Abortion rights demonstrators walk down Constitution Avenue during the Bans Off Our Bodies march on May 14, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

If (when) federal constitutional protections for abortions fall, each individual state will have the power to craft its own restrictions on the procedure. Still, the First Amendment might be able to offer a bit of cover to those who seek an abortion as a life choice. Justice Alitos leaked opinion inDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organizationeven offers a blueprint.

Alito vociferously argues that the choice to terminate a pregnancy is not protected by any constitutional right of privacy. In fact, he correctly points out that the Constitution provides no explicit right to privacy at all. That right has been interpreted into the constitutional space by the courts and has long been controversial. Instead, the justice asserts over and over again that the decision regarding an individuals right to choose to continue or to terminate a pregnancy is inherently political. He insists that it is a legislative question to be answered by that branch of each state government responsible for crafting laws.

We know any discussions about legislation and its implications and effects are, by definition, political. Political speech enjoys the highest level of protection the First Amendment can provide.

Political speech is not merely communication transmitted during campaigns or among politicians, legislators, lobbyists and activists. Any person expressing an opinion or engaging in conversation on a matter of public concernwhether that be matters of policy, morality, economics or the likeis engaging in political speech. The courts have extended expansive constitutional defenses, including providing cover to those whoburn a cross when it serves as an expression of political ideology, to those who use threatening language in the heat of an argument, and to those whopicket funerals of our soldiers disparaging both the soldiers and the United States government. The ideas expressed by the speakers serve as a commentary on matters affecting the public. Although such speech might be immoral, disturbing or offensive and therefore not worthy of the superpower of the First Amendment, since the First Amendment does not measure morality, such speech enjoys the benefits anyway.

If sidewalk counseling regarding options to continue a pregnancy is protected political speech, so too should be counseling options regarding the choice to legally terminate a pregnancy.

The First Amendment always takes center stage in disputes between advocates and opponents of the right to choose. Two landmark post-Roe decisions addressed the ability ofprotestersandsidewalk counselorsto approach individuals who visit clinics that provide abortion services. In each of those cases, the individual conversations between a prospective clinic patient and an abortion opponent were recognized as political speech. The Court warned that attemptsby state governments through their legislatures to create barriers to discourse between abortion opponents and pregnant people were not constitutional if the burdens imposed effectively silenced the speakers. Certainly, if sidewalk counseling regarding options to continue a pregnancy is protected political speech, so too should be counseling options regarding the choice to legally terminate a pregnancy.

If the federal support for abortion is eliminated (as is anticipated once the Supreme Court announces its decision inDobbs), within weeks, multiple states will enact legislation that severely limits abortion access. By last count, ifRoe v. Wadeis overturned, abortion will become criminal in at least 13 states. Some have argued that if abortion is a criminal act, so too will be speech that assists individuals and their providers in accessing the procedure.

If speech regarding abortion choices is essentially political, attempts to criminalize it are censorship. Censorship is kryptonite to democracy and for that reason is subject to the strongest legal assault. Of course,it might be wise to script such discussions to include keywords that implicate the political nature of the discussion, such as, Lets discuss your options regarding the exercise of your right to choose to terminate a pregnancy in a jurisdiction that protects that right.

Individuals, advocacy groups, newspapers and online platforms that provide information to an individual regarding out-of-state choices available to them should all be shielded by the First Amendment.

Currently,Texas and Oklahoma have provided a civil (as opposed to criminal) avenue for vigilantes to collect $10,000 by suing those who aid and abet a person who seeks an abortion. In those states, even someone who has no relationship to the pregnant person or the abortion provider can sue. However,individuals, advocacy groups, newspapers and online platforms that provide information to an individual regarding out-of-state choices available to them should all be shielded by the First Amendment.

Indeed, in a case initially prosecuted beforeRoe v. Wade,the Supreme Court upheld the rightof a newspaper editor to include advertisements informing Virginia residents of the availability of legal abortions in New York, even if they were illegal in Virginia.So, accessing information about legal out-of-state abortions is certainly safeguarded by the First Amendment.

Similarly, monetarycontributions and expenditureshave long been recognized as an element of political speech, so that any attempt to punish those who offer financial support to groups who aid individuals in their efforts to obtain legal abortions should be on safe ground. Again, tagging any such monetary assistance as funding for political purposes might be wise.

