Daily Archives: June 21, 2020

December 15, 1791, the First Amendment was adopted as one of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. It 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.

Our founding fathers created the First Amendment in response to two centuries of state-sponsored religious conflict and oppression in America, and with the keen understanding of the religious persecution in European nations resulting in official state religions and religious wars that were the norm.

Their understanding of the past is really all our founding fathers had to create a basic set of freedoms for each of us to have in our back pocket. Freedoms, we all use each and every day.

Although evolution and progress of a nation and its people is understood and expected, they could never have foreseen the internet. Or Social Media for that matter.

Since its inception in, social media has been at the core of Free Speech controversy. It has become common place for some users to berate, threaten, pick on, bully and/or share false information.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law and true threats.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service that publishes information provided by third party users. Basically, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have absolutely zero responsibility for what citizens share across them and how they may hurt another human being.

Fast forward to May 28, 2020. President Trump signed an executive order aimed at social media companies after Twitter called two of his tweets potentially misleading. The executive order puts to test the level of authority the White House has when it comes to Free Speech.

This also brings up the question, How much free speech should social media be allowed? And, should social media platforms be held responsible for content submitted by users? Its not as black and white as some may think.

The First Amendment, vague in its explanation, is so in order to allow growth. But when that growth alters the flow of accurate information, or the interpretation is changed, we owe it to our nation to get it right.

For all the good social media brings to us, it is here that it lets us all down daily. We dont know who to trust with factual information. We become confused with who is sharing factual information. So we end up sharing and spreading information we believe to be true whether is or is not, ultimately exercising our own right to Freedom of Speech.

Is it right to censor social media platforms to help decrease the flow of false information? Is it our right under the First Amendment to share information whether accurate or not? Is it OK that social media platforms have the right to censor its users?

The quote below was written by the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, in 1917. No matter what your opinion of President Wilson is, when reading it, it almost feels as though it is describing our nation today.

I can imagine no greater disservice to the country than to establish a system of censorship that would deny to the people of a free republic like our own their indisputable right to criticize their own public officials. While exercising the great powers of the office I hold, I would regret in a crisis like the one through which we are now passing to lose the benefit of patriotic and intelligent criticism.

More:
RICH MACKE: Social media and the First Amendment - Scottsbluff Star Herald

') : ""; }, t.getDefinedParams = function (n, e) { return e.filter(function (e) { return n[e]; }).reduce(function (e, t) { return p(e, function (e, t, n) { t in e ? Object.defineProperty(e, t, { value: n, enumerable: !0, configurable: !0, writable: !0 }) : e[t] = n; return e; }({}, t, n[t])); }, {}); }, t.isValidMediaTypes = function (e) { var t = ["banner", "native", "video"]; if (!Object.keys(e).every(function (e) { return s()(t, e); })) return !1; if (e.video && e.video.context) return s()(["instream", "outstream", "adpod"], e.video.context); return !0; }, t.getBidderRequest = function (e, t, n) { return c()(e, function (e) { return 0 t[n] ? -1 : 0; }; }; var r = n(3), i = n(115), o = n.n(i), a = n(12), c = n.n(a), u = n(10), s = n.n(u), d = n(116); n.d(t, "deepAccess", function () { return d.a; }); var f = n(117); function l(e) { return function (e) { if (Array.isArray(e)) { for (var t = 0, n = new Array(e.length); t n ')) : ""; } function ae(e, t, n) { return null == t ? n : J(t) ? t : Q(t) ? t.toString() : void j.logWarn("Unsuported type for param: " + e + " required type: String"); } function ce(e, t, n) { return n.indexOf(e) === t; } function ue(e, t) { return e.concat(t); } function se(e) { return Object.keys(e); } function de(e, t) { return e[t]; } var fe = ge("timeToRespond", function (e, t) { return t = e.length ? (this._t = void 0, i(1)) : i(0, "keys" == t ? n : "values" == t ? e[n] : [n, e[n]]); }, "values"), o.Arguments = o.Array, r("keys"), r("values"), r("entries"); }, 101: function _(e, t, n) { "use strict"; var r = n(102), i = n(72); e.exports = n(104)("Set", function (t) { return function (e) { return t(this, 0 >> 0, o = 0; if (t) n = t;else { for (; o = b.syncsPerBidder ? a.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(t, '"')) : d.canBidderRegisterSync(e, t) ? (f[e].push([t, n]), (r = p)[i = t] ? r[i] += 1 : r[i] = 1, void (p = r)) : a.logWarn('Bidder "'.concat(t, '" not permitted to register their "').concat(e, '" userSync pixels.')) : a.logWarn("Bidder is required for registering sync") : a.logWarn('User sync type "'.concat(e, '" not supported')); var r, i; }, d.syncUsers = function () { var e = 0 Object(y.timestamp)(); }, s = function s(e) { return e && (e.status && !S()([O.BID_STATUS.RENDERED], e.status) || !e.status); }; function w(e, r, t) { var i = 2 i && (r = !1)), !r; }), r && e.run(), r; } function g(e, t) { void 0 === e[t] ? e[t] = 1 : e[t]++; } }, addWinningBid: function addWinningBid(e) { g = g.concat(e), x.callBidWonBidder(e.bidder, e, o); }, setBidTargeting: function setBidTargeting(e) { x.callSetTargetingBidder(e.bidder, e); }, getWinningBids: function getWinningBids() { return g; }, getTimeout: function getTimeout() { return S; }, getAuctionId: function getAuctionId() { return m; }, getAuctionStatus: function getAuctionStatus() { return b; }, getAdUnits: function getAdUnits() { return y; }, getAdUnitCodes: function getAdUnitCodes() { return d; }, getBidRequests: function getBidRequests() { return h; }, getBidsReceived: function getBidsReceived() { return f; }, getNoBids: function getNoBids() { return l; } }; }, n.d(t, "c", function () { return H; }), t.f = d, t.d = J, n.d(t, "e", function () { return Y; }), n.d(t, "h", function () { return f; }), n.d(t, "g", function () { return l; }), t.i = p; var C = n(0), s = n(9), w = n(42), a = n(26), o = n(78), j = n(11), _ = n(3), r = n(32), i = n(13), c = n(12), B = n.n(c), U = n(33), u = n(2); function R(e) { return (R = "function" == typeof Symbol && "symbol" == _typeof(Symbol.iterator) ? function (e) { return _typeof(e); } : function (e) { return e && "function" == typeof Symbol && e.constructor === Symbol && e !== Symbol.prototype ? "symbol" : _typeof(e); })(e); } function D() { return (D = Object.assign || function (e) { for (var t = 1; t e.getTimeout() + _.b.getConfig("timeoutBuffer") && e.executeCallback(!0); } function J(e, t) { var n = e.getBidRequests(), r = B()(n, function (e) { return e.bidderCode === t.bidderCode; }); !function (t, e) { var n; if (t.bidderCode && (0 t.max ? e : t; }, { max: 0 }), g = 0, b = v()(e.buckets, function (e) { if (n > p.max * r) { var t = e.precision; void 0 === t && (t = y), i = (e.max * r).toFixed(t); } else { if (n = t.length ? { value: void 0, done: !0 } : (e = r(t, n), this._i += e.length, { value: e, done: !1 }); }); }, 62: function _(e, t, r) { function i() {} var o = r(28), a = r(94), c = r(63), u = r(50)("IE_PROTO"), s = "prototype", _d = function d() { var e, t = r(55)("iframe"), n = c.length; for (t.style.display = "none", r(97).appendChild(t), t.src = "javascript:", (e = t.contentWindow.document).open(), e.write("

