Category Archives: First Amendment

There are three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall. One flies the United States flag. Another flies the Massachusetts state flag. What can and cant fly from the third is an issue being taken up by the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments inShurtleff v. Boston. The case addresses whether the city violated the First Amendment by denying a request to temporarily raise the Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall, where Boston has temporarily displayed many secular organizations flags.

The case raises important questions aboutfree speechat a time when many members of the Supreme Court seem concerned aboutrestrictions on religion. The courts decision will likely clarify one or more free speech doctrines, impacting how courts nationwide interpret the First Amendments guarantees.

Shurtleff v. Boston also highlights disagreements about the nature and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I study inmy work on free speech and the First Amendment.

Case background

Boston permits groups to request that a flag temporarily fly alongside the American and Massachusetts flags at City Hall to mark special occasions, replacing the city flag that usually occupies the third post. Past examples include flag requests from the Chinese Progressive Association and the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation.

In 2017, Camp Constitution, a New Hampshire-based organization, requested to fly theChristian flag, which has a cross in the upper left corner and was designed by a Sunday school teacher and a missionary executive in the late 1800s. Today, some Protestant denominations display the flag inside their churches.

Camp Constitution asked to fly the flag as part of a planned event to celebrate the civic contributions of Bostons Christian community. The organizationsays its missionis to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, our American heritage of courage and ingenuity, including the genius of our United States Constitution, and the application of free enterprise.

Boston denied the request. The city cited concerns that raising the Christian flag at Boston City Hall would violatethe First Amendmentsestablishment clause, whichbars the governmentfrom promoting particular religions over others. After making a second request, which Boston also denied, Camp Constitution sued.

A federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appealssided with Bostonon the grounds that flying a flag on the third flagpole was government speech, not private speech and therefore the city was entitled to refuse to fly the Christian flag on its flagpole.

Camp Constitution appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.

The cases outcome will likely hinge on the Supreme Courts determination of whose views are represented by the flagpole outside City Hall: the private organization whose flag is temporarily flying, or the government. In other words, this case is about who is speaking when that flag goes up, and whose free speech rights are protected.

If the court determines that Camp Constitution is speaking, then a framework the court has developed, known as the public forum doctrine, will apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Camp Constitution.

If the court determines that the city of Boston is speaking, then the courtsgovernment speech doctrinewill apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Boston.

Public forum doctrine

Federal, state and local governments oversee a wide variety of public spaces, such as parks, universities and courthouses, just to name a few. These areas serve different functions, some of which require more regulation of speech than others.

The Supreme Court has organized government spaces into several categories, each of which permits different types of restrictions on free speech. This set of categories and permitted restrictions is referred to as thepublic forum doctrine.

Spaces like public parks and sidewalks are considered public forums, the category that permits the fewest restrictions on speech. In a public forum, a government can never restrict speechbased on viewpoint specific positions on a topic and is severely limited as to when it can restrict speechbased on content a given topic.

Normally, a flagpole outside a city hall would not be considered a public forum. However, the Supreme Court also recognizes a separate category, designated public forums, which are spaces the government converts into public forums. In a designated public forum, free speech regulation is limited in the same way it would be in a public forum.

In Shurtleff v. Boston, both parties agree that the area surrounding the flagpole is a public forum. But they disagree over whether the flagpole itself is a designated public forum.Camp Constitution arguesthat Boston has turned the flagpole into a designated public forum by allowing other groups to fly their flags there. Meanwhile,Boston arguesthat it has not, because the city retained control by permitting limited types of groups to raise their flags.

Camp Constitution notesthat Boston previously approved 284 requests to raise other flags, and that there is no record of a prior request being denied.

But Boston counters that none of those previous requests were for religious flags.The city arguesthat only two types of flags have been permitted: flags representing territories, nations and ethnicities, and flags associated with publicly recognized days of observance, such as Veterans Day andLGBTQ Pride Month. Boston argues that such limited categories of approval are not what one would expect in a designated public forum, and that this is evidence that Boston has not turned its flagpole into a designated public forum.

[3 media outlets, 1 religion newsletter.Get stories from The Conversation, AP and RNS.]

Government speech doctrine

Over 30 years ago, inRust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that the government itself is a speaker with First Amendment rights an idea known as thegovernment speech doctrine. Government speech is not subject to the public forum doctrine. Instead, the government has much greater discretion in deciding which messages it endorses.

Boston argues that raising a flag on the third flagpole at City Hall is government speech and therefore the city has the right to determine what views it wants to express on its flagpole. Camp Constitution disagrees, maintaining that the flagpole is a designated public forum and therefore few restraints on private groups free speech are allowed on the flagpole.

Both parties arguments rely on competing interpretations of the government speech doctrine put forward by the Supreme Court in two cases,Pleasant Grove v. SummumandWalker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.

In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Pleasant Grove v. Summum that the permanent monuments in a park owned and operated by the town were government speech. The Supreme Courts unanimous decision allowed the town to denya request from a small religious group, Summum, to install a permanent monument expressing its beliefs, even though the park had previously accepted a monument of the Ten Commandments.

In 2015, the Supreme Court held inWalker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veteransthat license plates were government speech. This permitted Texas to deny a request for a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate flag, even though Texas offered a wide range of other specialty plates. Unlike Pleasant Grove v. Summum, this case was decided by a slim 5-4 majority.

Shurtleff v. Boston will likely require the court to further clarify the government speech doctrine. The central issue is this: When another flag temporarily replaces Bostons own, who is speaking?

