Tag: 1st amendment

October 7: A Turning Point for Free Speech?

Two hundred and forty-seven years ago last week, General George Washington rallied his beleaguered troops at Valley Forge with a public reading of Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis, which reminded them, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country.” Where is Paine now when we need him?

Freedom of speech on American college campuses is now facing great challenges in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. According to some, the outpouring of ugly, inexplicable, and vituperative speech unleashed by these events means that now is the time to abandon the concept of free speech at our universities. Apparently, to these “sunshine constitutional scholars,” speech can only be free if it is polite and unchallenging.

Without a doubt, the past two and a half months have been a complete shitshow: clueless students excusing butchery and war crimes; feckless university presidents whose past records exhibit little concern for First Amendment limits now invoking the need to protect free expression; and opportunistic politicians who seemingly lack any understanding of constitutional constraints grandstanding their way through the misery and trying to impose plainly unconstitutional restrictions on student speech.

The campus reactions were kicked off with an October open letter from the Harvard Graduate Students for Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Committee, which began: “We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” That opening salvo presaged a tsunami of impassioned rhetoric from all sides of the conflict, with some pro-Palestinian groups praising the October 7 invaders as “martyrs” and chanting slogans like “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” and “by any means necessary.” Others, justifiably horrified at the hostage taking and the atrocities committed in the October attack, responded with harsh rhetoric of their own, sometimes blurring the distinction between condemning the terrorist organization Hamas and attacking all Palestinians. 

In this toxic atmosphere, clashes on campus and in the streets have brought to the surface many repulsive ideas, and some actions that go beyond the “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate which “may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks” that the First Amendment protects. For example, police arrested a Cornell University student for allegedly authoring online posts threatening Jewish students that included the claim he would “bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig jews.” Some pro-Palestinian activists ripped down posters with pictures of hostages held by Hamas. In November, three young Palestinian men were shot and injured near the University of Vermont, an incident federal authorities are investigating as a possible hate crime.

Keep reading

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Mississippi’s Ban On Marijuana Advertising, Citing Free-Speech Rights

Mississippi’s medical cannabis advertising ban is preventing a small dispensary from attracting customers, Tru Source owner Clarence Cocroft is arguing in a federal lawsuit that casts the law as a violation of his free-speech rights.

Though medical marijuana is now legal for Mississippians with qualifying conditions and a medical cannabis card, state law prohibits dispensary owners and cultivators from advertising cannabis products.

“It’s a daunting task to stay in the industry when you can’t advertise,” Cocroft told the Mississippi Free Press on December 8. “And it’s legal. If they allow you to get licensed, they should allow you to promote your business.”

Cocroft owns Tru Source, the state’s first Black-owned medical cannabis dispensary, located in the southeast industrial zoning area of Olive Branch, Mississippi. Cocroft and his dispensary filed a lawsuit on November 14 against the officials in charge of the regulations at the Mississippi State Department of Health, the Mississippi Department of Revenue and the Mississippi Alcohol Beverage Control Bureau.

To open a medical cannabis shop in the state, a person must apply for a dispensary license, register for a sales tax permit and pay thousands of dollars in fees. A person must have a medical cannabis card and be over the age of 21 to enter a dispensary.

“The fight was, ‘OK, we’re paying you all a lot of taxes. We’re abiding by all your rules that you have set forth. All we’re asking is simple: Allow us to advertise. It’s going to increase your tax rate as a state,’” Cocroft said.

Tru Source relies on its website, word of mouth and signs posted on the building for advertising. But Cocroft cannot advertise his dispensary or its website in any other advertising medium. The owner said many customers would not have known about the store if they had not driven by the area.

“It’s not just me in my location that cannot advertise,” he said. “It’s every location in Olive Branch; it’s every dispensary in DeSoto County and all 82 counties,” Cocroft said.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Rejects Press Freedom Claims By Project Veritas In Ashley Biden Diary Case

A federal judge in Manhattan has ruled that investigative journalism outfit Project Veritas should have to turn over documents detailing how the organization came into possession of the alleged diary of President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of a special master’s recommendation that Project Veritas should be made to turn over all documents in its possession that detail how it came into possession of the diary in the fall of 2020. Judge Torres ruled against claims by Project Veritas that it has journalistic non-disclosure privileges under the First Amendment and thus should not be made to turn over its records.