")); var s = v(b[r.size_id].split("x").map(function (e) { return Number(e); }), 2); a.width = s[0], a.height = s[1]; } a.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce(function (e, r) { return e[r.key] = r.values[0], e; }, { rpfl_elemid: o.adUnitCode }), e.push(a); } else u.logError("Rubicon: bidRequest undefined at index position:".concat(t), d, c); return e; }, []).sort(function (e, r) { return (r.cpm || 0) - (e.cpm || 0); }); }, getUserSyncs: function getUserSyncs(e, r, t, i) { if (!R && e.iframeEnabled) { var n = ""; return t && "string" == typeof t.consentString && ("boolean" == typeof t.gdprApplies ? n += "?gdpr=".concat(Number(t.gdprApplies), "&gdpr_consent=").concat(t.consentString) : n += "?gdpr_consent=".concat(t.consentString)), i && (n += "".concat(n ? "&" : "?", "us_privacy=").concat(encodeURIComponent(i))), R = !0, { type: "iframe", url: o + n }; } }, transformBidParams: function transformBidParams(e) { return u.convertTypes({ accountId: "number", siteId: "number", zoneId: "number" }, e); } }; function y(e, r) { var t, i = 0 969, isMobile = window.innerWidth b ? a : b; } /** * Fast loop through watched elements */ function onScroll() { list.forEach(updateVisibility); } /** * updates seen property * @param {Visble} item * @param {{}} evt * @fires Visible#shown * @fires Visible#hidden */ function updateSeen(item, evt) { var px = evt.visiblePx, percent = evt.visiblePercent; // if some pixels are visible and we're greater/equal to threshold if (px && percent >= item.shownThreshold && !item.seen) { item.seen = true; setTimeout(function () { item.trigger("shown", new VisibleEvent("shown", evt)); }, 15); // if no pixels or percent is less than threshold } else if ((!px || percent = 0 && rect.left >= 0 && rect.bottom 1) { result += getLinearSpacialHash(remainder, Math.floor(stepSize / base), optimalK - 1, base); } return result; } /** * @param {ClientRect} rect * @param {number} innerHeight * @returns {number} */ function getVerticallyVisiblePixels(rect, innerHeight) { return min(innerHeight, max(rect.bottom, 0)) - min(max(rect.top, 0), innerHeight); } /** * Get offset of element relative to entire page * * @param {Element} el * @returns {{left: number, top: number}} * @see http://jsperf.com/offset-vs-getboundingclientrect/7 */ function getPageOffset(el) { var offsetLeft = el.offsetLeft, offsetTop = el.offsetTop; while (el = el.offsetParent) { offsetLeft += el.offsetLeft; offsetTop += el.offsetTop; } return { left: offsetLeft, top: offsetTop }; } /** * Create a new Visible class to observe when elements enter and leave the viewport * * Call destroy function to stop listening (this is until we have better support for watching for Node Removal) * @param {Element} el * @param {{shownThreshold: number, hiddenThreshold: number}} [options] * @class * @example this.visible = new $visibility.Visible(el); */ Visible = function Visible(el, options) { options = options || {}; this.el = el; this.seen = false; this.preload = false; this.preloadThreshhold = options && options.preloadThreshhold || 0; this.shownThreshold = options && options.shownThreshold || 0; this.hiddenThreshold = options && min(options.shownThreshold, options.hiddenThreshold) || 0; list.push(this); updateVisibility(this); // set immediately to visible or not }; Visible.prototype = { /** * Stop triggering. */ destroy: function destroy() { // remove from list list.splice(list.indexOf(this), 1); } /** * @name Visible#on * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e EventName * @param {function} cb Callback */ /** * @name Visible#trigger * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e * @param {{}} */ }; Eventify.enable(Visible.prototype); VisibleEvent = function VisibleEvent(type, options) { var _this = this; this.type = type; Object.keys(options).forEach(function (key) { _this[key] = options[key]; }); }; // listen for scroll events (throttled) $document.addEventListener("scroll", _throttle(onScroll, 200)); // public this.getPageOffset = getPageOffset; this.getLinearSpacialHash = getLinearSpacialHash; this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels = getVerticallyVisiblePixels; this.getViewportHeight = getViewportHeight; this.getViewportWidth = getViewportWidth; this.isElementNotHidden = isElementNotHidden; this.isElementInViewport = isElementInViewport; this.Visible = Visible;}]);}, {}];require=(function e(t,n,r){function s(o,u){if(!n[o]){if(!t[o]){var a=typeof require=="function"&&require;if(!u&&a)return a(o,!0);if(i)return i(o,!0);var f=new Error("Cannot find module '"+o+"'");throw f.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",f}var l=n[o]={exports:{}};t[o][0].call(l.exports,function(e){var n=t[o][1][e];return s(n?n:e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,r)}return n[o].exports}var i=typeof require=="function"&&require;for(var o=0;o