Link:
Can a Christian flag fly at City Hall? The Supreme Court will have to decide - Carolinacoastonline

Gary Beatty| Guest Columnist

Its often incorrectly said that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not give you the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater.

But what if there is a fire?

The correct statement is that the First Amendment does not give you the freedom to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater."A colloquial illustration that free speech, like all individual rights, isnot unlimited.

What are the limits on free speech?

On most college campuses today, too many students believe the limit is whatever words make them uncomfortable the definition of which seemingly changes daily.Even worse, theadults (professors) who are supposed to be educating the students, and administrators running the schools, enable that type of flawed thinkingto fester.In fact, some would consider it a sign of something more serious.

The need to be protected from ideas that offend, or make you uncomfortable, is a symptom of mental illness, as Professors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt demonstrate in their groundbreaking bestseller, "The Coddling of the American Mind."The mental patients have taken over the asylum.

Aside from mental illness, a belief that people must be protected from mere words strikes at the very foundation of a free society.That it dominates attitudes in academia is particularly disturbing because The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas."Thats how the Supreme Court has defined freedom of speech in college classrooms. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

Last March the Supreme Court decided a case indirectly related to free speech on campus.Two evangelical Christian students were prevented from proselytizing in the public area on the campus of Georgia Gwinnett College because (according to the college speech code)talking about religion in public disturbs the peace and/or comfortof person(s)."and amounted to fighting words."

When the students sued for violation of their First Amendment rights, the school quickly rescinded the speech code in an attempt to prevent the lawsuit from going forward.The Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward regardless.Though the case as it came to the Court doesnt address the First Amendment claim, and is limited to a procedural requirement for maintaining lawsuits, freedom of speech is the basis of the lawsuit.

Whats significant is how quickly the college abandoned their speech code when faced with a lawsuit alleging it violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said the suit can go forward, and the law may permit the fact the college abandoned its speech code in the face of the suit as evidence they attempted to obstruct vindication of the students' rights.

Unfortunately, the notion that offensive speechshould not be allowed is spreading like a noxious fungus from the moldy halls of academia.For example, social media has its version of arbitrary content-based speech codes, prompting those who respect the Constitution to fight back against such discrimination.

In response to former President(and Florida resident)Donald Trump being blocked from Twitter, the Florida legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a ban on social media arbitrarily deplatforming political candidates. Platforms can be fined if they do so.

The new law requires the social media platforms to publish standards of what content is, or is not, permittedand to show they enforce those standards uniformly rather than selectively as they did with Trump.Social media companies are challenging the law on the ground that they claim it infringes their First Amendment rights.

Think about that hypocrisy. The owners of social media platforms are whining that suing them for selectively limiting citizens rights of free speech somehow limits their own First Amendment rights!Hopefully Supreme Court precedent will thwart the owners comedic ascent into Aristophanes nephelococcygia (absurdity).

More: Public defenders provide same quality defense as private attorneys | Opinion

More: Verdict was just as prosecutors 'pandered to the mob' in Rittenhouse trial | Opinion

In 1943, the United States Supreme Court said that forcing a person to believe something, or to say words they dont agree with, violates our core values, If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

You cant be deprived of the right to disagree with, or voice disapproval of, the social justice cause du jour. If those causes are justifiable they should welcome competition in the market of ideas. That they dont proves their intellectual bankruptcy.

Gary Beatty lives in Sharpes andis retired from 30 years as an assistant state attorney in Brevard County. He has a doctorate in law andiscertified in criminal trial law by the Florida Bar.

Support local journalism and become a subscriber. VIsitfloridatoday.com/subscribe

Read the original here:
Limiting 'offensive' free speech goes against the Constitution | Opinion - Florida Today

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. Questions about an ordinance proposed at the end of 2021 banning the use of conversion therapy trickle into the new year, as the West Lafayette City Council prepares to bring up the controversial agenda item in February..

Ordinance 31-21, whichwould ban treatment aimed at changingan individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual, was introduced at December's city council meeting. Wording in the ordinance included, "It shall be a violation of this ordinance for an unlicensed person to engage in conversion therapy with a minor person."

Dr. Steve Viars, a pastor at Faith Lafayette, contacted the Journal & Courier with a commentary he wrote about the ordinance. Within Viars' writing, he explained concerns he and other members of Faith Biblical Counseling have with the anti-conversion ordinance.

"Imagine a scenario where an area teenager voluntarily visits a self-identified faith-based counselor, but because the counselor used the Bible as their source of truth, the local police department imposed a fine of $1000 per day," Viars wrote."Sound like a poorly-written plotline from a dystopian fiction flick? Actually, that could be our new reality, courtesy of the West Lafayette City Council and their proposed ordinance 31-21."

Viars also mentioned a questionnaire citizenssent to the city council members to "determine what they were seeking to achieve." According to Viars, two of the nine city council members have responded. The full questionnaire is available athttps://www.freedomlafayette.org/.

Viars' commentary is published on the Journal & Courier website.

The public as well as members of the council have expressed confusionwiththe ordinance's wordingto what types of licensed professionals the ordinance refers; what the punishment for practicing conversion therapy would be; and what defines conversion therapy.

"There are governmental entities who have banned conversion therapy to some degree, but have had difficulty with enforcement as there is a great deal of controversy as to what constitutes conversion therapy," John Dennis, West Lafayette mayor, told the Journal & Courier."Other agencies seem to be focused on acts or therapies that can be 'psychologically damaging or personally threatening.'

