Category Archives: First Amendment

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who this month signed a bill that aims to restrict the editorial discretion of social media platforms, says the new law "protects Texans from wrongful censorship" and thereby upholds their First Amendment rights. The law, H.B. 20, is scheduled to take effect on Dec. 2, but that probably will not happen because it is blatantly unconstitutional and inconsistent with federal law.

Abbott, a former Texas Supreme Court justice who served as his state's attorney general from 2002 to 2015, presumably knows that. But whether he is sincerely mistaken or cynically catering to his party's base, H.B. 20 reflects widespread confusion among conservatives about what the First Amendment requires and allows.

"Too many social media sites silence conservative speech and ideas and trample free speech," Abbott complained in March. A like-minded state senator declared that "Texans must be able to speak without being censored by West Coast oligarchs."

Although the evidence supporting such complaints is disputed, let's assume they are justified. Or let's imagine a social media platform that explicitly caters to the left and bans dissenting posts.

Would that constitute a violation of conservatives' First Amendment rights, as Abbott claims? No, since the First Amendment applies to the government and imposes no constraints on private parties.

To the contrary, the First Amendment guarantees a private publisher's right to exercise editorial discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that point in a 1974 case involving a political candidate's demand that the Miami Herald publish his responses to editorials that criticized him.

The constitutional protection against compelled publication does not disappear when we move from print to the internet, or from a news outlet to a website that invites users to post their own opinions. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted when he was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, "the Government may not... tell Twitter or YouTube what videos to post" or "tell Facebook or Google what content to favor."

Yet that is what H.B. 20 purports to do. The law says "social media platforms" with more than 50 million active monthly users in the U.S. may not "censor" content based on the "viewpoint" it expresses. That edict covers any effort to "block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression."

H.B. 20 makes a few exceptions, including "expression that directly incites criminal activity" and "specific threats of violence" that target people based on their membership in certain protected categories. But otherwise, the rule's reach is vast: As two trade organizations note in a federal lawsuit they filed last week, H.B. 20 "would unconstitutionally require platforms like YouTube and Facebook to disseminate, for example, pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, foreign government disinformation, and medical misinformation."

Every social media service including alternative platforms such as Parler and Rumble, which are not covered by the law because they fall below its user threshold moderates content to some extent. And while there will always be disagreement about the formulation and enforcement of those rules, H.B. 20 replaces private discretion with government dictates.

In addition to the First Amendment, H.B. 20 flouts 47 U.S. Code 230, which bars states from imposing civil liability on a website for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material" it deems "objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." H.B. 20 implicitly acknowledges that barrier, saying it does not authorize "damages or other legal remedies to the extent the social media platform is protected from those remedies under federal law" a proviso that effectively nullifies its ban on "censorship."

In June, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a similar Florida law after concluding that it probably violated the First Amendment and Section 230. The fact that supporters of H.B. 20 were unfazed by that ruling shows how readily Republicans sacrifice constitutional principles in their culture war against "West Coast oligarchs."

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.

Photo credit: BiljaST at Pixabay

The rest is here:
The Texas Social Media Law Is Blatantly Unconstitutional: Government Restrictions On Private Editorial Discretion Violate the First Amendment, by...

The Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement it represents are boldly, shamelesslyand relentlessly attacking American democracy. The campaign is nationwide and multi-spectrum: Almost every aspect of American society is being targeted. This includes basic understandings of reality and the truth, science and expertise, democratic institutions, education, public health, the environment, the economy, the free press and the First Amendment, civil and human rights, pluralism and secularism, and the social contract and the Common Good more generally.

These attacksalso involve political violence in its many forms, including the insurrection of Jan. 6 and the slow-rollingcoup attempt associated with it, a long history of stochastic terrorism, inspiring and unleashing right-wing street thugsand various other acts of violent intimidation and threats.

Journalist and author Jeff Sharlet recently offered an ominous observation on Twitter:

At this point, it's unremarkable. Most of us just roll our eyes, & even as we loathe this, accept it as inevitable. We've normalized Chekov's gun the one in the 1st act & we continue as if the next act isn't coming....

Many reassure themselves that the rightwing cosplayers with assault rifles aren't "real" soldiers. Neither was Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two. And, unfortunately, a fair number do have military training. The threat isn't apocalyptic, but it's real.

The Republican-fascistmovement's end goal is to reduce American society to rubble in order to rebuild it in their ownimage. Theywill not stop until they win or are comprehensively defeated and vanquished from public life.

