What we found in what the whistleblowers put out was that the government was actually engagedand the White Housein directly communicating with Big Tech on stories and information that they either wanted suppressed or put out, says Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.

One of the most assertive attorney generals in the country, Landry has filed a number of lawsuits against the Biden administration over Big Tech censorship, the Biden administrations Disinformation Governance Board, COVID mandates, illegal immigration, and election integrity.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

** Click the Save button below the video to access it later on My List.

Jan Jekielek:

Attorney General Jeff Landry, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Thank you for having me here today.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to go back to May of this year, where you signed on with 19 different attorney generals, about the establishment of this Disinformation Board, what some people call a Ministry of Truth, in the U.S. government. You sent a letter saying, This kind of board cant stand. This is a big issue, correct? I want to get your thoughts on why this was so important to you back then.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Its extremely important. Its extremely troublesome when you think about the federal government creating an agency called the Disinformation Board. Thats prima facie violation of the First Amendment. Think about it. This is the government going to filter information to the American people. They are basically going to ensure that some information gets out to the American people and some information doesnt get out.

Of course, that is exactly why the First Amendment was established under our Bill of Rights. Thats exactly the kind of conduct the founders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wanted to prevent. They did not want the government censoring information to citizens.

Mr. Jekielek:

Theres a lot of disinformation out there. Everyone will certainly agree on that these days. So what do we do about that?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Right. But theres also disinformation on a playground. The greatness about America was the fact that information could flow freely between people. The citizenry had the ability to ascertain the truth from fiction, and then come up with their own opinion, and their own decisions based upon that information. Recently, somewhere down the line the government has decided, Theres some information maybe we dont want the public to know. Thats concerning, especially when that information ends up being correct.

Thats why you saw attorney generals, like myself, go right after the government the minute they announced this, saying, That is an incorrect use of federal authority.

Mr. Jekielek:

Not too long after, you and Attorney General Schmidt in Missouri decided to launch a lawsuit looking at Big Tech and government colluding to censor. This was 19 attorney generals. Now there are only two. Why is that?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

That lawsuit was instituted within 24 hours of that letter. General Schmidt and I believe that when the government coerces a private actor to do something, or to engage in conduct which the government is prevented from doing, that would be a violation of your constitutional rights. Like with censoring speech, if the government is actually censoring the speech, that is the government violating your First Amendment rights.

This was our theory. If the government either coerces or works with Big Tech and says to Big Tech, We want you to censor this information, and then Big Tech does that, then guess what? Big Tech now becomes a government actor and is subject to violating citizens constitutional rights. That was the legal theory that we had in play.

We werent good at convincing everybody at the time we filed that particular suit. So, Eric and I filed it in Louisiana. Not long after that, the whistleblower information came out.

Mr. Jekielek:

It was not surprising to anyone in a way, but very surprising that it was written in such intricate terms. Please tell me about that.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

It was an affirmation of what we believed. That happened some 3, 4, 5 weeks after the lawsuit was filed. We see the whistleblowers come out and basically lay out for the American people some of the theories that we had. They said, They are actually censoring information. This is the government colluding with Big Tech and telling them this is the information we want you to put out and this is the information we want you to suppress, which was the basis for our lawsuit. So, it was surprising to many, but it was affirming to us.

Mr. Jekielek:

Lets go back a little bit. What is the substance of the lawsuit? Please explain it to me.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Lets think about it in a criminal context. We all are very familiar with Fourth Amendment search and seizure. We all know that the police cant barge into your home to search for things. They have to have reasonable belief that something in your home is evidence that would lead to a crime.

Then, as part of due process, they have to go to a judge and say, Judge, under these conditions, this is the information we have. The the judge says, Okay. This is enough for a warrant to be granted. Thats a Fourth Amendment protection.

The police cant say, We dont want to go through all of that. We dont want to go to a judge. Well get your neighbor to go into your house, because we know that you invite your neighbor into your house. We will work with that neighbor and them exactly what we are looking for. We will tell them what to find, and then come back and tell us if its in your house.

That is illegal too. That is the government short-circuiting the Fourth Amendment. Its the same thing with speech, and thats what our lawsuit says. Imagine the government says, We really would like to suppress this information, or Dr. Fauci says, We dont want the American people to think that there are any therapeutic remedies that could suppress the COVID virus. But I know that as a government actor, I cant go out there saying dont print this, but print that. I cant do that because Im a government actor.

He also cant go to the press and coerce them to do that, because then they become a government actor as well. Thats what the suit says. Again, if we find this to be true, then those platforms will be liable for violating citizens rights.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. What examples did you give? Where were the specific areas? You suggested one area, a lot of things around COVID.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

What we found, and what the whistleblowers found, was that the government and the White House were actually directly communicating with Big Tech on stories and information that they either wanted to promote or to have suppressed.

Those are the things that we are going to find. We have a treasure trove of information that is going to come out shortly. The good news is, last week, the judge in our case granted our motion for discovery, so the subpoenas have gone out. Theyre being served. Dr. Fauci got served, along with other members of the Presidents cabinet. They have to send us the communications between them and the platforms, We believe we will find communications telling them what they should and shouldnt put out, and what what they should amplify and what they should suppress.

Mr. Jekielek:

But its not only COVID-related issues that you were looking at in this lawsuit, correct?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

No, its not only those issues. It could be in the realm of anything. Think about it in the realm of the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop, and in Russiagate with the dossier. What we are seeing is a very disturbing pattern of the government taking information thats fictitious and then making it a fact. Then, they try to hide the cover of that false story from the American people. They use the social media platforms and the power of these Big Tech companies to limit the information the American people are getting.

Again, it doesnt just have to be COVID-related. Think about it, the federal government spied on a presidential campaign. Just that, in and of itself, is problematic. The basis for which they did so was a false document, which is the dossier. Again, when the evidence of that dossier being fictitious tried to come out, what would happen? That information was suppressed. So, this plays into all of those particular scenarios.