"The bigger question is how would the city patrol or enforce issues relating to the concept of free speech? From a purely operational perspective this ban would be very challenging to enforce ... would we hand out tickets?"

During the December West Lafayette City Council meeting, members voted to table Ordinance 31-21 to the February 2022 meeting in order to more specifically reorganize the document's phrasing.

"We are continuing to work on it with our fellow city councilors (and) city attorney to clarify the language," David Sanders, a council member and co-sponsor for the ordinance, said. "I think the most important issue that needs to be clarified is the nature of enforcement. So we're continuing to work on that.

"We've already agreed on substantive changes. We had an amendment which I proposed and which was adopted that discusses the protections of First Amendment rights and rights under Title One of the Indiana Constitution."

The Indiana Constitution includes protections stating, "No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience."

Concerns of protecting free speech and freedom of religion have beenraised, and Sanders assures that these protections are being considered as the ordinance's wording is being reworked.

"We want to reassure people that there was no intention to infringe upon those types of rights," Sanders said.

The second reading of rdinance 31-21 is scheduled for Feb. 7 at 6:30 p.m.

Margaret Christopherson is a reporter for the Journal & Courier. Email herat mtroup@jconline.com and follow heron Twitter@MargaretJC2

Read the original here:
West Lafayette's proposed ordinance on banning conversion therapy raises questions - Journal & Courier

Are you curious about a person, place or thing in your city? Wondering about issues that seem unique to Coachella Valley and want to learn more? Speak up. Desert Sun journalists are here to answer your burning questions. Learn how to submit at the bottom of this story.

Q:Do psychicsneed a license to tell the future in the Coachella Valley?

Tucked away in strip malls, apartment complexes and unassuming homes across the Coachella Valley, businesses promising supernatural servicescall to curious customers.

Psychic. Fortuneteller.Centro Mayor Espiritual.

While relatively modest in size, the desert psychic sector hosts a wide range of characters, from classic tarot readersand mediumsto a Hispanic spiritualist organization espousing mustard-based spells to bring wealth to your family.

But are thesebusinesses legal? What do desert cities do, if anything, to regulate psychics, mediums and others selling knowledge of the unknowable?

Decades ago, concerns about these professions' propensity to exploit vulnerable people resulted inmandatory psychic permitting processes across Californiaandin a majority of Coachella Valley cities.

But a Desert Sun examination of the local occult industryfoundmost Coachella Valley psychicsdo not have the required permits. Local cities alsoappear unconcerned with the violations, with few or no enforcement actions on record for most.

Five Coachella Valley cities Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, Indio and Coachellarequire specific permits for psychics and other occult businesses. These citiesreport a total of four licensed psychics between them. Yet an onlinesearch for such businessesyields websites and Yelp pages for three times that numberin the samecities.

The city ordinances covering these activities most dating from the mid-1980s mandate permitting processes of varying scope.These rangefrom a relatively simple background check in Palm Desert,to a more lengthy process in Palm Springs,Indioand Cathedral City involving the submission of a five-year employment history and fingerprints on a form provided by local police. The ordinances in these latter cities also stipulate that psychics must pay surety bonds required "to insure good faith and fair dealing on the part of the applicant" of $15,000 to the cities,although fees associated with the lawsare subject to change and appear to have been reduced since their writing.

Many of theselocal psychicordinances arereplacements of early-1960s policies that banned such activities outright. After a 1985 CaliforniaSupreme Court ruling found that such bans were unconstitutional, Coachella Valley cities swapped the bans forpermitting ordinances.

Since then, the ordinances appear to have been rarely enforced. Officials in several Coachella Valleycities were unable to locate any records of enforcement action for their psychic laws. The City of Palm Desert reported one enforcement action in the last 30 years, resulting in the relocation of a local psychic business to an area that was properly zoned for the activity.

Palm Desert saidits ordinance with one of the less rigorous permitting processeswas part of basic due diligence to protect consumers in a relatively fraud-prone industry.

"The intention of this code is to prevent individuals who have been charged with deceptive practices from having easy access to those who may be vulnerable to fraud or other illicit practices," wrote Palm Desert spokespersonRyland Penta in an email. "Regulating certain businesses that have a higher propensity for these types of crimes is a proper exercise to protect the health, safetyand welfare of the public."

The city'sconcerns are not unfounded.

Some psychics along with religious and spirituality scholars say times of great uncertainty, such as the current pandemic, can drive up demand for psychic services.Increased demand can createmore opportunities for fraud, which was the case in multiple high-profile Southern California psychic scam cases this fall.

In one recent instance, a Riverside fortunetellermade national headlines in late Octoberafter being arrested on charges of felony grand theft. According topolice, the man utilized a voodoo doll, tarot cards, "religious and satanic-type objects," and a live snake as part of a scam that defrauded a woman out of more than $50,000 amid promises to rid her and her family of a curse. Thatfortuneteller had previously been arrestedand convicted of a similar fraud in Chicago inlate 2019.

That same month, a Los Angeles-area psychic made international headlines when she was targeted ina $25,000 fraud lawsuit. The plaintiff in that case said the psychic falsely claimed she could remove a curse put on his marriage by a witch hired by his ex-girlfriend. Despite making an initial $1,000 deposit for the curse-removal service, the plaintiff said his marriage situation did not improve.

Psychic fraud cases such as these have been on the rise since the onset of the pandemic, according to senior advocacy group AARP, as predatory actors look to exploit peoples' heightened sense of uncertainty andvulnerability.