There can and will be no compromise: The Republican-fascist movement sees its war against multiracial democracy as an existential struggle to protect "Westerncivilization"against "white genocide" or "replacement."

That no such thing is happening white people maintain control and dominance over every aspect of American society is irrelevant. Fascismis not based on the truth or reality; it is a self-contained lifeworld.

The Republican-fascist movement isso confident in its ultimate success that it announces its plans and intentions to the world. Why not? There is verylittle sustained opposition -- at least to this point. Joe Biden is president and the Democrats technically hold (exceedingly narrow) majorities in the House of Representatives and the U.S.Senate. But the Democrats' tenuous hold on power weakensunder the looming shadow of the Age of Trump. When the Republicans in all likelihood regain control of the House next year,that looming shadow may become a lead blanket.

It is a sad thing to see how theDemocrats have the Republican-fascist movement's playbook in their possession but are unwilling or incapable of using it themselves.

For at least five years, Donald Trump and his spokespeoplerepeatedly announced that he would not respect the results of any election if he did not win.

The fake "audit" in Arizona (coming soon toTexas and other states) is part of a much larger strategy of delegitimizingdemocracy and replacingit with a Republican-fascist autocracy.

For more than fiveyears a chorus of public voices, including mental health professionals, repeatedly warned America and the world that Trump was suffering from mental pathologies, and might be a sociopath or psychopath. They also observed that he feelscontempt for democracy, is an instinctivewhite supremacist, iscapable of destroying American society and the world in service to his own narcissism and rage,and that his presidency would lead to national or global disaster. All of that was true.

Democrats and the "resistance" also have access to the many books, articles, policy briefings, videos and other information that detail how for decades the Republican Party, "movement conservatives"and their allies have been planningto overthrowAmerica's multiracial democracy. Too many mainstream liberals and progressives convinced themselves that those plans were idle fantasy. The horrors are real.

Salon executive editorAndrew O'Hehir recently describedthe perilous position of the Democratic Party as it faces the Republican-fascist movement, first observing the Democrats' repeated pattern of winning electoral majorities and then failing to govern effectively:

More important than any of that, although absolutely related, is how Democrats have responded to the obvious Republican assault on democracy over the last couple of years, in the manner of a truckload of Brookings Institution scholars stuck in cold molasses, determined to consider all sides of the question fairly and not to let anyone accuse them of acting hastily. I'm not suggesting that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer haven't expressed genuine alarm or said more or less the right things, because they have. But as you have perhaps observed, they haven't leveraged those words into action: They haven't ditched the filibuster or expanded the Supreme Court or passed any of the bills in front of them that are meant to fortify the right to vote, for the love of Jesus Christ.

This isn't a nice thing to say about a bunch of mostly sane and approximately reasonable people, but here's the truth: If you set out to design a left-center political party that was fated to surrender, little by little, to authoritarianism because of circumstances beyond its control, because of internal indecision and ideological fuzziness, because it faced an entrenched and deranged opposition party, because of whatever you could hardly do better than the current version of the Democratic Party.

If Democrats lose conclusively to those people, then they deserve it. That's a dark path, perhaps darker than any of us wants to contemplate. But I think there's no avoiding this date with destiny, for the Democrats or the Trumpers or our entire so-called democratic experiment. If you see another one, light the way.

As O'Hehir describes, the Democratic Party is hunkered down in its own version of the Maginot Line while the Republican-fascist movement has outmaneuveredandencircled them. What canthe Democrats do at this point to fight back and defend American democracy? First, they need to reorganize and rally their forces.

They must counter the Republican-fascist movement at every point across the political battle space. Corporeal politics are essential here: Democrats and other pro-democracy forces actually outnumber the fascist-Republican forces, but the latter are betterorganized, better financed, more clearly focused and possess a clearerunderstanding of optics andpropaganda. As a result, they are able to amplify their power far in excess of their actual level of public support.

At Trump's rallies, when his right-wing street thugs and other followers march and otherwise assert themselves;at public hearings and other political gatherings;and across society more generally, Americans who support democracy mustmake their presence feltin large numbers.

Corporeal politics in this moment of crisis will also necessitate a nationwide campaign of direct action, including sit-ins, protests, mass marches, a potential nationwide strikeand boycotts targeting the companies and individuals who finance the Republican Party, the right-wing propaganda machineand theneofascist movement.

