Julian Assange’s release from HM Prison Belmarsh in London on June 24th ignited a firestorm on social media. Assange’s plea deal with U.S. prosecutors has generally been met with enthusiasm from free-speech crowds. However, online discourse cascades into deeper conversations about more than just Julian Assange.

MIG Reports data shows the discourse around Assange's release generates intense debates over free speech, freedom of the press, global politics, and government transparency. Much of the conversation is shaped by political orientation and national identity.

How People Are Reacting to Assange’s Freedom

Much of the online conversation celebrates Assange's release as a victory for freedom of the press and free speech. Many Americans praise Assange for his role in exposing government secrets and misconduct. They view him as a hero who has suffered unjustly for his commitment to transparency. This group often includes references to government overreach and the importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom as a cornerstone of democracy.

There is also skepticism and outright disapproval of Assange, questioning his methods and the legality of his actions. This sentiment often comes from those who believe Assange's activities endangered lives and compromised national security. For these Americans, Assange's release is a troubling precedent that could embolden similar actions in the future.

Both sides of the argument include emotional intensity with passionate language and strong opinions from those involved. Many posts include references to past grievances with political establishments, underscoring deeper, long-standing frustrations with issues of governance, accountability, and civil liberties.

Demographic Patterns

Younger generations, particularly those active on digital platforms like X and Reddit, tend to champion Assange as a symbol of the fight against corrupt institutions. This demographic often aligns with more libertarian or left-leaning political views and is deeply concerned with issues of digital rights and government surveillance.

Older demographics, particularly those with a military background or conservative leanings, are more likely to voice concerns about Assange's impact on national security. This group often promotes narratives of patriotism and the protection of state secrets as paramount to national safety, reflecting a more traditional perspective on law and order.

Impact Analysis

For some, Assange's release is a catalyst for deeper reflection on their political beliefs and actions. Assange supporters indicate this event reinforces their distrust in government institutions. They also say it increases their likelihood of supporting candidates who prioritize transparency and civil liberties.

For others, particularly those concerned with national security, the release reaffirms their support for tougher policies on government whistleblowers and classified information leaks. Moderates and independents show a strong interest in the issue, as it speaks to governmental accountability and civil liberties. These topics are becoming increasingly central to American political discourse.

Based on current trends, these demographics will likely remain engaged with the issue, potentially influencing their voting behavior in future elections. They might lean toward candidates who emphasize civil liberties and whistleblower protection, seeing the issues as important to democratic principles.

Reactions also highlight potential interest from undecided voters and Independents. While Assange's release might not be the sole consideration for their votes, it could influence these segments. Framing themes of government accountability and personal freedom will likely appeal to this group.

Those who are disillusioned with both major political parties might view Assange's predicament as indicative of systemic issues that need addressing. This could cause them to gravitate towards candidates who advocate for reform and transparency.

Two controversial reversals in Snopes fact-checks are causing online discussion and controversy. Debates over Donald Trump's infamous "very fine people" comment and Ashley Biden's diary are fervent.

Snopes, a left-leaning fact checking website, reversed its previous fact-check that Donald Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people” after the Charlottesville protests of 2017. In April, Snopes also reversed a fact check about whether the contents of Ashley Biden’s diary were confirmed, changing its rating from "Unproven" to "True."

These reversals are stirring public sentiment and cast a spotlight on broader issues of media trust and political bias – both of which look to have influence on voting trends in the 2024 election.

Very Fine People Hoax

The media’s continual characterization of Trump’s "very fine people" comment has long been contentious. President Joe Biden, in 2019, launched his campaign citing this now-debunked claim that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people.

Many Americans feel Snopes’s revisions validate their previously held beliefs either about mainstream media's unfair portrayal of Trump or its broader role in pushing political narratives.

Among Trump's supporters, there is a palpable sense of vindication. They argue Snopes admitting Trump’s comments were mischaracterized demonstrates how media and fact-checker spin has fueled a biased narrative against the former president and other conservatives.