Timothy Courtney, one of two licensed psychics in Palm Springs, argues there's fraudsters in all business sectors but that psychics get singled out assuspectbecause they aren't selling a physical product or measurableservice.

"There are people in any business that (cheat people)," Courtney said.

"We seem to think this one is different because it is intangible," he added."We don't have a product to hold onto or a house that was finished or unfinished."

Courtney saidethically mindedpsychics should workto conduct business in a transparent and professional way, clearly posting and adhering to set prices for each service offered so that no one feels they are being pumped for cash. The Palm Springs psychicsaid he also takes the extra step of never asking for follow-up appointments with his clients.

"In all the years I've done this and the thousands of people I've worked with, I've never told anyone 'You need to come back,'" Courtney said. "You come when you need it."

"I think it's very disrespectful to just 'check-in' on people," he added.

Some local psychics weremore blunt about issues of fraud in their industry.

"There's a lot of scammers out there," said "Psychic Billy,"a psychic based in Palm Desert who does not have a permit and said he was unaware they were mandatory. Billy, who didn't respond to multiple inquiries about his full name,saidhe never "pressure(s) people into doing anything whatsoever" and clearly posts prices for all services offered.

The psychic said, however, that he was aware of other local psychics who are "scam artists," including onewho haddefrauded people of "thousands of dollars."

Another Palm Desert psychic, "Madame Zelda," whose expired Palm Desert psychic license lists the name Gina Merino,said she had been the victim of harassment and vandalism on her Highway 111 storefront before it closed down lastyear. Shesuspectedanother psychic in the city was behind the incidents.

Despite almost universally claiming to run transparent operations,evensome of the Coachella Valley's fully licensed psychics were unwilling to disclose their full name to The Desert Sun.

Sometimes you tell people things they dont want to hear and they get angry, said apsychic namedTammyat Mystic Desert psychic and gift shopon North Palm Canyon Drive.I have one guy who used to come in and spit on my window every day because I told him something he didnt want to hear.

I don't tell any of my clients my last name," she added. "Its the way I know how to keep my family safe."

Tammy is fully licensed and has operated out of a storefront onNorth Palm Canyon Drive for more than a decade. She said she got licensed out of a desire to be"legal" and "legit."

"I didnt want to be one of those readers because there area lot of them that stay (in an area) as long as they can, get what they can get and then they leave," she said.

Courtney, Palm Springs' other licensed psychic, said he has gone to great lengths to adhere to the city's requirements and be transparent about his fees and services.

Raised in a highly religious family in Kentucky, Courtney said he spent years performing psychic services under the table as a side job while living in Los Angeles. When he moved to Palm Springs in 2016and decided to pursuework as a psychic and medium full time, Courtney said he was determined to follow the rules.

The psychic paid the required surety bond, submitted fingerprintsand supplied the city with photos and other documentation, a process he says he undertook "out of respect for the work I do" and for "the city and the people who live here."

"At the time … when I gave my bonding papers to the city, they said, 'You know, you're the only person in this that we have that's done all this work," he recalled. "Everyone else signs up as an entertainer."

"I heard about the entertainment (route) and said 'You know what? I'm not doing that. I'm legit,'" Courtney added. "I want to keep a very, very respectable (business) and I want to follow what the city has to say about it."

That supposedrouteis a loophole of sorts in Palm Springs, Indio and Cathedral City'sordinances, which contain exemptions for people practicing occultservices purely for entertainment or as part of a religious practice. Someunpermitted local psychics claim these entertainment exemptions, although the personal consultations offered by thebusinesses often conflict with ordinance requirements that all exemptactivity be conducted in a public place and that questions are only answered in a waythat "all persons present at such public place" can hear the answers.

The religious exemption allows a much greater freedom of activity, although it appears rarelyif everused. One unlicensed Palm Springs psychic's website notes that she isanordained minister with the Universal Life Church, an organization known toordainalmost anyone online for a small fee. Individuals claiming this exemption must still file with the city, however, and no religious exemptions to the ordinances have been filed, according to Palm Springscity officials.

There's no single answer to this question. The most obvious reason is simply that enforcement of the psychic ordinancesis a lower priority for cities working with limited resources. And while this is almost certainly a factor, legal experts suggest thatother tricky issuesmay be at work.

If Coachella Valley citiesever did decide to begin strict enforcement of the psychic ordinances, they could run intoFirst Amendment issues, according to Pepperdine Universitylaw professorShelly Saxer.

Saxersaid that, while commercial free speech such as for a paid psychic readingis generally less protected than individual free speech, religious speech and practice tends to be highly protected and difficult to regulate.

"It makes me think of a case when I was clerking for a federal judge years ago," Saxer said. "It was a husband and wife team who had been prosecuted under state law for prostitution and pandering and they claimed this was their religion and came into federal court."

Thewoman in that case,Mary Ellen Tracy, claimed she performed sex acts with hundreds of men in the Los Angeles areaas part of her duties as thehigh priestess of the "Church of the Most High Goddess." Men were required to make "sacrifices" usually monetary paymentsto participate in the sexual rituals, which prosecutors argued amounted to thinly disguised prostitution.

Even in that rather extreme case, Saxer said the issue was highly contentious and difficult to resolve. Although the judge eventually decided against Tracy and ruled that the religion was a sham, Saxer said the situation highlights how difficult it could become for a city to prosecute an occultbusiness claiming to operate under the aegis of religious freedom.

Saxer discussed the example of one local business as an illustration of how quickly the line between religious activity and psychic business can become blurred.