I am of course not arguing that the First Amendment will supplant the protections inRoe, which also relied on the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments to provide individuals with autonomy and power. Those of us who insist it is the personal and private decision of a person to choose how their body should be used and whether or when they will become a parent are now tasked with rebuilding that right. We will have to fight state-by-state. It is nice to know that all federal protections have not abandoned us and that the First Amendment will provide wind at our backs.

Sign and share Ms.s relaunched We Have Had Abortions petitionwhether you yourself have had an abortion, or simply stand in solidarity with those who haveto let the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House know: We will not give up the right to safe, legal, accessible abortion.

Up next:

Original post:

Abortion Rights Advocates Can Still Count on the First Amendment - Ms. Magazine

A Jewish synagogue in Florida filed a lawsuit last week claiming the state's law banning abortion after 15 weeks, HB 5, violates the right to free exercise of religion. It argues that it threatens the Jewish people by imposing the laws of other religions upon Jews.

The Act establishes as the law of the State of Florida, a particular religious view about abortion and when life begins, which is contrary to the views of Plaintiff, its members, congregants, and supporters as well as many other Floridians, the plaintiff, Congregation LDor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach, Florida, said in the case.

In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.

Congregation LDor Va-Dor represents a unique brand of all-inclusive, universal, and rational Judaism that honors tradition, respects science, and celebrates spirituality, according to its website.

The synagogues rabbi, Barry Silver, characterizes himself online as a social activist Rabbi-rouser who practices cosmic Judaism. He was previously an attorney and Democratic state legislator, NPR noted.

The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a case against the Florida law based on the state constitutions individual privacy protections. But the synagogue isnt the first to object to abortion restrictions on religious liberty grounds.

Rabbis for Repro, a group formed by the National Council of Jewish Women, makes abortion activism a religious issue, lobbying for bills such as the Womens Health Protection Act, meeting with Congress, and organizing in local communities.

Daniel Eisenberg, an expert on traditional Jewish medical ethics, writes that the Jewish view does not fit neatly into the pro-choice or pro-life camps, though it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.

When the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision leaked, the leadership of the Orthodox Union said they were unable to either mourn or celebrate.

Abortion has also been taken up as a religious issue by the Satanic Temple, which has filed multiple lawsuits in states with restrictions. The group regards abortion as a ritual and argues that it should be protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

States that outlaw abortion and do not grant exceptions present more significant challenges, but TST has a number of plans that we will be undertaking quite soon, TST wrote in a statement following the Dobbs leak. Actions include suing the FDA to permit TST access to Mifepristone and Misoprostol for use under medical supervision as part of our religious ritual and possibly creating religious abortion facilities.

Increasingly, abortion advocates point out that religions hold different stances on abortion, arguing abortion bans trample these other religious perspectives and default to Christianity. It allows two favorite issues of social conservatives, religious liberty and pro-life laws, to be framed as in conflict with each other. But seeking religious liberty protections is not the silver bullet some activists seem to think it is. When it comes to stopping the advance of abortion bans and other pro-life legislation, its just not a viable strategy.

Erin Hawley, a senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Washington Examiner that federal courts have, with good reason, declined to accept the idea that the free exercise clause protects the right to an abortion for 30 years.

To be protected by the First Amendment, a belief must be sincere and religious in nature a hurdle that will be almost impossible for women seeking abortions to show, Hawley said. Nor is the idea of a religious veto a viable one. Any exception would apply only to a woman seeking an abortion who sincerely believed her faith required one a reviewing court would not strike down a pro-life law.

Hawley said the courts might also find that the government can prevent the termination of innocent human life.

Further, because abortion takes the life of an innocent third party, the courts would likely find that the government may prevent the purposeful termination of a human life, she said. The Constitution, including the free exercise clause, simply does not protect any so-called right to abortion. It is dishonest to argue otherwise.

Protecting innocent life certainly presents a compelling state interest, a standard established in Sherbert v. Verner for overriding free exercise claims.

While abortion arguments do involve religious considerations and Christians in the pro-life movement often have foundational theological reasons for their advocacy, the position that life begins at conception is a scientific fact affirmed by nearly every biology book. Nonreligious groups, such as Secular Pro-Life, join the cause for this reason.

The 14th Amendment says that no state may deprive any person of life without due process. The government has an obligation to recognize the personhood of preborn babies and protect innocent life.

Katelynn Richardson is a summer 2022 Washington Examiner fellow.

