Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Yes, Larry Flynt was right when he said that Freedom of Speech is not for the kind of speech you like, its for the kind of speech you hate. And Oliver Wendall Holmes was ignorant and wrong when offering his example of Fire in a Crowded Movie House. That being said, yes there are limits to Free Speech!

Death Threats are a good example of limits of Free Speech and common sense grounds for a restraining order. Treason and Sedition are another example of limited Free Speech. Openly advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government, even with the leadership as ignorant and embarrassing as the current administration, is a good reason for someone to go to jail for what they advocate. Inciting a Riot is not only a good example of limited Free Speech but also why it is important that the same rules apply to the Right and the Left.

And please, kind reader, if you could have the decency not to bring up the odious and false example of shouting Fire in a crowded theatre ever again, that would be most wise and benevolent of you. That example was from a famous Supreme Court Case and is attributed to Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes. But the thing is, the defendant in that case was not being charged with shouting Fire in a crowded theatre. He was being charged with writing an anti-war pamphlet in Yiddish at the outset of World War 1 in which he correctly compared the 13th Amendments ban on involuntary servitude to the Draft.

So the question of just when, in the modern discourse, the line has been crossed regarding the other side, Right or Left, going too far has come up recently.

Portions of the Left (specifically the Academic Left) do have censorious elements present.

Often dubbed Social Justice Warriors they are often portrayed in a contradictory manner. One one hand, they are a menace that is out of control and a direct threat to Freedom of Speech as they assert a non existent right not to be offended. And the same people decrying this out of control menace will often deride them as Special Snowflakes who have been triggered and need to go back to a safe space.

Yknow, just like Special Snowflake Jeff Sessions when he is laughed at by an activist or Special Snowflake Tim Price after being asked questions by arrested reporter Daniel Heyman who was just doing his job.

We are hearing insincere snide bleatings referencing Freedom of Speech aimed at the SJW left from people who throw conniption fits when Happy Holidays is said instead of Merry Christmas and by those who are more outraged at Colin Kaepernicks silent but visible protest than at the murders of unarmed black people by law enforcement with little or no accountability.

Its important to note that when criticizing SJWs, that they be both horrible threats AND pathetic scapegoats. Think of the role Emmanuel Goldstien played in Orwells 1984! Thats what the groundwork is being laid for. Its the groundwork for a political narrative akin to where Goldstien is the enemy, not Big Brother! In a similar vein, SJWs are your enemy, you can trust the Authoritarian State!

And this is coming from someone who is actively repulsed by unneeded academic censorship. I believe that there are two views you can have on Freedom of Speech. You are either for it or you are against it. And Freedom of of Speech is for the kind of Speech you hate.

And I do hate pretty much everything which comes out of the mouths of sad demented racist transphobic thugs. So, do those same sad demented racist transphobic thugs have Freedom of Speech?

Of course they do. But heres some more questions-

Do sad demented racist transphobic thugs in Berkley have the right to incite a riot and not be charged ?

Or how about- Do sad demented racist transphobic thugs have the right to threaten the lives of people they consider less than human? The words I intend to kill you (taken in a real life threatening context) are enough to get you a visit from the police and a restraining order.

So what about when that sentiment is made en masse?

Of course they dont have that right! Threatening others is not protected Free Speech nor is inciting a gathering of like minded people to do violence.

As a matter of fact, it meets the US Armys definition of Terrorism.

The U.S. Armys Field Manuel defines Terrorism as calculated use of unlawful violence

or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals. U.S. Army Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Chapter 9, 37 (14 June 2001).

These dim witted hate filled buffoons are emboldened by what they perceive as a sympathetic administration where their use of violence of threat of violence wont be a priority.

Arresting a reporter for doing his job or an activist for laughing at a pompous well entrenched moron are clearly priorities to this administration over the presence of domestic terrorists. And I do not think that the same objective standard that gives leniency to pro-fascists would be applied if the same behavior was engaged in by those on the Left!

This bunch of dolts is truly proof of the unthinking hypocritical jackbooted thuggery of the Executive Branch of the US government. Look no further, there it sits!