Indio's El Hermano Que Cura ("The Brother that Heals" in English) sells tarot and astrological consultations to, among other things, help clients determine compatibility with a romantic partner and improve their sex lives. The business proffers a range of loosely related services, such as spells to attract money using rituals based around mustard seeds.

El Hermano, according to representative Jesus Vera, has been operatingin the Coachella Valley for the past seven years. The business'Indio Boulevard storefront is registered as a retail business, according to Indioofficials, who said the city was unable to locate any records for a permitted psychic business within its limits.

Vera said in an email that El Hermano provided "spiritual services" which was a "completely broad" concept "because with our experience, freedom of expression, freedom of worship and variety of beliefs we can establish a different procedure in each case to achieve inner and outer healing of any kind of imbalance that exists in our daily routines."

When asked about the psychic permit, Vera said El Hermano was a licensed business and provided its retail business license number.

The suggestion that the psychic ordinance does not apply to El Hermano appears dubious at least according to the letter of the law.Like most of the local psychic regulations, Indio's ordinance is highly specific andclearly written with thepsychic industry's diversity of services in mind. It defines the services requiring a permit as follows:

"(F)orecasting of future events or furnishing of any information not otherwise obtainable by the ordinary process of knowledge, by means of ... clairvoyance, clairaudience, cartomancy, phrenology, spirits, tea leaves or other such reading, mediumship, seership, prophecy, augury, astrology, palmistry, necromancy, mind-reading, telepathy, or other craft, art, science, cards, talisman, charm, potion, magnetism, magnetized article or substance, crystal gazing, oriental mysteries or magic of any kind or nature or other similar means or act."

Saxer said the specificity of Indio's ordinance leaves little wiggleroom and clearly fits the definition ofEl Hermano's business activities.

Despite this, shesaid it could be difficult for the city to enforce the psychic ordinance against El Hermano particularly if the business leaned into areligious freedom defense. Like Palm Springs and Cathedral City's ordinances, Indio's psychic regulations contain an exception for religious practices. Businesses wishing to claim the exemption must file with the city and must be a "bona fide church or religious association maintaining a church and holding regular services and having a creed or set of religious principles that is recognized by all churches of like faith," according to the ordinance.

"When yousay things like it's a bona fide church or religious organization, that gets really tough to declare that something is not a religion," Saxer said. "If you're talking about spiritual counseling, you're on that line of religious use that then gets more protection under the First Amendment."

The majority opinion in the 1985 state Supreme Court casethat led to the psychic permittingordinances hints at the mushy distinction between a legitimate and illegitimatepsychic business. According to the opinion, if the person does not actually believe in their own ability to deliver what they promise with their occult powers, then they are engaged in fraud. The ruling reasoned, however, that ifsomeone truly believed in the truth of their predictions, then they were acting legitimately.

"When such persons impart their beliefs to others, they are not acting fraudulently; they are communicating opinions which, however dubious, are unquestionably protected by the Constitution," wroteJustice Stanley Mosk in the 1985 opinion.

Saxer noted that most of these thorny issues would likely onlycome into play if a city decided to deny a psychic a permit or deny someonea religious exemption to the permitting process.

"But I can understand cities being nervous about trying to enforce these" ordinances, she said, "because there are problems with them."

The Pepperdine law professor suggested that these issues, in part, may contribute to Coachella Valley cities' lack of enforcement of the psychic ordinances.

Such rarely enforced laws are common across America. Termed "dead crimes" by some legal scholars, the offenses can range fromswearing or spitting on the street toproviding massage services to clients of the opposite sex orhaving sex while unmarried still technically a crime in somestates.

Some experts, such as lawyer and legal scholar Joel Johnson, argue that theexistence of dead lawscan undermine the rule of law by allowing for arbitrary enforcement. In the case of the psychic ordinances, this could meanan official acting in bad faith could target a specific psychic business for enforcementfor reasons unrelated to protectingpublic welfare.

Saxer, however, argued that the psychic ordinances could have some legitimateutility even if they are largely ignored now. In the event thata large psychic sector began to emerge in the Coachella Valley, shereasoned, a city could use broad enforcement of the psychic ordinances to clean up the local industry and reduce theriskof fraud.

"If you have this (law)on the books, then at that point you might start enforcing it against everyone," Saxer said,"because (then) you're addressing an issue where there are multiple people who are complying but there are a lot of people who are not getting the permits."

Diane Winston, a religion and spirituality scholar at USC, said the debate about what, if anything, constitutes a "legitimate" psychic business goes back to the foundation of the practice in America.

She pointed to the rise of the spiritualist movement in the mid-19th century as the genesis of many prevalent psychic and occult-related beliefs.

"People who say they communicate with the dead have been around forever," Winston said."But it became an important phenomenon in America in the 1840s when two sisters in New Yorkclaimed that they had heard tapping, which they interpreted to be ghosts."

The two sisterswere laterjoined by their third sibling to form the now-famousFox sisters trio, whoplayed a key role in launching the spiritualist movement, which drewmillions of American followers at its height.

Margaretta Foxsaidin the late 1880s, however, that the entire ghost-tapping incident had begun as a jokeand provided details and demonstrations of how the sistershad tricked audiences in subsequent performances.

Despite this blow, Winston said that belief in spiritualism continued on, feeding into many of the psychic practices still present today.

In the latter half of the 19th century, sheexplained, rapidsocietal change andcalamities such as the Civil War drove people to seek comfort and a sense of control in the information provided by spiritualists. Winston said the same desire for control and predictability amid crises such as the COVID-19 pandemicmight underlie the ongoing demand for psychic services today.

