Tag: 1st amendment

The Porn Industry Is Worried That a Republican Senator Wants to Ban Porn

Some members of the adult industry are worried that a prorposed federal bill that’s going after content that aims to “arouse, titillate, or gratify” sexual desires has the potential to outlaw porn nationwide.

This week, Republican Sen. Mike Lee, from Utah, introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), which seeks to “establish a national definition of obscenity that would apply to obscene content that is transmitted via interstate or foreign communications,” according to a statement from Lee’s office. 

Technically, a federal standard that defines obscenity already exists. Under the decades-old Miller Test, content is obscene if it hits certain conditions, including that the content in question depicts sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way.” At the moment, producing and distributing sexual content is legal in the U.S. 

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for workers in the adult industry, and its members are watching Lee’s bill closely because they believe it represents yet another attempt by conservatives to censor speech and expression about sex. 

Lee “introduced a bill that would remove porn’s First Amendment protections and effectively prohibit distribution of adult material in the US,” Free Speech Coalition (FSC) tweeted. “FSC is monitoring the bill, and will continue to do so in the new Congress.”

Keep reading

Phoenix Allows NFL to Determine What Residents Can Display on Their Property During Super Bowl

The Arizona-based Goldwater Institute (GI) has called out the city of Phoenix for imposing free speech restrictions on residents in a “Special Promotional and Civic Event Area” (Clean Zone) leading up to and through the 2023 Super Bowl.

“By delegating unfettered censorship power to private entities, the city of Phoenix has launched a blatant attack on its own citizens’ free speech rights under both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution. It’s simple: Phoenicians shouldn’t need to ask the NFL for permission to communicate with the public on their own private property,” said GI Staff Attorney John Thorpe in a statement emailed to The Arizona Sun Times.

The Sun Times reached out to the city of Phoenix for additional comments but did not hear back.

Thorpe sent a letter Tuesday to the city regarding this issue. He explained that under Resolution 22073, passed by the city, all temporary signage in the Clean Zone “not authorized by the NFL or the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee” (ASBHC) are restricted. According to Thorpe, these restrictions cover nearly all of downtown Phoenix and will be in effect until February 19th, 2023.

The city of Phoenix states that the final day to get any temporary sign applications approved is December 15th.

This ordinance has allegedly caused trouble for one Phoenician business and property owner, Bramley Paulin. The GI represents Paulin in this situation and shared that he reached out to potential partners about leasing and advertising but was rejected because of the city’s restrictions.

Aside from the aforementioned free speech violations, Thorpe argued that the city is also improperly delegating its government power. As established in Industrial Commission v C D Pipeline, the government “may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom [it] has no supervision or control.” Therefore, the city violates this by giving private entities, the NFL and ASBHC, regulation over private citizens’ free speech. Additionally, the city’s ordinance may violate the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Gift Clause.

Keep reading

In Alaska, The First Amendment Is On Trial As The Left Tries To Punish Speech

The case of Alaska State Rep. David Eastman is bizarre and unprecedented, but it isn’t complicated. Put simply, left-wing activists are trying to trample the First Amendment and disenfranchise voters in Eastman’s district by asking a judge to rule him ineligible to hold office in the state.

Why? Because Eastman, 41, is a conservative. So are his constituents in Wasilla who recently elected him to a fourth term. If freedom of speech and association mean anything, Eastman should win his case easily. But the fact that he has to fight in court for the right to represent the people who elected him, and to clear his good name, is a testament to the relentless efforts of the left to criminalize the views of their political opponents and slander them as insurrectionists.

The details of Eastman’s ordeal almost defy belief. This week, a trial began in Anchorage to determine whether the Alaska lawmaker’s association with the Oath Keepers disqualifies him from holding office on the grounds that his alleged membership in the organization runs afoul of the Alaska constitution’s loyalty oath, which bars individuals from holding office if they belong to a group that “advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the United States or of a State,” or if they themselves advocate the same. A second part of the suit demands that the Alaska Division of Elections conduct assessments of every candidate’s loyalty to the Constitution so that voters will only be able to vote for candidates whose views have been officially approved by the state’s election bureaucracy.

Setting aside the outrageousness of allowing a state agency to vet the opinions of political candidates before their names can appear on the ballot, consider the gravity of what’s at stake in Eastman’s case: guilt by association. By his own admission, Eastman’s connection to Oath Keepers, a loosely organized group with some 38,000 members, is a “slight one.” He made a donation to the organization more than a dozen years ago and received a “lifetime membership” but says he has never attended a meeting.

Keep reading

Newly-Passed ‘Respect for Marriage’ Act May Threaten Religious Liberty: Experts

The “Respect for Marriage” Act, after passing through the U.S. House of Representatives, is just a signature away from reaffirming the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that legalized gay marriage.

President Joe Biden is expected to sign the Act, which would codify the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that requires states to license gay marriage. If it the legislation is signed into law, it would repeal the “Defense of Marriage” Act, which banned the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

That’s reason to celebrate for LGBT-identifying people concerned that their ability to marry needs safeguards.

However, some experts say the new federal law creates concerns for others, as it could take encroach on the freedoms of any who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages by making them vulnerable to lawsuits.

Two Republican representatives noted those concerns before the Dec. 8 vote. The bill was sent back to their chamber of Congress after the U.S. Senate changed its wording.

The new version included amendments regarding religious liberty and a section describing the importance of marriage and perspectives on it. The bill also protects interracial marriage.