Ultimately, because Joe Biden and the senior leaders of the Democratic Party appear unable, unwilling or unprepared to take the bold actions necessary to save American democracy for starters, ending the filibuster, expandingthe Supreme Courtand enacting laws that protect and guarantee the right to vote the American people must force them to act.

I am not prepared to succumb to defeatism yet. But at this point, wemustconfront the possibility and perhaps even probability that today's Democratic Party isfundamentally incapable of doing what is necessary to protect American democracy against the Republican-fascist movement.

In boxing and other combat sports there is the truism that "styles make fights."Today's Democratic Party and its leaders may simply not possess the style that is required to defeat the resurgent and highly organized forces of the right. Another lesson may be drawn fromboxing as well. Sometimes a once great fighter, perhaps on a subconscious level, wishes that the fight would just end. He is being pummeled by hisadversary andconvinces himself that being knocked to the canvasand left staring up at the lights will offera form of dignified relief.

I don't thinkthat the Democratic Party has quite reached that point.But based on its leaders' unwillingness tofight back effectively against the Republican-fascist movement, I worry that sooner or later and probably sooner the decision to surrender and negotiate a form of "peace in our time" will be made.

Continue reading here:
Democrats have the GOP playbook: They know how to fight back, but just won't do it - Salon

Sept. 17 is Constitution Day and Sept. 25 is First Amendment Day.

Constitution Day marks the date in 1787 that delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document they had spent months negotiating. Now, it celebrates the unique system of checks and balances the framers established as our form of government.

On Sept. 25 just two years later, Congress approved 12 amendments including the 10 that became the Bill of Rights and its First Amendment. The five freedoms we celebrate on First Amendment Day protect the fundamental ways we participate in society and in democracy:

Praying and worship or not in accordance with our own beliefs;

Speaking our minds, even and especially when we disagree;

Publishing news, opinions, ideas and information, including to hold those in power accountable;

Gathering peacefully together to amplify our voices;

Bringing problems to government representatives and suggesting solutions.

The First Amendments freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are part of our everyday lives. But its not every day we stop to think about how or why.

When we do, many Americans have questions and concerns about how these freedoms work in practice.

We may be afraid to speak our minds in a divisive andsometimes punishingsocial media world.

We may not know how forcefully we can raise our voices, orwhen weve gone too far.

We may be unsure of the way forwardwhen our deepest held beliefsconflict with or diverge from those of others in our communities.

As Americans, we have passionate and different views about challenges like those our society is facing. There arent easy answers.

Constitution Day reminds us that democracy is about figuring out, through our system of checks and balances, how to coexist when we arent all the same and dont all agree.

First Amendment Day is a reminder that democracy is a participatory process. We get to have a say.

It took time to codify these founding principles. In fact, it took two more years after they were sent to the states for the 10 amendments we now know as the Bill of Rights to be ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.

The authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights established and modeled a process for being part of something bigger than themselves, despite their deep differences.

They also recognized the importance of having a lasting reminder of the values that guided their work to form a new union: the First Amendment.

Today, if we take the time to understand and defend these essential freedoms, they can continue to guide us in our nations ongoing work of becoming a more perfect union for us all.

Thats just what youre doing when you speak up, write down or shout out what you believe, on Sept. 17, Constitution Day, the 25th, First Amendment Day, or any day.

See original here:
First Amendment day is a reminder we get to have a say - White Bear Press

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its New York affiliate organization, the NYCLU, jointly announced they had submitted an amicus brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, which could determine the future of New York's onerous, barely navigable process of concealed carry licensure. Unfortunately, the organization that refers to itself as "our nation's guardian of liberty" is on the side of this illiberal process.

In the press release announcing the brief, the ACLU averred that "restrictions on guns in public spaces are appropriate to make public spaces safe for democratic participation, including First Amendment activity such as assembly, association, and speech." In other words, the ACLU has decided that exercising one's Second Amendment rights may run counter to someone else's First Amendment rights, and is favoring the latter over the former. As evidence, the ACLU cites a case from last summer in which a Black Lives Matter rally in Florida was disrupted when a counter-protesterwho also happened to be a concealed-carry license-holderpulled out a handgun and threatened some marchers.

Regardless of one's permit status, it is already illegal to threateningly brandish a weapon, including in Florida. It remains to be seen how one could not defend both rights equally, even in such a scenario.

