Category Archives: First Amendment

Ali Alexander, an organizer behind the Stop the Steal rally, was served with a civil lawsuit on Thursday following his hours-long deposition before the Jan. 6 commission.

Alexander had met with the House select committee tasked with investigating the events around the Jan. 6 insurrection earlier on Thursday.

Alexander, who has denied that he played any role in the violence that ensued following the rally on Jan. 6, acknowledged before the deposition that he would cooperate with officials.

"We've provided the committee with thousands of records, hundreds of pages. And you know, unfortunately, I think that this committee has gone way too much into our personal life, way too much into my First Amendment. But I do recognize they have a legislative duty to conduct it, so we're here to cooperate," he organizer said.

After a more than eight-hour deposition, he was served with a lawsuit, caught on video by a Daily Beast reporter. It was not immediately clear why he had been served the lawsuit.

An exchange between the person serving the subpoena and what appears to be one of Alexanders attorneys was postedon Twitter and showed Alexander being served a packet of papers after he finished his deposition with the House select committee.

Jan 6th organizer Ali Alexander was just served with a civil lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/yQQBVz7aPb

I have a summons for you, a man can be heard saying in the video. I have a summons for you. Please know this is a valid service of process!

I have a summons for you. Please take it or Im just going to have to leave it on the hood of your car, the man continues as Alexander avoids engaging with the person.

What is that for? What is that for? We are his attorneys, another man can be heard saying in the video.

After a brief back-and-forth between the two men, the man with the summons placed the packet of papers in an open car that Alexander had entered before leaving.

Alexander is among nearly 300 witnesses who have met with the Jan. 6 select committee, which is tasked with investigating the events around the Jan. 6 riot, which sought to stop Congress from certifying President BidenJoe BidenNicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Taiwan, recognizes Chinese sovereignty Biden reassures Ukraine's Zelensky of U.S. support amid Russian aggression On The Money Senate risks Trump's ire with debt ceiling deal MORE's 2020 election.

The Hill has reached out to Alexanders lawyer for comment.

View post:
'Stop the Steal' organizer served with lawsuit after 8-hour Jan. 6 commission deposition | TheHill - The Hill

Federal unions are suing the Biden administration over its vaccine mandate, claiming the issue has become so politically divisive that disclosing ones vaccination status should be protected free speech. Federal employees shouldnt be forced to disclose whether they have a vaccine card, the suit claims.

Bruce Castor, former Montgomery County district attorney who defended Donald Trump in his second Senate impeachment trial in February, represents American Federation of Government Employees locals that seek to prohibit the U.S. government from enforcing an executive order requiring that federal employees be vaccinated. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

If I were to win it would affect all federal union workers, Castor said. They are a very influential group.

Union members who fail to show theyre vaccinated could be publicly stigmatized as rightwing extremists, or worse, the suit says. The unions named in the suit are the National Council of Prison Locals 33 and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2018, on a U.S. Marine base in Twentynine Palms, Calif.

READ MORE: Bidens vaccine mandate will require most Philly-area private sector workers to get a jab

Catherine J. Ross, a law professor and First Amendment expert at George Washington University, said that she didnt think the federal unions suit was frivolous. Its creative enough to be plausible. But she added that the lawsuit appears unlikely to succeed because a judge would need to develop a lot of new law for Castors clients to win.

To sustain the protected speech argument, Castor would first have to convince a judge that the failure to present a vaccine card is a form of speech referred to as symbolic speech, Ross said. Symbolic speech would be wearing a cross or a black armband that silently communicates an idea the viewer is likely to understand, she said.

Ross doubts a judge will go for it. The choice not to get vaccinated and the resulting lack of a vaccine card has at best a tenuous link to speech, she said.

The suit is part of a tsunami of litigation nationwide over COVID-19 mandates in the workplace for government and private-sector workers. The Biden administration ordered federal workers to be vaccinated by Nov. 22.

A Gallup survey and an analysis of voting patterns in blue and red states show a stark divide between vaccination rates and political affiliation, with Democrats more accepting of vaccinations and Republicans less so. According to the Gallup survey released in September, while 92% of respondents who identified as Democrats reported having received at least one vaccine, only 56% of Republicans did.

