By: Keith S. Shikowitz, Editor in Chief/Investigative Reporter
Robert Jowaiszas, Community Editor/ Researcher
Recently there have been protest against the Clarkstown Town Board as well as against President Trump and Congressman Mike Lawler and accusations of attempts to limit free speech and protests at the Four Corners in Nanuet. Witnesses to the protests have said that the information being disseminated is inaccurate and exaggerated. Even Clarkstown residents, after attending the board meeting, said they see that the opponents of the Republicans and local governments are ‘just blowing steam’ and are lying about what is happening.
An example of the exaggeration is the numbers of people who were in attendance at the November 24, 2025, board meeting. In an article by Tina Traster, she claimed that more than 250 residents were there for the purpose of “educating officials on their constitutional rights” at the Four Corners in Nanuet”. The exaggeration is that the room where the meeting was held has a capacity of only 220 people.
In an article published in the RCBJ (Rockland County Business Journal) Tina Traster wrote, But now, Republican officials in Clarkstown are floating the idea of restricting the hours protesters can assemble or suggesting there may be “better” locations for protesters to gather including on the Rockland Community College campus, which is in Ramapo.
At both a Nov. 6th town council meeting held on a Thursday at 5 pm (meetings are usually held Tuesday evenings), and at a Nanuet Civic Association meeting last week at the Nanuet Library, elected officials from Clarkstown said the town was considering limiting protests at the Four Corners to Sunday mornings from 8 to 10 am or relocating them. Nothing official has been proposed yet but Supervisor George Hoehmann, a Republican, said publicly that businesses were complaining about the protests. He also expressed displeasure at having to pay Clarkstown police overtime to man the recent large protests, which are a rebuke to Washington’s Republican party.
This too is misinformation, at the November 24, 2025, Clarkstown Board meeting Town Supervisor George Hoehmann said,
Upon the Board’s return after a two-minute break, Hoehmann reiterated his statement of earlier. “But again, there is no proposal, nor was there ever a proposal that was being put forward to limit people’s ability to protest at the Four Corners or anywhere else in the town of Clarkstown.”
Tina Traster’s Nov. 25 article in the RCBJ suggested that residents at a Clarkstown town board meeting were “educating officials on their constitutional rights” at the Four Corners in Nanuet. This framing implies that Town Supervisor George Hoehmann and Councilman Don Franchino were unaware of the First Amendment or indifferent to protesters’ rights. In reality, officials repeatedly emphasized there was no plan to restrict protests, noting that safety was the only concern.
The inaccuracy in this statement is that the people on the Clarkstown Board do not need to be “educated” on the people’s constitutional rights. They have all been through the public and some private school systems and they have been taught about these rights.
They know it and swear an oath to preserve and protect the US Constitution, the New York State Constitution and any and all local laws and the rights contained within. Some of them are even lawyers who have sworn a similar oath, before they were elected to the board, when they passed the state bar exam and to protect these rights.
The protestors from Indivisible Rockland and other groups are blaming the Republican Board in Clarkstown for this attempt at limiting first amendment rights. The flaw in their argument at this time is that the board still has one Democrat on it.
Traster’s story from November 25, 2025, touted speakers recounted personal histories, including a Jewish family’s experiences under authoritarian regimes. While compelling, Traster’s coverage used these emotional anecdotes to imply imminent oppression, a scenario that did not exist at the meeting.
Whereas these stories are emotionally heart tugging, they do not give any proof that these things are happening here in Clarkstown or in the United States overall.
Scott Johnson commented that the people carrying signs stating Queers for Palestine is akin to Chickens carrying signs for Colonel Sanders. “One other thing I noticed was that these protesters are NEVER carrying American flags. This is strange, considering they claim to be protecting the rights of American citizens.”
Traster’s coverage also echoed issues seen in her previous Four Corners stories: bias, selective framing, and misleading narrative choices. National political concerns were emphasized over local facts, making the meeting seem like a moral showdown rather than a discussion on protest logistics, public safety, and civic engagement.
Charles Roberts a Clarkstown resident said, “The methods RCBJ and others are using to get their narrative out is misleading their readership and viewership to turn against the legitimately elected officials and convince them that they are endangering their rights and livelihood, with no evidence or proof of their allegations.”
In a Nancy Cutler article on LoHud dated November 25, 2025, she also had inaccurate information about the attendance at the meeting. When she said, “More than 300 turned out to the Nov. 24 Clarkstown Town Board meeting, most eager to speak out against any restrictions on demonstrations at Nanuet’s “Four Corners,” the historic free-speech soapbox in Rockland County.” Again, the auditorium at the Clarkstown Hall has a maximum capacity of 220.
There are other questions about the RCBJ reporting:
Crowd Size Confusion
Early reports described rallies drawing “thousands” of people. Police sources and attendees at the Nov. 24 meeting said typical numbers were in the low hundreds, depending on weather and activity at the intersection of Route 59 and Middletown Road. Residents said the inflated estimates may have made the protests seem larger or more disruptive than they were.
Police Communication and Logistics
Some news coverage suggested organizers emailed the police ahead of protests. Meeting participants and Clarkstown police clarified that no such email had been received, though coordination with officers is routine. Attendees also said some stories implied serious traffic or public-safety disruptions, but the impact was mostly limited to honking cars and increased foot traffic.
Misleading Framing: Residents were not educating officials; officials understand the law and the bill of rights.
Selective Quotes: Neutral voices and local businesses omitted; organizers presented as impartial.
Emotional Narrative Emphasis: Personal stories used to suggest oppression.