This skepticism toward media is fueling a deeper mistrust of news and fact checking outlets. It also seems to encourage voters’ growing resolve to support Trump more fervently in the upcoming election. Trump's base, which includes a substantial portion of rural and working-class voters, is therefore likely to remain steadfast or grow.

Critics of Trump view the Snopes revision as problematic. They contend that, while the retraction might be technically accurate, it could be weaponized to downplay the serious implications of Trump's rhetoric.

Anti-Trump voters fear such reversals may perpetuate a dangerous narrative and embolden extremist views. This skepticism towards media corrections could boost voter turnout among those who oppose Trump, particularly in urban and suburban areas where such views are more prevalent.

Ashley Biden’s Diary

Regarding Ashley Biden's diary, the Snopes reversal regarding it authenticity and content have further deepened partisan divides. Right-leaning Americans suggest the original fact-check of the diary was another among many attempts to shield the Biden family from scrutiny.

Biden critics argue this reversal exposes a concerted effort within the media to protect Biden. The reversal also reinforces their belief in a biased media that unfairly attacks conservative figures while ignoring liberal misdeeds. This perception bolsters support for Trump and could attract more undecided or moderate voters who are increasingly skeptical of media integrity.

Conversely, left-leaning voters and Biden supporters are disheartened by Snopes's reversals. They interpret these actions as caving to pressure and contributing to the spread of misinformation. Many believe such admissions could have a demoralizing effect, potentially dissuading some voters from participating in the election due to a feeling of disillusionment with the political process and media landscape.

However, there's also a counter-effect among those who perceive these reversals as hair-splitting. These exhausted voters may be energized to fight against what they see as manipulation and misinformation.

News of U.S. prosecutors recommending the Justice Department criminally charge Boeing for violating the settlement on fatal 737 Max crashes, is generating discussion. On June 18, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun testified in the U.S. Senate about numerous issues which sparked widespread public reactions.

Public commentary focuses on the aviation giant's apparent safety lapses and retaliatory tactics against whistleblowers. Americans seem deeply concerned and outraged over the company's negligence and the emerging whistleblower claims, which add fuel to an already blazing fire of public discontent.

Sentiment Trends

American attitudes are predominantly negative towards Boeing. There is a strong sense of betrayal, with people feeling Boeing's leadership, including Calhoun, place profits above human lives and safety. The CEO's large salary amid these allegations only exacerbates public anger. This highlights a stark disconnect between Boeing's top brass and any serious consequences for their actions.

Many Americans draw parallels between Boeing's corporate practices and broader systemic issues within American political and business practices. Americans believe Boeing's safety issues represent a larger problem in which corporate malpractice goes unchecked due to weak regulatory oversight and prioritizing corporate profit over public welfare. The speculation about favoritism and insufficient criminal prosecution by the Justice Department fuels the narrative of systemic corruption.

Belief in corrupt corporations leads calls for a more extensive overhaul, beyond penalizing Boeing. Public opinion suggests holding individuals at the top levels of management accountable, including demands for Calhoun's resignation, could be a starting point. However, transforming this sentiment into a broader movement against systemic corporate and political negligence requires strategic framing.

Corporate Corruption in America

Many voters believe Boeing's quality control issues and lack of repercussions are emblematic of larger problems in corporate America. There are recurring mentions of corporate greed, regulatory failure, and political complicity. Voter suspicions include:

• Whistleblower deaths and retaliation show grave moral and legal corruption.
• Boeing's situation with other corporate malpractice cases reveals a pattern of corporate negligence under weak administration.

While the public's immediate reaction is one of anger and disappointment towards Boeing, there is potential to channel this sentiment into a broader movement against corporate hubris. People seem to want robust regulatory governance, which they hope can lead to a significant systemic overhaul.

Online discussion about corporate corruption isn't limited to Boeing. Many people draw parallels between Boeing's situation and other issues like corporate tax evasion, legal loopholes, and the perceived inadequacy of regulatory frameworks.