The ACLU has been and continues to be a forthright defender of civil liberties in many situations, and a thorn in the side of presidential administrations of both political parties. At the same time, however, its defense of the Second Amendment has been rather lackluster. Even the organization's internal philosophy on the subject is, at best, muddled, ranging from an erstwhile recognition of an individual right while pressing for "reasonable" regulations, to its most recent claim that the Constitution affords "a collective right rather than an individual right." How a "collective" right can be achieved without a lot of people exercising an "individual" right is left unaddressed.

In recent years, the ACLU has evolved on the issue even more distressingly: In 2017, the Virginia ACLU sued on behalf of alt-right activist Jason Kessler when the city of Charlottesville, Virginia, would not allow him to hold his approved rally, dubbed "Unite the Right," in his preferred location. The ACLU won the suit, but the rally infamously devolved into violence, with dozens of injuries and one death. In the aftermath, a portion of the ACLU staff revolted, signing an open letter in which they decried the organization's "rigid stance" on defending the rights of the alt-right and white supremacists.

The following year, the national organization put out an internal memo clarifying its case selection guidelines: Rather than stridently fighting for the right to speech and peaceful assembly even for the most detested people, the organization would now weigh such competing considerations as "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values" and "whether the speakers seek to carry weapons." While the memo does reaffirm the ACLU's commitment to "continue our longstanding practice of representing [disfavored] groups," former Executive Director Ira Glasser and former board member Wendy Kaminer both questioned whether the language of the memo was simply to give the organization cover to refuse such cases in the future.

If that were the case, it would directly contradict the historical role of the ACLU, which has famously taken on such cases as National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie and Brandenburg v. Ohio, both of which it still touts on its website. In both cases, the ACLU won the right for neo-Nazis to march and chant hateful slogans, in the latter scenario while armed. Brandenburg, specifically, narrowed the rubric of speech that the government could criminalize, a big win for freedom of speech. Yet Kaminer wondered whether, "given its new guidelines," the ACLU would even take up such a case today.

More than a decade has passed since the Supreme Court weighed inon a major Second Amendment case, after affirming an individual right to armed self-defense in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller and incorporating that right among the states in 2010's McDonald v. Chicago. Those cases, however, were limited to an individual's right to possess firearms in his own home, leaving the prospect of concealed carry for another day.

Concealed carry is a contentious topic in plenty of places around the country, but in New York, it can be especially inscrutable: In order to successfully obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon, applicants must demonstrate that they have a "proper cause" to do so. "Proper cause," of course, is never defined, and judicial decisions have even determined that a "generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one's person and property" is insufficient to qualify as "proper cause."

In practice, of course, this leads to unequal application of the law, wherein low-income individuals who want weapons for protection are denied, while the wealthy and well-connected are approved. Long before he was under the purview of the Secret Service, former President Donald Trump employed his own private security team, since at least the 1990s. Nonetheless, Trump acknowledged in 2012 that he personally did, in fact, have a New York concealed carry permit.

In the ACLU/NYCLU joint press release, the organizations even concede that "like so many other laws in our country, some gun restrictions were historically enacted and targeted disproportionately against Black people." This is undoubtedly true. And yet, they nonetheless argue that "across-the-board restrictions on open and concealed public carry have long been applied universally to all persons, and are an important means to maintain safety and peace in public spaces and help curb threats of violence against protestors." Therefore, if a legal restriction is applied to everyone, rather than simply people of color, it passes muster.

Interestingly, this puts the ACLU/NYCLU on the opposite side of the issue as a consortium of public defender organizations. Earlier this year they filed a brief of their own in favor of scrapping the New York law, based upon the "hundreds of indigent people" they represent each year, who are prosecuted for keeping handguns for self-defense, "virtually all [of whom]are Black and Hispanic."

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in November. In the meantime, though, it is a shame that the ACLU has continued to take a position contrary to its own explicitly stated goals. When the organization calls itself "the nation's premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution," it apparently refers to all but one.

The rest is here:
ACLU Thinks the Second Amendment Is a Threat to the First Amendment - Reason

The claim: Swearing at the president may be illegal

Right-wing demonstrators headed to the nations capital on Sept. 18 to express their support for the individuals federally charged in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

There were more police officers and reporters than protesters who attended the Justice for J6 rally, and officials reported just four arrests. But as law enforcement braced for the possibility of violence ahead of the demonstration, a warning went viral on social media claiming that swearing at the president might be illegal.

Its Not Just Dangerous; Screaming F*** Biden May Also Be Illegal, reads the headline of a purported Sept. 14 news article, which was shared to Instagram on Sept. 16. The post accumulated more than 2,000 likes within less than a week.