Read more:

Abortion is not a religious ritual protected by the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

So the Arizona Supreme Court held today (Morgan v. Dickerson), in an opinion by Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer:

The superior court in Cochise County uses "innominate juries" for all criminal jury trials. Under that procedure, prospective and impaneled jurors are referred to by numbers rather than by names throughout open-court proceedings, although the court and the parties know their identities. Consequently, although voir dire examinations and trials are open for public viewing, observers are not provided jurors' names absent order of the court.

[W]e are asked to decide whether the First Amendment provides the public a qualified right of access to jurors' names during voir dire, thereby creating presumptive access to those names that can be overcome only on a case-by-case basis by showing both a compelling state interest and that denying access is a remedy narrowly tailored to serve that interest. We hold the First Amendment does not prohibit the court's practice.

Arizona law provides that "[t]he list of juror names or other juror information shall not be released unless specifically required by law or ordered by the court."

[T]he [Supreme] Court has held that the First Amendment guarantee of qualified public access attaches to criminal trials, voir dire examinations, and trial-like preliminary hearings [But] the right to attend voir dire [and] a right to access juror names are far from the same thing. Here, the public was not barred from attending any part of the criminal trials, including voir dire, so the most essential press and public right is not implicated. [T]he Supreme Court has not addressed whether the First Amendment guarantee of qualified public access to voir dire examinations extends to learning jurors' names.

The court then applied the Supreme Court's "experience and logic" inquiry into whether a particular facet of the judicial process should be open; it agreed that, as to experience, "jurors' names were traditionally revealed during jury selection proceedings," but concludes that "logic" cuts in favor of upholding departures from that tradition:

By asking whether access to jurors' names "plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question," the logic inquiry sets an exacting standard. A minimally positive role falls short.

[The] reasoning [in the Supreme Court's Press Enterprise I decision] for holding that open voir dire examinations play a significant positive role in that process guides our answer to the logic inquiry. The Court observed that the public right to attend voir dire promotes fairness and the appearance of fairness, critical to public confidence in the criminal justice system. Specifically, "[t]he value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are being followed and that deviations will become known." Open proceedings also have a "community therapeutic value" by providing an outlet for public reaction to criminal acts.

"[P]ublic proceedings vindicate the concerns of the victims and the community in knowing that offenders are being brought to account for their criminal conduct by jurors fairly and openly selected." In short, open proceedings play a significant positive role in voir dire by checking the courts to ensure established standards are being used to select jurors and by simultaneously assuring the public that fairly selected jurors are holding offenders to account for their crimes.

Morgan has failed to show that public access to jurors' names likewise plays a significant positive role in voir dire. With or without such access, the press and the public can attend voir dire proceedings and were able to do so in these cases. Anyone can sit in the courtroom during a criminal trial and observe the juror screening process, including voir dire examinations. They can also observe for-cause challenges and peremptory strikes, hear the judge's rulings, and mark any deviation from standards put in place by the legislature or this Court to select a fair jury. The public is also generally entitled to access public records reflecting how jury pools are formed in the superior court. Accessing jurors' names would not significantly add to the public's ability to assure itself that voir dire is fairly conducted or to check the courts in disregarding established standards for jury selection.

Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion, reasoning that public knowledge of jurors' names would deter prospective jurors from misrepresenting their answers during voir dire, permit public investigation of the accuracy of those answers, and assure the public that prospective jurors are drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. We disagree.

First, the public's role in voir dire is as an observer, not as a participant charged with selecting a fair jury. The judge and the parties are charged with that responsibility. See They are provided prospective jurors' names and are highly motivated to safeguard the integrity of the process, ensure the jury pool is drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, and unearth any information demonstrating juror bias.

Second, we are unconvinced that providing open access to jurors' names would cause prospective jurors to be more forthcoming during voir dire. It is just as likely that such access would motivate them to be less than forthcoming to avoid public embarrassment about very sensitive matters, like disabilities, medications, and past experiences as crime victims. And in this internet age, where jurors' names can trigger lightning-fast access to a wealth of biographical information, including addresses, any slightly positive role in divulging jurors' names to the public is outweighed by the risk to jury integrity.

In sum, public access to jurors' names promotes neither fairness in voir dire proceedings nor the perception of fairness. As such, it does not play a significant positive role in the functioning of voir dire, and we answer the logic inquiry in the negative. Consequently, the First Amendment does not provide the press or public with a qualified right to access jurors' names, and 21-312(A) is facially valid. The Cochise County Superior Court herefore did not err by presumptively using innominate juries.