Visit link:
John Bolton Is Not the Free Speech Hero We Need - Slate

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump mocked for low attendance at rally Trump suggests legislation that would jail people who burn the flag for a year Trump makes defiant return to campaign stage amid controversies MORE suggested at his campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., on Saturday that legislation be proposedtorequire a minimum sentence of a year for anyone who burns the American flag.

We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag you go to jail for one year, Trump said,pointing to Oklahoma Republican Senators Jim InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeTrump nominee denounces past Islamophobic tweets Republicans face long odds of changing provision on Confederate-named bases Overnight Defense: Trump plan to pull troops from Germany gets bipartisan pushback | Top GOP senator says it's time to look at changing Confederate-named bases | GOP divided over renaming Army bases MORE and James LankfordJames Paul LankfordTrump suggests legislation that would jail people who burn the flag for a year Most Trump rally attendees opt not to wear face masks White House dismissal of COVID-19 concerns draws criticism MORE in the crowd.

We oughta do it. We talk about freedom of speech but thats desecration.

"We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag you go to jail for one year ... if somebody wants to burn the American flag and stomp on it, but just burn it, they go to jail for one year" -- Trump pic.twitter.com/sbETQDwUkp

Burning the American flag is not illegal.

In the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the act of burning an American flag is constitutionally-protected free speech under the First Amendment.

The presidenthas suggested similar legislation in the past. However, hisidea has resurfaced recently after several demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd were seen burning U.S. flags.

The death of Floyd, an unarmed Black man who died in Minneapolis police custody, has sparked massive protests across the country, including in front of the White House and throughout the nation's capital.

During a conference call with governors earlier this month, Trump reportedly called the act a "disgrace" and pledged support for an "anti-flag burning" statute.

"We have a different court and I think that it's time that we review that again. Because when I see flags being burned they wanted to crawl up flag poles in Washington and try and burn flags but we stopped them," the President told governors, according to audio of the call obtained by CNN.

"They're weren't able to do it. They would've done it if we didn't stop them. I think it's time to relook at that issue, hopefully the Supreme Court will accept that."

Read more here:
Trump suggests legislation that would jail people who burn the flag for a year | TheHill - The Hill

The rock star has been very active on his social media during the lockdown. Mainly Brian May has been sharing micro-concerts to entertain fans, alongside updates on recovering from recent health problems including a minor heart attack. Additionally, the 72-year-old has shared a few opinions on current affairs, with his latest being on the importance of protecting free speech in the particularly hot political climate the world is in right now.

May wrote: The only thing we can change. Im a believer in the vital importance of a truthful and accurate history.

In George Orwells book 1984 the hero works in the Ministry of Truth - REWRITING history as recorded in Newspapers etc. So really, of course, its the Ministry of Lies.

The resulting propaganda is what is used to whip the populace up into a frenzy, in which they never question what they are being told.

I sense a real danger of the erosion of free speech in todays rush to tear down society as we know it.

READ MORE:Freddie Mercury and Queen quiz questions and answers

The Queen guitarist said: I believe the only thing we can change is the future. And however much we may hate the past or dislike it or be ashamed of it, its not changeable.

And its essential, its vital that we dont try to change it or sweep anything under the carpet because with all its atrocities and evil deeds and mistakes, it has to be preserved intact and in truth otherwise our children and our childrens children will have no idea what we were trying to do in 2020.

Its vital that we know these things or humanity will never learn these lessons. Imagine trying to pretend that the Holocaust never existed, what a terrible mistake that would be.

Imagine that trying to pretend that the whole of the last war didnt exist or that all the appalling acts of torture [and] betrayal that the human race has committed, imagine if that was all covered up or changed in some way and we were no longer telling the truth.