Some Americans further associate these corporate malpractices with a corrupt political establishment. They believe politicians across party lines tend to protect the interests of big corporations over those of ordinary citizens.

This negativity seems to be impacting Boeing’s stock, which is down in 2024. It also remains lower than when the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) between Boeing and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was announced on January 7, 2021. The agreement required Boeing to pay more than $2.5 billion to resolve the criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

On June 18th, the New York court of appeals declined to hear an appeal to remove Trump’s gag order. Americans took to social media with their reactions and MIG Reports is tracking a boost sentiment among anti-Trump voters. Outside of liberals celebrating the gag order remaining in place, the rest of Americans seem to disapprove of court actions against Donald Trump.

Reactions to Politicized Courts

The continuation of the gag order against Trump reveals both strong support and opposition to the former president. Those who support the gag order claim it is important to uphold the rule of law and maintain judicial integrity. They cite concerns over Trump's potential influence on ongoing legal proceedings.

Critics of the gag order view it as politically motivated and a violation of judicial integrity. They believe the order is aimed at silencing Trump and his supporters, describing it as blatant judicial overreach and partisan manipulation of the legal system. Discussions often extend to broader political issues, highlighting societal divisions and concerns about the precedent set by the court's decision.

Sentiment Trends

Those who support the gag order express glee and satisfaction at its continuation. They feel relieved at Trump’s continued hamstringing and feel cautiously optimistic about the justice system’s ability to "take down” their opponent.

Americans who view the judicial actions against Trumps as politically motivated react with intense disapproval and anger. They see the gag order as an attack on free speech and an attempt to weaponize the court against political opposition. They feel frustrated and perceive the decision as unjust, sparking calls for resistance and highlighting fears of future political reprisal.

Voter reactions to Steve Bannon being ordered to jail are divided but with severe negativity, much like opinions on Donald Trump's conviction. The rhetoric varies sharply, with a considerable number viewing the order as a red flag for the state of democracy in the U.S., while others believe it's necessary for the government to maintain its authority.

Discussion Trends

Critics of Jailing Bannon

• Critics of the order to jail Bannon view it as political persecution. They believe Bannon is a pawn in a political game orchestrated by the Biden administration.
• Comments accuse Biden's administration of using power to silence and jail political opponents. They equate these actions to tactics used by dictators and communist regimes.

• Critics see Bannon's indictment as a threat to governance and an attack on free speech. Common phrases include "deep state," "lawfare," and "banana republic," indicating distrust in institutional justice.
• There is a trend of linking this situation to broader conservative grievances. These grievances include perceived infringements on First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

Those Cheering the Order

• Some view Bannon's indictment as a step towards accountability and upholding the rule of law. This narrative portrays Bannon as challenging institutional authority and jeopardizing democratic norms.
• These views are less visible compared to the critics of the actions taken against Bannon.
  

Rule of Law

A recurring topic within these discussions is the perceived decline of the rule of law in America. While both sides invoke this term, they interpret and apply it differently based on partisan perspectives. Some believe Bannon's punishment upholds the rule of law because he broke the law and must face the consequences just like any citizen.

However, others feel the rule of law is being undermined, contending that Bannon's case is an instance of political persecution rather than a lawful procedure.

There is disparate sentiment depending on a person’s political orientation. However, across the board, there is a shared concern for the health of American democracy and the country's justice system, though opinions on the current state of these institutions vary sharply.

Demographics play a significant role in the polarized viewpoints, with partisan affiliations primarily driving the discourse. Ideological differences aside, there appear to be shared anxieties about the rule of law, democracy, and the use of power in politics—themes that resonate with Americans of all political stripes.

Recently, Infowars owner Alex Jones took steps to liquidate his assets to pay legal damages. These costs were money he owes victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre. The original court-ordered payment totaled approximately $1.5 billion.