Mr. Jekielek:

Or like, as you said, the Hunter Biden laptop. Its highly topical right now.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Right. Senator Grassleys letter yesterday was shocking. Why? Because it was further affirmation that people inside the United States Department of Justice, and inside the FBI, specifically downplayed evidence that was in front of their face in order to tilt an election. Thats the kind of thing that happens in despotic countries, in socialist countries, and in communist countries. Thats not the kind of conduct thats supposed to happen here in this country, and certainly not inside the halls of the very institutions we rely on to uphold justice, like the United States Department of Justice.

I grew up just having such great respect for the FBI. They were the premier law enforcement agency out there. Why? Because they dispensed justice and they did their investigations in a very fair manner, by not being partisan, and not being political. Yet, as were peeling back the layers of this onion over the last six to seven years, were finding that there may be people inside of those institutions that dont subscribe to the principles those institutions were built upon. Thats problematic for the country, and for democracy.

Mr. Jekielek:

Lets switch gears now. You have a very interesting backstory. You went to law school at age 30, which is a very unusual thing. And this was after you could have just retired. You chose to go to law school of all things. Thats not a typical path. Please tell me about your background.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

I tell people that Im a slow learner. I had an interesting background growing up in a small town in southern Louisiana. I accomplished a lot because I grew up with ADD and no medication.

I was always busy. When I was in college, I started a business. That business flourished, and I had an opportunity to sell the business with a friend of mine. Then I said, Well, what am I going to do with some of that money? I was still single at the time. I said, You know what? My grandfather had always said that I should have gone to law school, so Im going to law school. So at 30, I went to law school, and then afterwards I got married. It was a big turning point in my life. After my wife stayed with me through law school, I said, Well, I better marry her.

So yes, I went to law school a bit later in life. But it was after I had gotten my undergraduate degree, and after I had run a business, and after I had worked that entire time. All of those things gave me a different perspective from the average person who goes to college, gets an undergrad, goes to law school and then becomes a lawyer. I got to have some real life experience in the business sectorcreating jobs, having a payroll, making insurance payments, and dealing with lawsuits as both a plaintiff and a defendant. So it was an interesting path.

Mr. Jekielek:

Was it your grandfather that said that you should have gone to law school? What really motivated you, aside from that inspiration from family? Its a big decision.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

It is. I thought about it. I weighed whether I was going to get an MBA or a law degree. I knew that I liked history. Im a big history buff and Ive always been interested in the Constitution and in law. So, I decided this was the direction I wanted to take.

In all honesty, I went to law school, but never intended to practice law. Yes. In fact, my wife will tease you and tell you that when I got out of law school I was ready to go back into business. She said, Youre not going to take the bar? And I replied, No. I really wasnt planning taking the bar. Shes the one who forced me to take the bar. She is the reason Im practicing law today.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thats fascinating. You passed the bar and then you actually decided to work in the field, now that you had the credentials? Whats going on at that time?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

I passed the bar, and I had a friend of mine say, Why dont you come and do some corporate law work? Because of my business background, they felt that I had something to offer the firm. So, I did some of that work.

I then ran for the Louisiana state senate and lost. I said, Okay, that gets the politics out of me. But then I decided to run for Congress in 2010.

I came in with that big class of 2010, back when the country was really starting to change. I remember one of the things that drove me to run for Congress was the fact that we were engaged in the wars in the Middle East. I remember the Obama administration refusing to send the required number of troops to the Middle East that the joint chiefs had recommended at the time. As a veteran, that kind of insulted me. So I said, You know what? I want to run for Congress.

Then, I went to Congress, so my legal career was short. I went from practicing law to writing law and being a congressman, and after that, Attorney General of Louisiana.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to talk about the bigger picture. You talked about this inherent prima facie threat around disinformation boards. Right now, theres much less appreciation of the value of freedom of speech than there once was. Once, it was sacrosanct. Now people are talking about balancing these things.

Part of the reason is, we have this technology where you can create big narratives of information and they can change in a moments notice. The information landscape has changed a lot. What people are arguing is that new rules are required to balance these capabilities with freedom. We wouldnt want the wrong information to capture everyones mind in an instant. There is a threat of things like that, and it has happened.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

There used to be a thing called journalistic integrity. One of the things I appreciate about The Epoch Times is that it has risen above the fray, and brought back journalistic integrity. Journalism was about writing a story based on facts and letting the reader come up with an opinion. Thats what journalism was about. Thats what the press was about. Hey, let me give you all of the facts, and then you come to your own conclusion. Thats freedom. Thats why we wanted the freedom of the press.

Unfortunately, with the expansion of the internet and the growth of just a handful of players, the Big Tech platforms have amassed so much data and so much information.

We used to have a physical public square. And in that physical public square, the press was welcome and there was freedom there. There was also the freedom of people to debate and to say things in that physical public square. What the internet created was a virtual public square, which was great. We said, Oh, this is even better. This was going to be a great marketplace for ideas. It was going to connect more people. It was going to expand the physical public square by bringing more people to it. If you wanted to go and talk in New York, now you could do it through the internet, and not have to travel all the way to New York.

Unfortunately, what happened was that the virtual public square is now controlled by just a handful of private corporationsBig Tech, as weve labeled them. Instead of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment being the gateway of that information in the physical public square, Big Tech now controls what goes in and out of the virtual public square.

Thats where Americans are finding a lot of anxiety and frustration. When the government joins in with them, you are now absolutely violating the First Amendment when it comes to information.

Thats where we are right now. What has happened is a collision of antitrust law, which is the monopolistic power of Big Tech, and what people have come to believe and trust and appreciate about the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is a great and important thing. You normally label the most important thing as number one. When you think about whats in the First Amendment, it is some of the most sacrosanct important things that hold the fabric of America togetherthe freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. Those are packed into the First Amendment.