"Any time theres uncertainty in the world, people want to know theyre going to be OK," said Tammy of Mystic Desert.

The psychic reported seeing bumps in business during both the Great Recession a decade agoand during the early days of the COVID pandemic.

"When thepandemic hit, people needed some reassurance," Tammy said. "This is somebody telling themthat everything is going to be OKor notso they could prepare."

She said this influx of early-pandemic clients asked for phone readings around typical questions like financial and job security, as well as some unique lockdown-era inquiries.

"(Some were asking) how they're going to cope with their husband since they're going to be (cooped up) with them for so long," she said.

Winston said that, at their best, the services provided by psychics can have parallels to those provided by therapists although she noted she was hesitant to draw too strong of a line between the two.

"A therapist uses the past to help you gain insights into where you are now or else helps you think about your present situation in ways that may help you feel freer about the burdens you carry," Winston said.

"I think that there are psychics and there were spiritualists that had that same motivation," she said."They wanted to be able to help people put down their burdens and see life more clearly and be able to enjoy their life."

Many of the processesdescribedby aforementioned Palm Springs psychic Courtney seem to align with this therapeutic function.

"I love the word 'encourage,'" Courtney said. "I don't tell (clients) what do to. I would always say, 'I would like to encourage you to see the doctor about what I seegoing on in your head,' or 'I would like to encourage you to follow through with what's come in today' because solutions always come."

Many clients come to psychics andmediums seeking peace of mind or reassurance, which sometimescomes in the form of a "sign" from someone they love.In one instance, Courtney described seeing a sunrise during a reading with the mother of a stillborn baby andtelling her that baby wanted her to know he sawit whenhe died.

"She cried and cried," Courtney said."She said, 'What you don't know is that ever since we found out we were pregnant with (the baby), we have taken him outside every morning to watch the sunrise.'"

"That was super powerful for themom," he added.

Desert Sun East Valley reporter Eliana Perez contributed to this report. James B. Cutchin covers business in the Coachella Valley. Reach him at james.cutchin@desertsun.com.

If you appreciate journalism that is directly shaped by what the community wants to know, please consider a subscription and support the work done by local journalists in the Coachella Valley.

View post:
Ask The Desert Sun: Do psychics need a license to tell the future in the desert? - Desert Sun

I found a strong correlation between the Dec. 16 lead editorial (Our View: More Maine venues should require vaccine proof) and Christian Cotzs commentary on First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment gave us the freedom of speech, but it did not give us the right to lie. You are not allowed to shout fire in a movie theater when there is no fire, you are not allowed to lie in a contract and you are not allowed to answer a question in court untruthfully.

Then-President Donald Trump lied when he called COVID far less lethal than influenza, and the damage hes done to our country with this lie is unforgivable. He and his radical Republicans further seek to divide the country by maintaining the myth that vaccine mandates are unconstitutional. We are at war with COVID, and the success of our fight against the disease and restoring our economy requires that every American step up, be brave and take the vaccine.

Meanwhile, hospital ICUs are overrun with unvaccinated patients and Gov. Mills vaccine mandates are met with angry constitutional claims. Rather than endlessly debate whether an Americans right to be free includes the right to overrun hospitals with unvaccinated patients, another carrot and stick can be used to prod people to do their civic duty.

Since the hospitals and insurance companies ultimately are paying those ICU bills for unvaccinated patients, give vaccinated people a big discount in their insurance for a year. After six months, raise the rates on those who still refuse to get the vaccine.

Richard HackelChebeague Island

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Read more from the original source:
Letter to the editor: First Amendment doesn't protect lies about COVID - pressherald.com

From FIRE; the application is here:

[W]e have revitalized our highly competitive summer law student program to establish the Arthur D. Hellman Fellowship in First Amendment Litigation to train a new generation of First Amendment litigators. The Hellman Fellowship is a paid opportunity offering a $6,000 stipend for a 10-week program that runs from June through August.

As a Hellman Fellow, law students will have the opportunity to work with FIRE's civil rights attorneys, advancing FIRE's mission to defend freedom of speech, expression, and thought at U.S. colleges and universities. Hellman Fellows will work on substantive projects and are expected to provide meaningful contributions to our strategic litigation. FIRE's civil rights attorneys will train Hellman Fellows on key skills of public interest litigation, including legal writing, media relations, and client interaction.

The Fellowship is an important tool in the establishment of a structured pipeline to attract, train, and inspire law students committed to freedom of speech. Hellman Fellows will build a long-term relationship with FIRE, with the possibility of returning to work with us as full-time employees, joining our Legal Network where they can take their own cases pro bono, authoring supporting amicus briefs, or serving as our local counsel.

Hellman is a nationally recognized scholar of the federal courts and the First Amendment. In his career, Hellman helped foster a better understanding of the First Amendment and free speech more generally. At the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Hellman taught First Amendment law for more than 25 years. Hellman is also a senior author of a First Amendment casebook, "First Amendment Law: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion" (5th edition 2022) (with William D. Araiza, Thomas E. Baker, and Ashutosh A. Bhagwat).

