Tag: 1st amendment

Freedom Caucus leader wants to limit religious freedom by barring Satanic displays in Arizona

In a bit of irony, the leader of Arizona’s far-right Freedom Caucus has sponsored a bill that clearly infringes on the right to religious freedom. 

Sen. Jake Hoffman, a Queen Creek Republican, wants to ban Satanic displays on public property in Arizona, claiming that Satanism is not a real religion, and therefore not owed protection under the First Amendment. 

Hoffman is the sponsor of Senate Bill 1279, which he’s named the RESPECT Act, short for Reject Escalating Satanism by Preserving Essential Core Traditions. 

“It’s the blatant unconstitutionality of it,” Hemant Mehta, editor of The Friendly Atheist, told the Arizona Mirror. “It just violates every intention of the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

Mehta doesn’t believe that Hoffman actually thinks that this bill will ever become law, with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs ready and willing to veto it, but that it’s simply sending a message to his followers. 

“It’s so hypocritical,” Mehta said. “This shows you how little Republicans like Hoffman actually care about freedom. He wants freedom for people like him and no freedom for people he disagrees with. It’s ridiculous.”

The bill was the subject of a heated debate during a Senate Government Committee meeting Wednesday, where Hoffman, who chairs the committee, repeatedly interrupted members of the public testifying against the bill. 

He spoke over them to correct them about what he said were their misinterpretation of it and admonished members of the audience for making faces and gestures at him and the other lawmakers on the committee. He also accused a member of The Satanic Temple of being disingenuous in her testimony, something that members of the public would not be allowed to say about Hoffman’s claims without being told they were in violation of the legislature’s rules against impugning the motivations of a lawmaker. 

The bill passed through the committee with a vote of 5-1, with the only Democrat present, Sen. Juan Mendez, of Tempe, voting against. The two other Democratic members of the committee were absent. 

Keep reading

She Was Arrested for Her Journalism. A Federal Court Says She Can’t Sue.

A journalist asked the police a few questions and was arrested by that same agency for publishing the answers.

That this happened not in China or Russia but in the U.S. may raise some eyebrows. Yet that’s the conduct a federal court greenlit last week when it ruled that law enforcement in Laredo, Texas, did not obviously violate the Constitution when officers allegedly misled a magistrate judge and arrested Priscilla Villarreal for doing basic reporting, adding another twist to a case that in some sense asks the following: Exactly who is a journalist?

In April 2017, Villarreal reported the identity of a Border Patrol agent who killed himself by jumping off of a local overpass. A few weeks later, she published the last name of a family involved in a fatal traffic accident. She confirmed both of those identities with an officer in the Laredo Police Department (LPD). In response, that department set in motion a criminal investigation—complete with subpoenas for various people’s cellphone records—that saw Villarreal arrested months later for violating an obscure Texas law, § 39.06(c), that prohibits soliciting “nonpublic information” if done “with intent to obtain a benefit.”

The supposed benefit, the government said, was followers on her Facebook page.

Villarreal’s Facebook is indeed central to her story. She is known almost ubiquitously in Laredo, where she gained popularity by livestreaming local crime scenes and traffic accidents, infusing her videos with provocative, and often-profane, commentary. Some of that reporting has been critical of law enforcement, attracting their ire and culminating, she says, in their attempt to shut her up via the criminal justice system.

It didn’t work. But it did kick off a multiyear debate over whether or not her arrest violated the Constitution, and, if so, if those officers should be shielded by qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that prevents alleged victims of abuse from bringing civil suits against state and local government actors if the way in which those employees violated the law has not yet been spelled out precisely in a prior court ruling.

After years of a legal back-and-forth, Villarreal got her answer last week from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit: It was not clear that officers had violated the Constitution when they charged her criminally for her journalism, the majority ruled 9-7. But the decision, which was challenged forcefully by several dissenting judges, raises further questions about what qualifies as journalism and if those who adhere to a more traditional approach are entitled to a different set of rights.

“Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism. That is inappropriate,” wrote Judge Edith Jones. “Mainstream, legitimate media outlets routinely withhold the identity of accident victims or those who committed suicide until public officials or family members release that information publicly.”

According to Jones and the majority, a reasonable officer could not be expected to know that it is unconstitutional to bring charges against someone for asking the government questions. That obscure Texas law, Jones said, understandably supplied law enforcement with the notion that Villarreal was indeed a criminal, despite that the statute appears to have been written to discourage corruption in government, not boilerplate journalism.

The way Villarreal communicates information, however, is anything but boilerplate. She is not employed by a publication, and her livestreams are raw and unfiltered. That general spirit is summed up well in what she named her page: Lagordiloca, or “the crazy, fat lady.”

In that vein, the 5th Circuit’s decision is dripping with contempt for Villarreal’s enterprise; Jones makes little attempt to hide it. Lagordiloca’s rough-around-the-edges, muckraker approach can certainly be jarring. But one wonders if the court would have ruled the same way if Villarreal had been employed by, say, the Laredo Morning Times, where her alleged “benefit” for seeking information would arguably be more significant: a salary. It is also unclear if the police would have had the gumption to arrest her had she fit a more conventional mold.