Local vs. National Issues: National politics overshadowed the local meeting.
Repeated Bias: Similar issues appeared in Traster’s previous Four Corners reporting.
Editorial Clarity Needed: Opinion or analysis should be labeled as editorials to avoid misleading readers.
“One thing that these people also don’t take into consideration about these protests and their fears of free speech denial is that if the governments, local and national was on this stop free speech mission, the protests, including the “No Kings” one would NEVER have been allowed to happen. Dictators, Fascist, Nazi and other types of authoritarian leaders would take over the media first and then set up concentration camps for dissenters for people they are afraid of in the name of national security. These protester don’t want this brought up, because they think that people have forgotten about it and they are probably right. Japanese Americans, even those born here were put into “internment” camps under the guise of national security. It was a DEMOCRAT president FDR who ordered this. Republicans have never done this to people in the United States.” Charles said.
Clarkstown officials said no formal proposal to ban or relocate protests has been introduced, though time-and-place discussions may continue. Residents said they will keep attending meetings to ensure peaceful protest rights are protected.
“Reporting matters,” one attendee said. “If numbers are off or statements are repeated without checking, the whole community gets the wrong picture. We want clear, accurate information.”
Johnson pointed out a set of interviews by Johnny Belisario, a reporter for Jessee Watters, where he was talking to people carrying signs against the Israeli invasion of Gaza after the October 7, 2023, killings, “One young lady was carrying a sign that said, “From the River to the Sea.” He asked her if she knew what river, she guessed a number of rivers and seas other than the ones her sign was referring to.”
Johnson added that incidents like this show that the people at these protests are not grassroots. They are people who want to feel relevant and have no idea what they are protesting against.
Other residents stated, “he combination of conflicting crowd estimates, ambiguous statements about police coordination, and social-media amplification made it hard for the public to know exactly what was happening.”
After doing my own research, Charles explained, “I have found that the RCBJ stories are filled with propagandized information mostly from Indivisible groups, innuendos and statements with no facts, data or documentation to support their claims.”
We must also remember that in recent history the people who have been trying to limit free speech rights, cancel opposing viewpoints and censor them were the Obama and Biden administrations, both Democratic.
In an article in this publication dated November 21, 2025, this was shown:
The other thing the opposition conveniently “forgets”, or at minimum does not want to talk about because it would destroy their narrative, is the efforts of the last two democrat administration’s efforts to limit or eliminate the exercise of First Amendment rights:
Let’s start with the IRS under the Obama administration targeting Tea Party organizations:
1. In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under the Obama administration, revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes.
2. Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as “Tea Party” in their names. According to Republican lawmakers, liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but at a lower rate than conservative groups. The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report, which concluded that although some liberal groups were selected for additional review, the scrutiny that these groups received did not amount to targeting when compared to the greater scrutiny received by conservative groups.
Then there was the Obama administration’s “investigation” of AP reporters and subsequent raid and seizure of information:
The Obama administration was involved in a major controversy in 2013 for secretly seizing the phone records of Associated Press (AP) reporters as part of a government leak investigation. The administration’s actions were widely criticized by media organizations and civil liberties advocates as an “unprecedented intrusion” into news-gathering operations and a threat to press freedom.
Regardless of how the AP got the information, this shouldn’t have happened. The US Supreme Court in the case of NY Times -v- Untied States 1971 affirmed that they had a right to publish leaked information.
Let’s move on to the Biden administration:
Preventing information about COVID that went against the administration’s “scientific findings” as misinformation and forcing social media to go along with it:
- Zuckerberg’s Claims: In August 2024, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor certain COVID-19 content and that he regretted caving to that pressure, vowing to resist such demands in the future.
Forcing Social media to prevent publication of the Hunter Biden laptop story claiming it had all of the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.
The Disinformation Governance Board:
The board’s stated function was to protect national security by disseminating guidance to DHS agencies on combating misinformation, malinformation, and disinformation that threatens the security of the homeland. The question was, who was going to decide what information fit into these categories and who was going to decide it?
Following what the Associated Press called a “bungled rollout”[4] and criticism from Republican lawmakers of what they saw as the board’s threat to freedom of speech,[5]
Then you have the Arctic Frost: According to Senate Judiciary Committee documents released October 29, 2025, Arctic Frost issued 197 subpoenas seeking records on approximately 430 Republican individuals and entities.[6] The investigation obtained phone metadata for nine federal lawmakers: eight Republican senators (Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, and Marsha Blackburn) and Representative Mike Kelly.[7] The FBI also obtained President Donald Trump‘s and Vice President Mike Pence‘s government-issued cell phones, with Biden White House assistance in facilitating the transfer.[8]
Documents show the investigation sought information about 92 Republican-linked individuals and organizations, including Turning Point USA, the Republican National Committee, Conservative Partnership Institute, and individuals including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Peter Navarro, and John Eastman.[9] The subpoenas sought communications with media companies, members of Congress, White House advisors, donor lists, and comprehensive banking records.[6]
Information is that Judge Boasberg signed those 197 subpoenas with no probable cause, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment and subsequently a violation of the First Amendment Rights of those the orders targeted.
“We’re seeing censorship without explanation,” she said. “Violation of free speech and free assembly cuts at the core of our Constitution.”
Again, what SPECIFIC LAWS have been PASSED or even PROPOSED in a legislative session, not some people saying that these government officials are doing this.
If you want to see censorship without explanation look at the examples above, all of which were done by DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS!!!!!
Mary another Clarkstown resident said, “It seems that the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of doing EXACTLY what they are ACTUALLY doing to the American people.”