The Citizen’s Citadel: Vindicating the Castle Doctrine as a Constitutional and Civic Imperative in the Digital Age

Introduction: The Erosion of the Right of Self-Defense

The right to defend one’s home against unlawful intrusion is a foundational principle of American liberty. It is deeply embedded in the common law tradition. The axiom “a man’s home is his castle” is not a mere phrase. It is a legal and philosophical declaration of personal sovereignty and the right to self-preservation.¹

Today, this fundamental right faces an unprecedented erosion on two converging fronts.

First, a fractured legal landscape of inconsistent state self-defense laws creates perilous uncertainty. The right to protect one’s home is a matter of geography, robustly affirmed in one state and dangerously constrained in the next.² The second front is the digital public square, dominated by global technology platforms. These private entities enforce their own governance through rigid, automated content moderation. These systems lack situational awareness. They are incapable of distinguishing between a statement of lawful defensive intent and an unlawful threat of aggression.³

This environment creates a “digital panopticon,” a state of constant surveillance by private entities.⁴ Here, a citizen who declares their resolve to defend their home can be censored, de-platformed, and branded as a purveyor of violence. This punishes the expression of a constitutional right and misrepresents patriots as aggressors.⁵

This report argues that the failure to enact a uniform, robust Castle Doctrine, combined with the rise of censorious and context-blind content moderation, constitutes a dual-front assault on the fundamental right of self-defense. This assault leaves patriots legally and socially vulnerable for asserting their constitutional rights.

This analysis will demonstrate how the digital sphere amplifies legal vulnerability. It creates a profound disconnect between a citizen’s constitutional mindset and the arbitrary rules of corporate platforms. The report will dissect the legal chaos of self-defense laws and then ground the right in its constitutional context. It will analyze modern threats that necessitate a defensive posture and deconstruct the failures of content moderation that misinterpret it. Finally, it will examine the infringement of Second Amendment rights for marijuana users before concluding with a call for comprehensive reform.

Section I: The Legal Patchwork and the Case for a Uniform Castle Doctrine

The legal framework for self-defense in the United States is a dangerously fragmented system. While every state recognizes the concept, the specific conditions and protections vary dramatically.⁶ This inconsistency is most pronounced in the application of the Castle Doctrine. This principle should be a bedrock guarantee of safety but instead functions as a jurisdictional lottery. A uniform, nationwide Castle Doctrine is therefore a matter of fundamental justice.

Subsection I.A: Defining the Doctrines of Self-Defense

Three competing legal philosophies govern the use of defensive force. They are not interchangeable. They represent fundamentally different views on the relationship between the individual, the state, and personal safety.

The Castle Doctrine: This principle originates from English common law. It asserts that an individual’s home is their “castle,” and they have no duty to retreat from an unlawful intruder.⁷ Within this space, a person may use all force, including deadly force, to protect themselves from attack.⁸ The doctrine is a specific exception to the “Duty to Retreat” rule.⁹ It is a set of principles incorporated into the laws of most states.¹⁰

Stand Your Ground: These laws expand the principles of the Castle Doctrine. They remove the duty to retreat in any location where an individual has a legal right to be.¹¹ First codified by Florida in 2005, this doctrine allows a person to “meet force with force” without first attempting to flee.¹² Approximately 31 states have adopted some form of Stand Your Ground law.¹³

Duty to Retreat: This traditional principle requires a person to attempt a reasonable escape before using force.⁹ Proponents argue its core premise is prioritizing the preservation of life by avoiding conflict above all else.¹⁴ However, this places the burden on the victim to flee from an aggressor. While the United States largely spurned this British tradition, several states still impose a Duty to Retreat outside the home.¹⁵

The philosophical divergence is profound. The Duty to Retreat prioritizes conflict avoidance. The Castle Doctrine prioritizes the sanctity of the home. Stand Your Ground laws assert the right of an individual to occupy any lawful space without yielding to a criminal threat.¹⁶

Subsection I.B: The Dangerous Inconsistency of State Laws

These theoretical differences create a perilous legal maze for American citizens. The right to defend one’s life can vanish by simply crossing a state line. This inconsistency undermines the concept of a fundamental right.

