.
- HBO paid all legal fees for Oliver and the show’s writers
- Cravath, Swaine and Moore served as lead counsel
- No settlement was offered at any point during the litigation
- HBO issued public statements supporting Oliver’s journalistic freedom
For smaller media outlets without HBO’s resources, this kind of legal defense would be impossible. That disparity is exactly why anti-SLAPP laws exist, to give smaller defendants a faster, cheaper way to dismiss meritless suits.
John Oliver SLAPP Suit: What That Means
A SLAPP suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and the Murray v. HBO case is widely cited as one of the most prominent examples in modern media law. SLAPP suits are filed not to win but to drain the defendant’s time, money, and willingness to speak.
The term SLAPP was coined by professors George Pring and Penelope Canan in the late 1980s. These lawsuits target people who exercise their First Amendment rights on public issues. The goal is intimidation, not justice.
Murray’s lawsuit fit the SLAPP pattern almost perfectly:
- Filed immediately after the broadcast (three days later)
- A cease and desist letter was sent before the segment aired, suggesting the intent was to prevent speech
- Filed in a jurisdiction without anti-SLAPP protections (West Virginia at the time)
- Named individual writers as defendants, not just the corporation
- Sought massive damages designed to create financial pressure
The irony of the Murray case is that it generated far more attention for Oliver’s coal segment than the segment would have received on its own. The lawsuit became a story, and Oliver milked it for years of on-air comedy.
Think of it like this: if someone tries to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, that is essentially what Murray’s lawsuit did for Oliver’s message.
John Oliver Anti SLAPP Defense Strategy
John Oliver’s legal team used anti-SLAPP principles even though West Virginia lacked a formal anti-SLAPP statute when the case was filed. Their strategy focused on demonstrating that the lawsuit targeted constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern.
In states with anti-SLAPP laws, defendants can file a special motion to dismiss early in the case. If the court agrees the lawsuit targets protected speech, the plaintiff must show a probability of success on the merits. If they cannot, the case gets dismissed and the plaintiff may have to pay the defendant’s legal fees.
West Virginia did not have this tool in 2017. That is exactly why Murray filed there. HBO’s attorneys had to fight the case through traditional motions to dismiss and summary judgment, which took longer and cost more.
| Anti-SLAPP Feature | Available in WV (2017)? | Available in States Like CA, TX, NY? |
|---|---|---|
| Early Dismissal Motion | No | Yes |
| Burden Shift to Plaintiff | No | Yes |
| Attorney Fee Recovery | No | Yes |
| Expedited Timeline | No | Yes |
The case became a catalyst for anti-SLAPP reform discussions in West Virginia and other states without such protections. Legal advocacy groups pointed to the Murray case as evidence that companies can weaponize the court system against speech.
HBO’s defense team also raised the opinion privilege defense, arguing that Oliver’s most provocative statements were clearly rhetorical hyperbole rather than factual assertions.
Key Takeaway: Murray deliberately chose a state without anti-SLAPP protections, and Oliver’s team had to fight the case through slower, more expensive traditional legal channels to win.
John Oliver First Amendment Case and Its Reach
The John Oliver First Amendment case reinforced that comedic commentary on public figures and matters of public concern sits at the core of what the First Amendment protects. Courts consistently held that Oliver’s segment involved speech on public issues.
First Amendment protections for satirical speech have deep roots in American law. The Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established that public figures cannot recover for emotional distress caused by parody or satire unless actual malice is shown.
Oliver’s case built on this foundation. The coal segment discussed workplace safety, environmental policy, and the political influence of a major industry. These are classic “matters of public concern” that receive the highest level of First Amendment protection.
The reach of this case extends beyond comedy. Journalists, bloggers, podcast hosts, and social media users all benefit from the same principles. When a court rules that a comedian can critique a CEO on national television, it strengthens the legal standing of every person who speaks out on public issues.
- The case is now studied in media law courses at major universities
- It has been cited in subsequent anti-SLAPP motions in multiple states
- Free speech organizations including the ACLU referenced it in policy advocacy
- It influenced legislative discussions about anti-SLAPP reform in several states
The practical takeaway is simple. If a billionaire CEO could not successfully sue John Oliver on HBO for calling out safety violations, it becomes harder for companies to sue regular people for leaving honest reviews or speaking up about corporate behavior.
