In Phoenix, Arizona believing that religious liberty permits you to refuse a job creating custom artwork for a same-sex wedding could get you jail time. A problem that has not convinced state courts to vacate the city ordinance despite the Masterpiece Cake Shop Supreme Court Decision. (citations removed)
Articles tagged as
First Amendment
Democrat US Rep Ted Lieu: Govt should be able to regulate your speech
I have a post in my head about the larger Constitutional topic but once again, we see that Constitution is a GREAT constrictor of nascent totalitarians like US Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif).
California Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) blatantly confessed on CNN that he “would love to be able to regulate the content of speech” but that he’s stopped by that pesky First Amendment, which keeps his powers in check.
Appearing on CNN with host Brianna Keilar, Lieu was asked to discuss the congressional hearing with Google CEO Sundar Pichai about political bias within the company and how it might affect the country. Keilar at one point questioned Lieu about what politicians can do to put a stop to online trolling and conspiracy theories. Lieu confessed that he would love to regulate speech but that the First Amendment prevents him from doing so. To his credit, he does add that it’s better that the government not regulate free speech.
I’m not sure about that “to his credit” bit. Here’s the verbatim quote:
Press Release: The School District Governance Association of NH: 1st Amendment Rights and the Manchester School Board
Press Release: 12/6/2018
Contact: Skip Murphy ( skipm@metrocast.net)
School District Governance Association of New Hampshire
First Amendment Rights in School District Governance
The SDGA holds that the preexisting Rights enumerated in the First Amendment are sacrosanct and must never be infringed upon even in difficult situations such as we see taking place with the Manchester School Board (“MSB”). We speak of MSB members castigating another member for using the District’s email system in factually correcting an 18 year old student’s Op-ed that criticized the current teacher contract negotiations that was published both the student newspaper and an outside media website.
We side with the First Amendment in all cases – it is what distinguishes America from almost all other nations in allowing the free flow of ideas without Government coercion. It either holds true in all cases or merely becomes a privilege doled out by those in power – which the MSB members seemingly are doing. Thus, we speak out in defense of Rachel Phelan’s Right to Free Speech in her right to criticize the MSB’s efforts during this contract negotiation.
Similarly, we also speak out in defense of Rich Girard’s
Quick Thought: Karen Hewes
From the Union Leader Op-Ed on what we call “Dems hating on Rich Girard” was this gem: Meanwhile, the student and her parents have a lawyer, who apparently missed the law school class on free speech and the First Amendment. If Girard doesn’t “immediately stop discussing’’ the student editor on public TV or at any … Read more
Quick Thought – seeking redress should not require police escorts for elected Representatives!
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.
While TEA Party folks like myself did protest and assembled all over the country and in DC (and generally left the protest areas cleaner than they found it), while boisterous, we were peaceful. The Left, seeking “redress”? Not so much:
Police escorts for senators after protesters swarm the Capitol ahead of Brett Kavanaugh confirmation vote
The impassioned fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court has led to heightened security at the Capitol, with some senators using police escorts to shield them from protesters. United States Capitol Police have arrested dozens of protesters in recent days and stepped up their presence in Capitol hallways. Some Republican senators have expressed unease over protesters who have confronted them at their Senate offices, restaurants, airports and even their homes.
Dartmouth’s Ideological Free Speech Divide: Why Democrats Need to Lose Again in 2018
Reposted: Originally Published May 30, 2018
A few days ago, we reported on a survey of Dartmouth student’s that questions their tolerance and diversity when it comes to dating, befriending, or just interacting with someone who has opposing political beliefs. There were no surprises. Democrats shunned the idea while Republicans were much more accepting.
Further down in the same survey were data about how these students view Free Speech on campus.
Apparently, Vicki Schwaegler didn’t like the information I included in rejecting the Biomass veto effort
That would be here due to the news that she actively politicking on overriding Gov. Sununu’s veto override on SB 365 and SB 446 instead of recusing herself from the efforts due to her family’s landholding. I was told that she decided to run again (originally she wasn’t) in no small amount due to getting the override done and promote Crony Capitalism / Corporate welfare (and I reject what a lot of Republicans are saying, in effect, “everybody is getting a subsidy so why not them because JOBS!”. Sorry, this is not the Proper Role of Government to force the population to have their money taken from them to give to corporate interests; in this case, pay higher electrical bills all over the State for a fairly few number of people. This is fair?
I even got an email over this from the Grafton Registry of Deeds complaining about the post I did – that email thread after the jump. Silly person.
Jeff Day – candidate for NH State House, Hillsborough County District 6 (Goffstown)
Hello, fellow Goffstown residents,
Exciting news! I’ve decided to run for state representative. By way of introduction, I am Jeff Day, and I am vying for one of the 5 seats in the NH House representing the town of Goffstown. I am a Goffstown native. I am your neighbor, your friend, your classmate. My kids have gone to school with your kids and grandchildren.
When a Group that Claims to Defend the 2nd Amendment Steps on the 1st
The crossfire continues over the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition’s survey with the “fine print” declaration that failing to return that survey would brand you as anti-gun. Skip took them to the woodshed here, pointing out that it is both ridiculous and unproductive, and while Skip inferred it he never actually says it.
They are attempting to compel speech.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh has ruled that Net Neutrality violates the First Amendment.
Ken White at Popehat has a detailed breakdown of important decisions written by longtime circuit court judge Brett Kavanaugh. The point being, not to advocate but to explore for the purpose of summarizing where a Justice Kavanaugh is likely to come down on future First Amendment cases.