With Judge Torres’s ruling, federal prosecutors could soon take possession of more than 900 documents detailing how Project Veritas came into possession of the diary. Judge Torres ordered a government evidentiary filter team to sort out any documents not protected under attorney-client privilege and turn those documents over to government investigators by Jan. 5.

The legal battle over Ms. Biden’s alleged diary began in the fall of 2021, when federal agents carried out search warrants at the homes of several Project Veritas employees, including the group’s founder and then-CEO James O’Keefe. Project Veritas has asserted that federal investigators should be compelled to return records seized from the organization, arguing that the records seizure violated their First Amendment rights as a press organization.

Project Veritas had specifically argued that past legal precedents had protected news organizations from liability for publishing information, even when said information was acquired illegally by an intermediary. Judge Torres, an appointee of President Barack Obama, ruled that such precedents don’t protect Project Veritas in this case because federal prosecutors are treating the press organization as an active participant in the theft of Ms. Biden’s alleged diary, rather than a simple recipient of unlawfully obtained information.

“The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of information by a ‘law-abiding possessor of information,’ even if the publisher received the information from a source who obtained it unlawfully,” Judge Torres wrote. “Here, the Government is investigating whether [Project Veritas and its members] participated in the theft of the Victim’s journal and the other items.”

Ms. Biden’s alleged diary was discovered by defendants Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander. Without naming Ms. Biden specifically, federal charging documents state “an immediate family member of a then-former government official who was a candidate for national political office” had stored the diary at a private residence in Delray Beach, Florida.

Project Veritas has contended that it received the diary through a pair of tipsters, whom they referred to as A.H. and R.K., who approached the organization. Project Veritas further asserted that the diary was not stolen, but simply abandoned by Ms. Biden and subsequently found by their tipsters.

Keep reading

Video Shows Vermont State Trooper Arrest Man for Flipping Him Off

Newly released video footage shows a Vermont state trooper arresting a man on disorderly conduct charges for the First Amendment–protected activity of flipping him off.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment advocacy group, released dashcam footage today showing the 2018 arrest of Gregory Bombard, who is pursuing a lawsuit alleging his free speech rights were violated by the arrest.

Bombard was driving through his hometown of St. Albans, Vermont, on February 9, 2018, when he was pulled over by Vermont State Trooper Jay Riggen. 

Riggen accused Bombard of giving him the finger. Bombard denied it, but he was incensed about being pulled over for such a trivial matter. “That would be considered freedom of expression, so I’m going to file a complaint against you,” Bombard said.

“And you’re more than welcome to,” Riggen responded. “So here’s the issue: Although it may be freedom of expression, it’s so unusual that it requires intervention to make sure you don’t need help of some kind.”

As Bombard’s lawsuit explains, Riggen’s reasoning was legally deficient. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers Vermont, held in 2013 that the middle finger’s “nearly universal recognition” as an insult made it unreasonable for an officer to interpret it as a distress signal.

Bombard tried to continue the conversation, but Riggen concluded the traffic stop and walked back to his car. Bombard was not content, however. As Bombard pulled away, he actually did flip Riggen off.

“It looks like as he pulled away he called me an asshole and said, ‘Fuck you,'” Riggen relayed into his radio. “Flipped the bird. I’m going to arrest him for disorderly conduct. There were multiple people around there.”

Keep reading

New York lawmakers introduce bill to force Chick-Fil-A restaurants along highway to stay open on Sundays

Yes, New York apparently cares more about travelers and their munchies than they do about religious freedom — or freedom at all, for that matter. Chick-Fil-A closes on the Lord’s Day to give employees a holy day of rest, but it looks like they could be faced with a big-time decision in their New York State rest stop locations — whether to stay and remain open on Sunday, or to simply move out.

It’s the holiday season, meaning thousands of drivers will be on the road, and now a group of New York State Assembly officials want to ensure all travelers can access all restaurants…seven days a week. News10 spoke with one of the sponsors of the Rest Stop Restaurant Act, Assemblyman Tony Simone …

The bill will require companies contracted to provide food and beverage services along the Thruway and at the Port Authority in New York and New Jersey to remain open seven days a week.