John Oliver Free Speech Case: Why It Matters to You
The John Oliver free speech case matters to ordinary people because the legal principles at stake protect everyone, not just TV hosts with HBO’s legal budget. If Murray had won, it would have created a roadmap for corporations to silence critics through litigation.
Consider what happens when a consumer posts a negative review of a company online. Or when a local activist speaks out about pollution from a nearby factory. Or when a journalist writes about safety problems at a business. All of these actions could become targets for SLAPP-style lawsuits if courts allowed defamation claims to proceed against clearly protected speech.
Oliver’s victory preserved and strengthened the principle that public commentary, even when harsh, sarcastic, or unflattering, is not automatically defamatory. This principle is the shield that protects everyday free speech.
The case also highlighted the cost problem. Even when defendants win SLAPP suits, they spend enormous amounts on legal defense. HBO could afford it. A small blogger or independent journalist could not.
That is why the case fueled renewed interest in:
- State-level anti-SLAPP legislation to provide fast dismissal tools
- Fee-shifting provisions that make plaintiffs pay defense costs when they lose SLAPP suits
- Federal anti-SLAPP proposals that would create uniform protections nationwide
- Public awareness of how lawsuits can be used as censorship tools
In 2026, the conversation about protecting free speech from litigation abuse continues. The John Oliver case remains one of the most cited examples of why these protections matter.
Did John Oliver Win His Lawsuit
Yes, John Oliver won his lawsuit. The defamation claims brought by Bob Murray and Murray Energy were dismissed, and Oliver prevailed on all significant legal issues in the case.
The victory did not come through a single dramatic courtroom moment. It played out over years of legal filings, motions, and procedural battles. HBO’s legal team filed multiple motions to dismiss, challenged the sufficiency of Murray’s claims, and argued that the statements at issue were protected opinion and satire.
The court agreed with Oliver’s position. Murray could not demonstrate that Oliver’s statements met the actual malice standard required for defamation claims against public figures. The satirical and comedic context of the segment further undermined Murray’s argument that viewers would interpret the content as factual assertions.
| Claim | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Defamation | Dismissed |
| False Light | Dismissed |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress | Dismissed |
| Appeals | Unsuccessful |
After Murray’s death in October 2020 and Murray Energy’s bankruptcy in 2019, any remaining litigation pressure evaporated. Oliver commemorated the case’s end on his show with characteristic humor.
Key Takeaway: John Oliver won the lawsuit decisively, with all of Murray’s defamation, false light, and emotional distress claims being dismissed by the court.
John Oliver Lawsuit Outcome: Final Rulings
The final outcome of the John Oliver lawsuit was a complete victory for the defense. Every claim Murray filed was dismissed, and no damages were ever awarded to the plaintiff.
The Kanawha County Circuit Court in West Virginia ruled that Murray’s claims did not meet the legal threshold for defamation of a public figure. The court found that Oliver’s statements were either substantially true, protected opinion, or rhetorical hyperbole that no reasonable viewer would interpret as factual assertions.
Murray’s legal team attempted appeals, but these efforts also failed. The appellate courts upheld the lower court’s reasoning. By the time Murray passed away in October 2020, the legal battle was effectively over.
The outcome had several lasting effects on media law:
- It confirmed that investigative comedy receives the same First Amendment protections as traditional journalism
- It demonstrated that the actual malice standard remains a powerful shield for speech about public figures
- It discouraged future SLAPP-style suits against well-funded media defendants
- It generated public support for anti-SLAPP legislative reform
The case also had an unintended consequence for Murray. His lawsuit brought far more public attention to the safety and labor issues Oliver discussed than the original segment alone would have achieved. Legal scholars sometimes call this the “Streisand Effect” of defamation litigation.
John Oliver Lawsuit Settlement: Was There a Deal
There was no settlement in the John Oliver lawsuit. The case was resolved through court rulings, not through any negotiated agreement between the parties. HBO and Oliver never offered to settle, and Murray never accepted any terms.