Partisanship and vaccination status continue to loom large as factors in how the public views both the U.S. vaccination effort and the governments response to the pandemic in general, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor in September.

And though vaccination rates have climbed overall with the delta variant, there remains a core of Americans who do not want to be vaccinated.

READ MORE: White House: 92% of fed workers under mandate are vaccinated

Shane Fausey, president of the National Council of Prison Locals 33, said in a recent memo to union officials that the 3,500 unionized members who face potential termination represent 10% of the prison union membership nationwide. He said terminations could worsen a staffing crisis at federal prisons.

Castor, a Republican, filed a similar lawsuit on vaccine mandates for private-sector workers in early October against the University of Pennsylvania Health System, U.S. Secretary of Labor, and the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Castors client in the Penn lawsuit is Pennsylvania Informed Consent Advocates, which represents the interests of current and former employees of the Philadelphia health system. In September, the University of Pennsylvania Health System said that 99% of its 38,000 employees complied with its COVID-19 vaccination mandate, including 760 who got exemptions or deferrals for religious or medical reasons.

Less than 1%, or about 380, were fired or quit rather than get the shots.

The Philadelphia-based health system has filed to dismiss the suit.

We are proud to have come together as a group to protect one another and those we care for, and to have set an example for our friends, families, and neighbors that vaccination is a key path out of the pandemic, a Penn Medicine spokesperson said Thursday.

Judges have mostly ruled in favor of vaccine mandates for health workers, public employees, state university students, and government contractors. What were seeing are courts finding that mandates are lawful and constitutional, Jennifer Piatt, a deputy director with the Network for Public Health Law, a national nonprofit group based in Minnesota that promotes public health laws and has kept track of the litigation, told the Wall Street Journal.

Original post:
A federal lawsuit filed by Bruce Castor argues that vaccine status is protected free speech and nobodys business - The Philadelphia Inquirer

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, incensed by an LSU professors tweet calling his assistant a flunky, demanded this week that the universitys president do something to punish the professor.

Bob Mann, a tenured mass communications professor at LSU and a prolific Twitter user, authored the offending tweet. It read: Louisiana AG Jeff Landry sending some flunkie to the LSU Faculty Senate meeting today to read a letter attacking covid vaccines is quite the move from a guy who considers himself pro-life.

Mann sent his missive during a meeting Tuesday where he and other faculty members were pushing for a stricter vaccine policy at the school. Landry has been a leading opponent of COVID vaccines in Louisiana; he brought an anti-vaccine activist to a legislative hearing this week.

The term flunky refers to someone who performs menial or miscellaneous duties, according to Merriam-Webster.

The remark set off Landry, a conservative Republican thought to be a candidate for governor in 2023. The attorney general took to Twitter himself Wednesday to lash out against Mann, saying his disparaging remarks about this LSU alumna cannot be without consequence. Landry, the chief legal officer for the state, said he had spoken with LSU President William Tate and expressed (his) disdain and expectation for accountability.

This type of disrespect and dishonesty has no place in our society -- especially at our flagship university by a professor, he tweeted. I hope LSU takes appropriate action soon.

It would be an extraordinary move for LSU to punish a tenured professor for such commentary about a public official. Two academic free-speech groups voiced their support for Mann and pointed out public university professors have protections for such speech.

Tate said in a statement Thursday afternoon, "As president of LSU, I am deeply committed to First Amendment rights. LSU is committed to free and open scholarship and the freedom to debate ideas and principles without interference.

Louisiana lawmakers voted Monday to reject Gov. John Bel Edwards' proposalto require students get vaccinated against COVID-19 before entering

Katie Schwartzman, director of the First Amendment clinic at Tulane Law School, said theres no question that Manns speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and that LSU punishing him for the tweets would violate the First Amendment.

The law is clear that he has a right to state his personal opinion without fear of being fired or otherwise punished by the government, Schwartzman said. Its just deeply troubling for one of the most powerful law enforcement officers in the state of Louisiana to call for discipline against a citizen for exercising his right to free speech.