I found them all interesting but one, in particular, caught my attention and it relates to our next GrokPoll (which will be published this evening Thursday.)
Janus vs AFSCME – it’s personal (although it’s not AFSCME, it’s NH SEIU’s local chapter 1984)
UPDATE and bumped: Yay! It looks like the NH Administration is taking this seriously (emphasis mine, reformatted):
The Union Leader obtained a memo Attorney General Gordon MacDonald sent to Administrative Services Commissioner Charles Arlinghaus making it clear that as of the next payroll on July 6 all state workers must give permission to have any fees withheld from their paychecks. “As a result of this decision, the Department of Administrative Services must immediately stop deducting an agency fee from any state employee,” MacDonald wrote.
“No agency fee should be deducted from paychecks issued on that date and thereafter unless the employee has given his or her consent.”
Works for me! Now to get rid of the idea that a union can negotiate for me better than I can; how could they in that they have no idea what is best for me?
******
I was talking with a number of folks this morning at a meeting when the word flashed around. My go to blog for SCOTUS decisions is SCOTUSblog.com for their play-by-play calling out of the decisions that are released by The Supreme Court of the United States and the on-the-spot quick analysis of what the decisions mean to “the folks” like me who aren’t lawyers and make no claims no how to be such. Amy Howe summed it up well (all emphasis mine):
Breaking News: Mandatory Union Dues Violate First Amendment
Boom!
For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.
More from the opinion on the jump.
NIFLA v. Becerra: Pro-Life Agencies Need Not Market Abortion
In today’s NIFLA v. Becerra decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that pro-life pregnancy care centers may not be compelled by a state to advertise for abortion. The margin: one vote.
Apparently, abortion providers in California are so hard up for business that they thought they ought be able to drag pro-lifers into helping out with marketing. Four Supreme Court Justices were OK with that. Fortunately, five were not.
SCOTUS Says CA Law Forcing Pro-Life Facilities to Promote Abortion is Compelled Speech
California passed a law that forced licensed non-profit pro-life groups to include information about abortion services on their premises. Today the Supreme court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra that this creates a burden on protected speech. It imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from the State’s informational interest. It requires covered facilities to … Read more
When Progressives Wax ‘Poetic’ About ‘Religious Bigotry’ …
The Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling continues to bear fruit. David French, writing at National Review Online, has provided several pieces that emphasize the upside of the decision, here, here, and here.
One important point that is a gift that should keep on giving is a quote from the Decision written by Justice Kennedy.
To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere.
Masterpiece Cakeshop Case: Yes, It Was Narrow
The Colorado baker who chose not to be involved in providing services for a ceremony that violated his religious beliefs prevailed in the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision at the Supreme Court. The vote was 7-2, and the result was much closer than the score indicates.
How can a 7-2 Supreme Court decision be narrow? If I had a nickel for every social media post along those lines in the past few days, I could cover this blog’s expenses for a good long while. I’m even hearing the question from people who should know better.
It wasn’t the vote that was narrow. It was the decision. The point on which the seven Justices agreed was that the baker hadn’t gotten a fair shake from the Civil Rights Commission. That’s it. That’s enough for now, to be sure, but the narrowness of the decision is fair warning that this was not a First Amendment landmark.
Justice Thomas Defends Free Speech in Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado…
Hopefully, Ellen cleared up the “narrowness” of the decision in the SCOTUS Masterpiece Cake Shop LTD v. Colorado Human Rights Commission. The verdict was narrow not the vote. And while it was a victory for religious conscience, it was not a sweeping defense of Free Speech.
We do, however, find advocates for free speech in concurring opinions that should be examined because they remind us that the First Amendment is under constant attack and the Supreme Court provides a wealth of resources for its defense when needed. And they are needed.
DISQUS Doodlings: Both Jonathan Baird and Dan Williams are wrong about the First Amendment and the NFL
Background: Jonathan Baird works for the Social Security Administration, Dan Williams is a government teacher. Both work in union dominated workplaces; my opinion stems from that and that both of them get the new NFL policy wrong from different viewpoints. Mine? The owners own the teams – they can make policies that their employees have to follow; Baird disagrees (reformatted, emphasis mine):
The new policy outlined by Commissioner Roger Goodell that requires NFL players to stand during the national anthem did not come out of any collective bargaining agreement between the owners and the players. It was a unilateral assertion by management. Up until now, there has been no NFL rule that prohibited players from demonstrating during the national anthem. I am at a loss to understand how the owners think they can enforce a unilateral declaration.
The Press, Corporations, Campaign Finance, and The First Amendment
Eugene Volokh is writing a series of articles on Free Speech and freedom of the press over at Reason. In this installment, he looks at exceptions afforded to a special class of corporate ‘speakers’ the professional press.
Under any sensible accounting scheme, an editorial supporting a candidate would cost a lot in labor costs and the editorial’s share of newsprint, ink, and distribution costs. That would often far exceed $1000; and most newspapers are of course organized as corporations. Likewise for extended coverage supporting or opposing a candidate, when engaged in by an opinion magazine.
David Hogg: Omission of Hunter Pollack a “Miscommunication” Op ed
By Jim Johnson
So, now David Hogg (self-anointed boy wonder) claims that Hunter Pollack’s omission from speaking at the ‘March for Our Lives’ was merely a “miscommunication.” Hunter Pollack disagrees and surmises his ‘message’ did not fit the “agenda.”
In retrospect, the organized ‘March for Our Lives’ has been a complete travesty.