What the fund supports
Free Speech v. Tate is a legal-defense fund for individuals who are being sued, or who face the threat of being sued, by Emory “Andrew” Tate and Tristan Tate over public commentary about the brothers. According to the campaign, the defendants’ alleged offense was expressing opinions and repeating information that already appears in publicly filed court documents — the ordinary work of commentary, criticism, and citizen reporting.
Donations go toward the costs that make defending speech possible: attorneys’ fees, court costs, and the expense of resisting attempts to compel the disclosure of anonymous speakers’ identities. Those costs are the real battleground. A lawsuit does not have to be won by the person who files it to do its work; the cost and fear of defending one is frequently the point.
The litigation behind the fund
The campaign sits inside a broader, well-documented pattern of litigation the Tate brothers have pursued against their critics and the platforms that host them:
- In March 2026, Andrew and Tristan Tate moved to compel X (formerly Twitter) to unmask anonymous accounts they claim defamed them. (TMZ, Mar. 6, 2026.) The underlying claims against the anonymous users were dismissed without prejudice, and the brothers have pursued a bill of discovery seeking to force the platform to reveal who the speakers are.
- The brothers have separately sued Meta and TikTok, framing their 2022 removal from those platforms as unlawful “deplatforming.” (NBC News.)
- Andrew Tate has publicly stated he has allocated a reported nine-figure sum to pursue litigation against tech companies, media organizations including the BBC, and individuals he says have defamed him. (Legal affairs of the Tate brothers — Wikipedia.)
Against that backdrop, a small group of individual speakers cannot match the resources of a litigant who has promised to spend whatever it takes. The fund is the equalizer.
Stand with the defendants.
Every contribution helps cover the cost of defending the right to speak.
Why this is a free-speech fight
The right to speak anonymously about matters of public concern is not a loophole — it is a protected part of the First Amendment tradition. The Supreme Court has recognized that anonymity can be essential to free expression, from NAACP v. Alabama (1958) to McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), where the Court wrote that “anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” Courts evaluating attempts to unmask anonymous online critics have generally required the party seeking identities to make a real evidentiary showing first — precisely so that the subpoena power cannot be used as a tool to punish or silence protected speech.
Repeating information that appears in public court filings is among the most clearly protected categories of speech there is. The fair-report privilege exists so that citizens and journalists can tell the public what is in the record without fear of liability for the act of reporting it. A lawsuit that targets people for doing exactly that raises the classic concern behind anti-SLAPP statutes: that litigation is being used not to vindicate a real injury, but to impose cost, delay, and fear on speakers who cannot afford to fight.
You do not have to agree with a single word any particular defendant has said to support their right to say it without being bankrupted for it. That is the principle the fund defends.
How to help
- Donate. Contribute directly through the campaign at givesendgo.com/FreeSpeechVsTate. Any amount helps.
- Share. Send the campaign link to anyone who cares about anonymous speech, citizen journalism, or the misuse of litigation to silence critics.
- Stay informed. Follow how courts handle the unmasking attempts; the outcomes set precedent for everyone who comments on public figures online.
Editorial note. Free Speech v. Tate is a separate matter from Mitchell v. Tate et al., the federal RICO case this site primarily covers. The two are not consolidated, share no parties as plaintiffs, and arise from different facts. We link to the GiveSendGo campaign because it advances the general principle of free expression, not because it is part of the Mitchell litigation. ConManTate does not operate, control, or receive any funds from the GiveSendGo campaign; donations are processed entirely by GiveSendGo and go to the campaign organizers. We have not independently verified the campaign’s internal accounting. Descriptions of the underlying litigation are drawn from the public sources linked above and are described as allegations where they have not been adjudicated.