Get the Louisiana politics insider details once a week from us. Sign up today.

Landrys office also didnt respond to messages seeking comment over the flap. The Landry assistant whom Mann called a flunky, Lauryn Sudduth, likewise didnt return a call seeking comment.

Landry made his complaint official in a letter dated Thursday, reiterating his problem with Mann.

Mann, an outspoken liberal, dismissed the possibility of being fired for the tweet as silly. And he noted that he himself was a flunky for two decades, having worked for former U.S. Sens. Russell Long and John Breaux and former Gov. Kathleen Blanco, all Democrats.

But he worried that Landrys efforts, especially as a potential future governor, could have a chilling effect on other faculty. He also said the AGs tweet was ironic, given Landrys past pronouncements in favor of free speech and against cancel culture.

This is a guy whos clearly running for governor. When he calls the president of the university, hes talking to someone he understands could be governor in two years, Mann said. It has the potential for a much more chilling effect on faculty beyond me.

The university president reports to LSUs Board of Supervisors, which is appointed by the governor.

Mann had a field day on Twitter after Landrys tweets, which drew hundreds of comments, many of them ridiculing the attorney general. He thanked Landry for helping him sell copies of his latest book saying he had had his best day of sales in weeks and criticized LSU for not speaking out in favor of free speech on campus.

As Mann noted, Landrys effort to get Mann punished cut against the AGs past pronouncements about free speech. Last year, after meeting at the White House about social media platforms, Landry tweeted: We have the right to free speech and expression by all individuals, no matter the viewpoint!

A former top prosecutor in Attorney General Jeff Landry's office has filed a lawsuit against his former boss,alleging that Landry retaliated

Continued here:
In spat over 'flunky' comment, Jeff Landry tries to get LSU professor punished - The Advocate

Two street evangelism groups held a demonstration at the University of Georgias Tate Plaza, a designated forum for expressive activity on UGAs campus, on Nov. 3. The groups held signs with derogatory messages about multiple groups of people, including LGBTQ+ people and women. Students who gathered to protest the presence of the groups said the preachers called the students slurs.

The preaching groups upset students and raised questions about UGAs freedom of expression policies.

Sweden Dolan and Taylor Shults were both present at the Nov. 3 demonstration at Tate Plaza with World Outreach Evangelistic Ministries and WALKabout Jesus.

Dolan, a freshman intended entertainment and media studies major,said many of the students at the demonstration were drawn to what they called funny signs held by the group, displaying messages such as Warning: Wearing yoga pants may lead to lesbianism.

Yet the preachers also held signs with sexist slurs to describe women they perceived to not be wearing enough clothing, stating these hoes haveth no clothes, anti-feminist messages relaying ideas such as women need nothing but the Bible, God and a good cookbook and that women dont need to be in college.

Shults, a freshman intended entertainment and media studies and management major, said she first learned about the demonstration through the UGA Pride GroupMe on Nov. 2, when World Outreach Evangelistic Ministries and WALKabout Jesus were seen outside at the Memorial Plaza, upsetting members of the GroupMe due to their message against the LGBTQ+ community.

Dolan said it was fun to be there with people who were also laughing at the demonstration until the group specifically Daniel Rusk, the perceived leader of the group began using slurs distinctively recognized as anti-gay, directed at members of the crowd.

I actually got directly called the f-slur to my face, Dolan said.

The preachers were in one of UGAs designated free speech zones, which can be reserved by university or non-university groups, according to UGAs Freedom of Expression Policy. Some students felt their presence on campus was offensive and made students feel unsafe.

The freedom of speech policy does not protect everything. Some exceptions to protected speech include obscenity, fighting words (a direct personal insult directed at a specific person), defamation and true threats, according to the UGA freedom of expression policy frequently asked questions.

When I was there, it was before they had brought out the ropes to keep the crowd from getting too close to them and them getting too close to the crowd, Shults said. It was starting to get to the point where the crowd was yelling things at them, and 100% I understand where the crowds coming from, because what they were saying was completely sexist, homophobic, some of it racist.