Read this article:
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Offering Summer First Amendment Internship (with $6000 Stipend) - Reason

The New York Times wasted no time resuming its aggressive reporting on Project Veritas after a New York judge on Dec. 14 retreated from a shocking ruling that imposed prior restraint on the newspaper's ability to do its work. New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles D. Wood reversed himself following a challenge by the Times, backed by other news publications, protesting the unwarranted and unconstitutional restraint on First Amendment rights. Wood's previous Nov. 18 ruling exceeded the historic restraints imposed, but later revoked, by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 regarding publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Wood had not only blocked the paper from publishing information it had collected but said Times reporters could not even continue their investigation of how a diary belonging to then-presidential candidate Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley, was obtained by Project Veritas. Project Veritas, a right-wing group, uses scams and sting operations to embarrass public figures, usually ones connected to liberal groups and Democratic politicians.

Three days after Wood pulled back from his earlier ruling, the Times had resumed publishing details of how Project Veritas obtained the purloined diary and used extortionate methods to demand an interview with Joe Biden during his campaign. The Times was restricted from publishing its findings previously because Wood ruled some of the newspaper's information fell under the rubric of attorney-client privilege. On Friday, the Times provided new details of the subterfuge behind the apparently stolen diary, now the subject of an FBI investigation.

Ashley Biden had been under treatment in Florida for addiction and had kept a diary at the time. She left a house she was sharing with a friend in Del Ray Beach, Florida, to join the Biden family in Pennsylvania in the presidential campaign's final days. She left behind a duffel bag and other belongings in the Florida house, including her diary. Another person found the diary, which was later acquired by Project Veritas and presumably perused for juicy details to embarrass Biden before the election.

Project Veritas' chief legal officer wrote to Biden and his campaign on Oct. 16, 2020, demanding an interview. If Veritas had not received a reply by Oct. 20, "we will have no choice but to act unilaterally and reserve the right to disclose that you refused our offer to provide answers to the questions raised by your daughter" in the diary, legal officer Jered T. Ede wrote, according to the Times. Those details smacked of attempted extortion using an apparently stolen diary more than adequate evidence to warrant an FBI investigation.

Blocking the Times from reporting such details by imposing prior restraint marked a new low in the exercise of thoughtful and balanced jurisprudence. Though Wood made the right call by retreating from his initial order, it's an order he never should have issued in the first place.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: VBlock at Pixabay

Excerpt from:
Judge Retreats From Ruling That Clearly Ran Afoul of the First Amendment, by Daily Editorials - Creators Syndicate

State Rep. Cyndi Stevenson of St. Augustine has filed a legislative bill to shield voter registration data from public view, one of several bills that would exempt more information from Florida's public records laws.

In a news release, Stevenson said the intent of the bill is to "protect our citizens from scams," which she says have been carried out with the use of voter information.

Sevenson's bill would make a voter's phone number, email, party affiliation and birthday confidential information. While the public would not be able to access the information, it would still be available to canvassing boards, political parties, political candidates, political committees and election officials.

Stevenson introduced a similar bill in 2019. It died in the Senate after grassroots organizations like the League of Women Voters mounted an opposition campaign, arguing that the legislation would prevent non-partisan nonprofits, media outlets and academic institutions from accessing the data, potentially in ways to help the public.

Stevenson's version for the 2022 session now includes an additional provision: Florida's secretary of state would have the discretion to grant voter registration access "for any purpose" to any individual.

The Florida First Amendment Foundation, which opposed the earlier version of the bill, has not taken a position on Stevenson's new legislation, but the foundation does have concerns about unintended consequences like shielding political candidates from public vetting.

"You couldn't see whether [party affiliation] changed over the years. And that is something some voters want to know," said Virginia Hamrick, First Amendment Foundation staff attorney. "Have they always been in this party or is this a new switch?"

She says the organization also is leery about granting the secretary of state sole authority to decide who can access the data.

"How are they granting permission? Is it to every nonprofit that wants to get voter information that does voter outreach and informs the public?" Hamrick said. "Are certain groups going to get that information and others not?"

"Think about the constitutional amendments on the ballot. This information will be available to candidates and political committees, but it wouldn't be available to organizations like the League of Women Voters or other nonprofits."

Stevenson's bill has the support of some elections officials. Craig Latimer, departing president of the Florida Supervisors of Elections, thanked the representative for filing a bill that would address "the No. 1 complaint we hear from our voters."

"Misinformation or excessive texts and calls come from the data that a voter has on file with us on issuescompletely unrelated to their right to vote," Latimer said. "It is an open opportunity for personal information to be abused.

Stevenson's bill follows a trend in recent years of laws expanding what information is exempt from public access.

Other bills introduced this session would shield, among other things, cold case information in murders, the identity of individuals and groups involved in state executions, and residents who adopt dogs from shelters.

Democratic state Rep. Tracie Davis of Jacksonville is sponsoring a bill that would exempt the names of people who win lottery prizes of $250,000 or more. She said winners often are subjected to scams, harassment and "even a loss of life."

Sen. Manny Diaz Jr., a Republican from Hialeah, is sponsoring a bill that would shield "key details" of murder investigations regardless of whether the investigations are active. Information would not become public until it is provided to a person who was arrested.

Keeping details of murder investigations secret would "protect the integrity of the investigation and those individuals who cooperate with law enforcement," the bill says.

As far as pet adoptions, Rep. Fred Hawkins, a St. Cloud Republican, says the public should not have access to the names of people who adopt animals from shelters or animal-control agencies operated by local government. The bill points to concerns about "stalking, harassment and intimidation" by previous owners.

In 2018, a constitutional amendment known as Marsy's Law was enacted to protect the identities of crime victims in Florida. Some police agencies have used the law to justify withholding all information about victims entirely, and police officers themselves have argued that Marsy's Law protects their identities in uses of force against the public.