Online reactions to possibility of Alex Jones being forced to sell Infowars are contentions, dividing people along political lines. The debate largely revolves around certain keywords and phrases like the "deep state,” "globalism,” “freedom of speech,” “the Biden administration,” and “MAGA.”

Deep State

Sentiment toward the deep state is predominantly negative and critical of:

• Government bureaucracy
• Mainstream media
• The Biden administration

Discussion trends include:

• A perception that deep state entities mislead the public.
• The deep state is often blamed for negative events. People believe the deep state is a clandestine network within the government manipulating national affairs.
• Media and politicians burying the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 election is frequently cited as evidence of deep state action.
• People express worry over perceived threats to free speech by the deep state. This is frequently mentioned in refences to Alex Jones and Infowars.
• Infowars viewers suggest Jones being forced to sell his platform could be a coordinated attack by the deep state.
• There is strong support for the MAGA movement, indicating a large conservative presence within these discussions.

A main theme in discussions is an “us versus them” attitude, suggesting strong distrust and suspicion towards government institutions and mainstream media. 

Discussion and Sentiment Analysis

As people discuss the situation with Alex Jones and the potential loss of Infowars, there are several discussion and sentiment trends:

• There is a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction and anger among Jones supporters.
• Many people frequently use terms like "uniparty," highlighting a distrust in both political parties which people view as colluding against conservative interests.
• There is specific dissatisfaction with Republican representatives for failing to uphold conservative values.
• People are calling for action from figures like Rep. Marjorie Tayler-Greene and Speaker Mike Johnson, albeit with skepticism about their effectiveness.
• Many conversations mention people like Steve Bannon, indicating a link between personal grievances and larger political events.
• There is a desire for grassroots mobilization and resistance, with MAGA supporters viewed as a counterforce to perceived political wrongdoings.

Despite an overall negative sentiment, are also optimistic calls for concrete action to address perceived injustices against Jones, Bannon, Trump, and other conservative figures. Among the dissatisfaction and disillusionment, there's a hint of rallying and a call for tangible action.

Recently, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker received criticism for being an outspoken Catholic during his graduation speech at a Catholic university. In reaction, the official Twitter account for the City of Kansas City came close to doxxing Butker in a tweet pointing out where he lives.

The same day, the tweet was deleted, and Kansas City again tweeted, this time apologizing for the doxxing.

We apologies for our previous tweet. It was shared in error.

— Kansas City (@KansasCity) May 16, 2024

In response, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey notified the public he will be invoking the Missouri Human Rights Act in defense of Harrison Butker. The Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) is a state law that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on various protected characteristics, including religion.

MIG Reports analysis of the reaction to AG Bailey’s defense of Butker highlights two general trends:

• A newfound support among right leaning Americans for being proactive about cancellation.
• A continuing environment for left-leaning Americans of seeking “accountability,” which conservatives view as cancellation.

AG Bailey is seeking to investigate and enforce applicable law if is should show Harrison Butker’s rights were being violated by Kansas City – for disclosing where Butker lives.

BREAKING: My office is demanding accountability after@KansasCity doxxed @buttkicker7 last night for daring to express his religious beliefs.

I will enforce the Missouri Human Rights Act to ensure Missourians are not targeted for their free exercise of religion.

Stay tuned.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) May 16, 2024

Political Reactions

Conservative Voices

Many conservative voices appreciate Bailey's decision, viewing it as a stand for religious freedom and free speech. They argue Butker, like any American, has the right to express his beliefs without facing professional repercussions or being canceled.

Conservatives often criticize what they perceive as a double standard among liberals, who they believe champion free speech only when it aligns with their own views. They argue liberals are quick to call for consequences when speech opposes their values.

Liberal Voices

Liberals and progressives are critical of Bailey coming to Butker’s defense but are ignoring the objectionable actions by Kansas City’s official X account. They argue freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences and emphasize that Butker's comments, which are perceived as misogynistic, should not be protected under the guise of religious freedom.