Text below the headline reads, Experts warn that in addition to the violent incitement caused by screaming expletives at the president, such threats may also be criminal.

Pages on Facebook such as The Typical Liberal and Young Americans for Liberty shared similar versions of the claim, while others claimed the article was satirical.

However, the article is not authentic, and legal experts who spoke with USA TODAY said using profanity when speaking about the president is protected by the Constitution.

"There is no law preventing Americans from yelling profanities at the president of the United States," said Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University.

Fact check: Biden's approval rating is higher than Trump's term low

The pages that shared the post did not return requests for comment.

A search of the headline included in the posts leads to memes on iFunny and online forums. The author of the text, who goes under the name "Eugene Bischvetz," first shared the screenshot of the text to Instagram on Sept. 15.

Story continues

The social media pages for the account "Eugene Bischvetz" feature satirical content and memes, and the screenshot circulating online is not a legitimate news report.

Meanwhile, legal experts say using profanity when speaking about the president or public officials is not illegal, as the posts claim.

"Cursing at the president is protected speech under the First Amendment," said Robert Richards, founding director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State.

Richards pointed to the 1971 Cohen v. California Supreme Court case, in which a man had the F-word emblazoned on a jacket, and wore it in a courthouse to show his contempt for the military draft.

"The court expressed concern that, if the government could criminalize such expression, it could do so as a guise for suppressing unpopular views," Richards said via email.

The court ruled the man had a right to say it, and in his opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Clay Calvert, a professor of law and director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, also referenced the Cohen case.

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the ability to freely criticize both government officials and government policies," Calvert said via email. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that what it calls the 'emotive' function of speech merits constitutional protection."

Calvert said as long as the speech does not amount to what courts call a "true threat" of violence, then it is protected.

"In brief, it's completely legal to swear about the president of the United States," he said. "It is not legal, however, to threaten the president of the United States."

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, noted there could be some cases where profanity toward a president might be unprotected.

"If you shouted it in a library, you might be disturbing the peace," Volokh said. "If you were to actually come up to Biden and say, F you, that might be so-called fighting words, personally addressed insults that are likely to start a fight."

Fact check: Biden can't mandate vaccinations for Congress; order covers executive branch only

In recent local controversies, attorneys have found that cases involving swear words and the president are protected speech.

For example, in February, assistant city of Fargo attorney Alissa Farol said a homeowner's flag in North Dakota that used profanity against President Joe Biden was protected by the First Amendment. A similar situation took place in New Philadelphia, Ohio, where a law director told city council members the city could not do anything about a banner that used an expletive to attack Biden.

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that swearing at the president may be illegal. Legal experts say cursing the president is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution unless someone is disturbing the peace, using fight words, or making a direct threat to the president. Further, the headline seen in the posts is not an authentic news report.

iFunny.co, Sept. 16, meme

AR15.com, Sept. 16, Discussion

Eugene Bischvetz, Sept. 15, Instagram post

Eugene Bischvetz, accessed Sept. 20, Twitter page

Bischvetz Institute, accessed Sept. 20, Instagram page

Ken Paulson, Sept. 20, Phone interview with USA TODAY

Eugene Volokh, Sept. 20, Phone interview with USA TODAY

Robert Richards, Sept. 20, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Clay Calvert, Sept. 20, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Associated Press, Feb. 4, Attorney: Profane Biden flag protected by the First Amendment

Times-Reporter, June 15, Offensive banner about Joe Biden protected by First Amendment, law director says

Associated Press, Sept. 17, Fake headline falsely suggest cursing the president is illegal

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app, or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Fact check: Legal experts say swearing at the president is not illegal

Go here to see the original:
Fact check: Shouting profanity about the president is protected by the First Amendment, legal experts say - Yahoo News

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R)Photo: Screenshot

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), saying that the federal agencys guidance on LGBTQ rights is extreme federal overreach that violates Texass sovereign right to determine workplace policies, specifically when it comes to LGBTQ job discrimination protections in the workplace.

The lawsuit goes so far as to claim that employers like the state of Texas have a First Amendment right to refer to transgender people by the wrong names and pronouns.

Related:Vote now for your LGBTQ Nation Hero of the Year

To promote the lawsuit, Paxton claimed that letting trans people use the correct restroom at work will lead to violence against women and child molestation, a claim not made in the suit itself.

States should be able to choose protection of privacy for their employers over subjective views of gender, and this illegal guidance puts many women and children at risk, he said in a statement.