But I do hope for a liberal prosecutor who, in the oncoming backlash against this Administration and Agenda, can find time in his schedule to apply statutes already on the books to those inciting violence for political gain! I would advise said brave prosecutors and legal SJWs that you take a two pronged attack to pro-fascists. They should after these domestic fascist terrorist in criminal court with the book thrown at them as well as civil court to go after their assets will make the ink jump off of those 1488 tattoos higher than Pepe the Frog!

More here:
On the subject of Freedom of Speech - Nolan Chart LLC

It's not clear what Lyndon Johnson was thinking in 1954. The then-U.S. senator introduced an amendment to a bill that prevented some tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity. Congress adopted it without debate. Lawmakers later strengthened the ban. Courts have upheld it.

None of this means the statute makes sense. There is certainly a case to be made that free speech rights should not be tied to tax status for any organization. And Congress can certainly vote to change the law if it chooses.

But President Donald Trump is still figuring out how this "branches of government" idea works.

Last week he signed an executive order he said would free churches from restraints imposed by the law. Seeking to garner as much attention as possible, the signing was staged in the Rose Garden with activists, faith leaders and nuns. They were serenaded by a string quartet.

The order will "prevent the Johnson Amendment from interfering with your First Amendment rights," Trump declared.

Well, no it won't. The executive order does essentially nothing.

In fact, groups preparing to sue over what they expected the document to contain said there was no need after they saw the final version. The American Civil Liberties Union called the order "an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome." Even conservative groups recognized it as little more than a "gesture."

Then again, the Johnson Amendment is little more than a gesture. It is essentially meaningless because it is not enforced.

Some religious leaders have intentionally flouted the provision in law, trying to draw attention to themselves annually on "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." They tell their congregation which political candidates to support and face no consequences from the Internal Revenue Service.

"We record our sermons, as have many several thousands of pastors, and then send their sermons to the IRS in hopes of provoking a lawsuit. But we have not been successful," a California pastor told CNN last year.

The IRS could take action. It could revoke the preferential tax status of churches. But it doesn't. After being starved by Congress for several years, it doesn't have the staff. It also likely doesn't have the stomach for the certain political backlash. And the IRS may not even know some churches exist, as they are not required to apply for tax-exempt status and are generally not required to file annual forms with the agency.

A 2014 report from the Government Accountability Office noted budget cuts at the IRS have led to "a steady decrease in the number of charitable organizations examined." In 2011, the examination rate was 0.81 percent; in 2013, it fell to 0.71 percent, lower than the examination rate for other types of taxpayers, including individuals and corporations.

Translation: Pretty much anyone can open a "church," avoid taxation and engage in political activities with no fear of repercussions. And with pressure from the president to leave these entities alone, the IRS is even less likely to scrutinize them.

The question Trump should be asking: Why are churches exempt from taxation in the first place? That could spur the larger conversation this country needs to have about reforming the entire, antiquated federal statute on tax-exempt status. Use of the exemption has run amok.

About 1.6 million organizations, including about 400,000 religious entities, do not pay taxes. That drives up the federal deficit, hurts local governments and forces the rest of us to pay more to compensate. Among the activities our additional tax contributions support: politicking pastors who proudly and loudly violate federal law.

Washington policymakers should ensure everyone has freedom of speech, but revisit who gets freedom from taxation.

This editorial appeared in the May 11 edition of theDes Moines Register.

See the original post:
Des Moines Register editorial: Give churches freedom of speech, but why freedom from taxation? - Mason City Globe Gazette

I hope you watched the News and Noise series of presentations last month at Illinois Valley Community College and La Salle Public Library.

I joined two other journalists in a panel discussion for the last session. During audience questions, a comment about freedom of speech has kept me thinking about it.

Free speech came up as we discussed the recent proliferation of false news stories whole-cloth fakeries, not-so-subtle tools of propaganda and online revenue generators, so-called fake news. I mentioned, Its tough, though, because freedom of speech has to win. And for freedom of speech to win, we cant be snuffing voices and muzzling people.

An audience member said, I dont know if I agree with that. I know we need free speech but I think the censors of the old days, maybe had a point. He said, and I paraphrase here, was that letting bad ideas spread might not be good, such as news reports leading to copycat crimes.