Mr. Jekielek:

In the past, there were actually a lot fewer big media. You would have NBC, CBS, and ABC. There were just a few big media outlets. Of course, there was a ton of local media that would operate in local markets. This is before the internet. It was before this democratization of information, which is what the promise of the internet was all about.

So these big media started to lose market power, but also the power to shape ideas.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:

How much of this is just an attempt to reestablish the ability to create narratives like they may have had before? The internet opened things up very widely for all these new, disruptive players, like us, for example.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Lets go back even further. I would guess that at the time the printing press was invented, and as the expansion of the printing press occurred, there was some disruption in the flow of communication. It probably scared some people who were in power. Then, of course, with the printing press came books and written literature. Then, it just kept developing.

Then, we get radio, and then, we get television. All of those things were disruptive in the media sense. Sure, there is a group out there that is certainly concerned about losing their influence. Maybe thats what you are alluding to, their ability to influence and to shape American perception.

But again, lets think about where they sit inside of the government regulatory structure. At the time, when those big media outlets came out, the government said, Were going to fit them in as a utility. And they put them inside of a pretty strict regulatory structure.

Think about that. We dont think about it, because weve come to accept it, but they were packaged inside of government oversight. But the government never went in and said, Were going to tell you what you can and cant say. We just said, You have to allow everyone to have an opportunity.

Think about political advertisements on TV, or on radio. When I buy a political advertisement, those stations have to give me an affidavit telling me that they ran those ads, and they have to offer my opponent the same amount of time at the same price.

So, the internet comes out and the government does nothing. They let these corporations just buy up and gobble up and amass so much power that theyre almost bigger than the government, which again brings us back to our earlier conversation. It brings us back to the Sherman Antitrust Act. It was designed to ensure that no person or corporation got more power than the government, because once you amass more power than the government, then you have more power than the people. In America, the government is the people, or its supposed to be.

Mr. Jekielek:

Where did things go wrong?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Things went wrong when we got this laissez-faire position on the Sherman Act. After the big trust-busters, there was a different take on the Sherman Act in the Supreme Court in the 1960s. Thats a whole other debate. When the internet came in, Section 230 proved to be problematic. I dont think the government reacted fast enough. Technology was moving so fast that the governments ability to reign it in was lacking. It caught them flat footed, and now were playing catch-up.

Its unfortunate, because now, at a time when we need the government to act, were so polarized, and the government is paralyzed. So, as the government stays paralyzed, the only people on the top are the Big Tech platforms. So, who is shaping ideas?

Go here to read the rest:

'This Is the Government Colluding With Big Tech'AG Jeff Landry on the First Amendment Lawsuits He's Leading - The Epoch Times

Justice Samuel Alito, seen here in 2007, has emerged as the workhorse of the Supreme Court's conservatives and has spent his time on the court forcefully shaping its opinions. Nancy Ostertag/Getty Images hide caption

Justice Samuel Alito, seen here in 2007, has emerged as the workhorse of the Supreme Court's conservatives and has spent his time on the court forcefully shaping its opinions.

In the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the names of just a few justices are linked with a single very famous--or infamous--decision. Chief Justice John Marshall for his 1803 decision declaring that the courts have the power to strike down laws that violate the constitution; Chief Justice Roger Taney for the infamous decision in the Dred Scott case, declaring that no African American, enslaved or free, could be a citizen of the United states, a decision that led in part to the Civil War; Chief Justice Earl Warren for his 1954 decision declaring segregation in public schools unconstitutional. And now, the name of Samuel Alito is indelibly linked with the court's opinion overturning a half century's worth of decisions declaring that women have a right to abortion.

Alito, unlike Marshall, Taney and Warren, is not chief justice, and he may be little known to the public generally. But he has played a key role on the court, often leading the conservative charge not just on abortion, but for expanded religious rights, against LGBTQ rights, against expanded voting rights, against labor unions, for the death penalty, and more.

The workhorse of the right

Indeed, within a short time of replacing the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, he became something of the workhorse of the right.

On contraception, for instance, he wrote the court's 5-to-4 decision, declaring that closely held, for-profit corporations could refuse, on religious grounds, to comply with a federal law that required employer insurance policies to cover contraception for their employees.

"This court has said time and again that we have no business judging whether any sincere religious belief is valid or reasonable and it would be dangerous if we started down that road," he said in announcing his opinion from the bench in 2014.

He wrote the court's 2010 decision striking down state bans on handguns in the home, declaring the "right to keep and bear arms is implicit in our understanding of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in the traditions of our country."

He wrote the court's 2007 decision declaring that victims of race and sex discrimination on the job could only recover damages dating back 180 days after filing suit, as opposed to when the discrimination began. Congress promptly rebuked the court, amending the anti-discrimination statute to make clear that damages and back pay are to be paid from the date the discrimination begins.

In death penalty cases, Alito has been impatient with attempts to limit capital punishment, in one case writing that any death row inmate who challenges the state's execution method as cruel and unusual punishment, must now come up with an alternative method.

In voting rights cases, he has repeatedly sided with state laws that make it more difficult for people to vote. As he wrote in a 2021 opinion, "Mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation" of the Voting Rights Act.

One special Alito crusade focused on public employee labor unions. In particular, he took aim at a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision that upheld the rights of unions to collect fees from non-union members, as long as the fees were used only for collective bargaining and other non-political activities that benefitted all workers, union and non-union alike. The idea was to prevent non-union workers from being "free-riders" on the backs of the union. But in 2018, Alito, after whittling away at the precedent for more than a decade, even repeatedly inviting challenges, finally managed to overturn it. The First Amendment right of free speech, he said, includes the right not to speak or support a union in any way. "Nonunion members are not free riders at all," he said. "They are captive riders."

The overturning of Roe

Few issues appear to rankle Alito as much as those that directly or indirectly involve religion, and perhaps not incidentally, the modern culture war. As he put it in a July speech, There is a "growing hostility to religion or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors."

