Tag: 1st amendment

California teachers were right to severely punish girl, 7, for writing these words under Black Lives Matter drawing she gave to friend, judge rules

A California judge has ruled that teachers were right to punish a seven-year-old girl over a Black Lives Matter drawing because ‘she’s too young to have First Amendment rights.’

The first grader was banned from recess and drawing pictures at Viejo Elementary in Orange County after she added the words ‘any life’ below Black Lives Matter on a picture she drew and and gave to a black friend.

The picture showed the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ with four round shapes in various different tones of brown, beige and yellow, which was intended to ‘represent her friends’ who were ‘racially-mixed’. 

The girl’s family filed a lawsuit last year against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming her First Amendment Rights were violated during the 2021 incident.

But US Central District Court Judge David Card ruled that ‘Students have the right to be free from speech that denigrates their race while at school’. Card added that the drawing was not protected by the First Amendment because of the age of the girl, named B.B. in the suit, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Judge Card wrote: ‘An elementary school … is not a marketplace of ideas… Thus, the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation.’

Moreover, Judge Card wrote, ‘a parent might second-guess (the principal’s) conclusion, but his decision to discipline B.B. belongs to him, not the federal courts.’

Card added that ‘Undoubtedly, B.B.’s intentions were innocent… B.B. testified that she gifted the Drawing to M.C. to make her feel comfortable after her class learned about Martin Luther King Jr.’

B.B. was punished by her school after her friend, known as M.C. in the suit, took the picture home, where a parent saw it and found it offensive, emailing the school and demanding they take action.

This prompted principal Jesus Becerra to tell B.B. the drawing was inappropriate and racist. He then punished B.B. by making her publicly apologize on the playground to her classmates and teachers. B.B. was also banned from recess and from drawing pictures for two weeks.

Keep reading

Tennessee Woman’s ‘Fuck Em’ Both 2024′ Sign Is Protected Speech, Rules District Court

A federal judge has ruled a Tennessee woman can’t be fined for saying what we’re all thinking, even if it’s in the form of a yard sign.

This past week, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ruled that the town of Lakeland, Tennessee, violated resident Julie Pereira’s First Amendment rights when it fined her for placing a “Fuck Em’ [sic] Both 2024″ sign in her yard.

According to her First Amendment lawsuit filed last month, Pereira’s sign “simply and cogently” expressed her own opinion that neither major party candidate was an acceptable choice for president. A Lakeland code enforcement official disagreed, slapping Pereira with daily fines of $50 for violating the city’s prohibition on “obscene” signs.

The city only stopped fining Pereira after she covered the u on her sign with tape. By that point, she’d wracked up $688 in fines and other fees because of her sign.

But, unwilling to either pay those fees or dilute the “potency” of her message, Pereira sued the city of Lakeland for violating her First Amendment rights.

“In the interest of protecting not only my rights, but all citizens in the state of Tennessee this case has been taken to the next level because of its constitutional impacts,” she wrote on Facebook, per the New York Post‘s reporting.

In a brief, three-page ruling, the U.S. district court agreed with Pereira. The court barred the city from taking any further enforcement action over her sign and instructed the city to reimburse Pereira for the fines she’d paid, plus $31,000 in attorneys fees, and $1 in nominal damages for having her constitutional rights violated.

Keep reading

SATANISTS to volunteer in Florida schools following signing of new law that allows religious personnel to be employed in public schools

Public schools in Florida might soon be swarmed with members of the Satanic Temple as Gov. Ron DeSantis has put the call out for more school counselors following the signing of a state law allowing religious chaplains into public schools amid staffing shortages.

House Bill 931, which came into effect this July, permits outside organizations to provide “additional counseling and support to students.” DeSantis has made it clear that the law is intended as a means to legally reintroduce Christian values into public education.

However, the bill has left the implementation of chaplaincy programs to individual school districts and only requires schools to list a volunteer’s religion “if any.” (Related: Satanic temple in Texas files lawsuit demanding “religious right” to sacrifice babies through abortion.)

The Satanic Temple sees this as an opportunity to challenge the unconstitutional favoritism toward Christianity. Satanic Temple co-founder and spokesperson Lucien Greaves argued that if Christian chaplains are granted access to students, then so should their members, to maintain the separation of church and state.

“You have theocrats pushing further and further, signing unconstitutional bills into law, and they realize there’s no consequence,” Greaves said. “They’re giving everybody the impression that these types of things are legal, this is just the environment we’re living in. And in that way, they’re really numbing people to when these things actually do take effect, or when they are upheld by a corrupt judge who’s just playing partisan politics.”