World Outreach Evangelistic Ministries and WALKabout Jesus are not affiliated with the university, meaning they are only permitted to utilize the designated forums for expressive activity, and can only do so by reservation through the associate dean of students, Jan Davis Barham, according to the UGA freedom of expression policy.

The designated forums are the North West Lawn, Tate Plaza and Memorial Plaza, and described by the freedom of expression policy as being centrally-located, highly-trafficked areas that are particularly well-suited for expressive activity, including speeches and demonstrations.

A designated forum may be used for nonviolent demonstrations and expression without reservation by university community members on Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., as long as the specific designated forum has not been previously reserved by another speaker for the requested time, according to the UGA freedom of expression policy.

Shults said while in attendance of the demonstration at Tate Plaza, she got tired of standing in the middle section and moved to the side section, where the dean of students, Bill McDonald, was standing.

I spent a good portion of the protest talking to the dean and asking him, why is this allowed? Shults said.

Shults said McDonald often deflected her questions in regard to student safety at the demonstration. She said she asked about the effects it could have on students post-protest.

I was told that if I wanted to have coffee with him to talk about my opinions, I could, Shults said.

Dolan said he understands that peoples beliefs allow them to think that they can call people slurs, but that he also believes McDonalds role as dean of students is to protect the students.

Rod Guajardo, a UGA spokesperson, said in an email to The Red & Black that no rights at UGA are more highly regarded than the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the right to assemble peaceably.

The university is legally obligated to prioritize both safety and the First Amendment rights of our students, faculty and staff during any event hosted on campus, and we take this responsibility seriously, Guajardo said.

Dolan said he believes McDonald did not protect and advocate students rights on Nov. 3. He said he wished UGA would have released a statement denouncing the actions and slurs used by World Outreach Evangelistic Ministries and WALKabout Jesus.

He let someone call us hate speech to our faces and protected the person calling us hate speech, which is disappointing, incredibly disappointing, Dolan said.

If anyone who attended the World Outreach Evangelistic Ministries and WALKabout Jesus event heard language they believe violates the Non-Discrimination Anti-Harassament Policy, they can report the language to the Equal Opportunity Office for potential review under the NDAH Policy, Guajardo said. Information on filing complaints can be found at https://eoo.uga.edu/eoo-report, according to Guajardo.

See the article here:
UGA freedom of expression zones concern students after November demonstration - Red and Black

People have been asking me why I havent been writing to the Readers Forum lately. I told them nothing has fire me up recently.

Well, Wilbert Clarks letter on Nov. 12 Read the Constitution for what it is did just that, fired me up.

First of all Clark, the definition of protest is: An action of expressing disapproval. The definition of insurrection is: A violent uprising. Jan. 6 was violent. Do you really want to argue that?

Secondly, you justify what happened by saying we the people own the federal buildings. We the people also own the public library, so can we the people just walk in and throw all the books on the floor and threaten to hang the workers? Are we animals?

And third, should I read the Constitution before or after the 27 amendments were added, because if you interpret the Constitution to believe that it will stand behind this mutiny on Jan. 6, then the Constitution needs a 28th Amendment added.

Maybe you should read the First Amendment that includes, the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Its right there every morning at the top of this page.

Tina Blough

Roxbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continued here:
Letter to the editor | Read the First Amendment | Readers Forum | tribdem.com - TribDem.com

Dare County Tourism Board members spent a small part of their November 18 meeting revisiting a concern raised at last months meeting.

At the October board meeting during the public comment session, Page Wiencek voiced a concern that in September one Outer Banks Jeep Invasion vendor at the Event Site in Nags Head had prominently displayed materials with an offensive four letter word. He explained that while the event was promoted as a family affair, the display was anything but family friendly.

Taking up Old Business at Thursdays meeting, Tourism Board executive director Lee Nettles advised that there had been a written response from Outer Banks Jeep Invasion co-coordinator Steve House.

In addition to expressing thanks to the Tourism Board for helping with a successful fundraising event with more than 38 vendors that raised $38,000, which generated several hundred pounds of food for Currituck and Dare food pantries and provided an economic boost to the community, House provided additional details for the event situation Wiencek talked about.