The Dobbs decision overturning Roe was his exegesis on abortion and constitutional interpretation. There is no audio of his opinion announcement because the court conveniently abandoned the longtime tradition of these announcements at the height of the epidemic and thereafter, prompting an increasing wave of criticism.

But as Alito explained in his written abortion opinion, the Supreme Court's Roe decision and the decisions that followed, had to be overruled because Roe was "egregiously wrong," the arguments for it "exceptionally weak," and because there was no history or tradition of abortion at the time of the founding or thereafter. There was no evidence, said Alito, "zero," that supported such a right.

Many on the political right hailed the decision as "brilliant," and an example of Alito's approach to the law. "He is not a partisan," said one former Alito clerk. "He just believes that the law is based on rules and rules are rules, regardless of politics."

'He's able to succeed'

Liberal Yale law professor Akhil Amar defends Alito too, maintaining that the justice succeeds by staying within the lines and not overreaching. "He's quiet. He's able to succeed," says Amar.

But others, including some conservatives, disagree. Among them is Sarah Isgur, a former official in the Trump Justice Department, who at one time was a leading member of the conservative Federalist Society. She says the Alito opinion fails the critical test of persuasion because it speaks only to those who agree with him.

"When you have a court that is 6-3 on so many different types of opinions, you can end up with a feeling there there are permanent winners and losers," she says. "And the court when it writes, it needs to write more persuasively to the people who might feel like they're permanent losers."

The question, at this point, she adds, is not whether Roe was correctly decided, but, "Do you overturn a precedent that has been on the books for 50 years--the most famous case probably to most Americans in the country, and it's not even close."

Cornell Constitutional law professor Michael Dorf is more pointed, calling the opinion, "dishonest" because it "so selectively cites history" to argue just one side of a case.

"The judge is supposed to look at it from a more balanced perspective, and that's not what Justice Alito does," Dorf says. "One wonders how so many prior justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, could have found a right to abortion in the constitution and then reaffirmed that right. There's a kind of arrogance to the opinion in the way it proceeds in a one-sided manner."

Isgur adds that Alito's assurances ring hollow when he contends at the end of his opinion that the Dobbs case should not cast doubt on other precedents based on the same reasoning as Roe-- the same-sex marriage opinion, or opinions guaranteeing the right to access contraception, for instance.

That may be, but Alito is part of a court, that, as Chief Justice John Roberts observed in the Dobbs case, is displaying "a relentless freedom from doubt on legal issues."

More:

Samuel Alito, a workhorse on the Supreme Court, shapes its conservative path - NPR

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wassued by America First Legal (AFL) to compel the release of records regarding correspondence between the federal public health agency and social media companies during the COVID-19 pandemic. AFL, a legal nonprofit run by former Trump administration officials, recently obtained documents showing that the CDC worked with big tech companies to flag and censor posts deemed as COVID-19 misinformation.

Gene Hamilton, vice president and general counsel of AFL, told The Epoch Times that seeing [then-press secretary] Jen Psaki at the White House podium last year, admitting that they were actively collaborating with social media companies to combat what the administration deemed as misinformation was great cause for alarm.

During a July 2021 press conference, Psaki said: Were regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives, dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans are seeing across all of social and traditional media. And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies.

AFL immediately submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for all records related to the collaboration, according to Hamilton. He wasnt surprised to have received no records from the goodwill of the Biden administration, despite the legal obligation to do so.

So, we sued them, he said.

More than a year later, Hamilton said that we finally have some of the very first records that establish precisely what Jen Psaki was talking about at the White House podium. He described the records received thus far to be incredibly illuminating because they actually show what the White House said was happening. Prior to this, no one had direct evidence of the collaboration, he said.

For example, Facebook provided the CDC with $15 million dollars worth of ad credits to be used to support the agencys COVID-19 messaging on the social media platform. According to AFL, the non-monetary gift could be in violation of the Antideficiency Acts limitation on voluntary services (31 U.S.C. Section 1342).

AFL suspects many, many more records to come, according to Hamilton.

And as time goes on, we are anticipating massive implications for the federal government and for the social media companies, he said.

According to Hamilton,there are many examples in the 286-page productionof the CDC flagging explicit posts on Twitter and Facebook that they viewed as being misinformation.

There are also examples of the federal government engaging in regular BOLO [Be on the Lookout] calls where they would coordinate, collaborate, and talk about things that they deemed as misinformation, he said.

Following a May 28 BOLO meeting, an email from CDC Digital Media Branch Chief Carol Crawford requested that those in attendance of the meeting please do not share outside your trust and safety teams.

The documents also show that the CDC was working with the Census Bureau in this effort, Hamilton noted. The CDC was collaborating with the bureau to leverage their infrastructure to identify and monitor social media for vaccine misinformation, according to one email.

Hamilton said that its absolutely shocking that federal government agencies engaged in this kind of conduct.

We have a First Amendment for a reasonthe federal government cannot get around requirements of the First Amendment by merely directing a private entity to violate it, he said.

Hamilton issued a warning to the U.S. public: We are at a point in our society where we have evidence of the federal government dictating what is truth and what is not truth to private companies.

The Biden administration fully expected the private companies involved to enforce the governments standard of truth upon the American society, he said.

And this is a level of power thats inconsistent with the Constitution and our founders vision for the limited role of the federal government in the United States, Hamilton said. Not only is it appalling, but its anti-American.

The general counsel said, The average American sitting at home needs to understand that this is just one example of this happening.

Hamilton said it has been made clear that the governments ability to deem what constitutes misinformation and disinformation is a substantial threat to the American people. And as a result, Americans should have every reason to suspect that this is occurring in other areas, too.

The federal government and these social media companies are acting complicit with one another in determining what is and is not truth; its the kind of thing that you would see in a totalitarian society.

CDC and White House officials didnt respond to requests for comment by press time.

Follow

J.M. Phelps is a writer and researcher of both Islamist and Chinese threats.