If the Biden administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change, he continued. These backdoor attempts to force businesses, including the state of Texas, to align with their beliefs is unacceptable.

The lawsuit is about EEOC guidance issued in June to implement the landmark LGBTQ Supreme Court victory from 2020, Bostock v. Clayton Co. The Court ruled that Title VIIs ban on discrimination because of sex in the workplace includes anti-LGBTQ discrimination because its impossible to discriminate against someone for being LGBTQ without taking their sex into account.

The EEOC explained how workplaces can avoid discriminating illegally against LGBTQ people in the guidance. Among the guidelines are: workplace dress codes can differentiate based on gender but not sex assigned at birth, its a form of workplace harassment to not use a trans employees name and pronouns, and restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities can only be separated based on gender, not sex assigned at birth.

If an employer has separate bathrooms, locker rooms, or showers for men and women, all men (including transgender men) should be allowed to use the mens facilities and all women (including transgender women) should be allowed to use the womens facilities, the EEOCs guidance states.

The Texas lawsuit says that the EEOC doesnt have the authority to do this, arguing that the Bostock decision was too narrow to apply to the question of restrooms and other facilities.

The lawsuit also relies heavily on the Texas Department of Agricultures (TDA) policies, saying that TDA requires employees to dress, use the restroom, and accept being referred to with the pronouns associated with their sex assigned at birth. The lawsuit argues that the EEOC guidance makes the TDA susceptible to charges of discrimination based on EEOCs unlawful interpretation of Title VII.

The lawsuit, like most conservative lawsuits to overturn transgender rights, refers to trans women as biological men and trans men as biological women to diminish the importance of transgender peoples but not cisgender peoples gender identities.

Paxton accuses the EEOC of violating Texass free speech rights by forcing the state to use trans peoples names and pronouns, as well as several counts related to Title VII and administrative rules.

Last month, the state of Tennessee was joined by 19 other red states in a lawsuit challenging the same EEOC guidance, as well as the Department of Educations measures to protect transgender rights in education.

And in July, 21 Republican state attorneys general signed a letter complaining that the EEOC guidance will serve only to sow confusion among regulated entities including the employers and schools that operate in our communities.

Neither of the lawsuits nor the letter offered an alternative plan to protect transgender workers right to a harassment-free workplace, instead of focusing on employers ability to set policies in accordance with their personal beliefs.

Here is the original post:
Texas sues Biden admin for the First Amendment right to misgender trans people while they work - LGBTQ Nation

ByAlliance Defending Freedom | Monday, September 20, 2021

We are living at a critical moment.

Were facing unique and growing threats to our First Amendment freedoms.

At Alliance Defending Freedom our legal requests have skyrocketed in the past year.

Requests from teachers and professors who have been punished or fired for refusing to violate their faith, churches that have been targeted with discriminatory COVID-19 regulations, and students who have been silenced and had their First Amendment rights infringed upon by university officials.

If youre unfamiliar with our work, ADF is the worlds largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

We defend your most cherished freedoms in Congress, state legislatures, and courtrooms across the country, and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

We defend everyday Americans who have been unjustly targeted for their beliefs. You may have heard of a few of our clients.

Jack, a cake artist.

Jack designs, paints, and sculpts beautiful custom cakes at his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop. He serves everyone, but he cannot use his talents to express messages that go against his beliefs. And the First Amendment protects his right to do so.

But after politely declining to create a custom cake that expressed a message in conflict with his faith, the Colorado government tried to punish him.

We defended him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a major victory! And yet, Jack is still being harassed. Hes back in court battling another lawsuit, this time from an attorney who is targeting Jack for declining to create a cake celebrating and symbolizing a gender transition.

Lydia, a third grader

Lydia is a very brave nine-year-old girl in Mississippi.

When her school required masks, she wanted to peacefully share her Christian views with her schoolmates by wearing a mask with the message, Jesus Loves Me printed on it.

But her principal required her to remove and replace it. Two days later, administrators announced a policy that prohibits certain political or religious messages on masks.

It didnt matter that other students and faculty have worn masks with a wide variety of messages, including masks displaying college logos, professional sports team logos, and Black Lives Matter. The school still enforced a policy which subjected her to escalating discipline, up to and including suspension.

Lydia and her mom knew this was a violation of her rights. So, they filed a federal lawsuit against the school district.

David, a pro-life sidewalk counselor.

You may recognize David Benham.

David, the co-founder of the pro-life group Cities4Life, was peacefully praying and offering sidewalk counseling outside of an abortion clinic in Charlotte.