According to Houses letter, before and after Wiencek approached organizers at the September event, that particular vendor was asked on at least three occasions to not display the material. Each time, the offensive material was taken down and then later displayed again. Concerns over the display coupled with the vendor being misrepresented as an audio dealer, Jeep Invasion staff made the decision to not include that vendor at future events.

House concluded his letter with an apology for an unfortunate situation and included notice that Jeep Invasion staff are implementing new guidelines for vendors. Among them are a requirement that vendors provide for approval a list of merchandise to be sold and a current photo of their displays. The application will also include a notice that displaying offensive material will be an automatic dismissal from the event with all registration monies forfeited.

So basically, explained Nettles, the event developer is taking an active role in trying to prevent situations like this from happening in the future since it is not consistent with what they are trying to do.

When Nettles asked if he had anything to add to the situation, Jay Wheless, legal counsel to the board, replied that he almost hated to: You may not like what I have to say, but it needs to be said, advised Wheless.

Reading from his handwritten notes, Wheless advised that it was 50 years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court gave a landmark decision in Cohen v. California that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket during normal business hours displaying similar words in the public corridors of a California courthouse.

Your Supreme Court held that one mans vulgarity is anothers lyric, said Wheless, and the right to express it, the word, shall not be infringed.

In that Court opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote that while it may seem an inconsequential issue the case was of no small constitutional significance. He reasoned that Cohens display of profanity could not be classified as obscenity, because it was not erotic. He also determined, because it was not directed at a particular recipient, so the language could not be considered fighting words another unprotected form of expression. He also warned that the government might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views.

Wheless concluded his comments pointing out that in this case the event sponsor, and applicant, has promised to undertake their own scrutiny of vendors and it would be better to let them police the words because, as a public authority, attempts at imposing prohibitions against offensive speech could indiscriminately sweep away protected speech.

Other business for the day included a finance report from the Budget and Finance Committee Chair Ervin Bateman, who advised that in September 2021 each class of occupancy except for timeshares saw some growth. With September receipt totals for occupancy and prepared meals totals at $7,059,135.42, that was a $1,093,848.75 (18.34 percent) improvement over prior fiscal year actuals. In addition, gross retail sales collections for the month of August were also up $3,016,215 (22.89 percent) for a 43.19 percent improvement for the calendar year.

Overall, all expenses are currently within budgeted amounts with 93.9 percent of the budgeted revenues for the year received and about 26 percent of budget expenditures spent.

Making a presentation by video link, Jonathan Dail with the accounting firm of Johnson, Mizelle, Straub, and Murphy, LLP advised that the recent 2020-21 fiscal year audit was completed with no irregularities or uncorrected accounting errors found.

Also on hand Thursday was National Park Service Superintendent David Hallac, who advised during public comments that park service visitor numbers are at an all-time high.

Hallac said prior to this year, the highest visitor count for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which was established in 1953, was 2,923,000 as of December 31 in 2002.

That was a big year for driving destinations after the 9-11 tragedy, said Hallac. However, so far this year, at the end of October, Cape Hatteras National Seashore has recorded 2,937,000 visitors. That breaks the all-time visitor record with two more months to go. So I feel pretty confident we will break the 3 million visitor number by the end of the year.

National Park Service Superintendent David Hallac. Philip S. Ruckle Jr. photo

Hallac then added that the number of off road driving permits being issued are also at an all-time record high. He then said with increased visitation comes additional challenges but that a new text messaging system is now in place to help with some of those challenges and 700 members signed up in the first 24 hours. He explained that the message system will be helpful in alerting visitors of events like the recent noreaster that caused considerable ocean overwash at seven different areas along NC12, left lots of debris to clean up, and forced the closure of NC12 for a while. To register for the message system, text npsobx to 333111.

Included in his report was an announcement that all 1,500 seats at the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Waterside Theatre are being replaced, the 1,000 foot Bonner Pier at the south end of Oregon inlet is open 24-hours with free admission and has 70 parking spaces that are almost always full and work at the Frisco Beach access continues.