This got to the core of the issue. Do we defend free speech, even free speech that is false or offensive? I said, not too successfully, that false ideas have no societal value, and that public shaming once tamped them down.

We moved on, wishing to let other audience members ask questions. But three weeks later I am still pondering it.

The current info-climate seems to welcome fakery into the public square. False claims are a case where public shaming should reduce our exposure. The fakers, withering under fact-laced speech, might become reluctant to step into the light.

If I could go back and continue the discussion, I would say that in a nation of protected free speech, the best defense against false claims, bad ideas and words you find offensive, is more free speech.

This is a paradox that leads to hypocrisy defending free speech, except speech we dont like. It emerges with the tag, fake news. Its a good tag for fakery and a bad one for journalism. Some use it for news they dont like. But if the story was not written to deceive and contains facts, you will have to label it something else. As I said in the panel discussion, facts dont care about your feelings.

U.S. courts know when speech causes harm and incites violence. The courts and judges also are wary of picking and choosing words we like and dislike.

In 1978-79, French professor and Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson claimed the gas chambers did not exist. Under French law, he was convicted. U.S. intellectual Noam Chomsky did not support Faurissons claim, but defended his right to say it.

Chomsky explained there is no contradiction between supporting the right to free speech, and opposing the claims of a Holocaust denier. Suppressing free speech, Chomsky said, is to adopt a central doctrine of the Nazis.

The news can be noisy, as in News and Noise, but our free speech is even noisier. We need to learn how to sift out bad and false ideas, without suppressing the right to say them.

That right is the noisy sound of freedom.

Jeff Dankert can be reached at (815) 220-6977 or lasallereporter@newstrib.com. Follow him on Twitter @NT_LaSalle.

(NOTE: Any opinions appearing here or elsewhere in the NewsTribune ornewstrib.comdo not necessarily represent the views of the NewsTribune.)

Read more from the original source:
Column: The slippery paradox of free speech - LaSalle News Tribune

LANSING, Mich. (WILX) The state may be forcing public colleges and universities to guarantee the right to free speech on campus.

One of the the catalysts for a bill debated in the Senate Tuesday was a riot at the University of California Berkley in February when conservative author Milo Yiannopolous was invited to speak. There were threats of violence when Ann Coulter was invited.

Republican State Senator Rick Jones says it can be avoided in Michigan, by requiring schools to tell students they won't be shielded from protected speech no matter how offensive it might be. Senator Jones said, "I believe that some colleges and universities will say, 'You know we have freedom of speech but we need to control it.' Well, who decides who controls what?"

Anyone found to have infringed on the right to protected free speech could be suspended. A second offense would be punishable by a minimum one-year suspension.

We'll let you know if the bill comes up for a vote.

Visit link:
Lawmakers consider penalties for people who infringe on right to free speech - WILX-TV

A new study says that some people who claim to be for free speech when defending racist language do not really care about all speech, just the speech which agrees with their point of view. In fact, the researchers say that in such cases it often comes down to racists defending racists.

The study was carried out by the graduate student in psychology Mark H. White and psychology Professor Christian Grandall from the University of Kansas. They found explicit racial prejudice to be a pretty good predictor whether someone would use the free speech defense to defend racist attitudes.

The study saw that those with high levels of prejudice were very concerned with freedom of expression. They were also less likely to defend free speech in principle when faced with non-racial scenarios, suggesting that freedom of speech was more of a convenient rhetorical point, utilized when it suited them.

When people make appeals to democratic principles like freedom of speech they dont always represent a genuine interest in that principle, said White. We think of principles as ideas we use to guide behavior in our everyday lives. Our data show something different that we tend to make up our mind on something based on our attitudes in this case, racial attitudes and then decide that the principle is relevant or irrelevant. People do whatever best fits their pre-existing attitudes.

One way that people soften the appearance of their prejudices is by latching on to larger political causes like free speech. This allows people, the study found, to buffer racial and hate speech from normative disapproval. Basically, doing this can make it seem like your prejudice is ok and somewhat accepted by society.