Justice Clint Bolick concurred, but added:

I write only to add that the statute protecting juror names survives even the most demanding First Amendment compelling-interest standard. Unlike most states, Arizona's constitution contains an express privacy protection, providing in relevant part that "[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs without authority of law." Whatever the scope of that right, the State plainly has a compelling interest in enforcing it to protect juror privacy.

Query whether similar reasoning could be used by courts to justify pseudonymity of litigants, notwithstanding some courts' statements that the First Amendment right of access presumptively precludes such pseudonymity (see my The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation), and not just of jurors.

Congratulations to counsel Marjorie S. Becklund and Michael A. Powell, who delivered the oral arguments in favor of this result.

More here:

No First Amendment Problem with Routine Anonymous Criminal Juries - Reason

ASHBURN, VA - JUNE 08: Head coach Ron Rivera of the Washington Commanders looks on during the organized team activity at INOVA Sports Performance Center on June 8, 2022 in Ashburn, Virginia. (Photo by Scott Taetsch/Getty Images)

Scott Taetsch/Getty Images

Washington Commanders head coach Ron Rivera started off his Tuesday morning by delivering a statement on Jack Del Rio and the First Amendment.

Last week, the Commanders fined Del Rio $100,000 for his comments about the riots that took place at the U.S. Capitol in 2021. He referred to these riots as a "dustup."

Rivera opened up his statement on Tuesday by saying the team's decision to fine Del Rio has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

"This not about the fact that he exercises his right to free speech," Rivera said. "This is about him impacting the football team. I believe in the first Amendment very strongly. But the thing we all have to understand with these rights, these freedoms come with tremendous responsibility, and we have to understand that as well. This is about the impact that was made on our football team, the distraction it has become."

Rivera then went on to say that he takes the First Amendment very seriously and has a copy of it on his desk.

As you'd expect, the NFL world had plenty of things to say about that admission.

Honestly, statements like this might make this situation linger even longer.

Hopefully for the Commanders' sake, they can all move on from this dilemma fairly soon and get back on the same page.

Continue reading here:

NFL World Reacts To What Ron Rivera Said About First Amendment - The Spun

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

When James Madison authored the language that would become the First Amendment, he and his colleagues feared that the new federal government might enact legislation that would interfere with personal liberty. That fear was shared by many in the 13 states that had just ratified the Constitution. Indeed, five of the states conditioned their ratification on the addition of a Bill of Rights.

Madison who had been the scrivener of the Constitution in 1787, was, by 1791, a member of the House of Representatives and the Houses resident expert on the Constitution was designated by his colleagues as the drafter of the Bill of Rights.

Madisons language in the First Amendments is clear; it only restrains Congress. Yet, recognizing the natural origins of the freedom of speech and aware of the universal governmental animosity to free speech, and taking account of the 14th Amendments imposition of due process upon the states, the courts expanded the scope of the First Amendment so as to impose its restraints upon all government including the president, the judiciary, the states and their subdivisions.

During the Civil War and World War I, Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson incarcerated folks for their speech and argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress, not the president. Today, such an argument would be dismissed out of hand in any court.

Today, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech from all government.

But the First Amendment only restrains the government. It does not restrain private persons, whom lawyers call nongovernmental actors.

The old counterpoint that the First Amendment does not permit shouting fire in a crowded theater is inaccurate. If the theater is owned by nongovernmental actors, the First Amendment plays no role whatsoever in regulating or permitting the shouting; the property owner does. There are sound reasons why shouting fire in a crowded theater is actionable under the law, but the First Amendment is not among them unless the government owns the theater.

I offer this brief background as a prelude to addressing the latest turn of events concerning social media platforms that suppress speech of which they dont approve. Because the social media companies are nongovernmental actors, they are free to infringe upon the speech of their clients and customers for any reason they choose that does not violate public policy, such as infringement based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or place of origin.

Yet, a nongovernmental actor that enters into a symbiotic relationship with the government may lose its freedom to suppress speech and be subjected to the same restraints as the government.

Thus, Twitter, for example, is free to suppress any speech and any speaker because of the content of the speech, unless it is doing the governments bidding. If it is, if Twitter is doing for the government what the government cannot do on its own suppress speech because of its content and if sufficient evidence of this is properly before a court, the court may very well invoke the state action doctrine, which will impose the restraints of the First Amendment upon Twitter.

I use Twitter as an example because last week two U.S. senators obtained and revealed emails between officials of the Department of Homeland Security and Twitter executives contemplating how Twitter can suppress speech that the DHS believes constitutes mis- or dis- or mal-information. This is dangerous for personal liberty and, frankly, dangerous for Twitter.