More:

CDC Collaboration With Big Tech on COVID-19 Misinformation a Threat to 1st Amendment Rights: Legal Advocacy Group - The Epoch Times

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE

2021 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

FILED WITH THE AMF ON JULY 29TH, 2022

Universal Registration Document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on March 25, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156.

First amendment to Universal Registration Document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on May 3, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A01.

Second amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on June 28, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A02.

This is a translation into English of the Universal Registration Document of the Company issued in French and it is

available on the website of the Issuer

Socit anonyme (Public Limited Company) with capital of 2,468,663,292 euros

Head office: 16 boulevard des Italiens, 75009 PARIS

R.C.S.: PARIS 662 042 449

1

Summary

1.

HALF YEAR MANAGEMENT REPORT

3

2.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION AS AT 30 JUNE 2022

83

3.

RISK FACTORS

217

4.

GENERAL INFORMATION

236

5.

STATUTORY AUDITORS

241

6.

PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

242

7.

TABLES OF CONCORDANCE

243

This third amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document has been filed with the AMF on 29 July 2022 as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 without prior approval pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129;

The universal registration document may be used for the purposes of an offer to the public of securities or admission of securities to trading on a regulated market if approved by the AMF together with any amendments, if applicable, and a securities note and summary approved in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

This Universal Registration Document may form part of a prospectus of the Issuer consisting of separate documents within the meaning of the Prospectus Regulation.

2

1. HALF YEAR MANAGEMENT REPORT

1.1. Group presentation

Benefitting from its integrated and diversified model, BNPParibas is leader in banking and financial services in Europe. The Group leverages on strong customer franchises and business lines strategically aligned to better serve customers and long-term partners, which are leaders in Europe and favourably positioned internationally. The Group operates in 65countries and has almost 190,000employees, including nearly 145,000 in Europe.

BNPParibas' organisation evolved in 2021, and is now based on three operating divisions: Corporate & Institutional Banking (CIB), Commercial, Personal Banking & Services (CPBS) and Investment & Protection Services (IPS).

Corporate and Institutional Banking (CIB) division, combines:

Commercial, Personal Banking & Services division, covers:

Investment & Protection Services division, combines:

BNPParibasSA is the Parent Company of the BNPParibas Group.

3

1.2. First half 2022 results

STRONG GROWTH IN RESULTS AND A POSITIVE JAWS EFFECT

BNP Paribas' performances this semester confirm its solid trajectory, with growth in revenues, a positive jaws effect1 and prudent risk management.

The Group's diversified and integrated model and its ability to accompany clients and the economy in a comprehensive way continued to drive strong growth in revenues and results in the first half 2022. These performances reflect its unique positioning in Europe stemming from its leading platforms.

The Group's growth potential is proven and sustained by robust business momentum and by strategic developments finalised in 2021 and 2022. Loans outstanding increases by 7.0% compared to the first half 2021 and deposits by 7.2%. Growth is disciplined and accompanied by the objective of a positive jaws effect every year and in every division. In addition, the Group benefits from a long-term, prudent and proactive risk management, as illustrated, for example, in its ratio of cost of risk to gross operating income, which is one of the lowest in Europe.

For the first half of the year, revenues, at 25,999 million euros, rose sharply, by 10.1% compared to the first half 2021.

In the operating divisions, revenues increased strongly, by 11.6%2 compared to the first half 2021, driven by robust business activity. Revenues rose strongly, by 19.3%3 at Corporate & Institutional Banking and increased in all three business lines. Revenues4 rose sharply, by 9.8%5 at Commercial, Personal Banking

Group operating expenses, at 17,372 million euros, increased by 10.2% compared to the first half 2021. In the first half 2022, they included the exceptional impact of restructuring costs7 and cost-adaptation measures8 (54 million euros) and IT reinforcement costs (132 million euros) for total exceptional items of 185 million euros (148 million in the first half 2021).

In the operating divisions, operating expenses increased by 9.0%9 compared to the first half 2021. The jaws effect was very positive (+2.6 points). Operating expenses at Corporate & Institutional Banking increased by 16.2%10 with the support of business development, the impact of the change in scope and the increase of taxes subject to IFRIC 21. The jaws effect was very positive (+3.1 points). Operating expenses increased by 5.8% at Commercial, Personal Banking & Services11, on the back of increased business activity and scope effects in Commercial & Personal Banking and Specialised Businesses. The jaws effect was very positive (+4.0 points). Operating expenses at Investment & Protection Services increased by 5.1%12 mainly driven by support for business development and targeted initiatives.

Group gross operating income came to 8,627 million euros, up sharply by 10.1% and by 16.5% in the operating divisions.

4

At 1,245 million euros, the cost of risk declined by 27.2% compared to the first half 2021, reflecting, in particular, releases of provisions on performing loans (stages 1 and 2), especially at BancWest in the first quarter 2022. Cost of risk stood at just 27 basis points of customer loans outstanding.

The Group's operating income, at 7,382 million euros, thus rose very sharply, by 20.5% compared to the first half 2021 and by 27.8% in the operating divisions.

The Group's non-operating items amounted to 397 million euros (890 million euros in the first half 2021). At 15 million euros, exceptional items fell sharply compared to the first half 2021 (698 million euros). In the first half of the year, they reflected the +244-million-euro positive impact from the badwill on bpost bank and a +204-million-euro capital gain, offset by the -159-million-euro impairment on Ukrsibbank's securities and the -274-million-euro negative impact related to the reclassification to profit-and-loss of exchange differences. As a reminder, in the first half 2021, exceptional items included the impact of the +302-million- euro capital gain realised on the sale of buildings, the +96-million-euro capital gain realised on the sale of

Pre-tax income, at 7,779 million euros, was thus up sharply, by 10.9%. The impact of the effects induced by the hyperinflation situation2 in Turkey to pre-tax income of the first half 2022 was limited overall and amounted to +10 million euros.

The average corporate income tax rate was 26.0%, due mainly to the first quarter recognition of the full- year's taxes and contributions subject to IFRIC 21 "Taxes", a large proportion of which are not deductible.