With business for the day concluded, board Chair Jeff Pruitt adjourned with an announcement that the next board meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. on December 16 in the Curtis H. Creech Memorial Boardroom at the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau Administrative Offices in Manteo.

READ ABOUT MORE NEWS HERE.

Read the original:
Tourism Board discusses First Amendment issue - The Coastland Times | The Coastland Times - The Coastland Times

> Because the right to bear arms pertains to anything from a sword to a rifle. Anything and everything can be used as a weapon to kill and to inflict massive harm. A good example is a car that was recently driven into a parade killing 6 and injuring more than 50.

Agreed. Just about anything can be used to kill - even a bag of cotton balls if shoved into someone's throat to the point where their airway is blocked and they suffocate. But that's not the point.

You can not seriously argue that it's not far easier to kill using a gun, particularly a semi-automatic and from a distance to boot. A lunatic wielding a sword may be able to kill several people before being overpowered but put an AR-15 with 30 rounds of ammunition into the same lunatic hands, and the potential death rate goes up tenfold.

I take your point about the recent tragedy where an idiot drove a car through a parade and killed people in America, but that's not comparable to gun-related crime year after year.

If nothing changes and the second amendment isn't revised to suit modern times and living conditions, then when or how can gun-related violence end?

Making guns even more readily available than they already are so that people can defend themselves only exacerbates the problem, so simple logic dictates that the removal of guns from the streets and regulating to force people to have to show justification for obtaining (and continue keeping) firearms makes perfect sense. Wouldn't you say that would be a massive step in the right direction?

In other words, revisit the second amendment and bring it back into line with 21st Century living.

> My son or daughter could easily take a knife to school to inflict pain or use a pair of readily available scissors to kill students that have bullied them.

No doubt, but their opportunity to kill multiple kids instead of just injuring a few would be severely restricted, and that's the whole point. A knife or a pair of scissors can kill, yes. So can a fork, but none of those things are designed for that purpose.

A gun, on the other hand, is specifically designed for that purpose. To kill and maim as quickly and efficiently as possible. It makes sense to have strict laws about how available they are, not just to kids but also to the American population in general. Guns have no logical place in society.

> People are the cause not the second amendment.

But that's only half the story, Dan.

Of course it's people that pull the trigger, but it's the second amendment that gives them the means to obtain deadly weapons in the first place. It's a vicious circle and given that you can't police people who will harm 24/7, it logically follows that the ease of gun availability has to be addressed. How to start doing that? By revisiting the need and value of the second amendment.

That amendment is well overdue to be revised or cut out of the American constitution entirely in my opinion. Remove and severely restrict the ability for people to obtain guns and the people problem (relating to guns) takes care of itself. At a minimum, the people who slaughter others through yearly mass shootings no longer have easy access to the weapons they need to cause the carnage you guys must live with every year.

> The anarchist cook book protected by the first amendment details how to make a simple pipe bomb. Also don't forget that in chemistry classes one can learn how to make a simple bomb.

Sure, the info can be found on the Internet as well. But how often have you heard of kids being slaughtered at school because someone made use of a pipe bomb? Now, how many times have you heard of mass shootings resulting in slaughtered kids?

> So your argument is very moot with regards to guns killing people.

On the contrary, I've just shown you why it's your argument that fails the logic test and is moot.

> So what is worse guns or obesity?

Guns. Because an obese person primarily harms himself through his own choice. A gun, on the other hand, harms others. But you're just trying to deflect from the real issue again.

This discussion isn't about how many Americans die and from what. It's about the value and worth of an outdated second amendment that has a direct cause and effect on the number of yearly gun-related deaths in America. Remove that second amendment protection and gun availability is immediately curtailed. Combine that with a buy-back scheme to get guns back off the streets, and America could finally start making some headway in putting a stop to mass shootings.

It's logic that can't be argued, and countries (just like Australia) have already shown that such steps are both effective and doable.

Edited by achzone, Yesterday, 12:53 AM.