See the original post:
Brian May warns real DANGER of free speech erosion Everything depends on it WATCH - Express

I have seen a remarkable amount of commentary in the aftermath of the Supreme Courts decision in Bostock v. Clayton County arguing that the Supreme Court dealt religious liberty in America a serious, dangerous blow. Bostock, for those who dont follow SCOTUS case names closely, is the case that interpreted Title VIIs prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex to necessarily include sexual orientation and gender identity.

As I read piece after piece, I realized that many of the people writing about the impact on religious freedom simply didnt understand the law. A generation of Americans raised on breathless activist warnings about freedoms demise genuinely believe that religious organizations teeter on a dangerous precipice. They genuinely believe that free speech hangs in the balance. While liberty is under pressure (it always isevery single material liberty recognized and secured by the Bill of Rights faces constant, sustained pressure from an expanding state), its reach is still vast.

Warningwhat follows is a detailed legal discussion that just might bore you. But if youre interested, power through. And feel free to share this newsletter with your concerned friends, your concerned pastor, or your worried school principal.

Im going to outline the key federal statutory and constitutional protections for religious liberty and religious Americans that exist now, today, after Bostock and why I believe that, if anything, many of these protections are more likely to be extended, not restricted, in the coming days and weeks. So, here goes:

Religious employers have a right to impose religious litmus tests on their employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964the same statute at issue in Bostockcontains a provision specifically designed to protect the autonomy of religious organizations. It states, This subchapter shall not apply ... to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

Its true that this carveout does not allow the religious organization to discriminate on other grounds (such as race or sex), but it does allow them to filter out all applicants who do not share the groups faith. This has a profound impact on the relevant applicant pool and (along with the First Amendment) permits employers to require that applicants agree to the organizations statement of faith.

Religious employers are completely exempt from nondiscrimination statutes when hiring and firing ministerial employees. The ministerial exception may well be the key firewall protecting church from state. Put simply, and as defined by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2012, both the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment work together to remove the stateincluding all nondiscrimination lawsfrom the ministerial selection process.

The precise definition of a ministerial employee is presently before the Supreme Court. The key question is the extent to which the employee performs important religious functions and whether an employees title and training must also reflect those functions.

Its clear the exemption applies to called and trained clergy. By the end of the courts term, its likely also to apply to a broader range of religious employees who are engaged in religious instruction.

Religious educational institutions enjoy a right to exempt themselves from Title IX. If theres a single question Ive received more than any other, its this: Does Bostock mean that religious schools will now have to alter policies regarding dorm rooms or sexual conduct to comply with federal prohibitions against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is nope, not unless they choose to be subject to Title IX, the federal statute that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs and activities.

To be clear, Bostock is an employment case (and thus the sections above apply to employment at religious schools), but one would expect that the definition of sex applied in Title VII would also extend to Title IX, thus preventing sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in, for example, codes of conduct, dorm placements, and athletic programs. .

But Title IX contains a special carveout:

[T]his section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.

The exemption is not automatic. Schools have to choose to opt out (either proactively or in response to a Title IX complaint), and a number of religious schools have taken advantage of this provision. Many have not, but it is their choice, and that choice is plainly and clearly embedded in federal law.

Religious organizations (including religious schools) increasingly have a right of equal access to public funds. Few areas of constitutional litigation have been more relentlessly successful than the attempt to claw away at illegitimate and discriminatory attempts to relegate faith-based organizations to second-class status. For years, the argument that there had to be a high wall of separation between church and statewords that appear nowhere in the Constitutionmeant that religious organizations could not participate in otherwise-neutral state-funded programs simply because they were religious.

The Supreme Court has taken a jackhammer to that idea. Key cases include:

Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995). SCOTUS held that a Christian publication on campus had a right of viewpoint-neutral access to student fee funding. (During my legal practice, I used that precedent to help secure millions of dollars in funding for Catholic and Evangelical student groupsincluding funding that directly applied to efforts to evangelize the campus.)

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). The Supreme Court held that a Cleveland, Ohio, school voucher program did not violate the Establishment Clause by permitting religious schools to be voucher recipients. This cleared the way for the state to fund (through vouchers distributed to parents) faith-based education as part of a larger program designed to increase school choice.

Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017). In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the state of Missouri violated the Free Exercise Clause when it excluded a church from receiving a grant as part of a secular and neutral state program designed to make childrens playgrounds safer.

Critically, the court will soon decide yet another case involving state aid to religious schools, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. In Espinoza, the court will decide whether its lawful to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.

In plain English, if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiff in the case, then it will place one of the final nails in the coffin of anti-Catholic Blaine Amendmentsstate constitutional provisions that blocked aid to sectarian institutions as part of a transparent effort to preserve a Protestant monopoly on public funds.

Religious organizations enjoy a right of equal access to public facilities. I dont need to spend much time on this category, but many younger Americans might be shocked to find out that it was once an open question whether Christian groups had a right to meet in empty classrooms or gymnasiums on the same basis and with the same access as secular groups.

A series of cases, from Widmar v. Vincent (1981) to Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) to Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) blasted open access at every level of education, from elementary schools to colleges and universities. And now tens of thousands of student groups and even churches meet (often for free or for nominal fees) and preach the Gospel from public lands.