This is an important distinction. Many high-profile media lawsuits end in settlements where both sides agree to terms, often including confidentiality clauses, retractions, or payments. None of that happened here.
HBO’s refusal to settle was a deliberate strategic and editorial decision. The network viewed any settlement as an admission that would encourage future lawsuits against its programming. Oliver himself was vocal about wanting to fight the case to completion.
| Settlement Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Was a settlement offered by HBO? | No |
| Did Murray accept any terms? | No (none were offered) |
| Was the case resolved by agreement? | No |
| How was it resolved? | Court dismissal of all claims |
| Were any damages paid? | No |
| Was a retraction issued? | No |
From a consumer rights perspective, the absence of a settlement means there is no payout, no claims process, and no fund to distribute. This was not a class action or a product liability case. It was a defamation suit between a private plaintiff and a media company.
If you came to this article looking for a settlement payout or claim form, this case does not have one. It was resolved entirely through the court system with no money changing hands.
John Oliver Lawsuit Timeline: Key Dates
The John Oliver lawsuit timeline spans from 2017 to 2020, covering the initial broadcast, the filing, years of litigation, and the final resolution. Here is a chronological breakdown of every major event.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 18, 2017 | Last Week Tonight airs coal industry segment |
| June 21, 2017 | Murray Energy files defamation lawsuit in WV |
| July 2017 | HBO files initial motion to dismiss |
| 2017 to 2018 | Discovery phase and procedural motions |
| February 2018 | Court hears arguments on motion to dismiss |
| 2018 to 2019 | Ongoing litigation, additional motions |
| October 2019 | Murray Energy files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy |
| 2019 to 2020 | Court rulings favor Oliver on key claims |
| October 25, 2020 | Bob Murray dies at age 80 |
| Late 2020 | Remaining claims effectively resolved |
| November 2020 | Oliver addresses Murray’s death and case end on show |
The timeline reveals something telling. Murray’s lawsuit lasted longer than Murray Energy’s solvency. The company went bankrupt before the case was fully resolved, which raises questions about whether the litigation costs contributed to the company’s financial troubles.
Oliver used the lawsuit as material throughout its duration. He referenced the case in multiple episodes, often escalating his mockery of Murray as a form of protest against what he saw as an attempt to silence legitimate criticism.
Key Takeaway: The lawsuit lasted over three years, outlasting Murray Energy’s solvency, and was resolved after Murray’s death in October 2020 with a complete victory for Oliver and HBO.
John Oliver Last Week Tonight Lawsuit History
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver has faced multiple legal threats and challenges beyond the Murray case, though the coal lawsuit remains by far the most significant. The show’s investigative format, which blends comedy with deep-dive journalism, naturally attracts legal attention.
The show’s research process involves teams of journalists, fact-checkers, and lawyers working together before segments air. HBO’s legal department reviews every major segment before broadcast, and outside counsel is sometimes brought in for especially sensitive topics.
Other legal challenges and threats the show has faced include:
- Cease and desist letters from various companies and individuals featured in segments
- Threats of litigation from organizations criticized on air, most of which never materialized into actual lawsuits
- Copyright and trademark disputes related to show content used in advocacy campaigns
- International legal challenges in countries with different defamation standards than the U.S.
The show has covered topics including televangelists, debt buying, predatory lending, and corporate lobbying. Each of these segments carried potential legal risk. HBO’s willingness to stand behind the show’s editorial choices has been a defining feature of the production.
The Murray case remains the only lawsuit that generated sustained, multi-year litigation. Most other threats fizzled before reaching court, often after HBO’s legal team responded to initial demand letters.
John Oliver Legal Battles Beyond Murray
John Oliver’s legal battles extend beyond the Murray case, though most have been far less dramatic. Several companies and individuals have threatened legal action without following through with actual court filings.
The Reigning Grace Santuary case is worth noting. After a 2015 segment on televangelists, the church associated with Robert Tilton considered legal action but ultimately did not file suit. The segment criticized practices like “seed faith” donations and targeted vulnerable audiences.