Keep reading

Rapper B.G. Ordered To Turn Over New Song Lyrics to the Feds

Last week, a federal judge ruled that B.G., a rapper known for the hit 1999 song “Bling Bling,” must give the government copies of the lyrics to any new songs as a condition of his supervised release. While prosecutors can generally place a wide range of otherwise illegal restrictions on released prisoners’ conduct, critics argue this restriction is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

In 2012, B.G., whose real name is Christopher Dorsey, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for illegal gun possession and obstruction charges. After serving 11 years, Dorsey was released in February. In May, prosecutors filed a motion alleging that Dorsey had violated the terms of his bond by publishing songs “where he once again glorifies murder, drug dealing, and threatens those who cooperate with the police.” 

“Mr. Dorsey’s conduct directly contradicts the goals of supervised release—rehabilitation and becoming a responsible, law-abiding member of our community,” prosecutors write. “There is no way that any reasonable person can view these new videos…with an understanding of Mr. Dorsey’s past, and conclude that Mr. Dorsey was taking his rehabilitation seriously.” 

Prosecutors requested that Dorsey be prohibited from “promoting and glorifying future gun violence/murder and obstructive conduct in his songs and during his concerts.” Last Friday, New Orleans federal judge Susie Morgan denied this request, writing that the condition might be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Dorsey’s speech.

“The Court finds that, without question, the additional condition is not sufficiently clear and specific to serve as a guide for the Defendant’s conduct and for those entrusted with his supervision,” Morgan wrote. But despite this admission, she still placed a serious restriction on Dorsey’s speech. “To address the legitimate concerns expressed by the Government, the Court will impose a special condition that the Defendant provide the United States Probation Office with a copy of the lyrics of any song he writes, in advance of his production or promotion of such song, and that those lyrics be shared with the Government.”

While this restriction sounds outrageous, supervised release is a convoluted mess for many former prisoners. “When it was created in 1984, federal supervised release was supposed to be used sparingly to keep tabs on offenders who were public safety concerns or needed extra support to transition back into society,” Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella wrote last month. “However, it’s become used by default…and it’s sending many others back to prison for minor rule violations that might not warrant such a harsh response.”

Keep reading

Biden regime pressured Amazon to censor at least 43 books that discuss vaccine injuries and Big Pharma fraud

The House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has uncovered a book banning operation at Amazon that involves coercive, unconstitutional directives from Joe Biden’s rogue government. According to the Congressional report, Amazon was ordered by the federal government to change its algorithms to reduce visibility for books that are critical of pharmaceutical executives or vaccines.

The federal government compiled a “Do Not Promote” list that targeted at least 43 book titles, effectively limiting their reach and availability to the public. Representative Jim Jordan, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, highlighted these findings on social media, citing internal Amazon communications that link the censorship to requests from the Biden regime.

The Democrats, not the Republicans, are banning books and censoring important information

On numerous occasions, Joe Biden and his propaganda machine claimed that Republicans are fascists who are trying to ban books and take away our rights. We are constantly reminded that “MAGA Republicans are a threat to democracy!”

However, in 2021 and 2022, the Biden regime conscripted the Department of Homeland Security to target moms and dads who speak up at school board meetings about pornography in school libraries and the bodily restrictions that were forced on kids in the name of “safety.” Parents who stood up for common sense, who tried to get forced masking, pornography and perverse gender ideologies out of the schools were deemed “domestic terrorists” by Biden’s DHS.

Keep reading

Former Biden Advisor Claims “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Hinders Government Action

Even the New York Times looks like it’s treading somewhat lightly while publishing articles aimed at dismantling the very concept of the First Amendment.

An opinion piece penned by an Obama and Biden administration adviser, Tim Wu, is therefore labeled as a “guest essay.” But was it the author, or the newspaper, who decided on the title? Because it is quite scandalous.

“The First Amendment is Out of Control” – that’s the title.

Meanwhile, many believe that attacks on this speech-protecting constitutional amendment are what’s actually out of control these days.

Wu takes a somewhat innovative route to argue against free speech: he painstakingly frames it as concern that the universally mistrusted Big Tech might be abusing it, with the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding Texas and Florida laws, (ab)used as an example.

When the government colludes with mighty entities like major social platforms – the First Amendment becomes the primary recourse to defend speech now expressed in public square forums forged through the pervasiveness of the internet.

So despite Wu’s effort to make his message seem unbiased, the actual takeaways are astonishing: one is that the First Amendment is an obstacle for the government to protect citizens (for being invoked as a tool restraining censorship?)

But this means that the First Amendment, designed to protect citizens from government censorship, is doing its job.

In the same vein, contrary to the sentiment of this “essay,” the amendment is there not to protect “national security” – nor does free speech undermine that, in a democracy.

Keep reading

Anthony Blinken Reveals Government’s AI Plan To Censor Free Speech

U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken admitted last week that the State Department is preparing to use artificial intelligence to “combat disinformation,” amidst a massive government-wide AI rollout that will involved the cooperation of Big Tech and other private-sector partners.