This conclusion is sure to be controversial for its implications. The balance between fighting prejudice and the necessity of free speech in a democracy has been increasingly tested in todays America. A number of high-profile rightwing speakers have met violent opposition on college campuses, which resulted in some speeches like Ann Coulters being cancelled. Appearances by the white nationalist Richard Spencer have drawn much soul-searching and changed policies. Many in the conservative media (and even President Trump) defended such provocative personalities as Milo Yiannopoulos using the free speech position, after his appearance at Berkeley met with significant protests.

The study consisted of eight experiments with hundreds of participants, who were recruited from Amazons Mechanical Turk service. They were made to respond to news of racist incidents or situations like someone getting fired for racist speech. The reactions were scored according to the standard Henry and Sears Symbolic Racism 2000 scale.

The researchers observed a positive statistical correlation between racial prejudice and standing up for racist attitudes by arguing the need for free speech. Interestingly, those who scored low on prejudiced opinions actually avoided standing up for free speech in race-related situations.

The researchers point out that it would be irresponsible to paint everyone who makes free speech arguments as somehow prejudiced.

However, our data do show that racial prejudice is one of the many attitudes that go into people deciding to make this argument. We should not ignore the free speech defense, but we shouldnt assume that the motives are purely based on an abstract democratic principle, either, said White.

You can read the study Freedom of Racist Speech: Ego and Expressive Threats in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Link:
Prejudiced People Invoke Free Speech to Mask Their Racism, Says Study - Big Think

Quora Questions are part of a partnership between NewsweekandQuora, through which we'll be posting relevant and interesting answers from Quora contributors throughout the week. Read more about the partnershiphere.

Answer from Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller at NASA, free speech advocate:

Freedom of speech is the right of expression without fear of censorship or retaliation. It is not a government granted right; it is a natural right.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

In the United States, the First Amendment does not grant the right of free speech. The First Amendment prohibits government from infringing on that natural right that preexisted the Constitution. Freedom of speech is not uniquely American. As a natural right, it transcends petty and temporary things like governments and borders. In 1948, the United Nations expressed their belief that it is a human right, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

The Americans, as aforementioned, document their insistence that government has no place infringing on speech, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There was a lot of debate about whether or not to include that text in the Bill of Rights. The debate wasn't about whether freedom of speech was a right, it was about whether or not the Constitution needed to document something that was so fundamentally obviously a natural right. The winning argument was that governments could not be trusted to do the obviously right thing, so we'd better write it down.

An Occupy Wall Street demonstrator holds a sign as others gather in Manhattan's Foley Square during a national day of action called "Occupy the Courts," on January 20, 2012. Protesters turned out under the banner "Occupy the Courts" at some 150 courthouses nationwide, marking the second anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which protesters said allows unlimited corporate campaign spending. Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

At the same time that the Bill of Rights was being debated, the French were redefining themselves, post revolution, and publishing their Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. On the subject of freedom of speech, it says:

Article XI The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines freedom of speech protection in their Constitution:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

I could go on and on. Freedom of speech is explicitly called out in the defining documents of many nations. And in almost all of those statements, the wording is clear in that the government doesn't provide freedom of speech, the government is prohibited from interfering with freedom of speech. The right preexists the government.

I harp on this point because it is necessary to understand the fundamental mistake that is made every time this question arises. In every case, someone, usually an American, will want to make the fallacious point that freedom of speech equates with the First Amendment and thus only refers to the prohibition of government interference. That is poppycock.

All of these groups of people: the Americans, the Canadians, the French, the Japanese, and the world as a whole via the United Nations, ensure that their governments are legally prohibited from interfering in free expression because they have a cultural value that each of us must be free to express ourselves. We believe that our societies are better off when there is a free exchange of ideas. Yes, there are inherently bad ideas, but we must not police expression of ideas because the risk of good ideas being stifled is too high. James Madison, author of the First Amendment wrote:

Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness?

Because it is the people that have this value, the respect for this natural right must also extend to the people. We cannot expect the freedom to express ourselves if we would ever deign to infringe on the right of others to express themselves. We do not have to like the ideas of others. We do not have to listen to the ideas of others. We do not have to support the ideas of others. But if we do not tolerate the expression of ideas by others, we do not respect the natural right of freedom of speech, and do not deserve it for ourselves.