Variation in Scope of Protection

The physical space covered by Castle Doctrine protections is wildly inconsistent. Many states, like North Carolina and Texas, extend the “castle” to include an occupied vehicle or workplace.¹⁷ In contrast, other states take a narrower view. Illinois confines the doctrine to the home.¹⁷ California’s protections are also largely limited to the residence.¹⁸ This means a business owner in Texas has a legally recognized right to defend their establishment, while a business owner in Illinois may be legally required to flee.

The Critical Role of Legal Presumptions

The most significant variation lies in legal presumptions. Robust Castle Doctrine states like Florida and Texas create a presumption that a person’s fear of harm is reasonable if an intruder unlawfully and forcefully enters their home, vehicle, or workplace.¹⁹ This is a crucial legal shield. It shifts the burden of proof away from the defender and onto the prosecution.¹²

Conversely, states with weaker laws, such as New York, lack this powerful presumption.²⁰ In these jurisdictions, the homeowner retains the burden of proving their fear was reasonable. The mere fact of an unlawful entry is not sufficient legal justification. This distinction has monumental consequences. In one state, the law stands with the homeowner; in another, the homeowner is immediately placed on the defensive.

Inconsistent Shielding from Civil Liability

Even when cleared of criminal charges, a defender can face a ruinous civil lawsuit from the assailant or their family.⁷ Recognizing this, at least 23 states have incorporated civil immunity into their self-defense laws.²¹ These statutes protect a person who justifiably uses force from being sued for monetary damages.⁷ Some laws even mandate that the defender be awarded attorney’s fees.¹⁹

However, many states offer no such protection. In states like Hawaii, Missouri, and Nebraska, a person can be criminally cleared but still be subjected to a devastating civil lawsuit.²¹ This disparity means that in one state, the law provides complete protection, while in another, a citizen who lawfully defends their family can be bankrupted by the criminal who attacked them.

The following table illustrates these stark and untenable differences.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of State Self-Defense Laws

State	Castle Doctrine	Stand Your Ground	Duty to Retreat	Scope of Protection	Presumption of Reasonableness	Civil Immunity
Florida	Statute	Statute	No	Home, Dwelling, Occupied Vehicle	Yes, for unlawful/forceful entry	Yes
Texas	Statute	Statute	No	Habitation, Vehicle, Workplace	Yes, for unlawful/forceful entry	Yes
North Carolina	Statute	Statute	No	Home, Workplace, Occupied Vehicle	Yes, for unlawful/forceful entry	Yes
Pennsylvania	Statute	Statute	No (outside home, if certain conditions met)	Dwelling, Residence, Occupied Vehicle	Yes, for unlawful/forceful entry	Yes
California	Case Law	Case Law	Yes (outside home)	Home	No (Intruder must pose imminent threat)	Yes
Illinois	Statute	Case Law	Yes (outside home)	Dwelling (not vehicle/workplace)	No (Entry must be violent/tumultuous)	Yes
New York	Statute	No	Yes (outside home)	Dwelling	No (Requires proof of reasonable fear)	No
Connecticut	Statute	No	Yes	Premises	No (Requires proof of reasonable fear)	No
New Jersey	Case Law	No	Yes (outside home)	Home	No	No

*This table is a simplified representation based on available legal analyses and is not a substitute for legal advice. Laws are subject to change and complex interpretation.*¹⁰, ¹², ¹⁵, ¹⁷, ¹⁸, ²¹, ²²

This legal chaos represents a fundamental schism in the American philosophy of rights. The evolution from the “Duty to Retreat” to the uniquely American principles of the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground was a deliberate philosophical choice.⁹ It prioritized individual sovereignty over a state-mandated obligation to flee. This legal chaos is not merely a failure of legislative consistency; it is a direct challenge to the constitutional principles that undergird the right to self-defense, necessitating an examination of the Second Amendment’s original mandate.