Group's net income attributable to equity holders thus came to 5,285 million euros, up sharply, by 13.0% compared to the first half 2021. When excluding exceptional items, it came to 5,409 million euros, a very strong 26.4% increase compared to the first half 2021.

The annualised non-revaluated return on tangible equity stood at 12.4%. It reflects the solid performances of the BNP Paribas Group on the back of the strength of its diversified and integrated model.

As at 30 June 2022, the Common Equity Tier 1 ratio stood at 12.2%3. The Group's immediately available liquidity reserve stood at 450 billion euros, equivalent to over one year of room to manoeuvre in terms of wholesale funding. The leverage ratio4 stood at 3.8%.

Tangible net book value per share5 stood at 78.0 euros, equivalent to a compound annual growth rate of 6.8% since 31 December 2008.

The Group continues to develop a policy of engaging with society through a group-wide approach organised around three major pillars reaffirmed with the "Growth, Technology & Sustainability 2025" strategic plan and is engaged with clients to support them in their transition towards a sustainable economy. It is strengthening its steering tools, processes and governance. And it has taken the measures necessary for aligning its loan portfolios to meet its carbon-neutrality commitment. Euromoney, a financial monthly, recognised this approach, awarding the BNP Paribas two prizes for the second consecutive year: Best Bank for Sustainable Finance and Best Bank for ESG Data & Technology.

The Group continues to reinforce its internal control set-up.

5

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Disclaimer

BNP Paribas SA published this content on 03 August 2022 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 03 August 2022 13:18:02 UTC.

Publicnow 2022

Technical analysis trends BNP PARIBAS

Income Statement Evolution

Continued here:

BNP Paribas : Semi-Annual Report - 3rd amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com

The end of the past Supreme Court term saw the release of three decisions that carry life-and-death consequences: Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade; New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which rejected efforts to curb gun violence; and West Virginia v. E.P.A., which curtailed the federal agencys ability to protect the environment. A fourth major decision of those final weeks may not hold life in the balance, but it will have radical and far-reaching consequences for the First Amendment and religious speech.

The decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, holds that a public-high-school football coach has a constitutional right to publicly pray at the fifty-yard line after games. Using the words quiet or quietly ten times to describe the coachs prayers, Gorsuch dismisses any concerns that students may feel coerced to join him, as long as they are not expressly compelled to do so. The coachs conduct, Gorsuch finds, in an opinion joined by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, is fully protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, of course, states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The establishment clause, which was cited by the school district, has traditionally been interpreted to prohibit government action that compels religious conduct, favors one religion over another, or endorses religion over non-religion. But Justice Gorsuch makes the astonishing claim that, because prayer is protected by both the speech and the free exercise references, it is doubly protected. This double protection means that the School Districts concern that the coachs prayers run afoul of the establishment clause is outgunned, two clauses against one. Does this mean that if I (1) petition the government to (2) hold a rally supporting the (3) printing of a pamphlet about my (4) new religion, Id be quadruply protected and could thereby trump other constitutional provisions, such as the equal protection clause of the FourteenthAmendment? The math quickly becomes absurd.

Burt Neuborne, a professor at New York Universitys School of Law, makes the compelling argument that the structure of the First Amendment is no accident. It is not a mere list of protected activities to be added to and subtracted from one another; rather, its language tracks how political ideas move from internal thought and belief to external conduct. First comes personal conviction, then public discussion and dissemination, and, finally, political action. The goal is the free expression of political will, which is essential to a functioning democracy. Neubornes analysis confirms what many media and First Amendment lawyers consider a truism: political speech is at the core of the First Amendments protections.

Protecting political speech, including speech that criticizes government officials, was the primary justification in the Supreme Courts unanimous landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which holds that government officials need to meet a very high burden of proof to succeed in defamation claims. In that decision, Justice William Brennan reasoned that, because political speech is central to democracy, debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open. According to Justice Gorsuchs opinion, however, that long-held understanding of the central purpose of the First Amendment is wrong. In his view, it is government suppression of religious speech that is the core concern of the First Amendment, and what it was designed to protect against. Further, Gorsuchs finding that religious speech is doubly protected implies that political speechsay, about voting rights or womens rightsis only single protected.

This reasoning reveals a disturbing strain of thought: the idea that religion is under siege, and that religious speech and religious conduct in the public sphere need to be privileged. Gorsuch, in his opinion, inveighs against a government being hostile to religion. He specifically objects to the idea that we might preference secular activity over outward displays of religiosity. Instead of considering how secularism might make government activity neutral, open to believers of various faiths as well as nonbelievers, his thinking seems to be that, because of religious speechs double protection, it must take precedence. Anything less is an unconstitutional assault on religion.

Gorsuch employs the cartoonishly circular argument that, because the Bremerton School District, in Washington State, didnt want the coach to conduct prayers with his team, it clearly does not see that behavior as part of his official duties and, therefore, his praying is private religious conduct, which must be protected from government restrictions. By that logic, any religious conduct by government employees that is not part of their official dutiesa D.M.V. clerk, say, who gives out religious literature to people applying for drivers licenses, or a clerk who tries to convince gay couples that their marriage is sinfulwould become protected speech.

Gorsuch argues that, if visible religious conduct of government employees is banished, then teachers will be prohibited from wearing yarmulkes or saying a prayer of thanks over a sandwich in the break room. The fact that theres no evidence that any government office has sought to stop an employee from saying grace over their own lunch notwithstanding, that argument is a false equivalence. Such personal conduct is worlds apart from that of a coach, who may be responsible for making college or scholarship recommendations for the students on his team, openly conducting a religious practice on the field, while players and families are watching. Gorsuch writes that there was no coercion, because students were not required to participate. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, included multiple photographs showing the coach kneeling in prayer surrounded by players that are evocative of a revival meeting. Even if those students willingly joined their coach in prayer, its likely that some students feigned belief, or felt excluded by choosing not to join the ritual.) Furthermore, the law recognizes all kinds of situations in which implied promises or threats are sufficient grounds for legal sanctions. Ask any first-year prosecutor whether an explicit threat is necessary to bring an extortion charge.