Keep reading

Calling Someone ‘Transphobic’ In Florida Could Cost Accusers $35,000 Or More Under New Law

In what could very clearly become the slipperiest of slopes, a bill introduced in the Florida Senate would make calling someone ‘transphobic’ , ‘homophobic’ , racist, or sexist a form of defamation.

Introduced on Friday, SB 1780 “Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likeness,” would make it easier for people to sue each other for defamation.

According to the bill, “an allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se,” which means that even when said allegations are false, they are automatically defamatory – meaning that anyone accused of said ‘isms’ wouldn’t have to prove “actual malice,” a higher standard set for defamation suits following a 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times vs. Sullivan.

In instances where someone is accused of homophobia or transphobia, defendants charged with defamation wouldn’t be allowed to use the plaintiff’s religious or scientific beliefs as part of their defense, and could face fines of at least $35,000.

The bill, which has a counterpart in the Florida House (HB 757), would also significantly narrow the definition of “public figure” in defamation lawsuits to exclude non-elected or appointed public employees, as well as individuals who became publicly known for defending themselves against accusations – either by giving interviews or being the subject of a viral “video, image, or statement uploaded on the Internet,” CBS News reports.

The bill also weakens protections for anonymous sources for journalists – and classifies their statements as “presumptively false,” making journalists vulnerable to lawsuits.

Keep reading

Utah Would Rather Repeal Social Media Age Check Law Than Defend It In Court

Rather than defend a clearly unconstitutional measure passed to “protect” kids from social media, the government of Utah intends to repeal the law.

Last year, Utah became the first state to pass a law limiting minors’ social media use to those who had parental consent and requiring platforms to provide a way for parents to access their kids’ accounts. It kicked off a wave of similar measures in statehouses across the country—laws that would require anyone using social media to prove their age through such methods as submitting biometric data or a government-issued ID.

Now that it faces a pair of challenges in federal court, the state has a new stance: “Psych! We didn’t actually mean it!”

“They know it’s unconstitutional. They know it’s pure grandstanding and culture warrioring,” writes Techdirt editor Mike Masnick. “And they don’t want to face the music for abusing the rights of the citizens who elected them to support the Constitution, not undermine it.”

Keep reading

Oklahoma State Senator authors bill to limit freedom of the press

If the Oklahoma legislature passes it, the Common Sense Freedom of Press Control Act would place more monitoring requirements and financial obligations on journalists and media outlets.

State Sen. Nathan Dahm (R – Broken Arrow) authored Senate Bill 1837, which seeks to “avoid potential abuse of the freedom of the press.”

Under the proposed requirements, anyone who works for a media outlet would need to submit to criminal background checks and quarterly drug tests.

The bill would also require them to file for a license from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, obtain $1 million in liability insurance, and attend an eight-hour “propaganda-free” safety training developed by PragerU.

The license for individual journalists would cost $290 every five years. Media outlets would also need to pay $250,000 for a license every year and obtain $50 million in liability insurance. That applies to national and local outlets alike.

Those outlets would also be required to provide the following disclaimer before each story, or throughout any video: “WARNING: THIS ENTITY IS KNOWN TO PROVIDE PROPAGANDA. CONSUMING PROPAGANDA MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR HEALTH AND HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC.”

Keep reading

Feds Will Try Backpage Co-Founder Michael Lacey for a Third Time

Third time’s a charm? Let’s hope not. More than five and a half years after journalist and Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey was arrested, federal prosecutors have indicated that they will try him for a third time on the same charges.

It’s a frightening reminder of how far authorities will go to get their way—and to warn tech companies and publishers against platforming speech the government doesn’t like.

When you zoom out a bit, it’s clear Lacey’s case could have implications for anyone who posts or consumes content online.

Doesn’t the Constitution bar being tried twice on the same criminal charges? Generally, yes—in cases involving an acquittal or conviction, that is. But Lacey’s two previous trials resulted in mistrials, meaning the government can take another shot if it likes. And in a motion filed yesterday, prosecutors announced that indeed they would like a do over, again.

The first trial, back in 2021, was declared a mistrial after prosecutors and their witnesses couldn’t stop suggesting that Lacey and his co-defendants were charged with child sex trafficking. They were not, and efforts to suggest as much could have seriously prejudiced a jury.

In actuality, Lacey, his longtime (and now deceased) publishing partner James Larkin, and several other former Backpage staffers and executives were charged with violating the federal Travel Act by facilitating prostitution. They were also accused of conspiracy to facilitate prostitution and money laundering in service of this.

The second trial, held last fall, saw a jury totally acquit two of the defendants while two others—Scott Spear and John “Jed” Brunst—were acquitted on multiple charges and found guilty on multiple charges.

