Daily Archives: May 24, 2021

WASHINGTON U.S. Senators Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., today announced their support for legislation to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from again being used as a political weapon against conservative non-profit groups.

Wicker and Hyde-Smith are original cosponsors of the Dont Weaponize the IRS Act (S.1777). The bill would codify a Trump rule that prevents the IRS from publicly revealing personal information about donors who give to certain non-profit groups. The protections apply regardless of a groups political ideology or beliefs.

In the past, the IRS has been weaponized to target tax-exempt groups for their political beliefs, but the Trump Administration rightly put an end to this practice, Wicker said. Attempts by congressional Democrats to remove this protection through S.1 cannot be allowed to go forward. The Dont Weaponize the IRS Act would make permanent the ban on the IRS being able to pry into the constitutionally-protected activities of American citizens, shielding conservative and liberal groups alike from undue pressure or intimidation.

Revelations in the Obama years that the IRS targeted groups based on political beliefs should have sent a chill down the backs of every freedom loving American. However, we see new efforts to allow that practice againthe targeting of not just groups but also the individuals who support them. This assault on First Amendment rights is wrong no matter your political leanings, Hyde-Smith said. The Dont Weaponize the IRS Act has my full support.

The need for S.1777 is linked to the systematic targeting of conservative tax-exempt groups by the Obama IRS from 2010 to 2012, and the Trump administrations response to that malfeasance. The Trump administration released a final rule in May 2020 that prevents the IRS from targeting certain tax-exempt groups based on their political beliefs.

The Democrats federal election takeover legislation (HR.1 and S.1) would repeal and undermine the Trump rule, allowing partisan bureaucrats at the IRS to target nonprofit organizations based on the applicants political and policy positions. During the Senate Rules Committee markup of S.1 earlier this month, both Wicker and Hyde-Smith introduced amendments to protect individuals from IRS overreach.

Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell introduced S.1777, which is cosponsored by 43 Republican Senators.

The bill is endorsed by American Commitment, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Association of Mature American Citizens, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Club for Growth, Freedom Works, Heritage Action for America, Institute for Free Speech, National Taxpayers Union, and People United for Privacy. (Read endorsement statements here.)

To review the text of the Dont Weaponize the IRS Act, click here.

See the original post:
Wicker, Hyde-Smith Cosponsor the 'Don't Weaponize the IRS Act' - Senator Roger Wicker

Rev. Jack Sullivan, Jr., Rev. Susan Smith, Rev. Dan Clark, Rev. Joan VanBecelaere, Samuel Prince, Tarunjit Singh Butalia; Rev. Susan Ritchie, Elaina Ramsey and Rev. Terry Williams| Guest Columnists

Religious and civil liberties are in grave danger in the state of Ohio. As people of conscience and people of faith, we cannot stay silent in the face of the worst existential threat to First Amendment freedoms in our states history.

Our legislature has introduced bills designed to discourage public witness, protest and dissent.

Laws that would criminalize churches and nonprofits that engage in public witness have been proposed alongside restrictions that will make it harder to vote.

In the midst of a once-in-a-generation pandemic, while our state strains under decades of underinvestment in social programs, infrastructure and essential worker protections, the Ohio legislature is spending its time targeting speech conservative lawmakers do not like.

Legislators, voted into office through our dysfunctional, gerrymandered and partisan district structure, are promoting a crackdown on voices that speak truth to power, aspiring to stifle any people-driven effort to hold Ohios public servants accountable.

This portfolio of anti-democracy bills betrays a very clear racial bias. Limiting voter rights, stifling dissent, criminalizing protest and punishing faith communities that participate in public witness of their moral convictions will disproportionately harm Black and brown communities, and organizations.

New voting restrictions in House Bill294 would allow right-wing politicians to select their own voters rather than having us voters choose our elected officials.

It would cut early voting hours, severely limit ballot drop boxes, limit access to absentee ballots and require most Ohioans to pay for postage on absentee ballots and ballot request forms.