But religious maximalism is currently all the rage on the Supreme Court. Justice Alitos opinion overturning Roe goes out of its way to dig up arcane historical references to prove that the drafters of the Constitution didnt intend to protect abortion. But there is an inescapable sense that the Justices acceptance of the validity of the belief that life begins at conception is determined by his personal religious views. Alito, too, has publicly bemoaned hostility toward religion, which he calls secular orthodoxy, and blamed it for what he calls anti-Catholic prejudice. Justice Barrett and her family have been affiliated with People of Praise, an insular conservative Catholic group that rejects homosexuality; practices ecstatic Christian traditions, such as speaking in tongues; and is described as a covenant community. She testified during her Senate confirmation hearing that her religious beliefs do not influence her jurisprudence, but also that she did not view Roe as a super precedent. Clearly, most Justices have religious beliefs, and there are both liberal and conservative Catholicsno one should say that religious beliefs determine political affiliation. Still, the idea that religious speech (and necessarily, activity) must be protected over and above other kinds of speechor over secularism generallyis grounded in a belief about the importance of religion in public life. But what will happen if government employees must be free to express and act upon their religious convictions in their jobs? How does a pluralist society function in that case?

Chief Justice John Roberts famously bristled at the idea that there are Obama judges or Trump judges, insisting that members of the federal judiciary do their level best to be fair to those who appear before them. (When I was in law school, there was no quicker way to get cut down by a professor than to cite the Justices political leanings as an explanation for why they had reached a particular decision.) But perhaps a clearer distinction exists between Justices who believe that the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion means that government employees must be able to wield their religious beliefs unconstrained, and those who believe that, in a pluralist society, people have the right not to have the religion of others foisted upon them by government employees. As the old saying goes, Your right to swing your arms stops where my nose begins. Telling government employees to stop swinging their religion at the public should not be unconstitutional.

Link:

Justice Neil Gorsuchs Radical Reinterpretation of the First Amendment - The New Yorker

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, revealed the Left's double standard on free speech Saturday on "Unfiltered with Dan Bongino."

REP. JIM JORDAN: They don't think that the First Amendment rights apply to you and [me]. Think about what they've said about your free speech rights. The Left today says if you don't agree with them, you're not even allowed to talk and if you try, we're going to call you racist, and we're going to try to cancel you.

ELON MUSK SCARES LIBERALS, TWITTER AS HE PURSUES FREE SPEECH

And now we have the Left giving a wink and a nod to people actually trying to use violence and intimidation tactics against people they disagree with. So that's what frightens me their attack on your First Amendment rights, your Second Amendment rights, your Fourth Amendment due process rights. And now [there's] this almost this double standard that they have when it comes to violence that they see from people [who] agree with their political position.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

This article was written by Fox News staff.

Link:

The Left does not think the First Amendment applies to the Right: Rep Jim Jordan - Fox News

Published Jul. 23

Over the past three years, Gov. Ron DeSantis has restricted Floridians First Amendment rights and repeatedly pushed for laws that violate basic American freedoms. During this years session of the Florida Legislature, these assaults accelerated.

The First Amendment guarantees the rights to free speech, a free press, freedom to assemble and protest peacefully, the right to petition the government for change and freedom from the imposition of religious beliefs by government.

In the wake of national protests after the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, DeSantis championed the anti-protest bill, House Bill 1. It dictated that any person participating in a rally or protest could be charged with a felony if three or more other people at that event engaged in unlawful activity resulting in imminent danger of damage to property or injury to another person. In other words, you could be charged for an offense committed by people who were total strangers to you, even if you were protesting peacefully.

In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker struck down that provision of the law. Walker stated that HB 1 could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands, of law-abiding Floridians. This violates the First Amendment.

That ruling hasnt stopped DeSantis from trying to impede free speech in other ways. In this years legislative session, he and his allies pushed House Bill 7, an educational censorship bill, signed into law in April. That bill prevents content from being taught in schools that illustrates the discrimination, including race and gender discrimination, that has existed for centuries in our society.

HB 7 even bans private employers from requiring diversity training or other workshops related to race and gender discrimination, which are often used to create inclusive, productive work environments. Worse, the law gives employees the ability to sue an employer for requiring such workshops. HB 7 is a clear attempt to whitewash American history and to ban viewpoints the governor and his allies do not like.

DeSantis and his legislative allies continued to attack Floridians First Amendment rights by targeting LGBTQ+ youth and families with the dont say gay bill (House Bill 1557). This dangerous legislation bans teachers from addressing LGBTQ+ topics in grades K-3. It also prohibits such discussions at any grade level if someone else does not deem them age-appropriate.

Any parent who thinks a classroom discussion was inappropriate will be able to sue, a provision of the law that will end up chilling speech and creating chaos. This legislation will further shame, stigmatize, and isolate LGBTQ+ youth, who already suffer from high rates of depression and suicide.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

On Feb. 17, 25 people were banned from the Capitol for a year, and another was unjustly arrested and held in jail overnight. All because a few people were chanting in opposition to the passing of House Bill 5, the 15-week abortion ban backed by DeSantis. That law is yet another way that a constitutional right the right to privacy and bodily autonomy is under attack in Florida.

In addition, over the past few years, we have witnessed journalists being denied access to official press conferences and briefings by DeSantis attempts to block coverage of critical public matters, including coronavirus updates and bill signings.

DeSantis is waging a terrifying and unconstitutional assault on Floridians First Amendment rights, and all Floridians should be outraged by his attempts to silence us.

Dissent is patriotic; government censorship is undemocratic, unconstitutional and un-American. We will all do better when we have leaders in Florida who use their power to improve our lives and our livelihoods and are dedicated to making the values of liberty and justice a reality for all of us.