At a speaking engagement streamed last week with the State Department’s chief data and AI officer, Matthew Graviss, Blinken gushed about the “extraordinary potential” and “extraordinary benefit” AI has on our society, and “how AI could be used to accelerate the Sustainable Development Goals which are, for the most part, stalled.”

He was referring to the United Nations Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development goals, which represent a globalist blueprint for a one-world totalitarian system. These goals include the gai-worshipping climate agenda, along with new restrictions on free speech, the freedom of movement, wealth transfers from rich to poor countries, and the digitization of humanity. Now Blinken is saying these goals could be jumpstarted by employing advanced artificial intelligence technologies.

Listen to Blinken, in the video below, openly describe how the government will use AI to clamp down on the free speech of citizens. (Fast-forward to the 3-minute mark and watch through the 7:07 mark.)

Keep reading

Florida stripper sues state over law raising age requirement

A 19-year-old is suing over a Florida law that raises the age requirements to work in adult entertainment establishments, saying it violated her constitutional rights and made her lose her job as a stripper.

In a lawsuit filed Monday, Serenity Michelle Bushey said she and at least eight other performers were fired from Café Risque, a strip club near Gainesville, because of the state law that increased the minimum age to 21.

The lawsuit, which also includes Café Risque and two adult businesses in Jacksonville as plaintiffs, seeks a permanent injunction stopping enforcement of the law.

“As with similar performers around the state, Bushey earned her living through her art while providing entertainment for the benefit and enjoyment of her audience,” the complaint said. “Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to engage in protected speech of this nature.”

The complaint, which was first reported by the Tallahassee Democrat, names Florida’s attorney general and two local prosecutors as defendants. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed HB 7063in May, saying it would deter human trafficking.

But the companies in the complaint disputed that, saying they’ve longemployed adult entertainers, cooks, waitresses and security guards younger than 21 with no instances of human trafficking.

The clubs said they hire performers under 21 to increase the talent pool and attract young adult audiences. Many young entertainers use the job to support themselves through college, they said.

The plaintiffs, represented by Gainesville attorney Gary Scott Edinger, saidthe law violates their First Amendment right to free speech.

Keep reading

A Law Professor’s Beef With a First Amendment ‘Spinning Out of Control’: Too Much Speech of the Wrong Sort

“The First Amendment is spinning out of control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu warns in a New York Times essay. While Wu ostensibly objects to Supreme Court decisions that he thinks have interpreted freedom of speech too broadly, his complaint amounts to a rejection of the premise that the principle should be applied consistently, especially when it benefits speakers and messages he does not like.

The immediate provocation for Wu’s diatribe is yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions in two cases challenging Florida and Texas laws that aimed to restrict content moderation on social media. Although the justices remanded both cases for further consideration by the lower courts, Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion in Moody v. NetChoice made it clear that the “editorial discretion” protected by the First Amendment extends to the choices that social media platforms make in deciding which content to host and how to present it, even when those decisions are inconsistent, biased, or arguably unfair. And that discretion, she said, includes the use of algorithms that reflect such value judgments.

Although Wu has reservations about “the wisdom and questionable constitutionality of the Florida and Texas laws,” he thinks “the breadth of the court’s reasoning should serve as a wake-up call.” He faults the justices for “blithely assuming” that “algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers.” The ruling, Wu says, reflects a broader trend in which “liberal as well as conservative judges and justices have extended the First Amendment to protect nearly anything that can be called ‘speech,’ regardless of its value or whether the speaker is a human or a corporation.”

As Wu sees it, freedom of speech should hinge on the “value” of the ideas that people express. It is hard to imagine a broader license for government censorship.

Keep reading

Free Speech Legislation Gains Attention Following Supreme Court Siding with Biden in Social Media Censorship Case

US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has reacted to Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Murthy v. Missouri case, to call for new legislation that would, going forward, reinforce the rules, already contained in the First Amendment, meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship.

Jordan, whose Committee is probing alleged government-Big Tech collusion in violation of the First Amendment through the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, noted that the US Constitution’s First Amendment is “first for a reason.”

According to the Republican congressman, free speech that this amendment protects (from government intervention) should extend to any government infringement – be it in Congress, or online.

Jordan said that while respectfully disagreeing with the SCOTUS ruling the Committee’s own oversight “has shown the need for legislative reforms.”

“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex,” Jordan wrote in a statement.

In other words, the increasingly pressing issue of how the government “interacts” with social platforms (because of their massive reach and therefore influence among the electorate) should be put into the hands of courts and their interpretations based on new and clear legislation to guide those decisions.

The Judiciary Committee chairman mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act – a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech.

Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee’s “important work will continue” – stating that the Subcommittee’s thus far “uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment.”

Keep reading