Religious Americans are protected from discrimination in the workplace. You might look at all the paragraphs above, and say, Thats all well and good, but Im not worried about the government. Im worried about my employer. Well then, youre in luck. The same civil rights act that now protects LGBT Americans also explicitly protects people of faith. Remember, Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and religion. Heres the scope of that protection, as outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits:

treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practicesor lack thereofin any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment);

subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs or practicesor lack thereofor because of the religious practices or beliefs of people with whom they associate (e.g., relatives, friends, etc.);

denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicants or employees sincerely held religious beliefs or practicesor lack thereofif an accommodation will not impose more than ade minimiscost or burden on business operations;and,

retaliating against an applicant or employee who has engaged in protected activity, including participation (e.g., filing an EEO charge or testifying as a witness in someone elses EEO matter), or opposition to religious discrimination (e.g., complaining to human resources department about alleged religious discrimination).

It is quite true that the case law interpreting and applying Title VII religious discrimination claims to private employers is not nearly as extensive as the case law applicable to race or sex. Theres a simple reason for thatemployers have not engaged in large-scale religious discrimination the in same way that theyve engaged in race and sex discrimination. People of faith have largely been left alone in the workplace.

That can change, of course, and there is anecdotal evidence (anecdata) that it is changing, but if discrimination does occur, people of faith have a potent legal weapon in their back pocket.

Religious Americans enjoy the protection of a federal super statute. Im using Justice Neil Gorsuchs words to describe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that hovers over and above all other federal laws, providing extraordinary protection to people of faith.

Thats the law that in 2014 permitted Hobby Lobby to opt out of part of the Obamacare contraception mandate.

Thats the law that this year protected progressive immigration activists from criminal prosecution for trespassing on federal lands to leave food and supplies for illegal immigrants crossing a desolate portion of Arizonas border with Mexico.

And speaking of super statutes, I havent even touched the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law passed in the last year of the Clinton administration that has granted countless local congregations special protection from hostile zoning boards and planning commissions.

Finally, keep a close eye on the next term of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has accepted for review Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The petitioners in Fulton seek protection from a Philadelphia rule that required a Catholic foster care agency to provide written endorsements for same-sex couples (in violation of church teaching) as a condition of participating in the citys foster care system.

In addition, the petitioners are asking the court to revisit Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 Supreme Court opinion that substantially restricted the strength and scope of the Free Exercise Clause. If the petitioners prevail, it could well represent the most significant advance for religious liberty in decades.

Look again at all the elements above. Yes, it is true that in some respects religious liberty is under siege. There are activists and lawmakers who want to push back at multiple doctrines and some radicals even dream of revoking tax exemptions from religious organizations that maintain traditional teachings on sex and gender. But if the siege is real, then so is the citadel. People of faith in the United States of America enjoy more liberty and more real political power than any faith community in the developed world.

Look also at something else. Why did I include the dates of each court decision? Because they demonstrate that the effort to find, cultivate and confirm originalist and textualist jurists has borne legal fruit. There are those who decry the conservative legal movement as a failure after the Bostock decision. This is simply untrue. The conservative legal movement is one of the most successful legal movements in modern American history.

In the face of progressive control of the vast majority of the legal educational establishment, conservatives have created, sustained, and nurtured an intellectually vibrant and determined community of lawyers, scholars, and judges who have transformed American law to better match the meaning and text of the American Constitution. It has not accomplished all it could (what movement ever does?)and there have been bitter disappointmentsbut it has made an enormous impact by securing liberties that American Christians now take for granted.

Yes, in spite of legal successes many people of faith face profound cultural headwinds (not on all fronts, however, the pro-life movement has made immense strides, which weagaintotally take for granted). But those headwinds do not exist because the law failed us. The law has given every religious American, every religious organization, and every church or synagogue all of the liberty they need to speak words of truth and grace into our fallen culture..

The question for Americas religious community, then, is not whether we have libertyor will have liberty for the foreseeable futurebut rather what we do with that liberty. As John Adams declared, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Im afraid that while the church has been consistently religious, it has not been consistently moral. And in its political witness it seems to grow less moral by the day. We cannot expect the lawor any other arm of the stateto heal the churchs self-inflicted wounds.

Ive spent the vast bulk of my professional life standing guard on the citadel of free exercise and free speech, working to expand its walls and hardening its fortifications. But that citadel exists for a purpose beyond its mere continued existence. It is supposed to empower the church to fearlessly act as salt and light in a broken world. Im reminded, however, of Christs words in the Sermon on the Mount:

You are the salt of the earth,but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.

In many quarters of American religion, a trampling is underway. It is not the laws fault that the church faces a reckoning, and even as we seek to preserve and strengthen our legal citadels, we must remember that it wont be the law that brings repentance and awakening. May God grant churches the grace and wisdom to use wisely and for his kingdom the abundant liberties they now possess.

One last thing ...

Every now and thenespecially in times of sorrow and certaintyits vital to remember the absolute sovereignty of Godto remember that in his will all is well. This song is by Robin Mark, and its been blessing me for more than a decade. Enjoy:

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

See the original post here:
The True Extent of Religious Liberty in America, Explained - The Dispatch

President Donald Trump, with Attorney General William Barr, speaks in the Oval Office before signing an executive order related to regulating social media on May 28, 2020.

Bashing Big Tech's online liability shield has bipartisan support in Washington DC. Republicans and Democrats, and their flag bearers President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, have called for a key section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to be dismantled. But the two sides differ greatly on the why and how.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans and the Justice Department unveiled proposals that would scale back Section 230, which shields internet companies from lawsuits for content posted on their sites by third parties. It also allows these companies to make "good faith" efforts to moderate content.