Amy Turkel is the interim executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

Continue reading here:

DeSantis and his allies in Florida are trampling on our First Amendment rights | Column - Tampa Bay Times

from the you-can-protect-children-without-infringing-on-the-1st-amendment dept

California has officially joined the growing list of states attempting to regulate how social media companies run their platforms. The states proposed legislation, however, faces a major legal obstacle: the Constitution.

California lawmakers are marching ahead with AB 2408, the Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act. On June 28, the Judiciary Committee unanimously passed an amended version of the bill, tweaking several provisions. Next, AB 2408 must pass the Senate Appropriations Committee and the California Senate before governor Gavin Newsom may sign the bill into law.

AB 2408 would impose a duty on social media platforms to avoid addicting minor users. Although protecting minors is a noble cause, regulating how social media design their services likely violates the First Amendment, which protects platforms right to curate content based on their editorial discretion.

As with most bills, the devils in the details. AB 2408s structure and prohibitions would limit platforms abilities to arrange and moderate content for minors.

AB 2408 defines Addict as the act of knowingly or negligently caus[ing] addiction through any act or omission. The bill defines Addiction as use of one or more social media platforms resulting in preoccupation or obsession with, or withdrawal or difficulty to cease or reduce use in addition to physical, mental, emotional, developmental, or material harms to the user.

The bill allows the Attorney General to sue social media platforms for implementing a design, feature, or affordance which leads to addiction. To prevail under AB 2408, a plaintiff must prove that a minor became addicted and was therefore harmed, that a design or feature on the platform was a substantial factor in the addiction, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that the design or feature would lead to addiction.

A recent amendment removed a private right of action which would have allowed minor users and parents to sue platforms directly. Lawmakers also changed the definition of social media platform. The amendments, however, do little to change the bills constitutionality.

In short, AB 2408 aims to prohibit social media platforms from building features which the platforms know, or ought to know, will result in addiction for minors.

In general, social media platforms design features to make their platforms more useful or enjoyable. For example, any internet platform worth its salt uses algorithms to display, recommend, and tailor content based on a users browsing activity and interests. By restricting how social media companies build and use these features, AB 2408 interferes with their editorial discretion by limiting how platforms display and amplify content.

AB 2408 appears less objectionable than the social media regulations currently brewing in Texas and Florida, which are geared towards forcing platforms to host conservative content. Ultimately, however, all three bills seek to regulate how social media platforms moderate content. Its unlikely these bills withstand First Amendment challenges.

Texass and Floridas social media bills are already running into trouble in court. On May 31, the Supreme Court suspended Texass HB20, reimposing a preliminary injunction on enforcement of the legislation.

Just eight days earlier, the U.S.federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Floridas social media bill violates the First Amendment. Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom explained: Put simply, with minor exceptions, the government cant tell a private person or entity what to say or how to say it.

The court concluded that social media platforms content-moderation decisions constitute protected exercises of editorial judgment, and that the provisions of the new Florida law that restrict large platforms ability to engage in content moderation unconstitutionally burden that prerogative.

Proponents of AB 2408 argue that the bill only regulates business conduct, not speech. But limiting platforms abilities to build features used to display content implicates their constitutionally protected editorial judgment.

In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the Internet, striking down provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act which criminalized the intentional transmission of obscene or indecent messages and information depicting or describing sexual or excretory activities or organs in an offensive manner. The Court found no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to the Internet.

Twenty years earlier, in Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot regulate a newspapers choice of material or the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper.

Social media features designed to display content to users are analogous to newspaper editors dictating the size and content of their paper. Just as it protects newspapers, the First Amendment likely limits Californias authority to punish Internet platforms for their editorial decisions related to displaying and arranging content on their services. Consequently, AB 2408 faces the same First Amendment roadblocks as the Texas and Florida bills.

Protecting children is important. Thats undeniably true. Lawmakers, however, must pursue these policy objectives within the confines of the Constitution.

Andy Jung is a Legal Fellow at TechFreedom, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank focused on technology law and policy. Andy received his law degree from Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, VA. Before law school, Andy worked for software startup companies in California.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ab 2408, addiction, california, content moderation, for the children, protect the children, social media

Read more:

California's Social Media Bill Flies In The Face Of The First Amendment - Techdirt

By Dorothy Atkins (July 25, 2022, 8:13 PM EDT) -- A split Ninth Circuit refused Monday to reconsider a panel's finding that invalidated a law that makes it a crime to encourage unlawful immigration, with a judge writing in dissent that the opinion misinterprets the statute and employs the "nuclear option" by finding that the law infringes free speech rights.

In a 33-page dissent joined by five Ninth Circuit judges, plus two judges who dissented in part, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Bumatay wrote that the three-judge panel's February opinion misreads the "text, history and structure" of the 70-year-old criminal statute, and misconstrues it to broadly apply beyond an "ordinary"...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Read this article:

Split 9th Circ. Won't Hear Ruling Invalidating Immigration Law - Law360

In November 2020, a 2-1 Eleventh Circuit panel decision inOtto v. City of Boca Ratonconcluded:

Boca Raton and Palm Beach County prohibit therapists from engaging in counseling or any therapy with a goal of changing a minor's sexual orientation, reducing a minor's sexual or romantic attractions (at least to others of the same gender or sex), or changing a minor's gender identity or expressionthough support and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition is specifically permitted. These restrictions apply even to purely speech-based therapy. We understand and appreciate that the therapy is highly controversial. But the First Amendment has no carveout for controversial speech. We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.

(See Jonathan Adler's post on the case.) Today, the Eleventh Circuit denied en banc rehearing, with several judges writing to concur or to dissent on that point; I'm slammed right now and can't quickly summarize or excerpt the opinions (which take up 110 pages), but I thought I'd link to them for the benefit of readers who are interested in looking through them.

Here is the original post:

Eleventh Circuit Opinions on the First Amendment and Bans on "Conversion Therapy" for Minors - Reason