But police handcuffed and arrested him for violating North Carolinas stay-at-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic. It didnt matter that David and other volunteers were exempted from the order and following the States protocol to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Today, ADF is defending Davids rights in Benham v. City of Charlotte, filed with a North Carolina federal court.

Chike, a college student.

When Chike was a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, he wanted to share his faith with his classmates on campus. But his college officials prevented him from speaking, not just oncebut twice.

We took his case all the way to the Supreme Courtand won. The Court ruled that government officials should not get a free pass when they violate students priceless constitutional rights.

These are just three examples out of the thousands of requests for legal support we receive.

Thats why at Alliance Defending Freedom, were taking a stand to help ensure that religious liberty has a strong legal defense.

And, with Gods favor, were winning. Weve prevailed in hundreds of cases in state and federal courts, winning 13 victories at the United States Supreme Court since 2011!

We continue to refine our process to give our Constitution and cherished freedoms the best defense. But this isnt possible without feedback from people like you.

We need your input. Will you take a moment to participate in our National Survey on Religious Freedom in America?

Your responses will give us valuable information that will help us better defend your religious liberty both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.

Please click here to complete the survey, then help us reach even more Americans by forwarding this email to your friends.

[Take the Survey]

Read the original:
CP Brand Solutions | Threats to the First Amendment are GrowingWe Need Your Input. - Christian Post

Austin, TX, 2 hours ago Two trade associations, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), filed a lawsuit in a federal district court to strike down provisions of a new Texas law, passed in the Texas legislature as House Bill (HB) 20.

HB 20, which will become effective later this year unless enjoined by the court, requires increased transparency from major social media platforms and prohibits them from censoring users.

NetChoice and the CCIA, whose members include big tech companies such as Facebook and Google, contend that the regulations on the social media platforms are a violation of the businesses First Amendment rights to curate the content hosted on their sites.

Allowing HB 20 to take effect will inflict significant harm on Texans by threatening the safety of users, creators, and businesses that use these websites to reach audiences in a family-friendly way, said the president and CEO of NetChoice, Steve DelBianco, in a press release. No American should ever be forced to navigate through harmful and offensive images, videos and posts.

The lawsuit says that the big tech members of NetChoice and CCIA currently prohibit all sorts of speech that they deem harmful or objectionable or against their policies, including medical misinformation, hate speech and slurs (spanning the spectrum from race and religion to veteran status), glorification of violence and animal abuse, and impersonation, lies, and misinformation more broadly.

Though users must agree to such oversight by the platforms in the fine print of their terms of service, advocates of banning social media censorship argue that the regulation of hate speech without any clear standard of what constitutes it is dangerous.

An example of that counter-argument can be found in an amicus brief for another lawsuit from NetChoice against a similar Florida law, which was filed on behalf of the satirical website The Babylon Bee and its non-satirical sister-site Not the Bee.

The brief states, [I]n Twitters judgment, a politicians biologically correct statement that [a] man has no womb or eggs is hate speech, but a college professors profoundly racist statement, I block white people because [t]here is nothing white people can say and do that is creative, profound, and intimidating, is valuable discourse deserving to remain on the platform.

As of the publication of this article, the latter tweet remains uncensored on Twitter.

It appears that in Twitters judgment, biology is hate, but unadorned racismat least of a certain varietyis not, it remarks.

Proponents of the Texas law also argue that checks on social media platforms are necessary because those methods of communication have become a powerful aspect of modern discourse where the freedom of speech for individuals should not be stifled.

Twitter, Facebook and other massive platforms arent just any private companies, wrote Greg Abbott in a recent op-ed published in the Washington Post. They are our modern-day public square, and effectively control the channels we use for discourse.

Abbott and other supporters say the law doesnt interfere with the platforms ability to block criminal activity on their sites, or to remove content that incites violence or is illegal or obscene, but is necessary to shield everyday Texans from censorship despite the vast protections federal law has given to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

That law explicitly protects online platforms to be able to censor content that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Unlike the Florida law, which could allow individuals to sue for monetary damages from the platform, lawmakers say that the Texas proposal threads a needle through Section 230 by only allowing the individual to sue to stop the censorship and costs and reasonable and necessary attorneys fees.

But when a similar proposal to HB 20 was being debated earlier this year, DelBianco appeared to testify against it and argued that Section 230 wont matter, but rather that the courts would ultimately strike it down on the basis of the First Amendment.