Section II: The Constitutional Mandate: Self-Defense as a Second Amendment Duty

The right to defend one’s home is not a privilege granted by state legislatures. It is a fundamental, pre-existing right codified by the Second Amendment. A proper understanding of the Amendment reveals that the Castle Doctrine is a constitutional imperative. The text, history, and judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment all converge on one point: defending one’s home is the core of the right to keep and bear arms.

Subsection II.A: Heller and the Individual Right to Home Defense

The Supreme Court definitively resolved the meaning of the Second Amendment in the 2008 landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller.²³ The Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the Amendment’s text and history. It concluded that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”.²⁴

Crucially, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects “an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”.²⁵ The Heller decision explicitly identified self-defense as the “core lawful purpose” of the Amendment.²⁴

The Court struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban. It also struck down the requirement that firearms in the home be kept disassembled or trigger-locked. The Court reasoned that such laws make it “impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense” and are therefore unconstitutional.²⁴

The implications of Heller are profound. It establishes home defense as the central pillar of the Second Amendment right. The decision constitutionally vindicates the core principle of the Castle Doctrine. Subsequent cases, such as McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), extended this protection by applying the Second Amendment to the states.²⁶

Subsection II.B: The “Well Regulated Militia” as an Armed Citizenry

The Heller decision did not render the Amendment’s prefatory clause—”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—irrelevant. A proper historical understanding shows the individual right and the civic purpose are inextricably linked. The Founders’ conception of the “militia” was not a government-organized force. It referred to the entire body of the people—the armed citizenry—capable of acting for the common defense.²⁷

This concept has deep roots in English and colonial history. Sir William Blackstone described the right to have arms as an “auxiliary right” supporting self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to protect the homeland.²⁸ The American colonists, having experienced British tyranny, enshrined this principle in their own legal documents. The 1776 Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights stated, “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.²⁹

The Framers viewed this armed citizenry as the ultimate check on government overreach. In Federalist No. 46, James Madison argued that state militias could hold a federal standing army in check.³⁰ He contrasted the American system with European kingdoms that were “afraid to trust the people with arms.” The “well regulated militia” was the people, and their right to keep and bear arms was the essential guarantee of a “free State.”

This historical context reveals a powerful symbiosis. The individual right to self-defense and the collective duty of civic defense are two sides of the same coin. A citizenry that cannot defend its own homes cannot fulfill its civic duty to defend the state. The individual act of defending one’s “castle” is the first and most essential duty of the citizen-soldier.

From this perspective, the Castle Doctrine is a constitutional necessity. It is the legal mechanism that empowers the citizen to fulfill their role as the ultimate guarantor of liberty. Denying this doctrine undermines the structure of freedom envisioned by the Founders.

Section III: Defining the Defensive Red Line Amidst Modern Unrest

The need for a robust and uniform Castle Doctrine is a direct response to modern threats. The nature of contemporary civil unrest creates a security environment where law-abiding citizens must be prepared to defend a “red line” against lawlessness. A conditional statement of defensive intent is not an unlawful threat. It is a rational and legally coherent declaration of a self-preservation boundary.

Subsection III.A: The Nature of the Modern Threat

The defensive mindset is not born of paranoia. It comes from an objective analysis of modern protest movements. While peaceful assembly is sacrosanct,³¹ the tactics used in many demonstrations create extreme unpredictability and danger.³² Key characteristics include:

• Anonymity and Lack of Accountability: Protesters often use masks and uniform clothing, which conceals identities and eliminates individual accountability.³³ Many protests are organized on anonymous internet forums, creating “network-enabled mobs” of individuals unknown to one another.³⁴ This transforms a group into an unidentifiable and unaccountable force.
• Unpredictability and Escalation: A peaceful daytime protest can devolve into lawlessness at night. This is a well-documented pattern.³⁴ Extremist actors can use peaceful demonstrations as cover for violence.³⁵ These groups can “branch off” from a main march, engaging in opportunistic destruction. A homeowner must be prepared for the possibility that a splinter group could bring chaos to their doorstep.
• Widespread Property Destruction: The fear of one’s home being “ransacked” is substantiated by significant property damage from recent unrest. Vandalism and arson during protests in 2020 caused an estimated $1 to $2 billion in property damage.³⁴ This confirms that the threat to property—and its inhabitants—is real and substantial.