Liberals often highlight that expressing controversial opinions can and should incur professional and social repercussions, especially when those opinions are viewed as harmful or discriminatory.

Views on Free Speech and Religious Rights

Pro-Free Speech Advocates

Advocates for unrestricted free speech, irrespective of political affiliation, support Bailey's invocation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. They argue Butker's right to express his religious beliefs should be protected.

These voices are often concerned about the potential for censorship and the slippery slope of limiting speech based on its content or the reactions it provokes.

Pro-Accountability Advocates

Advocates for accountability argue that, while Butker has the right to express his beliefs, he must also face the consequences of those expressions, particularly if they are harmful or discriminatory.

This group emphasizes the importance of protecting the vulnerable from speech that can perpetuate discrimination or harm. They say societal progress often requires holding public figures accountable for their words.

Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker has recently been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. A public commencement speech in which he made statements about women’s accomplishments in the home versus academic or professional achievements has led many to label him as misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic. This controversy has sparked a significant debate online, with reactions ranging from strong support to vehement opposition.

The NFL has formally condemned Harrison Butker’s statements, a predictable move given the league’s previous affirmations of leftist ideas such as Drag Queen Story Hour. Some draw a stark contrast in the NFL’s professed stance on women’s rights compared to its actions. Many making this argument highlight the history of violent offenders employed by the NFL, citing 1,079 arrests, charges, and citations among NFL players since 2000. This, critics say, indicates a hypocrisy within the NFL in its support for women.

Support for Butker

Many of Butker's supporters argue that his comments fall under the right to free speech and should be protected regardless of their content. These individuals often criticize what they perceive as liberal cancel culture and argue expressing conservative views should not result in backlash.

Conservatives and religious Americans resonate with Butker's views, seeing them as an expression of traditional values. Butker's speech aligns many of these groups’ beliefs about gender roles, sexuality, and morality. Right leaning and conservative voters say Butker is being unfairly attacked by woke activists for a previously mainstream and traditional viewpoint. Meanwhile, they say liberals and progressives are allowed to say much more incendiary things without anyone batting an eye. 

Criticism Against Butker

Progressive and liberal Americans tend to argue Butker's speech perpetuates harmful stereotypes and discrimination against marginalized groups. They see his comments as regressive and damaging to the ongoing efforts for equality and inclusivity.

Many in the LGBTQ community express strong disapproval of Butker’s remarks. They highlight the negative impact they perceive such statements to have on the mental health and societal acceptance of LGBTQ individuals.

Demographic Patterns

Support for Butker tends to be stronger in more conservative regions where voters voice frustration with woke ideology in sports, especially in parts of the United States known for their traditional values. Criticism is more prevalent in urban areas and states with progressive political leanings.

Younger demographics, particularly those active on platforms like Twitter and Instagram, are more likely to criticize Butker’s speech. Older demographics, who might consume news via more traditional media or conservative channels, show more support for Butker.

Women, especially those advocating for gender equality, are more likely to criticize Butker’s remarks. Men, particularly those aligned with conservative ideologies, tend to support Butker’s views themselves and his right to express them.

Public Sentiment Analysis

MIG Reports analysis shows the criticism against Harrison Butker is louder and more widespread online than his support. However, the support he does receive is fervent and rooted deeply in ideological beliefs about free speech and traditional values.

Platforms like Twitter are saturated with criticisms, often trending with hashtags that call out Butker’s views. Conservative platforms and forums are more likely to defend Butker, framing the backlash as an example of liberal intolerance.

Mainstream media tends to highlight the controversy and the criticisms, possibly reflecting a broader societal shift towards progressive values. Some also argue that social media and mainstream media bias may drown out a more commonly held viewpoints among average Americans.