Subscribe to the CNET Now newsletter for our editors' picks for the most important stories of the day.

Republicans have long accused Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms of abusing the legal protection to censor conservative views. Trump has championed that position, signing an executive order last month that requests a government review of Section 230. The president's move came after Twitter fact-checked and labeled the content of a pair of his tweets as potentially misleading.

Section 230 has drawn sharp criticism from the left, as well. Democrats have attacked the statute for allowing Silicon Valley to deflect responsibility for disinformation and deceptive content that flourishes on their sites.

Biden, the Democratic party's presumptive presidential nominee, has called for the Section 230 protections to be revoked entirely. Other senior members of the party, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (California) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut), have taken more nuanced approaches, suggesting revisions or updates to the law.

Still, Democrats aren't fans of Trump's executive order, which specifically asks for the Federal Communications Commission to write regulations that curb protections for companies that "censor" speech online. Democrats also don't like the Department of Justice's recommendations for reining in Section 230 authority or the Republican bill that would strip protections for companies weeding out or flagging false content on their sites.

At an event hosted by The George Washington University on Tuesday, Pelosi said the Trump administration is encouraging online platforms to "continue to profit" from disinformation rather than hold them accountable for it.

The tech industry has warned that revisions to Section 230, especially those proposed by the Trump administration, could restrict free speech online. The industry argues that without the legal protections, tech platforms would take a stricter approach to moderating content to reduce legal liability.

Here's a look at the Republicans' most recent proposals, what Democrats are saying about it and how it differs from their efforts.

On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced a bill that would require companies to prove a "duty of good faith" in their content moderation to receive Section 230 protections. Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Florida), Mike Braun (Indiana) and Tom Cotton (Arkansas) co-sponsored the legislation.

According to the legislation, companies that violate that duty could face damages of $5,000 for each affected user. The legislation only applies to companies with more than 30 million users in the US or 300 million globally, and with over $1.5 billion in global revenue.

Hawley introduced a different bill last year targeting Section 230 reform that would have allowed companies to win back their liability protections if they submitted their algorithms and content moderation policies to audits that would determine if they are "politically neutral."

Also, on Wednesday, the Justice Department put forward a proposal listing several actions it would like Congress to consider to dramatically reduce Section 230's scope.

It's important to note that this is a proposal and would require action from Congress to become law.

Specifically, the DOJ seeks to deny Section 230 immunity for content dealing with child exploitation, terrorism and cyber-stalking. It would also strip protections from platforms that facilitate or solicit unlawful content or activity by third parties.

The DOJ is also asking Congress to change the language in the statute around content moderation to more closely link the legal "good faith" standard to the company's terms of service. It also wants to require companies to offer a "reasonable explanation" for moderating content.

Both Hawley's bill and the DOJ proposal come after Trump's executive order. Trump said in a tweet days before signing the executive order that, "Republicans feel Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices." Then he threatened to shut down the companies.

"We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen," his tweet continued. "We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can't let a more sophisticated version of that.... happen again."

The May 29 executive order directs the Commerce Department to ask the Federal Communications Commission to propose regulation that clarifies when a company isn't acting in good faith. That includes when a company decides to restrict access to content but its actions are inconsistent with its terms of service or taken without adequate notice or a "meaningful opportunity to be heard."

The action came after Twitter labeled some of Trump's tweets about mail-in voter fraud for including "potentially misleading information about voting processes."

Some Democrats also have problems with large social media companies using Section 230 as a shield. But their concern focuses more on companies using the legal immunity to skirt their duty to remove false and misleading content on their platforms.

Biden told The New York Times editorial board earlier this year, he thinks the whole provision should be eliminated.

But aside from Biden, most Democrats in Congress interested in Section 230 reform, believe amendments to the statute should be limited in scope to ensure free speech is protected. They've criticized Trump and the DOJ for their efforts.

Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey who chairs the House Energy & Commerce Committee tweeted his objections to the DOJ's proposal earlier this week.

"Section 230 badly needs reform, but this is just a continuation of @realdonaldtrump's political retribution designed to frighten social media platforms into submission," he said. "Sad, but unsurprising, that @TheJusticeDept is doing his dirty work."

Democrats Sens. Blumenthal and Dianne Feinstein (California) joined Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Hawley in March to introduce the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act, known as EARN IT.

This legislation would establish a new government commission composed of administration officials and outside experts, who would set "best practices" for removing child sexual exploitation and abuse material online. The bill would require companies to earn Section 230 protections by certifying that they complied with a set of best practices for detecting and reporting child exploitation materials to law enforcement.

The proposed law has been widely criticized by security experts, civil liberties advocates and opposing lawmakers, who say it's a veiled attempt to erode end-to-end encryption. Few question the importance of ensuring child safety, but technology experts warn that the bill is really just the government's latest attempt to uproot both free speech and security protections online.

Other Democrats in Congress have also said they want to limit Section 230. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Illinois), who chairs a subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said earlier this year she planned to introduce legislation to limit Section 230 immunity. Her subcommittee is holding a hearing on June 24 looking at allegations that "social media platforms have failed to take sufficient steps to address disinformation."

Schakowsky has said she believes the legal shield "should not provide companies with the right to sell unsafe items to consumers anonymously" nor "give them the right to sell advertisements marketing too-good-to-be-true schemes."