These characteristics create an information vacuum for the homeowner. When confronted by an unidentifiable mob, a homeowner cannot rely on verbal de-escalation. The only information available is the intruder’s actions. An unlawful and forcible entry becomes the sole, unambiguous signal of malicious intent. This real-world dynamic justifies the legal presumptions of strong Castle Doctrine laws.

Subsection III.B: The Statement as a Declaration of Lawful Intent

In this high-threat context, a citizen’s statement about using defensive force is a lawful declaration of a boundary. The statement at the center of this report’s case study—”if they **** with me… I will shoot”—aligns with the core principles of self-defense law when properly contextualized.

Specificity of the Triggering Scenario: The statement is not a generalized threat. It is explicitly conditional. The user is defining their response to a worst-case scenario: a protest devolving into lawlessness, with splinter groups “ransacking” property and posing a direct threat to their home and safety. The statement defines the “red line” for defensive action.

Alignment with Legal Principles: The law of self-defense justifies the use of force when an individual reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful attack.³⁶ Deadly force is justified to repel a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.³⁷

A Preemptive, Long-Term Stance: The comment was intended as a “permanent, preemptive declaration” of a personal boundary. The user sees riots as a long-term issue and articulated a clear stance against any future actors who might pose this specific threat. It is a declaration of stationary defense. To interpret this conditional and defensive declaration as a blanket threat is to fundamentally misunderstand both the user’s intent and the principles of self-defense law.

Section IV: The Digital Panopticon: How Content Moderation Misinterprets Self-Defense

The conflict between a citizen’s declaration of defensive intent and its censorship by a social media platform is a critical friction point. It is a clash between the nuanced legal framework of a nation-state and the rigid rule-making of a global technology company. The misinterpretation of self-defense as a threat is a systemic failure of content moderation. These systems are ill-equipped to comprehend American constitutional law.³⁸

Subsection IV.A: The Mechanics of Decontextualized Moderation

Social media platforms moderate billions of pieces of content daily. This task relies heavily on automated systems and risk-averse policies that prioritize scalability over nuance.³⁹

Automated Keyword Flagging

The first line of defense is often an automated system that scans for specific keywords.⁴⁰ A statement containing the word “shoot” is highly likely to be flagged, regardless of context.⁴¹ These algorithms generally cannot parse conditional language, identify sarcasm, or distinguish between aggression and defense.⁴² The user’s statement, “if they **** with me… I will shoot,” is processed by the machine as a simple violation.

The Imperative of Risk Aversion

From the platform’s perspective, this lack of nuance is a feature, not a bug. Platforms are incentivized to be aggressively risk-averse to avoid public relations and legal disasters.⁴³ It is safer and more efficient to erroneously remove lawful content (a “false positive”) than to permit a genuine threat.⁴⁴ This operational logic means the system is designed to err on the side of censorship.

Systemic Misinterpretation and Narrative Distortion

The user’s perception of platforms as overly dramatic is a rational response to this decontextualization. The moderation system strips the statement of its defensive nature, isolates inflammatory words, and presents it as an unprovoked threat. This creates a distorted narrative that paints the user as a “violent and crazy” individual.

For example, a homeowner in a Castle Doctrine state might post, ‘If a masked group tries to break down my door during a riot, I am prepared to defend my family.’ An automated system could flag this for keywords associated with violence. A human moderator, under pressure, might confirm the violation without appreciating the conditional, defensive, and legally protected nature of the sentiment. The platform then issues a strike, punishing the user for expressing a lawful defensive posture.⁴⁵

Subsection IV.B: The Clash of Legal and Corporate Frameworks

The core issue is an incompatibility between two systems of governance. The American legal system is built on the context-dependent standard of the “reasonable person”.³⁷ A jury must consider the full context of a situation.