The reaction to Harrison Butker's speech is deeply polarized, reflecting broader societal divides on issues of gender, sexuality, and free speech. While a vocal group supports Butker, believing he has the right to express his views, a larger and more diverse demographic seems to be critical of his remarks, viewing them as harmful and outdated. This suggests that, at least in the context of social media and public discourse, the criticism against Harrison Butker resonates more widely, especially among younger and more progressive populations.

The reactions to Judge Juan Merchan holding former President Trump in contempt for violating a gag order doesn’t seem to sway voter opinions about the court case or Trump as a 2024 presidential candidate. Those who support Trump and view the trial as politicized continue to do so. And those who believe Trump should be punished for his actions feel Judge Merchan’s actions are justified.

Republicans and conservatives express outrage and skepticism at the contempt ruling. They view special counsel Jack Smith as a political hitman and believe the case is politically motivated. Many also believe Trump is being unjustly persecuted and are calling for investigations into the individuals they perceive to be orchestrating this persecution.

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are more likely to believe Trump has violated the gag order and should be held accountable for his actions. These voters are likely to be generally critical of Trump's presidency and his future election prospects. They argue no one is above the law, including former presidents, and Trump should face the consequences of his actions.

Liberals tend to believe Trump represents a threat to democracy and accuse him of aspiring to dictatorship. This group often cites various investigations and legal actions against Trump as evidence of his supposed criminal behavior.

The fact that Trump is being prosecuted for multiple crimes indicates to anti-Trump voters that he is guilty. Meanwhile, the same evidence is viewed by Trump supporters, not as a sign that Trump is guilty, but rather that the cases are politically motivated.

Some moderate voters hold skepticism towards both sides, questioning the motivations and actions of all involved. These individuals express frustration at the perceived political theater and call for more focus on issues that directly affect the American people.

There are also Democrats who express concern about the potential impact of protests and contempt charges on the upcoming election. They worry court rulings or convictions could lead to a backlash among certain voter groups, ultimately helping Trump in his re-election bid.

• Donald Trump being held in contempt by Judge Merchan has not significantly impacted his approval, dropping only one point nationally and in swing states.
• Sentiment towards Trump’s legal issues also dropped slightly, indicating some voters may feel unhappy with the proceedings.

Fear of Trump Being Re-elected

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are more likely to view the contempt charge as a clear sign of Trump's disregard for the law and the Constitution. Some liberals argue the former president is attempting to establish a dictatorship, undermine democracy, and escape accountability for alleged criminal activities. They express fear that if Trump were to be re-elected, he would terminate the Constitution and establish authoritarian rule.

Concern Over Judicial Norms

The reaction of many legal professionals and experts has placed focus on the implications of a former president being held in contempt. These experts argue the issue is less about Trump as an individual and more about the precedent it sets for future interactions between the judiciary and the executive branch. Many legal minds contrast allegations against Trump with allegations against Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton, pointing out that political norms have historically prevented prosecuting political figures.

Critics of Trump argue the Trump prosecutions are justified and fair. They insist Trump's posts on social media could potentially influence the jury and witnesses. They applaud the judge's decision to hold Trump in contempt, arguing his conduct, rather than the tail itself, breaks norms. Some express hope this ruling could lead to further legal consequences for Trump, including potential jail time.

Free Speech Worries

Many are also framing the contempt charge as a free speech violation. They say the former president should be able to express his views without interference. This group believes the gag order is an example of judicial overreach and call for the fines to be returned.

Some argue the actions of Judge Merchan are part of a broader conspiracy to undermine Trump and his campaign. They have also expressed concern that the gag order extends to Trump's campaign, which they see as an infringement on political speech. There are repeated concerns that political actors are attempting to influence the election by silencing Trump and the American people have a right to hear from Trump himself.

There are also reactions that do not neatly fit into the pro-Trump or anti-Trump categories. Some voters say the issue is not as much about free speech as it is about the right to a fair trial. Others have expressed concern about the potential implications of the ruling for future cases. They say it could set a dangerous precedent for limiting free speech in the context of legal proceedings.