In his 1954 Essays on Education, Alfred Whitney Griswold wrote:

Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education.

Twenty-seven years earlier, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, in his opinion for Whitney v. California, wrote some very similar words:

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

The irony of using that case as a reference is that the verdict of that case did indeed put a restriction on freedom of speech, which gets us to the last part of your question: what is not free speech?

In Whitney v. California, the majority cited an earlier case (Gitlow v. New York 1925) opinion that said:

That the freedom of speech which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license giving immunity for every possible use of language and preventing the punishment of those who abuse this freedom, and that a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite to crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means, is not open to question.

by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized government and threaten its overthrow."

The Supreme Court has struggled, many times, with defining that invisible and amorphous line between speech that is protected and speech that is prohibited. They've examined questions such as whether all speech is expression of ideas. Freedom of speech is not the right to utilize ones larynx. Freedom of speech is the right to express ideas. Is one expressing an idea when one yells Fire! In a crowded theater? Is the person that yells Fire! In that theater punished for their speech or for the parallel act of inciting a dangerous situation?

In Abrams v. United States 1919, Holmes and Brandeis gave the clear and present danger argument:

I do not doubt for a moment that, by the same reasoning that would justify punishing persuasion to murder, the United States constitutionally may punish speech that produces or is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils that the United States constitutionally may seek to prevent.

But there are restrictions on other types of speech, too. Not all are clear andimminent danger. Here are answers that detail the examples of cigarette advertising and obscene content:

Robert Frost's answer to Is a ban on smoking advertisement a restriction of free speech?

Robert Frost's answer to When and how was the first amendment adjusted to allow for more sexualization of women on network American TV?

What is free speech, and what is not free speech? originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

Original post:
Quora: What Does Freedom of Speech Mean? - Newsweek

Indonesia and Ireland are very different societies, but in both countries talking about religion can get you in trouble with the law.

On Tuesday, the Christian governor of Jakarta, the Indonesian capital, was sentenced to two years in prison for blasphemy against Islam, a penalty that shocked many inhabitants of the majority-Muslim country known for its tolerance and pluralism. The blasphemy charge against Basuki Ahok Tjahaja Purnama was based on a video in which he was recorded telling voters they were being misled if they believed that a verse in the Koran forbade them from voting for a non-Muslim.

On the other side of the world, the British writer and actor Stephen Fry is breathing easier after officials in Ireland announced that they wouldnt charge him for violating that nations blasphemy law for joking in a 2015 television interview that God, if he existed, was quite clearly a maniac.

But the police had investigated Fry under the law, which, far from being a relic, was enacted in 2009. The law makes it illegal to utter or publish any material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion" in which the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.

That language echoes a resolution passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2010 calling on nations to combat defamation of all religions, the culmination of a long-standing campaign led predominantly by Muslim nations to have the international community equate defamation of religion with discrimination against religion.

Fortunately, more recent pronouncements by the U.N. have shown a greater appreciation for the importance of freedom of speech even while condemning behavior that is intolerant of religion. Yet many nations still have blasphemy laws on the books. Last year, Heiner Bielefeldt , the U.N.s special investigator on freedom of religion, called for the universal repeal of such laws, saying they restrict freedom of expression and promote intolerance toward minority religions.

That conclusion also has been reached by independent researchers. A 2010 study by Freedom House, a Washington-based human rights organization, examined laws against blasphemy and religious insults in Algeria, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Poland. In general, the study found, the laws protected the majority faith. They also were used to target journalists, artists and political dissidents.

These laws should be repealed, even if they were enacted not for the traditional reason to show reverence to a deity but for the supposedly more progressive purpose of sparing the sensitivities of believers, including members of minority faiths.