The Florida Supreme Court announced this week that it would take up the question of whether Marsy's Law applies to police officers.

Hamrick, at the First Amendment Foundation, is concerned about growing exemptions to Florida's Sunshine laws.

"The number of exemptions leads to a less informed public and less oversight of the government," Hamrick said.

More:
Another curb on open records: This one would shield voter information. - WJCT NEWS

TRENTON, N.J. School districts and institutions of higher education must adopt policies protecting students freedom of expression under legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Hal Wirths and signed by the governor on Tuesday.

The legislation (A169/S108) gives student journalists in public schools, as well as public colleges and universities, the right to determine the content of school-sponsored media like newspapers and blogs, and exercise freedom of speech.

Student journalists often serve as important watchdogs by holding those in power accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, school-sponsored media is more easily censored, Wirths (R-Sussex) said. This new law upholds the principles of the First Amendment. Free student press gives budding journalists a platform to share stories that should not be suppressed.

Except in cases where a story is libelous, obscene, incites violence or constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy, student reporters have the right to free speech under the law.

We live in a world where it is all too easy to tune out differing or uncomfortable opinions or viewpoints, but it is critical to a free society that we allow everyone to express themselves. We should never be afraid to print the truth and should always encourage the freedom of press, Wirths added.

Under the law, schools must have a written policy concerning students right to free speech in place by the first full school year after enactment.

Read the original:
Wirths bill protecting student journalists' freedom of expression signed into law - InsiderNJ

Back in April,Atlantic writer Derek Thompson branded Alex Berenson The Pandemics Wrongest Man in an article that quickly went, uh, viral. Berenson, a former reporter, had launched a new career as a lay epidemiologist, promoting spectacularly wrong theories about coronavirus and becoming a Fox news regular along the way.

On August 28, Twitter permanently banned him, at which point he made a beeline for Tucker Carlsons nightly shriek show where he promised to file a defamation suit against the tech company for slapping a warning label on his tweets. In any event, Berenson did not sue Twitter for defamation. But he did sue them for literally everything else, filing a funhouse mirror issue-spotter of a complaint in the Northern District of California.

Berenson begins, like former president Trump, by arguing that Twitter violated his First Amendment rights. Sure, the First Amendment only protects against government censorship, but what if Twitter is actually the government?

No, no, hear him out! See, the Biden administration said Facebook and Twitter were killing people by allowing their platforms to be used to spread lies about hydroxy horse paste being better than vaccines, and thus Twitter was acting as a government agent when it gave Berenson the boot.

Mr. Berenson also has a uniquely viable claim that Twitter acted on behalf of the federal government in censoring and barring him from to its platform. While courts have generally refused such state actor complaints against social media companies, the extraordinarily close nexus between the July 2021 statements by senior executive branch officialsincluding President Biden himselfcalling for censorship by such companies and Twitters corresponding immediate actions against Mr. Berenson mean that this issue merits closer scrutiny.

And not only that, but Berenson goes so far as to assert a Bivens claim against Twitter for abridging his First Amendment rights. The family of a kid who gets shot by a border patrol agent cant recover from the IRL government, but this jackass thinks hes getting damages from President @Jack.

Sure, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act expressly allows platforms to moderate content, and multiple courts have affirmed that Twitter can boot anyone it likes, but, uh, California passed this law in 1872, and so

This lawsuit is not a rerun of these long-running disputes. For one thing, different laws are at issue, among them a California law that predates the CDA by 124 years and which limits Twitters right to discriminate against the speech it carries. Enacted in 1872, the law defines any company that offers to the public to carry persons, property, or messages as a common carrier. As the law then explains, a common carrier must, if able to do so, accept and carry whatever is offered to him.

He then goes on to cite Justice Thomass concurrence in Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. in support of his theory, despite the fact that Thomas encourages legislatures to treat social media platforms as common carriers, while expressly admitting that they do not.

And while were on the subject of batshit First Amendment claims:

Twitter deprived Mr. Berenson of the right to speak on its platform. At the same time, Twitter deprived Mr. Berenson of the right to petition the federal government for a redress of grievances by tweeting to and interacting with accounts run and managed by the federal government, including @POTUS.

So far, so crazy.

But what if Twitter is promissorily estopped from deleting Berensons account because some Twitter exec said, I dont expect that you will see major change in how we are addressing things going forward, but if you do, please feel free to reach out to me, and said hed aim to give Berenson a heads up if the company was planning to change its policies in ways that might impact his account?

And what if Berenson assumed he would be able to barf out nonsense forever and spent hours a day on Twitter at the opportunity cost of investing his time in building a presence on Telegram and Substack, two alternative platforms to Twitter available to him at the time, or writing books and articles for publication elsewhere?

And what if Twitter unjustly enriched itself by selling ad space to run alongside Berensons word vomit?

And what if Twitter engaged in unfair competition because it competes against Mr. Berenson for an audience regarding COVID19. Twitter also profits from use of its platform by other media outlets, to include outlets and journalists that compete against Mr. Berenson?

And what if three actual lawyers put their names on a complaint alleging that Twitter violated Berensons First Amendment rights, Californias constitution and common carrier law; engaged in false advertising and unfair competition; breached its contract with Berenson, unjustly enriched itself, and is thus promissorily estopped from taking away his God given right as a US citizen to Tweet?

That would be crazy right? And yet, here we are.

Berenson v. Twitter [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dyelives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Read the original:
COVID Truther Alex Berenson Files LOLsuit Against Twitter For Tortious Deplatforming - Above the Law