Originally posted here:
Is the US 2nd Amendment a major contributor to US Mass Shootings? - The Speak Easy - BleepingComputer

A leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reveals plans by the Biden administration to make changes to Americans' First Amendment rights and other religious liberty protections.

The internal memo describes plans to "sign delegation of authority on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and religion clause of the First Amendment" to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

It's a move that Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford believes will undo religious liberty protections and disregard the First Amendment.

"I am an outspoken advocate for religious liberty, and I have a very 'negative reaction' to this Administration ignoring the First Amendment and failing to protect Americans of conscience," he wrote in a statement. "Americans do not support President Biden and his team's absolute lawlessness when it comes to upholding Americans' Constitutional rightsincluding our right to freely live our faith."

The memopenned by Lisa J. Pino, director of the OCRdoes not deny there will be pushback if enacted.

"The action will likely be well-received among civil rights advocates and litigators, as well as groups advocating for the separation of church and state," the memo reads.

"Groups who share the prior Administration's broad view of the application of RFRA or who will interpret this action as an indication that the Department is abdicating its responsibility for compliance with RFRA will likely issue strong negative reactions," it continues. "This includes members of Congress who have been outspoken about OCR's conscience and religious freedom activities and who have repeatedly asked questions about changes to OCR's organizational structure and legal authorities."

The memo recommends HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra sign the action as soon a possible.

Becerra has claimed he supports religious liberty. During his narrow Senate confirmation, 50-49, he promised to uphold religious protections.

"I believe deeply in religious freedom, and I will make sure that as Secretary of HHS that you will know that I will not only respect the law when it comes to these issues of religious freedom, but I will enforce them as Secretary of HHS within my department," he said in February.

BECERRA: Nurses Forced to Help with Abortions - GOP Lawmakers Say HHS Secretary 'Sabotaging Federal Conscience Protections'

But Lankford, who did not support Becerra's confirmation, has cited his concern with the secretary's hostility toward conscience protections and lack of experience to lead the agency.

"This action from HHS means that the Office for Civil Rights will no longer uphold the civil rights of religious Americans," Lankford wrote. "HHS clearly intends to go back to the days of light to no enforcement of the law that protects the rights of people of any faith."

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver told CBN News that RFRA is a major legal obstacle stopping the Biden administration from enforcing the federal COVID-19 mandate.

"Certainly the federal government can't force it. And moreover, they're not even considering religious freedom," he said. "They're pretending that the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act just don't exist."

Link:
Leaked HHS Memo Reveals Biden Admin Seeks to Strip Americans of Religious Protections - CBN News

The last few years have seen a flurry of efforts from both right and left to regulate how social media platforms police their users. These laws and proposed laws have raised a key constitutional question: Is a platform's power to moderate user-created content protected by the First Amendment?

So far, courts have consistently held that platforms do have such protection. A critical case to be decided by the Eleventh Circuit in the new year will be the most important yet to address that question.

The law at issue is Florida's SB 7072, a sweeping measure ostensibly enacted to stop censorship by big tech. SB 7072 forces platforms to host all content from registered political candidates and "journalistic enterprises," even if that content would violate the platforms' terms of service. The law also imposes a consistency provision, which forces a platform to take down (or leave up) content if a judge rules that the platform has previously taken down (or left up) similar content. The law imposes penalties of up to $250,000 for each instance of noncompliance.

Florida Republicans argue that their "freedom of speech as conservatives is under attack by the 'big tech' oligarchs in Silicon Valley" and that SB 7072 "is about the 22 million Floridians and their First Amendment rights." By calling the bill a defense of free speech and by calling the platforms' content moderation "censorship," these supporters obscure the critical fact that editorial choices by private actors are categorically different from the abridgement of free speech by the state.

This distinction is crucial because the government is, and always will be, a monopoly; when it bans speech, citizens have no recourse. Private speech platforms, by contrast, have competition. Whether they are new social media companies or traditional newspapers, these platforms can only decide what speech they host and present. Those unsatisfied with their choices can choose to read or contribute elsewhere.