Whether the freedom of companies to censor what they please or whether individuals freedom of speech should be protected even on social media is a legal debate that will likely not go away anytime soon in the digital age, but now that ball is in the courts.

Link:
Big Tech Sues Texas Over New Law Targeting Social Media Censorship - The Texan

One of the most controversial issues in the Florida legislature last year was what got dubbed the "anti-riot bill."

Gov. Ron DeSantis proposed it in response to last summer's protests for racial justice across the state and nation.

It raises penalties for violence, burglary, looting and property damage during protests. It also creates a defense for people who injure or kill violent protesters.

Opponents of the law have sued, saying it suppresses free speech. A judge earlier this month agreed.

Judith Scully is a Stetson University law professor, racial justice advocate, and a critic of the law.

Scully recently spoke with WUSF's Daylina Miller about how the law came about and the effect the law is already having as the issue winds its way through the courts.

Scully: We saw thousands of people taking to the streets. And we also saw a lot of conservative lawmakers feeling threatened by that. And their response was to propose legislation that would limit the ability of individuals to actually exercise their first amendment rights to protest.

Miller: Do you think that people have not participated in rallies or have not spoken out that might have otherwise?

Scully: Well, we know that for a fact. I mean, there is a lawsuit that is currently filed in the federal courthouse, challenging the anti-protest bill in Florida, where several organizations that have traditionally engaged in all kinds of forms of protest and sit ins and rallies have indicated as the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, that they are no longer seeing the large numbers of individuals who want showed up to protest once the anti -protest bill in Florida passed.

Their numbers dwindled, and their membership actually expressed concern related to their future. And so yes, we know that there's a chilling effect, I can be protesting absolutely peacefully, and my life lines up where I'm arrested, and then I have this charge I have to fight against.

And then if I'm found guilty, I am no longer eligible to vote, I'm no longer eligible to apply for financial assistance for education, I'm no longer eligible for a wide variety of opportunities that would allow me to excel in life. And that's a very serious concern.

Miller: Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that Florida's new laws unconstitutional and can't be enforced. He said the bill was an assault on first amendment rights to free speech and assembly, and Gov. Ron DeSantis can appeal the ruling. So where do we currently stand on that?

Scully The court is saying the definition of Riot is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, it is impacting people's rights to express themselves through protests. And it is also impossible for citizens to understand what it is that the prohibited conduct actually consists of.

So this is a big win for organizations who are engaged in protesting and dissent. And it was a loss clearly for Gov. DeSantis' bill. There's no doubt about it. But yes, he has the right to appeal it. So we'll see what happens next. I have no predictions in terms of what will happen on appeal. We'll have to wait and see.

The judge in the federal district court case made it very clear that there was a good likelihood that the plaintiffs in this case, the protesters and the organizations that engage in protests, are likely to succeed in their claims.

View post:
A Critic Talks About Where Florida's 'Anti-Riot' Law Came From And The Impact It's Having On Protesting - WUSF News

To the Editor:During the governors press conference on Sept. 15, she was asked for a response to how the administration plans on fighting their recent court defeat regarding vaccine mandates on health care workers [Week LXXIX: Vaccination mandates encourage shots, stir resistance, The Altamont Enterprise, Sept. 16, 2021].

Her quote was, Im not aware of a sanctioned religious exemption Everyone from the pope on down is encouraging their members to get vaccinated.

This statement is an egregious attack on the rights established by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The freedom of religion afforded U.S. citizens by this First Amendment is not confined to the statements of one individual representing one religious group.

It is ignorant to group all religions and beliefs into one mans statement and even more ignorant to claim that there is a hierarchy that must be followed by all other people of faith. Citizens have the right to develop their own convictions and determine the moral code they will follow through their faith, no matter the size or brevity of their congregation.

Additionally, the government is not a deity and it is never their place to determine what does or does not constitute a religious belief.

The government has no right to circumvent this freedom of religion for any sake. The statements regarding this mandate should be viewed as an abandonment of the oath of office that Governor Hochul took, where she stated she would defend the Constitution of the United States.

The way this debate resolves is unknown and the vaccine may prove out in history to be the right thing to do. However, if religious rights are thrown aside here, the First Amendment might as well be rescinded.

Mandates and coercion are never the right way to govern. Our elected officials need to find new ways to connect with all of their constituents and continue to operate within the bounds of the constitutions they agreed to follow.

Christopher Longo

Guilderland

Visit link:
Citizens have the right to develop their own convictions - The Altamont Enterprise