>
The Undeniable Math and Economics Behind $1,000 Silver!
20 Freezer Tricks That Make Your Groceries Last 10x Longer
Grow Food Fast, Self Watering Adapters for Mason Jars
One Copper and Zinc In Water Purify Everything -- The $48 Billion Industry That Needs You To Forget
Portable 1MW Kaleidos Microreactor Secures Critical Nuclear Fuel Deal Through 2030s
This New All-In-One Range Extender Is Ready To Go Into Any Electric Truck
Aptera Reveals The Secret To Building Its Solar EV: China
High-voltage sodium home battery emerges as affordable rooftop solar solution
Peter Thiel-Funded Company Anduril to Triple the Number of Autonomous Surveillance...
China has released Origin Pilot, claimed to be the world's first open-source operating system...
ShieldAI XBAT Drone Fighters Can Give A Fighter Drone Wing to Every US Destroyer
Brain organoids, kept alive more than five years, matured like human brains
Parkinson's patient's tremors VANISH within minutes of GROUNDBREAKING treatment

A split panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges said on Aug. 21 that a district court judge had erroneously kept in place $130,000 in damages against O'Keefe over an undercover operation that targeted Democratic strategists.
"The principal question in this appeal is whether the jury's damages award violated the First Amendment by punishing the defendants for publishing a news story," Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, writing for the majority, said. "We conclude that it did."
The case was brought after Project Veritas released a video showing conversations with strategist Robert Creamer and other Democratic operatives, including discussions secretly recorded by Allison Maass, a Project Veritas reporter, while she spent eight days as an unpaid intern at the Democracy Partners firm in 2016.
Creamer, who owned a consulting organization that was part of the firm, said two other groups canceled contracts with his organization because of footage Maass illegally obtained inside Democracy Partners. The contracts were primarily canceled because of footage of conversations with another Democratic strategist that was recorded by other Project Veritas personnel in public places, the appeals court majority said. That footage is protected under the First Amendment, Henderson said.
"The First Amendment required Creamer to show that the defendants' unlawful conduct, rather than protected speech, was the prevailing cause of his damages," the majority said. "But the record proved the opposite. Because the protected content of the Rigging the Election video was the principal cause of Creamer's lost contracts, the resulting damages award impinges on the First Amendment."
A district court judge had in 2025 upheld a jury ruling in favor of Democracy Partners, finding that Supreme Court precedent meant he had to be deferential to the jury because the case did not involve speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
The D.C. Circuit panel in the new ruling also threw out the jury decision that Maass violated federal and D.C. wiretapping laws when she secretly recorded conversations with Creamer and others she came into contact with during her eight days as an unpaid intern at Democracy Partners in 2016.