Content moderation algorithms cannot make such a judgment.⁴⁶ They operate on a binary logic of rule-matching, not reasonableness. This creates a systemic clash. A statement that is potentially lawful within the American legal framework is flagged as a violation within the platform’s corporate framework.

This is a conflict between two competing sources of authority. The first is the geographically-bound, constitutionally-grounded legal system of the nation-state. The second is the borderless, privately-owned, and algorithmically-enforced rule system of the digital platform.

When a platform penalizes a user for articulating the principle of self-defense, it engages in private censorship with profound public consequences. While a private company is not bound by the First Amendment, its power to control discourse is immense.⁴⁷ By censoring speech related to the Second Amendment, these platforms effectively create their own norms about fundamental rights. This dynamic creates a new form of disenfranchisement, where the expression of a legal right is punished by an unaccountable private power.

Section V: Re-evaluating Prohibitions: The Case of Marijuana Users and the Second Amendment

The erosion of Second Amendment rights extends to categorical prohibitions that disarm entire classes of citizens. The federal ban on firearm ownership for marijuana users is a prime example. This issue, now poised for Supreme Court review, highlights a conflict between evolving state laws, federal intransigence, and the historical understanding of the right to bear arms.

Subsection V.A: The Federal-State Legal Conflict

A deep legal paradox exists concerning marijuana use and firearm rights. A majority of states have legalized marijuana, but federal law remains unchanged.⁴⁸ Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it is unlawful for any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm.⁴⁹

Because marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance federally, this statute creates a blanket prohibition on gun ownership for anyone who uses it, regardless of state law.⁵⁰ This is enforced by the ATF through Form 4473, where a false “no” answer constitutes a felony.⁵¹

This legal tension has now reached the Supreme Court. Following its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition,” lower courts have scrutinized the ban.⁵² Several federal appeals courts have found the ban unconstitutional as applied to certain individuals.⁵³

In response, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear United States v. Hemani. This case directly challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) as applied to a regular marijuana user.⁵⁴ This makes the issue one of immediate and paramount constitutional significance.

Subsection V.B: Deconstructing the “Dangerousness” Rationale

The federal government’s primary justification is that users of controlled substances are inherently “dangerous.”⁵⁵ This rationale is historically inconsistent and not supported by empirical evidence.

Flawed Historical Analogies

The government’s case rests on an analogy between modern marijuana users and historical laws restricting “habitual drunkards.”⁵⁶ This argument is tenuous. A more fitting historical parallel is tobacco. In the founding era, tobacco was a widely used, psychoactive, and addictive substance. Yet, there is no historical evidence that tobacco users were ever disarmed. If the founding generation did not see tobacco use as grounds for stripping a citizen of their arms, the historical basis for disarming a marijuana user today is exceptionally weak.

The comparison to alcohol is also telling. A person who regularly consumes alcohol is not prohibited from owning a gun, whereas a person who legally consumes marijuana under state law is.⁵⁷ This inconsistency suggests the law is based more on cultural stigma than on a consistent principle of public safety.

Empirical Evidence vs. Categorical Bans

The argument that marijuana users are inherently reckless is not borne out by scientific evidence. While marijuana can cause impairment, the nature of that impairment is often misunderstood.⁵⁸ Studies on driving performance provide a useful lens. Some studies show that marijuana users, unlike alcohol users, often exhibit compensatory behaviors.⁵⁹ They may drive more slowly and increase following distance, showing more awareness of their impairment.⁶⁰ Alcohol, by contrast, is more associated with increased risk-taking.

This data does not suggest driving under the influence of marijuana is safe. It suggests the behavioral effects are complex and do not automatically equate to recklessness. This evidence supports the argument that a blanket ban based on status as a “user” is an unscientific and overly broad infringement on a constitutional right.