Lacey’s outcome was also mixed but with far fewer guilty or not guilty verdicts. He was ultimately found guilty on just one count and not guilty on just one count; the jury was hung on the remaining 84 counts. So, federal judge Diane Humetewa declared a mistrial with respect to these 84 counts, allowing (but not requiring) the government to try again.

Keep reading

US Supreme Court Defends Free Speech on Palestine

Free-speech defenders welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to take up a lawsuit that outlandishly claimed a civil society group provided “material support” for terrorism by advocating for Palestinian human rights.

The Supreme Court’s punting of Jewish National Fund v. U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR)— which comes over three months into Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip — marks the third consecutive time a federal court has dismissed the case, which USCPR said casts “collective activism and expression of solidarity as unlawful.”

In the case’s first dismissal in March 2021, a federal judge said that the plaintiffs’ argument was “to say the least, not persuasive.”  

USCPR Executive Director Ahmad Abuznaid hailed Monday’s move by the nation’s highest court, reiterating the group stands for “justice for all and an end to funding genocide.”

“There’s no lawsuit in the world that can stop us from pushing our demands for human rights,” he said. “We will remain focused on opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people and pursuing justice and freedom for the Palestinian people.”

According to USCPR: 

“At issue were USCPR’s fiscal sponsorship of the Boycott National Committee and expressions of support for the rights and demands of Palestinians participating in the Great Return March [2108-19], when Palestinians protested to demand respect for their right to return to the villages from which Israeli settlers expelled them in 1948.”

Keep reading

X CEO Linda Yaccarino Says “Free Speech” Ends at “Hate Speech”

X continues to sit on two chairs and send mixed signals regarding the company’s stance on free speech.

A new blog post penned this week by X Corp CEO Linda Yaccarino goes into this, at once claiming that society must “empower people to express its thoughts” – but also, that the line must be drawn at “hate” and “hate speech.”

Considering the platform’s long and difficult history with suppressing free speech, well documented in the Twitter Files, and the fact terms like “hate speech” not to mention “misinformation” are so often used simply to cover up straight-up censorship, Yaccarino’s intent here can be seen as confusing.

All the more so since the blog post is entitled, “Safeguarding Information Independence and Combating Hate Speech” only to be followed by the subtitle, “Building an Indispensable Global Town Square.”

This is particularly interesting since it’s an admission of sorts that X is indeed a (digital) town square. The argument that this is the case with all major social sites has been used for a long time to prove that speech there should be protected under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, regardless of the companies being privately-owned.

The term “modern public square” as it pertains to social networks is found in the 2017 US Supreme Court opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina.

Keep reading

Oklahoma proposal would make watching porn a felony, ban sexting outside marriage

An Oklahoma state senator has proposed a law that would make watching pornography a felony and ban sexting among people who are not married.

The bill, set to be introduced next month by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R-Elgin), would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.

The measure defines “obscene material” as the depiction or description of any “acts of sexual intercourse,” including those that are “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.”

Content depicting sodomy and masturbation would also be off the table, in addition to videos, movies, video games and text messages that involve “sadomasochistic abuse” and “acts of excretion in a sexual context.”

Under the measure, pictures of human genitals or women’s breasts would also be banned as well as “lewd exhibition” of the “buttocks.”

It would carry prison sentences of up to a year and $2,000 fines.

Keep reading

Advocates Outraged That Feds Asked Banks To Search Customers’ ‘Religious Texts’ Purchases

Faith leaders and religious liberty advocates are up in arms over news that the federal government encouraged banks and other financial institutions to search customers’ private accounts using the search term “religious texts.”

The “religious texts” search term was among those federal officials asked financial institutions to use following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, a congressional source with direct knowledge confirmed to The Epoch Times on Jan. 18.

Other terms that banks, credit card companies, and financial firms were asked to use in the searches included “MAGA” and “Trump,” according to the House Judiciary Committee. Federal officials at the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department sought the data from such searches as part of their investigation of the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Religious liberty advocates interviewed by The Epoch Times were unanimous in condemning the searches, which were conducted without judicially authorized search warrants.

“This is beyond alarming,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Epoch Times. “If we did a word search in history of the type of activities the Biden administration is engaged in, it would return words like ‘KGB,’ ’totalitarian,‘ ’repressive,’ ‘anti-democratic,’ and ‘grave threat to freedom.’”

Family Research Council is a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group that works on behalf of traditional values, including and especially defense of the family and religious freedom.

“The last place you would anticipate this kind of government intrusion into freedom of speech is America and yet it is rife with this administration and with the ‘deep state,’” Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver told The Epoch Times.

“It is a very serious concern and it should be a serious concern, no matter your political beliefs because if this is permitted, then it just depends on who is in power. This is what despotic governments do to suppress people that they don’t agree with,” he said.

Mr. Staver’s organization, Liberty Counsel, is an Orlando, Florida-based nonprofit religious liberty defense foundation.

Keep reading