Keep reading

College students turn more liberal, OK speech death penalty

Calls for diversity on campuses and in Main Street businesses and banning hate speech, even that protected by the First Amendment , are no longer issues to fight over for college students.

Now, it’s a reason for the electric chair .

In a remarkable shift showing how students, many lining up for President Joe Biden’s loan forgiveness plan, have turned left since the 2020 election, a new Yale survey suggests that America’s best and brightest are giving up on key constitutional freedoms and even embracing socialism.

In the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale University national student survey, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates and provided to Secrets, big majorities want companies to require employees to declare support for workplace diversity just to get a job.

And when it comes to speech, nearly half believe the death penalty is OK to shoot down hate speech.

Keep reading

Senator Dick Durbin says free speech doesn’t protect “misinformation” that downplays political violence

“Free speech does not include spreading misinformation to downplay political violence,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted – referencing an alleged “uptick in hate speech” since Elon Musk took Twitter private.

“Misinformation” is protected by the First Amendment.

The uptick that Senator Durbin is referencing was a bot campaign that Twitter suggests was used to troll the platform and the media as soon as Musk took control of the company.

Senator’s Durbin’s comments followed Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeting a link to an article containing claims about the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul.

Keep reading

The City of Charlottesville’s new online speech restrictions for employees is likely unconstitutional

The City of Charlottesville passed a new policy for city workers that prohibits them from commenting, offline and online, about a wide range of topics. The policy is a potential violation of employees’ First Amendment free speech rights.

The policy was passed in response to how the city handled Allen Groat, an analyst for the fire and police department, for his involvement in the January 6 2021 riot at the US Capitol. Groat tweeted that he would engage in a “show of force,” and posted a photo of himself and former head of the Proud Boys.

Groat was investigated but was not criminally charged. Mayor Lloyd Snook said that Groat was not going to be fired because he had not been criminally charged. In response to the outrage that followed, Mayor Snook said that the city would review personnel policy.

The new policy, as reported by Fire, which went into effect last week, “requires that employees refrain from conduct, on- and off-duty, that will undermine City government objectives or impair the proper performance of governmental functions.”

That includes conduct that “undermines close working relationships that are essential to the effective performance of an employee’s job duties,” as well as conduct that impairs “discipline or harmony among co-workers.”

The policy heavily restricts city employees from exercising their First Amendment rights. An employee could be punished even for criticizing dangerous working conditions.

Keep reading

Lawmakers call on Biden to make it more difficult for people to download gun blueprints

Lawmakers in California, led by Congressman Mike Thompson, penned a letter asking the Joe Biden administration to hold manufacturers responsible for homemade ghost guns.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Currently, it is relatively easy to buy gun parts, or make them at home with a 3D printer, and create an untraceable firearm. Ghost guns allow people to circumvent the background check requirement to own a gun.

“It is far too easy for anyone to download from the internet the computer code to 3D-print unserialized, untraceable, plastic ‘ghost guns,’” the letter said. “These 3D-printed weapons circumvent our system of gun safety rules and regulations, and pose a serious threat to public safety and national security.”

The question of banning the distribution of blueprints for 3D printed guns has been debated over the years, with much speculation that banning the sharing of blueprints is a First Amendment violation.

“President Biden can undo the Trump-era rule that has made the instructions for the 3D-printing of untraceable and deadly ‘ghost’ guns widely available online,” said Senator Markey. “The online distribution of these ghost gun blueprints only increases the risk of these weapons proliferating and poses a serious threat to public safety and national security. President Biden should fulfil his campaign promise and reverse the Trump administration’s weakening of these gun safety regulations.”

“They’re making firearms and they’re shooting and they’re killing people,” Thompson said.

“If you are a danger to yourself or to others, if you’re dangerously mentally ill, if you’re a criminal, you should not be able to get your mitts on a gun,” he added.

CBS13 asked Thompson about gun advocacy groups pushing back against manufacturers being held liable yet they did not commit the actual crimes.

“I have one word for these groups and that’s, ‘tough.’ We need these rules,” he responded.

Keep reading

Student government VP resigns because First Amendment doesn’t ban ‘hate speech’

The vice president of the University of Illinois Student Government, or ISG, has tendered her resignation because the school will not “take a stand and prohibit hate speech.”

Vindhya Kalipi, a junior studying political science and statistics, made that point in a student government Instagram post put up on October 10.

Kalipi was not pleased about the appearance of Matt Walsh on his “What is a Woman?” tour at which he said challenging transgender ideology is “the hill he is ‘willing to die on’” and that gender transitioning is “castrating” children.

In its statement, the ISG said Walsh’s remarks were “hateful,” “wrong” and “induce[d] pain for many people.”

It also noted that given her beliefs, Kalipi (pictured) “talked to administrators and looked through existing laws and regulations” to ultimately discover there is no First Amendment exception for “hate speech.”

Keep reading

New York wants to ban the sharing of violent crime videos online

Leaders in the state of New York are calling for the criminalization of sharing videos of violent crime.

While the proposals are seemingly ignorant of the First Amendment, and were spurred by a mass shooting, they also could be used to stop people from sharing videos of crimes that take place in the city.

Overall indexed crime in New York City increased in July 2022 by 30.5% compared with July 2021 and, after a recent uptick in crime in New York over the last two years, social media users are sharing videos of violent crime to draw attention to a reversing trend.

Keep reading