The outcome of U.S. v. Hemani will be a crucial test for the future of gun rights. It will determine whether the Bruen framework permits broad, status-based prohibitions.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The right to defend one’s home is a cornerstone of American liberty. This report has demonstrated that this right is under a dual assault. It is being diluted by an inconsistent patchwork of state laws. It is also being silenced in the digital public square by decontextualized moderation regimes. This convergence threatens to render the Castle Doctrine a hollow principle.

The analysis has shown that home defense is the “core” of the Second Amendment right. Modern threats from civil unrest make the protections of a robust Castle Doctrine more necessary than ever. Furthermore, ancillary prohibitions, like the federal ban on firearm ownership for marijuana users, are an unconstitutional overreach. To restore the integrity of this essential right, decisive action is required.

Based on this analysis, the following recommendations are proposed:

Recommendation 1: Federal Legislation for a Uniform Castle Doctrine

Congress should enact a federal “Castle Doctrine Act” to establish a uniform, nationwide standard for the defense of one’s habitation, occupied vehicle, and place of business. This legislation should be modeled on the most robust existing state laws.⁶¹ Key provisions must include:

• No Duty to Retreat: The act must explicitly eliminate any Duty to Retreat for a law-abiding person inside their protected space when faced with an unlawful and forceful intruder.⁶¹
• Presumption of Reasonableness: It must create a legal presumption that a person holds a reasonable fear of imminent peril when using defensive force against an intruder. This provision is critical as it shifts the legal burden from the victim to the aggressor.⁶¹
• Immunity from Civil Action: The act must provide individuals who are justified in using force with absolute immunity from civil lawsuits. The law should also mandate that a court award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and compensation to any defendant found to be immune.⁶¹

A clear federal standard would eliminate the dangerous jurisdictional lottery and affirm that the right to defend one’s “castle” is a fundamental American right.

Recommendation 2: Reform of Social Media Content Moderation Policies

Major social media platforms must fundamentally reform their content moderation policies to distinguish between unlawful threats and the lawful expression of defensive intent. This requires moving beyond simplistic, keyword-based flagging to a more nuanced approach. The following reforms are essential:

• Creation of a “Defensive Intent” Exception: Platforms should amend their policies to include a specific, transparent exception for content that articulates a conditional, lawful, and defensive intent.
• Tiered Human Review: Content flagged for keywords like “shoot” but containing conditional language should be escalated to a specialized tier of human moderators. These moderators should be trained to understand basic legal principles of self-defense.⁶²
• Enhanced Transparency and Appeals: When content is removed, the user must receive a clear explanation. A robust and accessible appeals process must be available, allowing users to provide the context that an automated system missed.⁶³

The stakes of inaction are nothing less than the surrender of personal sovereignty and the degradation of a core constitutional liberty. To vindicate the right of self-defense in the digital age is not merely a legal or technical challenge; it is a moral imperative. We must demand that our laws reflect our foundational principles and that the new arbiters of public discourse are held accountable. The security of the citizen’s citadel, both in the physical and the digital realm, is not a privilege to be negotiated but a right to be defended. The time for that defense is now.