That difference is why the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a similar Florida law in 1974. By compelling newspapers to run editorials written by politicians they had criticized, the high court explained, the law infringed the papers' editorial right to choose what speech they print. Private citizens have the right to respond to criticism, but not the right to force others to host their speech.

So when Florida argued nearly 50 years later that SB 7072 is on the side of free speech, a federal district court correctly and unsurprisingly deemed those arguments "wholly at odds with accepted constitutional principles."

Florida nonetheless claims that social media platforms are not protected by these traditional First Amendment principles. The state argues that a social media site does not present a sufficiently "unified speech product" and that platforms have not engaged in enough content moderation in the past to merit a right to do so in the future. But as explained in a recently filed amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Cato Institute (which one of us co-wrote), the First Amendment's protections are not contingent on either of these criteria.

Private actors have a First Amendment right to choose what they say, what speech they host, and how they arrange it, regardless of the coherence of the speech they host or the extent to which they have edited that speech in the past.The First Amendment protects the editorial rights of all platforms, not just a privileged class of institutional media that have already engaged in heavy content moderation.

When he signed 7072, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis likened social media platforms' content moderation to the "tyrannical behavior" of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. If DeSantis is really concerned about free speech and authoritarianism, he should think twice before giving the government more control over private communications platforms.

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Protects Everyone, Even Facebook and Twitter - Reason

A first-in-the-nation Oregon law restricting love letters between buyers and sellers, set to begin in January, is being challenged in court by the conservative-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation.

A libertarian legal group is backing an Oregon real estate firms effort to strike down a first-in-the-nation ban on so-called love letters from homebuyers to sellers.

The group, Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit Friday that claims Oregons new law which requires real estate agents to reject these letters represents a violation of the agents and clients First Amendment rights. The suit was filed on behalf of Total Real Estate Group in Bend, Oregon.

Guesswork is not adequate grounds for suppressing truthful speech, the group said in its filing. Nor can the Legislature broadly prohibit expression because a small portion of it might theoretically prompt some people to violate the law.

Advocates of the law say that the letters often contain personal information that can be used to discriminate against homebuyers based on their race, sex, religion or family situation.

This type of discrimination is already banned under the Fair Housing Act, but the laws advocates argue that love letters provide the seller with more than enough information to discriminate unconsciously or otherwise.

We are limiting transmission of communications that are not relevant and could potentially be breaking fair housing laws, Democratic state Rep. Mark Meek, who sponsored the legislation in Oregon, recently told USA Today.

But in its lawsuit, the group alleges that theres no evidence the letters have led to actual discrimination. It points to a statement from the National Association of Realtors that the trade group was unaware of any legal action that resulted from a love letter.

This censorship is based on mere speculation that sellers might sometimes rely on information in these letters to discriminate based on a protected class, the lawsuit reads.

Love letters can also give first-time buyers a leg up over investors, the lawsuit reads.

In its statement from earlier this year, NAR also advised its members to only consider non-discriminatory criteria when helping a client sell a home. Failing to do so could leave agents in a compromised position, NAR spokesman Wesley Shaw said in July.

Oregon became the first state in the nation to ban love letters earlier this year. No other state has yet taken the same step, according to the USA Today report.

The ban requires a sellers agent to reject any communication other than customary documents from a potential homebuyer, including letters, photographs and video. Its language does not ban a buyer from submitting the same type of material directly to the seller themselves.

[Total Real Estate Group] is concerned that the love letter ban, if anything, increases the likelihood of discrimination because it allows buyers to send love letters to sellers without the intermediary of a broker to protect against that risk, the lawsuit reads. Likewise, the love letter ban may make it more likely that problematic communications simply occur over the phone rather than in writing, making it more difficult to police against possible discriminatory conduct on the part of sellers.

In previous conversations with Inman, agents in Oregon had a range of experiences with love letters. Some said they saw how the information in the letters could be used by sellers to play on biases. Others said the strength of the offer was usually what won the day, not the emotional appeals from the buyer.

Barring a successful legal challenge, the law is set to go into effect in January throughout the state of Oregon.

Email Daniel Houston

Read more:
Love letter ban to see day in court thanks to First Amendment group - Inman