Rep. David Cicilline (Rhode Island), chair of a House Judiciary subcommittee investigating antitrust behaviors of big tech companies, has also criticized Sec 230 protections.

In February Cicilline told attendees at the National Association of Broadcasters annual conference that he wanted to draft legislation that stripped tech liability protections from online platforms that knowingly allowed "demonstrably false" political ads.

But a bill Cicilline introduced in May doesn't address Section 230 but focuses instead on ads that micro target constituents. The Protecting Democracy from Disinformation Act would limit political advertisers to targeting users based only on age, gender and location, and would restrict micro targeting, which allows advertisers to direct messages at subsets of users based on data ranging from their hobbies to their ethnic background.

With Democrats and Republicans so divided on how and what reforms to take and with Trump's executive order already being challenged in court, it's unlikely that any changes at all to the law will occur this year.

Original post:
Democrats and Republicans agree that Section 230 is flawed - CNET

Too many angry people see the current situation only in terms of absolutes. They demonize the other side all cops are evil, all protesters are bad. They fuel their animosity with existing biases. Those who despise authority revel in going against the police and government. Those with racial prejudices conveniently lump all Blacks or all whites into a singular target of their disdain.

Knee-jerk reactions abound. Political leaders, afraid for their careers, say the protesters are patriots or terrorists without weighing the facts or ramifications of their words. Demonstrators demand reducing or eliminating police without a solvent plan for the aftermath. Police personnel quit or are forced out, further draining an already strained system.

Demonstrators outcry for police to be held accountable is warranted. Police even agree with that. But shouldnt citizens who are threatening or violent be held accountable? If so, by whom? Who is held responsible for the protest destruction that vandalized the businesses of innocent bystanders? If the protesters truly believe in justice, where is their outcry for accountability?

Observers of the protesters in Seattles no-police zone should take notice of some searing realities: the enforced borders, the armed guards, the free speech that is not free for all, and the competing groups and leaders striving for their self-interests. Perhaps the protesters should be made aware of the lyrics from a classic tune by The Who from an earlier tumultuous time in our nation: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We wont get fooled again, indeed.

Kevin Fong, Beaverton

View post:
Readers respond: We need to open our eyes - oregonlive.com

The current state of rhetoric is deeply troubling considering all thats at stake. We clearly need police reform. It may be time to rethink some laws. We need to reexamine aspects of crime, punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.

There is progress to pursue and George Floyds unjust, atrocious killing has ushered its urgency front and center.

But real progress is impossible if discussions we have, and decisions we make, are detached from reality and shaped by fear.

Many once-credible professionals from journalists to academics to CEOs are eagerly showing support for an organization calling for policies that most would privately admit would be catastrophic for all people, such as the absurd idea that we should defund police departments.

Even epidemiologists have lost credibility by saying that gathering to protest in large groups during a pandemic is tantamount to mass murder one week, but just fine even morally mandatory the next.

One rightly wonders how, within a span of weeks, we went from shaming people for being out in the streets to shaming those who wont join the crowd, wrote Anthony Dimauro in The American Conservative. The virus is either unmanageable or manageable. Thats it.

Id like to assume the best -- that scientists who changed their tune arent politically motivated or alarmingly hypocritical.

More likely, perhaps theyre afraid to publicly challenge any message of the current movement, however harmful, considering the fate that has befallen many who have.

Their fear would be well-warranted.

In just one recent example of financial and reputational destruction, a politically progressive data scientist named David Shor lost his job with a research firm after tweeting the 2017 research of an African-American Princeton scholar whose work explored the electoral implications of peaceful protest vs. violence.

The offending tweet? Post-MLK-assasination race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests *increase* Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage.

Those are academic findings. And the principle conclusion one could draw from such research isnt that surprising or all that controversial its incorporated into the heart of the strategies employed by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

But apparently, mentioning such research is wrong these days, and college presidents, editors, CEOs and a host of other industry leaders are taking the easy way out giving social media its next victim rather than standing up for free speech or believing the best about their employees attempts to add to the discussion.

In this case, it didnt matter that the fired scientist is a social democrat who worked for President Obamas reelection campaign, according to New York Magazines Jonathan Chait or that the research he shared was conducted by someone who ...majored in Race & Ethnic Relations, co-founded BlackPlanet, got a Ph.D in African-American studies, and is black, according to the scholars wife who tweeted her astonishment that Shor was accused of anti-blackness.

This reckoning seems happy to destroy anyone even members of its own political party and would-be allies who clearly arent racists.

It is fairly disorienting out there, said Sam Harris, a liberal atheist philosopher and neuroscientist whose podcast Making Sense is one of the last bastions of intellectual honesty, free speech and reason I know of, and my go-to for understanding complex problems, regardless of my disagreement with Harris on some issues.

All information has been weaponized, Harris said in his latest episode about current social unrest that should be required listening for anyone who cares about fact-based reform.

All communication has become performative, and on the most important topics, it now seems to be fury and sanctimony and bad faith almost all of the time. We appear to be driving ourselves actually crazy. As in, incapable of coming into contact with reality, unable to distinguish fact from fiction. And then becoming totally destabilized by our own powers of imagination and confirmation bias and then lashing out at one another on that basis.

We want justice -- and truth -- to prevail, right?

Or do we?

Rachel Bryars is an opinion columnist for AL.com.