---

Works Cited

1. Wikipedia. “Castle doctrine.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine.
2. Concealed Coalition. “Castle Law States and Their Specific Regulations: What You Need to Know.” September 18, 2025. https://my.concealedcoalition.com/castle-law-states/.
3. Vera Eidelman, Adeline Lee, and Fikayo Walter-Johnson. “Time and Again, Social Media Giants Get Content Moderation Wrong: Silencing Speech about Al-Aqsa Mosque is Just the Latest Example.” American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/time-and-again-social-media-giants-get-content-moderation-wrong-silencing-speech-about-al-aqsa-mosque-is-just-the-latest-example.
4. Taylor & Francis Online. “Surveilling the movement for Black lives.” tandfonline.com. April 14, 2022. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26884674.2022.2061392.
5. Evelyn Douek. “Bias in Social Media Content Management: What Do Human Rights Have to Do with It?” American Journal of International Law. April 19, 2022. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/bias-in-social-media-content-management-what-do-human-rights-have-to-do-with-it/BA9E847DEDECE34FFEBB42014AF8C683.
6. Legal Heat. “Firearms and Self-Defense: How State Laws Differ and Why It Matters.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.legalheat.com/blog/firearms-and-self-defense-how-state-laws-differ-and-why-it-matters/.
7. Luster Law. “What is the Castle Law in Texas? The Doctrine of Self-Defense.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.lusterlaw.com/page/texas-castle-law-doctrine-self-defense.
8. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Self-Defense and ‘Stand Your Ground’.” September 23, 2025. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.
9. RAND Corporation. “What You Need to Know About Stand-Your-Ground Laws.” January 1, 2024. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground.html.
10. Connecticut General Assembly. “Castle Doctrine.” February 9, 2012. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-r-0172.htm.
11. LegalMatch. “States With Stand-Your-Ground Laws.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/states-with-stand-your-ground-laws.html.
12. Blake Dorsten. “Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law.” blakedorstenlaw.com. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/firearms-weapons-offenses-lawyer/florida-stand-your-ground-lawyers/.
13. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Self-Defense and ‘Stand Your Ground’.” September 23, 2025. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.
14. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Castle Doctrine.” July 2022. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/castle_doctrine.
15. Connecticut General Assembly. “Comparison of ‘Castle Doctrine’ Bills.” January 16, 2007. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-r-0052.htm.
16. EBSCO. “‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws: An Overview.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/stand-your-ground-laws-overview.
17. FindLaw. “Castle Doctrine Overview.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/castle-doctrine-overview.html.
18. Shouse Law Group. “Castle Doctrine vs. Stand Your Ground – What’s the Difference?” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/castle-doctrine-vs-stand-your-ground/.
19. Blake Dorsten. “Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/firearms-weapons-offenses-lawyer/florida-stand-your-ground-lawyers/.
20. Mary-Rose Papandrea. “An Unstable Core: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment.” Harvard Journal on Legislation. October 2013. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jol/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2013/10/Levin-Note1.pdf.
21. National Conference of State Legislatures. “Self-Defense and ‘Stand Your Ground’.” September 23, 2025. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.
22. FindLaw. “States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html.
23. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Second Amendment.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment.
24. U.S. Congress. “Heller and Individual Right to Firearms.” constitution.congress.gov. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/.
25. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Second Amendment.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment.
26. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Second amendment.” law.cornell.edu. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment.
27. Saul Cornell. “A Well-Regulated Militia: History of the Second Amendment.” American Revolution Institute. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/video/a-well-regulated-militia-history-of-the-second-amendment/.
28. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. “Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 2 – ‘The Right to Keep and Bear Arms’.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-2-right-keep-and-bear-arms.
29. U.S. Congress. “Historical Background on Second Amendment.” constitution.congress.gov. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/.
30. Wikipedia. “Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
31. United Nations Development Programme. “Social Protest and Democratic Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean.” June 2024. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-06/pds-number49_protestas_en.pdf.
32. Nancy Gertner. “Why ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Are Dangerous.” Scholars Strategy Network. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://scholars.org/contribution/why-stand-your-ground-laws-are-dangerous.
33. Amnesty International. “Protect the Protest.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/freedom-of-expression/protest/.
34. Police Chief Magazine. “The Right to Assemble vs. Violent Protests.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/right-to-assemble-violent-protests/.