More: Ohio GOP lawmakers propose election changes, limiting drop boxes and allowing online ballot requests

Anti-protest bills in the House and Senatecontain overly broad definitions of prohibited action, as well as vague and confusing language.

House Bill 109 would create higher fines and prison time for individuals and punish nonprofits involved in or supporting a protest where roads or sidewalks are blocked or police officers are harassed, intimidated or injured, or where even nonviolent action is deemed to be a riot.Riots in Ohio are broadly defined as five people or more engaged in a misdemeanor action of public disturbance.

And it increases fines and charges for even temporary vandalism of government property or statues.

More: Anti-riot or anti-protest? Four Ohio bills would stiffen penalties for demonstrators

House Bill 22 would increase penalties for merely distracting a law enforcement officer or throwing a diverting substance such as confetti or glitter.

Senate Bill 41 would require participants in a protest to pay financial reimbursement for the cost of policing and damage if there is any violence or vandalism, even if the participant did not cause any damage or engage in violence.

None of these anti-protest bills have bipartisan support in our gerrymandered legislature, nor do they show any diversity of support. They are too extreme, punitive, partisan and damaging to our democracy.

More: Our view: Ohio's election system needs a tweak, not an overhaul

We declare that Ohio will never bow to totalitarian pressures that seek to disenfranchise voters and eliminate religiously and morally motivated dissent.

God has a burning desire for justice.

Some say that the burning bush described in the book of Exodus is actually representative of this divine yearning, the burning that is in the heart of God for justice for all of God's people.

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King understood this when he wrote, "It is God's desire for justice that makes the struggle for justice and freedom holy ground." We are standing on holy ground and we are burning for justice. We will not be silent, because the fire of commitment within us will not let us.

Rev. Jack Sullivan, Jr.,The Ohio Council of Churches;Rev.Susan Smith,Crazy Faith Ministries;Rev. Dan Clark,Faith in Public Life Ohio;Rev. Joan VanBecelaere and Samuel Prince, Unitarian Universalist Justice Ohio;Tarunjit Singh Butalia, Religions for Peace USA;Rev.Susan Ritchie,North Unitarian Universalist Church, Lewis Center; andElaina Ramsey andRev. Terry Williams,Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

More:
Opinion: 'Ohio will never bow to totalitarian pressures' - The Columbus Dispatch

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

In 2016, Lauren Kesterson filed suit against Kent State University (KSU), former KSU softball coach Karen Linder, and former interim KSU softball coach Eric Oakley. She asserted that Linder and Oakley violated her free speech and equal protection rights related to retaliation against her for reporting an alleged rape. Kesterson further alleged KSU violated Title IX. The district court granted summary judgment to KSU on all of Kestersons claims. Kesterson appealed the district courts decision in October 2019. The Court of Appeals gave Kesterson a win on some of her claims but upheld the dismissal of others.

Appropriate Persons

First Amendment

In order to substantiate a claim of prior restraint under the First Amendment, the alleged restraint must impose a legal impediment. (See Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 551 (1993)). An employee telling a student not to tell anyone about an alleged assault does not impose a legal impediment, according to the Sixth Circuit.

[1] OWA is the term used by the 2020 Title IX regulations to identify an employee as an appropriate person.

The rest is here:
If Courts Cant Agree on Who an Appropriate Person, Is for Notice of Sexual Harassment Under Title IX, How Can We Expect a Student in Crisis to Do So?...

During an interview on actor Dax Shepherds podcast Armchair Expert, Prince Harry criticized what he believed was a First Amendment that permits just about anything to slide. He said you can find a loophole in anything. You can capitalize or exploit whats not said rather than uphold what is said.

Hes not wrong about those loopholes. The First Amendment allows propagandists, conspiracy theorists, and flat out provocateurs to say horrible things under the umbrella of freedom. But protecting unpopular speech, for all its problems, is well worth defending. A lot of the controversy these days isnt about the right to speak, but whether anyone should face any sort of consequences for their speech. (Getting banned on Twitter for expressing hate speech isnt a First Amendment issue, by the way.)