The courts have ruled that when a governmental actor here the DHS and a nongovernmental actor here Twitter are so intertwined for their mutual benefit, and someone here those whose speech Twitter has suppressed because of its content is harmed thereby, the courts will impose First Amendment restraints upon the nongovernmental actor.

Lets say you are in Yankee Stadium at a Yankees/Boston Red Sox game and you go to buy a hot dog from a vendor in the stadium and he refuses to sell to you because you are wearing a Red Sox baseball cap. (In New York, this happens!) Who has punished you for your speech, the private vendor, which is not restrained by the First Amendment, or New York City, which owns the stadium and hired the vendor and which clearly is restrained by the First Amendment?

Since the city provides customers for the vendor and the vendor provides products for the customers and your presence at the game benefits both, and because you dont know whose rule no Red Sox caps allowed is being enforced, there is obviously a symbiotic relationship between the vendor and the city, and thus the First Amendment will restrain the vendor from punishing your speech as if it were the city.

The same may very well be the case for Twitter. The emails released last week revealed the contemplation of a symbiotic DHS/Twitter relationship that, if proven, will harm Twitter severely and expose the government for its attacks on the freedom of speech.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government entirely out of the business of interfering with speech directly or indirectly. Moreover, if Twitter does the governments bidding, and the First Amendment is applied to Twitter, it will lose its private property-generated ability to suppress speech.

The interesting question is not what does the government gain; governments always want to suppress the speech they hate and fear. The real question is why a social media entity would do the governments dirty work for it. The probable answer is to retain its statutory immunity from liability for what its clients post.

This is what happens when you get in bed with the feds. You wake up with a constitutional headache as well as fleas.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more here:

Twitter and the freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News

LONDON (AP) The British government on Friday ordered the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States to face spying charges, a milestone but not the end of a decade-long legal saga sparked by his websites publication of classified U.S. documents.

WikiLeaks said it would challenge the order, and Assanges lawyers have 14 days to lodge an appeal.

Were not at the end of the road here, said Assanges wife, Stella Assange. Were going to fight this.

Julian Assange has battled in British courts for years to avoid being sent to the U.S., where he faces 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse.

American prosecutors say the Australian citizen helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.

To his supporters, Assange, 50, is a secrecy-busting journalist who exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British court ruled in April that Assange could be sent to face trial in the U.S., sending the case to the U.K. government for a decision. Britains interior minister, Home Secretary Priti Patel, signed an order on Friday authorizing Assanges extradition.

The Home Office said in a statement that the government had to approve his move to the U.S. because the U.K. courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr. Assange.

Barry Pollack, Assanges U.S. lawyer, said it was disappointing news that should concern anyone who cares about the First Amendment and the right to publish.

Assanges lawyers said they would mount a new legal challenge, and legal experts say the case could take months or even years more to conclude.

READ MORE: U.S. lays out case for extraditing WikiLeaks Assange

We will appeal this all the way, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights, Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson said.

Robinson asked U.S. President Joe Biden to drop the charges brought against Assange during Donald Trumps presidency, arguing they posed a grave threat to free speech.

During a press conference outside the British Consulate in New York City, Assanges father, John Shipton, also urged the U.S. to drop the prosecution.

All it will take is a simple telephone call from Attorney General Merrick Garland to the home secretary in the United Kingdom to drop these charges. Thats all it will take. Its not complex, he said.

Assanges supporters and lawyers maintain he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. They argue that the case is politically motivated, that he would face inhumane treatment and be unable to get a fair trial in the U.S.

Silkie Carlo, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said the British governments complicity in the political persecution of a journalist simply for revealing uncomfortable truths to the public is appalling, wrong and shames our country.

Stella Assange, a lawyer who married her husband in a prison ceremony in March, said the U.K. decision marked a dark day for press freedom and for British democracy.

Julian did nothing wrong, she said. He has committed no crime and is not a criminal. He is a journalist and a publisher, and he is being punished for doing his job.

Fridays decision came after a legal battle that went all the way to the U.K. Supreme Court.

A British district court judge initially rejected the extradition request on the grounds that Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. U.S. authorities later provided assurances that the WikiLeaks founder wouldnt face the severe treatment that his lawyers said would put his physical and mental health at risk.

Those assurances led Britains High Court and Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts ruling.

Journalism organizations and human rights groups had called on Britain to refuse the extradition request. Assanges lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in jail if he is convicted in the U.S., though American authorities have said any sentence is likely to be much lower than that.

Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard said Friday that extraditing Assange would put him at great risk and sends a chilling message to journalists the world over.

Assange remains in Londons high-security Belmarsh Prison, where he has been since he was arrested in 2019 for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that, he spent seven years inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed, but British judges have kept Assange in prison pending the outcome of the extradition case.

Assanges supporters say his physical and mental health are both under strain. Stella Assange told a news conference that her husbands condition was deteriorating by the day.

I spoke to him last night as well and he had a lot of anxiety. He couldnt sleep, she said. But Julian is a fighter.

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker in Washington and Bobby Caina Calvan in New York contributed.

Follow this link:

UK government approves Julian Assanges extradition to the U.S. - PBS NewsHour

Guest reader Luna, left, acts out a line from the book The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish alongside Amie Toepfer, the Ketchikan Public Librarys head of childrens services, on June 17, 2022. (Eric Stone/KRBD)

Children of all ages turned out for the Ketchikan Public Librarys first-ever drag queen storytime after city leaders declined to cancel the controversial event.

After weeks of heated debate, a drag queen named Luna sat down and read a book to children at Ketchikans public library on Friday.

When shes not in drag, Luna goes by Tommy Varela-Kossak.

Im a public school teacher. I think education is so important. And to come down here and be able to do this accomplishes two things, she said.

One, she says, is simply to entertain kids.

Kids get to come in and have a great time and celebrate Pride, people kids who maybe have same-sex parents or gay uncles and aunts, etc., she said. But at the same time, I think it was an opportunity to prove what we were doing is more than okay to all those people who thought it wasnt.

Children and parents turned out by the dozens for the event celebrating Pride Month. Library Director Pat Tully says the library had to add two more readings to accommodate everyone who wanted to come.

This, I think, is probably the biggest storytime weve ever had, Tully said.

It almost didnt happen. A firestorm erupted on social media when the library announced the reading. And twice, members of the City Council tried to cancel the storytime including a day before the event.

The city should not be promoting or advocating for events where the goal is to normalize gender fluidity in young children, said City Council Member Riley Gass at a meeting on Thursday, the day before the storytime event was scheduled. He asked the council to prevent the reading from going forward.

Residents crowded the council chambers to deliver almost two hours of testimony on the issue. It was split almost evenly between supporters and opponents.

But the council ultimately rejected the request to cancel the event in a 5-2 vote. City Council Member Judy Zenge said she didnt buy Gasss argument.

If youre that worried that seeing a bit of glitters going to change your child sexually, then yes, you should probably stay home, she said. Im not going to support this because I think its very discriminatory. And I really am embarrassed to be sitting here, knowing that we have to deal with this.

Other council members, including Janalee Gage and Mark Flora, said they werent sure the city could legally prevent the event from going forward. In a 10-page memo, the citys attorney said canceling the event could violate a local nondiscrimination ordinance, state civil rights law and the First Amendment.

Back at the library, four police officers, including the police chief joined storytime supporters standing guard as attendees filed in.

Kindergarten teacher Rebecca King stood outside the front door with an umbrella at the ready.

Were just here in case theres yelling and shouting to use our umbrellas to help shield kids from the protestors, she said. But so far, its been lovely and peaceful.

And it stayed that way. The most visible opposition was a lone protester, Sam Ryan, who stood by himself with a sign bearing a handwritten Bible verse.

I am expressing my displeasure with the City Councils decision last night, he said.

Kids and parents who showed up for the event gave rave reviews. Fourteen-year-old Inessa Kapralova says Luna looked beautiful in her purple rhinestone-studded dress and platinum-blonde wig.

Im jealous of her makeup it was, like, 10 times better than I could ever do, she said.

Twelve-year-old Kailani Clevenger says it was her first time ever seeing a drag queen.

I loved how open they were in how you could be anything you want to be, she said.

Kailanis younger brother, 10-year-old Kinyon Clevenger, was also a fan.

My favorite part was how everyone was saying they dont want people going there, and then she ends up having to do the storytime three times, he said. That was my favorite part.

Though storytime is over, the backlash continues: theres a brewing campaign to get a proposal to cut the librarys funding on the municipal ballot this fall. Ketchikans assembly will consider the issue on Monday, but supporters of the funding cut have vowed to pursue a citizen initiative if the assembly fails to act.

Originally posted here:

After weeks of heated debate, a drag queen read a book to children at Ketchikan's public library for the first time - KTOO