Redefining blasphemy laws as laws against hate speech dont make them any more acceptable or any less susceptible to abuse and selective enforcement.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

View original post here:
Blasphemy laws are an unholy offense against free speech. And ... - Los Angeles Times

The Register's Editorial Published 5:45 p.m. CT May 11, 2017 | Updated 20 hours ago

The bill extends religious exemptions to government employees and members of organizations. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on promoting free speech and religious liberty in the Rose Garden of the White House on May 4, 2017 in Washington, D.C.(Photo: Mandel Ngan, AFP/Getty Images)

Its not clear what Lyndon Johnson was thinking in 1954. The then-U.S. senator introduced an amendment to a bill that prevented some tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity. Congress adopted it without debate. Lawmakers later strengthened the ban. Courts have upheld it.

None of this means the statute makes sense. There is certainly a case to be made that free speech rights should not be tied to tax status for any organization. And Congress can certainly vote to change the law if it chooses.

But President Donald Trump is still figuring out howthis branches of government idea works.

Last week he signed an executive order he said would free churches from restraints imposed by the law. Seeking to garner as much attention as possible, the signing was stagedin the Rose Garden withactivists, faith leaders and nuns. They were serenaded by a string quartet.

The order will prevent the Johnson Amendment from interfering with your First Amendment rights, Trump declared.

Well, no it wont. The executive order does essentially nothing.

In fact, groups preparing to sue over what they expected the document to contain said there was no need after they saw the final version. The American Civil Liberties Union called the order an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome. Even conservative groups recognized it as little more than a gesture.

Then again, the Johnson Amendment is little more than a gesture. It is essentially meaningless because it is not enforced.

Some religious leaders have intentionally flouted the provision in law, trying to draw attention to themselves annually on Pulpit Freedom Sunday." They tell their congregation which political candidates to support and face no consequences from the Internal Revenue Service.

We record our sermons, as have many several thousands of pastors, and then send their sermons to the IRS in hopes of provokinga lawsuit. But we have not been successful, a California pastor told CNN last year.

The IRS could take action. It could revoke the preferential tax status of churches. But it doesnt. After being starved by Congress for several years, it doesnt have the staff. It also likely doesnt have the stomach for the certain political backlash. And the IRS may not even know some churches exist, as they are not required to apply for tax-exempt status and are generally not required to file annual forms with the agency.

A 2014 report from the Government Accountability Office noted budget cuts at the IRS have led to a steady decrease in the number of charitable organizations examined. In 2011, the examination rate was 0.81 percent; in 2013, it fell to 0.71 percent, lower than the examination rate for other types of taxpayers, including individuals and corporations.

Translation: Pretty much anyone can open a church, avoid taxation and engage in political activities with no fear of repercussions. And with pressure from the president to leave these entities alone, the IRS is even less likely to scrutinize them.

The question Trump should be asking:Why are churches exempt from taxation in the first place? That could spur the larger conversation this country needs to have about reforming the entire, antiquated federal statute on tax-exempt status. Use of theexemption has run amok.

About 1.6 million organizations, including about 400,000 religious entities, do not pay taxes. That drives up the federal deficit, hurts local governments and forces the rest of us to pay more to compensate. Among the activities our additional tax contributions support: politicking pastors who proudly and loudly violate federal law.

Washington policymakers should ensure everyone has freedom of speech, but revisitwho gets freedom from taxation.

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2r7cZTo

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: Give churches freedom of speech, but why freedom from taxation? - DesMoinesRegister.com

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue on Tuesday affirmed the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "renewed dedication to religious liberty and freedom of speech," USDA said in a news release.

In a policy statement released to all USDA employees, Perdue said, "Today, I want to reestablish this department's commitment to safeguarding every American's First Amendment rights, particularly the right to free speech and the right to religious free exercise. USDA is committed to protecting both."

In a statement that a news release said was "highlighting the need for a climate of mutual respect and tolerance," Perdue added, "I expect each and every USDA employee to uphold their fellow Americans' First Amendment freedoms. Whether we are inspecting private businesses for compliance with food safety laws or protecting our public lands for recreation, cultivation, and preservation, we must set the example of our nation's highest ideals. These are lessons we learned as children that we should be kind to others and treat them with respect. Doing so is not optional, and it is not discretionary."

USDA said the "policy memo comes on the heels of President Donald J. Trump issuing the executive order on Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty last week."