But when someone from another country dares to criticize America in any way especially when that person is from the Royal Family you can bet conservatives are going to lash out. (The same people hated when President Obama pointed out our countrys flaws, too.)

For what its worth, Prince Harry admitted the First Amendment controversies are a huge subject and one which I dont understand because Ive only been here a short time, but that didnt stop his critics from unleashing their fury.

That includes evangelist Franklin Graham, who took Harrys remarks as some sort of personal attack:

My ancestors were among those who came to this country to gain these freedoms. I am so thankful that I have the freedom to worship without government interference, and I thank God that the founders of our Constitution gave us this protection. Maybe Prince Harry could take some time while he is in this country to study our history, and I think he will come to appreciate that the First Amendment is part of what makes America great and one of the main reasons people have left everything to come here throughout history.

Its ironic to hear all that from Graham, given that the Republican Party he supports wants to suppress speech they dont like, like educating students about our nations racist history in school. (Other nations, by the way, also have free speech.)

In any case, Graham is exaggerating what Harry said, and its extremely condescending to suggest that Harry needs to educate himself on the matter when the GOP (and conservative Christians specifically) are in the business of ignoring history when it suits their political needs.

(Image via Shutterstock)

More:
Franklin Graham Can't Handle Prince Harry's Criticism of the First Amendment - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Kami Rieck| Boston University Statehouse Program

BOSTON A sharp increase in incidents of hate, particularly directed at Asian Americans, has prompted lawmakers to file legislation to strengthen the states hate crime statute, provide better training to recognize bias and redefine penalties for breaking the law.

State Rep. Tram Nguyen, D-Andover, and state Sen. Adam Hinds, D-Pittsfield, recently joined forces with Attorney General Maura Healey in an effort to protect women and immigrants as targets of hate crimes; escalate penalties for repeat offenders; combine civil rights and hate crimes statutes into one section of the law; allow for harsher sentencing for severe offenses without creating mandatory minimums; and create clearer definitions of hate crimes.

Not only do we want more clarity on the law to specify exactly what hate crimes are so that they could be applied more fairly and accurately, but they're also providing officers with additional training to recognize what bias-motivated crimes are, Nguyen said.

The current hate crime law in Massachusetts is defined as one committed because of a persons race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Hinds said the rise in hate crimes against the African American, Asian American, LGBTQ+ and Jewish communities made clear the need to propose changes to the current law.

The urgency of taking a stand against violent bigotry has just felt more and more poignant in the past several years, Hinds said. So moving this quickly feels important.

The rise in anti-Asian hate crimes has risen in the past year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The national organization Stop AAPI Hate received 67 reports from Massachusetts of anti-Asian discrimination 3,800 incidents nationwide from March 19 through Dec. 31 of last year, according to data.

In 2019, the Anti-Defamation League reported 2,107 hate crimes against Jewish people nationwide. Thatwas the highest number of hate crimes the ADL has tracked in its history. November 2020 federal data show crimes based on sexual orientation represent 16.7% of hate crimes, according to the Human Rights Campaign. In 2020, Black people were targeted in hate crimes more than any other group in the U.S., according to an FBI report.

Support for the changes is not universal.

State Rep. Peter Durant, R-Spencer, said the bill violates the First Amendment and allows for a subjective way of defining assault.

I think any time that we tinker with First Amendment protections or any protections afforded us under the Constitution, we have to be very careful, he said. This bill, while it does some good things in the form of increasing penalties for certain crimes, I think it takes a very precarious step towardlimiting your First Amendment rights.

Nguyen made clear that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Janhavi Madabushi, director of the Massachusetts Bail Fund, said prosecuting violence more stringently does not uproot racism or prevent violence.