Link:
The implosion of intellectual honesty - AL.com

Three years ago, the Supreme Court handed an Asian rock band named the Slants an unimaginable win when it proclaimed, in Matal v. Tam, that it was unconstitutional for the law to ban trademarks that were disparaging. In celebrating the bands victory, the lead singer Simon Tam declared the case a win for all marginalized groups, asserting: It cant be a win for free speech if some people benefit and others dont.

Despite his optimism for free speech, Mr. Tam could not have been more wrong about the meaning of his victory. Although the court had ruled in Mr. Tams favor, Matal v. Tams outcome obliterated the decades-long legal challenge to the Washington Redskins trademark, which was first filed by a group led by the Cheyenne and Muscogee Creek activist and scholar Suzan Shown Harjo and later a team of Native American plaintiffs led by Amanda Blackhorse. Perhaps most telling was the reaction of Dan Snyder, the owner of a certain Washington football team, who the same day issued a statement in response to the courts ruling on the Tam case: I am THRILLED! Hail to the Redskins. In response to Matal v. Tam, Ms. Blackhorse defiantly insisted, It may have killed our case, but it hasnt killed our movement.

We now know that Ms. Blackhorse was right. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests sweeping the nation and the world, brands are swiftly taking account of the harmful stereotypes they once inflicted. In the last few days, Quaker Oats, the owner of the 131-year-old brand of Aunt Jemima, announced it would change the product name in an effort to make progress toward racial equality. The brand had long capitalized on a romantic view of antebellum American slavery, even going so far as to hire an actual former slave to impersonate the character of Aunt Jemima at the 1893 Chicago Worlds Fair (marking the first time a living person was hired to impersonate a trademark).

Just days after Quakers announcement, the Mars corporation followed suit, announcing that its Uncle Bens rice products would similarly evolve in light of recent events. Even Mrs. Butterworths pancake syrup, its bottle embodying a racist caricature of the shape of a black woman, is undertaking a complete brand and package review.

Companies are clearly trying to correct Americas painful history of advertising, which for generations has trafficked in racial stereotypes to sell products. Momentum away from racial branding has been growing for decades. In 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association announced that it would prohibit its members from displaying hostile and abusive racial-ethnic-national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery at its championships, producing a wave of logo retirements at schools across the country. In 2018, Major League Baseball announced that the Cleveland Indians would finally stop using its Native American Chief Wahoo caricature on items for display on the field. (Although it continues to retain its logo for use on items for sale in its souvenir shop.) And in April, the Land OLakes company finally phased out the use of an illustration of a Native American woman, adorned in a feather headband, from their products.

What do these changes suggest about America, and more specifically, American marketing? To both of us, one an expert in Native American law and the other a trademark law professor, they suggest the onslaught of a dramatically shifting landscape for racialized brands in the future. Brands can no longer stand apart from social movements and activism. In order to succeed, they have to personify change to be the change through rebranding themselves, or risk serious criticism.

Its no wonder, then, why Mr. Snyder and the Washington team received scathing responses to their tone-deaf participation in Blackout Tuesday in support of racial equality while continuing to amplify the Redskins name. Even the mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has joined in a chorus of politicians, athletes and activists to demand a name change, pointing out that, among other things, it presents an obstacle to building a new stadium in the teams home city.

Like most owners of racial brands, Mr. Snyder has continued to insist that the name is not intended to offend and that it actually honors Native people. But this assertion cannot be disentangled from the larger history of Native American land dispossession, in which European newcomers idealized a myth of a fearless, primitive warrior, using it to justify war, removal and even genocide. With Natives pushed out of the way, non-Indians were free not only to take Indian lands but also to appropriate Native culture and identity. In Playing Indian, the historian Phil Deloria of Harvard traces the way in which settlers appropriated Native culture and identity for centuries as part of their own identity formation. Generations of Americans have grown up playing cowboys and Indians, usurping Native culture as their own, through sports mascots and countless other romantic narratives of Manifest Destiny.

But while Black Lives Matter has had success in retiring African-American stereotypes and brands, Native American brands face an uncertain outcome. Appropriations of racialized stereotypes of Native people are still big business, inextricably linked to the cultural and territorial history of dispossession. Last year, Dior introduced an ad campaign featuring its new Sauvage perfume, which it described as an authentic journey deep into the Native American soul in a sacred, founding and secular territory. (The company pulled the ad in response to outrage.) Other brands have gone even further into this fraught racial terrain, such as, for example, Urban Outfitters in the early 2010s with its Navajo products including panties and flasks. (In another case, a company produced Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, even though the revered leader denounced alcohol consumption; the company eventually settled a lawsuit filed by his descendants.) All too familiar commercial products produced by non-Native companies such as the Apache Helicopter, Jeep Cherokee and Yakima Bike Racks abound in the commercial marketplace.

We may dismiss these examples as thoughtless advertising mishaps. But, in aggregate, they are more than that. As Simon Tam pointed out three years ago, a victory is incomplete if some marginalized groups win and others lose. But perhaps Black Lives Matter can accomplish what the Tam opinion failed to do. The country and, indeed, the world is demanding a rejection of overt symbols of racism and expecting something better from our leaders, our educators and yes, even our sports teams.

There is no ambiguity here, Mr. Snyder. It is time to change the name.

Angela R. Riley is a professor of law and director of the Native Nations Law and Policy Center at UCLA. Sonia K. Katyal is a Haas distinguished chair at the University of California Berkeley School of Law and a co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read the original:
Aunt Jemima Is Gone, Time to End Other Racist Branding - The New York Times