Other notable threats and minor disputes include:
- The coal segment follow-ups: Multiple coal industry figures expressed displeasure but did not file formal claims
- International broadcasts: The show faced legal scrutiny in countries where defamation standards are plaintiff-friendly, such as the UK and Australia
- Corporate pushback: Companies like those in the debt buying industry responded with public relations campaigns rather than lawsuits after being featured
Oliver’s approach has consistently been to acknowledge legal threats on air and use them as additional comedic material. This strategy serves a dual purpose: it entertains the audience and it publicly documents any attempt to suppress speech.
The pattern across all of Oliver’s legal encounters is consistent. Large entities threaten action, Oliver’s team reviews the legal exposure, HBO’s lawyers prepare a defense, and the threatening party backs down or loses if they proceed.
John Oliver Sued: Lessons for Free Speech in 2026
When John Oliver was sued, the case became a live demonstration of how the American legal system handles the tension between free speech and reputation protection. In 2026, the lessons from this case remain directly relevant.
The biggest lesson is structural. The absence of anti-SLAPP laws in some states creates an uneven playing field. A speaker’s protection depends partly on where a lawsuit is filed, which allows plaintiffs to “forum shop” for jurisdictions with weaker speech protections.
As of 2026, more states have adopted or strengthened anti-SLAPP statutes than when Murray filed in 2017. The John Oliver case is frequently cited in legislative hearings as evidence of why these laws are needed. But a uniform federal anti-SLAPP law still does not exist.
Other lessons from the case that apply in 2026:
- Mixing fact and satire is legally protected as long as the overall context makes the comedic nature clear
- Sending cease and desist letters before publication can backfire spectacularly if the recipient decides to read them on air
- The actual malice standard remains the strongest protection for speech about public figures
- Litigation can amplify the message it seeks to suppress, as Murray’s case demonstrated
- Corporate bankruptcy does not automatically end pending lawsuits, but it certainly complicates them
For anyone speaking publicly about powerful interests in 2026, whether on social media, in local news, or through a podcast, the principles tested in the Oliver case are your principles too. The First Amendment protections he relied on belong to every American.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did John Oliver lose any of his lawsuits?
No, John Oliver did not lose any lawsuit.
He and HBO won every significant legal challenge, with all claims dismissed.
The Murray defamation case, the biggest lawsuit he faced, ended in complete victory for the defense.
Was there a settlement in the John Oliver Bob Murray case?
No settlement was reached in the Murray v. HBO case.
The case was resolved through court dismissal of all claims, not through any negotiated deal.
No money was paid by either side to resolve the dispute.
Can a company sue a comedian for making fun of them on TV?
Yes, a company can file a lawsuit against a comedian, but winning is extremely difficult.
Under U.S. law, public figures must prove actual malice to win defamation claims against satirical speech.
The John Oliver case demonstrated that comedic commentary on public issues is strongly protected by the First Amendment.
What is a SLAPP suit and how did it apply to John Oliver?
A SLAPP suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, filed to silence or intimidate critics rather than to win a legal judgment.
The Murray v. HBO case is widely considered a classic SLAPP suit because it targeted protected speech on a matter of public concern.
Many states have anti-SLAPP laws that allow defendants to get these suits dismissed quickly, though West Virginia lacked one when Murray filed.
Does the John Oliver lawsuit affect free speech rights in 2026?
Yes, the case continues to influence free speech protections in 2026.
Legal precedents from the Oliver case are cited in anti-SLAPP motions and defamation defenses across the country.
The case also fueled legislative efforts to strengthen anti-SLAPP protections at both state and federal levels.
What to Do With This Information
The John Oliver lawsuit story is finished in the courtroom but alive in its impact. The principles it reinforced protect your right to speak, write, and post about matters that affect the public.
If you are interested in how free speech law protects consumers and critics, pay attention to anti-SLAPP legislation in your state. These laws are your first line of defense if you ever face legal threats for speaking truthfully about powerful interests.
Stay informed. Know your rights. The same legal protections that kept a comedian on the air keep everyday people free to speak up.