Legislators should not bring forth bills that expand prosecuting powers and criminal charges if they want to combat racism, Madabushi wrote in an email. This is harm that ultimately vulnerable communities will be tasked with undoing.

There needs to be systemic solutions to address violence in all of its forms, said Carolyn Chou, executive director of the Asian American Resource Workshop. Increasing penalties could have unintended consequences that would harm communities of color, she said.

"More law enforcement has been shown, time and time again, to not prevent violence, but rather to add additional layers of violence and harm," Chou wrote in an email. We need to emphasize community response and support, deep dialogue between oppressed communities and transformative justice, as well as broader solutions like language access, data equity and ethnic studies."

Hinds said the new bill would do that by improvinglaws currently in place and giving discretion to judges to sentence accordingly and appropriately. The legislation will improve entire communities by addressing violence, he said.

We're also clarifying that we're not talking about First Amendment-protected expressions of hate, Hinds said. But instead being clear that we're prohibiting violent, threatening and destructive conduct.

State Rep. Tackey Chan, D-Quincy, supports the proposed changes because he believes the current law is vague and leaves too much interpretation as to whetheran attack is a hate crime. Many minorities and immigrants make up Quincy, and Chan said underreporting of hate crimes shows a clear need to clean up the statute.

I think it's a good first step in this conversation on hate crimes," Chan said. "I like to think of myself as an understanding person trying to learn, but there are certain things that are like, let's call like it is. I mean, if you target people to kill people because of what they look like or who they are.

The bill has been assigned to the Legislatures Judiciary Committee for a public hearing and review. Thirty House lawmakers and eight senators signed in support of the bill.

On April 22, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crime bill in response to the recent rise of anti-Asian discrimination. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, would expedite the Department of Justices review of COVID-19 hate crimes.

The bill also requires the DOJ to issue guidance for state and local law enforcement agencies on how to establish online hate crime reporting processes in multiple languages and how to expand culturally competent education campaigns.

For Nguyen, passing the new hate crimes law ensures that bias-motivated crimes are prosecuted and allows prosecutors and the judiciary to have clear guidance to look into motivating factors.

She also acknowledged that creating a new hate crime statute is only one part of addressing these pressing issues.

The bill is not meant to address the hate and violence, Nguyen said. To confront the root of human violence, she said there also needs to be racially and culturally inclusive education, despoliation of prejudices and biases people have, more resources for victims of hate crimes and new police and bystander intervention training.

This bill is looking to hold perpetrators who caused harm to communities accountable and to make sure that we are calling the hate crimes out so that we are signaling to communities that they matter, she said.

Originally posted here:
Sharp increase in hate crimes has Mass. legislators looking to tighten laws - Milford Daily News

WASHINGTON, D.C. Recently, U.S. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and 40 of his colleagues introduced legislation to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from being used as a political weapon against American citizens.The IRS should never be used as a political weapon based on political or religious affiliation,said Senator Tillis. While the Biden Administration works to expand the IRS to go after hardworking Americans, I am proud to work with many of my colleagues on this commonsense legislation to protect our First Amendment rights.BACKGROUND:From 2010 to 2012, the Obama IRS spent over two years systematically targeting conservative tax-exempt groups. The Trump administration released a final rule in May 2020 that prevented the IRS from targeting certain tax-exempt groups based on their political beliefs.House Democrats H.R. 1 the For the People Act and Senate companion legislation S. 1 seek to repeal and undermine the Trump rule to weaponize the IRS to target nonprofit organizations based on the applicants political and policy positions.TheDont Weaponize the IRS Actcodifies the Trump rule that protects groups regardless of their political ideology or beliefs and prevents the IRS from doxing donors to these groups.Removing the requirement to report the names and addresses of donors helps protect taxpayers First Amendment rights: such information is not needed for tax administration purposes.The text of the Dont Weaponize the IRS Act can be accessedhere.

###

Continued here:
Tillis, Colleagues Introduce 'Don't Weaponize the IRS Act' - Thom Tillis