According to a White House press pool report, Perdue was present when Trump signed the executive order on free speech and religion. It was unclear Tuesday evening just what Perdue was trying to address at USDA and what impact it would have on the department.

A former USDA lawyer told The Hagstrom Report, "I'm not sure what he's after with it. I know there were some issues in the past about religious exemptions to food safety rules. Possible school lunch stuff. Not really sure. Could also just be a feel-good statement that doesn't mean much."

Trump's order was not particularly well received by either the left or the right, The Washington Post reported last week.

Read more here:
Perdue issues policy on USDA 'religious liberty, freedom of speech' - Fence Post

The House Oversight and Government Reforms Subcommittees on Government Operations and Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules recently held a hearing, Examining a Churchs Right to Free Speech.

I had the opportunity to serve on the panel with Catherine Engelbrecht, of True the Vote, Christiana Holcomb, of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Rabbi David Saperstein, who served in the Obama administration as Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.

Congressional Republicans are not calling for a full repeal of the Johnson Amendment. In fact, Representative Jody Hice (R-Ga.), who served briefly as chairman for purposes of the hearing, introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act with House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), in order to roll back a problematic part of the Johnson Amendment.

The idea behind the Free Speech Fairness Act is to restore the First Amendment freedom of speech to pastors and other 501(c)(3) organizations leaders, while ensuring churches and other non-profits do not become about dark money or transition into political action committees. The Free Speech Fairness Act is all about speech. It does not allow 501(c)(3) organizations to begin purchasing political campaign ads, or to otherwise create a cash flow of dark money for politicians.

"Trumps religious freedom executive order can be successful" https://t.co/PlSJl1skqc pic.twitter.com/kUCuECLiAv

During the course of the hearing, Rabbi Saperstein raised an interesting objection that is not directly addressed in the Free Speech Fairness Act, and that is the question of whether people can donate money to 501(c)(3) organizations for endorsements.

Theres a two-part response to that question: First, in their individual capacities, pastors and 501(c)(3) leaders can already make endorsements and, technically, could make a personal endorsement in exchange for a donation today. However, under the Free Speech Fairness Act, because 501(c)(3) organizations cannot spend money on campaigns, liberal mega-donor George Soros and the libertarian mega-donor Koch Brothers will likely continue to contribute their millions of dollars to political action committees and other 501(c)(4) organizations in order to directly impact candidates and their campaigns.

There can, quite simply, be little bang for a political buck to a 501(c)(3) organization under the Free Speech Fairness Act.

Rabbi Saperstein also raised a question about whether churches actually want changes to the Johnson Amendment. The answer is an emphatic yes! In fact, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention submitted a statement of support for the Free Speech Fairness Act for the record at the hearing. While ERLC may have concerns about churches becoming too political, they understand that it is fundamentally not the governments job to make that decision for churches.

The fact is, churches who do not wish to engage in political speech or to endorse political candidates will not be forced to do so after the Free Speech Fairness Act becomes law; rather, churches who do wish to engage politically will no longer be unfairly forced by the government to remain silent.

"What does Trump's religious freedom order actually do? Not much..." https://t.co/vXLPcxN279 pic.twitter.com/7NFcqfeNXc

The United States has a long history of pastors being involved politically. Since the birth of our nation, pastors and churches have been at the forefront of shaping public debate and voters choices regarding their public servants. This began with the Black Robe Regiment of pastors who also served as military leaders during the American Revolution and was forged during the civil rights movement of the 1960s when pastors like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., spoke out forcefully from the pulpit on political matters.

For almost 200 years, the religious, educational, and charitable work of 501(c)(3) organizations, and their tax exempt status, did not compromise their ability to engage on political candidates and issues. The free speech rights of 501(c)(3) organizations and their leaders should be restored, and the Free Speech Fairness Act is the precise vehicle for creating a proper balance in which pastors are liberated without allowing churches to become political action committees.

Mandi Ancalle, Esq. is General Counsel for Government Affairs at the Family Research Council.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read the rest here:
GOP religious freedom bill restores free speech, not 'dark money' - The Hill (blog)