35. Walden University. “De-escalation Techniques in Civil Disturbances.” scholarworks.waldenu.edu. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7520&context=dissertations.
36. Georgetown Law. “Self-Defense Without Imminence.” law.georgetown.edu. 2019. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/06/56-4-self-defense-without-imminence.pdf.
37. Legal Heat. “Understanding Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine Laws.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.legalheat.com/blog/understanding-stand-your-ground-and-castle-doctrine-laws/.
38. Ángel Díaz and Laura Hecht-Felella. “Double Standards in Social Media Content Moderation.” Brennan Center for Justice. July 21, 2021. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/double-standards-social-media-content-moderation.
39. U.S. Congress. “Social Media: Content Moderation and Policy Issues.” crsreports.congress.gov. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46662.
40. Sightengine. “Keyword Lists for Text Moderation: The Guide.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://sightengine.com/keyword-lists-for-text-moderation-the-guide.
41. Avasant. “Impact of Generative AI on Content Moderation.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://avasant.com/report/impact-of-generative-ai-on-content-moderation/.
42. Tencent Cloud. “Content Moderation.” tencentcloud.com. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.tencentcloud.com/techpedia/121937.
43. Trust & Safety Professional Association. “Metrics for Content Moderation.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.tspa.org/curriculum/ts-fundamentals/content-moderation-and-operations/metrics-for-content-moderation/.
44. MIT Technology Review. “Humans at the center of effective digital defense.” tp.com. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.tp.com/media/4ymi1y4c/mit_wp_humans-at-center-of-effective-digital-defense.pdf.
45. WebPurify. “Content Moderation Myths Debunked.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.webpurify.com/blog/content-moderation-myths-debunked/.
46. ArXiv. “Predictive Multiplicity in Algorithmic Content Moderation.” February 28, 2024. https://arxiv.org/html/2402.16979v1.
47. American Civil Liberties Union. “ACLU Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision Related to Whether Public Officials Can Block Social Media Followers.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-on-supreme-courts-decision-related-to-whether-public-officials-can-block-social-media-followers.
48. Clark Hill PLC. “The Intersection Between Marijuana and the 2nd Amendment: What Gun Owners Need to Know.” April 17, 2023. https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/the-intersection-between-marijuana-and-the-2nd-amendment-what-gun-owners-need-to-know/.
49. Marijuana Policy Project. “Marijuana Policy Reforms and the Second Amendment.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.mpp.org/policy/federal/secondamendment/.
50. JURIST. “US Supreme Court to hear case on marijuana use and gun ownership.” October 20, 2025. https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/10/us-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-marijuana-use-and-gun-ownership/.
51. Connecticut Inside Investigator. “It’s Complicated: The conflicting laws around guns and weed.” March 5, 2023. https://insideinvestigator.org/its-complicated-the-conflicting-laws-around-guns-and-weed/.
52. CBS News. “Supreme Court to decide constitutionality of law barring illegal drug users from having guns.” October 20, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-gun-law-drug-users/.
53. Reason Foundation. “An evolving legal landscape for marijuana and firearms.” September 22, 2025. https://reason.org/commentary/an-evolving-legal-landscape-for-marijuana-and-firearms/.
54. The Guardian. “US supreme court to consider whether drug users can legally own guns.” October 20, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/20/supreme-court-gun-drug-use-case.
55. CBS News. “Supreme Court to decide constitutionality of law barring illegal drug users from having guns.” October 20, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-gun-law-drug-users/.
56. The Washington Post. “Supreme Court to hear challenge to law barring drug users from guns.” October 20, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/20/supreme-court-drug-users-gun-ban/.
57. The Guardian. “US supreme court to consider whether drug users can legally own guns.” October 20, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/20/supreme-court-gun-drug-use-case.
58. The Journalist’s Resource. “Driving under the influence of marijuana: An explainer and research roundup.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://journalistsresource.org/health/marijuana-driving/.
59. University of California, San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. “CANNABIS & DRIVING.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/PDFs/ICADTS-Cannabis-Recent_Experimental_Evidence.pdf.
60. National Center for Biotechnology Information. “Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance.” rosap.ntl.bts.gov. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1558/dot_1558_DS1.pdf.
61. American Legislative Exchange Council. “Castle Doctrine Act.” cato.org. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/text_of_alec_castle_doctrine_act_3.pdf.
62. Conectys. “7 Real-World Content Moderation Examples That Show How Leading Brands Do It Right.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.conectys.com/blog/posts/7-real-world-content-moderation-examples-that-show-how-leading-brands-do-it-right/.
63. Oversight Board. “Content Moderation in a New Era for AI and Automation.” Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.oversightboard.com/news/content-moderation-in-a-new-era-for-ai-and-automation/.