That means Chick-Fil-A, in locations at rest stops along this highway system, would be forced to stay open on Sundays.

Keep reading

BARRING SPEAKERS UNDER U.S. SANCTIONS PUTS IDEAS OFF-LIMITS, SAY FREE SPEECH ADVOCATES

A LAWSUIT FILED Wednesday says the U.S. government violated the First Amendment when it prevented a U.S.-based organization from hosting people sanctioned by the U.S. as speakers at a conference earlier this year. The suit, if successful, could have far-reaching implications for placing federal limits on freedom of speech when sanctioned or otherwise designated people or groups are involved.

The complaint, filed by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, argues that the decision made by the Office of Foreign Assets Control could have consequences for public discourse, including whether news outlets could publish interviews with individuals designated under U.S. sanctions law.

For the lawyers bringing the suit, the current curtailment of speech based on sanctions amounts to the policing of thought. 

“The question at the core of the case is what control the U.S. government has over the American mind and whether it can effectively insulate Americans from ideas and people who it decides are off-limits,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight Institute. “That is an extraordinarily dangerous authority.”

Keep reading

Is Free Speech A Relic In America?

Is the First Amendment becoming a historic relic? On July 4, 2023, federal judge Terry Doughty condemned the Biden administration for potentially “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” That verdict was ratified by a federal appeals court decision in September 2023 that concluded that Biden administration “officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government.”

In earlier times in America, such policies would have faced sweeping condemnation from across the political spectrum. But major media outlets like the Washington Post have rushed to the barricades to defend the Biden war on “misinformation.” Almost half of Democrats surveyed in September 2023 affirmed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” Fifty-five percent of American adults support government suppression of “false information” – even though only 20 percent trust the government.

The broad support for federal censorship is perplexing considering that courts have vividly laid out the government’s First Amendment violations. Doughty delivered 155 pages of damning details of federal browbeating, jawboning, and coercion of social-media companies. Doughty ruled that federal agencies and the White House “engaged in coercion of social media companies” to delete Americans’ comments on Afghanistan, Ukraine, election procedures, and other subjects. He issued an injunction blocking the feds from “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Censors reigned from the start of the Biden era. Barely two weeks after Biden’s inauguration, White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty demanded that Twitter “immediately” remove a parody account of Biden’s relatives. Twitter officials suspended the account within 45 minutes but complained they were already “bombarded” by White House censorship requests at that point.

Biden White House officials ordered Facebook to delete humorous memes, including a parody of a future television ad: “Did you or a loved one take the COVID vaccine? You may be entitled….” The White House continually denounced Facebook for failing to suppress more posts and videos that could inspire “vaccine hesitancy” — even if the posts were true. Facebook decided that the word “liberty” was too hazardous in the Biden era; to placate the White House, the company suppressed posts “discussing the choice to vaccinate in terms of personal or civil liberties.”

Flaherty was still unsatisfied and raged at Facebook officials in a July 15, 2021, email: “Are you guys f–king serious?” The following day, President Biden accused social-media companies of “killing people” by failing to suppress all criticism of COVID vaccines.

Keep reading

Mississippi politician Michael Cassidy, 35, is charged with criminal mischief after ‘BEHEADING’ Satanic altar statue inside Iowa State Capitol

A former US Navy pilot and unsuccessful congressional candidate has been charged with criminal mischief after allegedly destroying a controversial Satanic Temple’s display inside the Iowa State Capitol.

Michael Cassidy, 35, was arrested for tearing down the Iowa Satanic Temple’s Baphomet display on Thursday morning, Iowa State Police confirmed to DailyMail.com. 

The display featured a statue of Baphomet – a goat-headed figure used to represent Satan along with the seven tenets of Satanism, Satanic symbols and candles. 

Cassidy was charged with fourth-degree criminal mischief after he allegedly ripped the head off Baphomet.

The passionate Christian confirmed his act of destruction in a text to Fox News, saying he tore down the statue because ‘it was extremely anti-Christian.’

Keep reading

Washington Post Op-Ed Argues That Colleges Should ‘Restrict’ Speech To Fight Antisemitism

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, college campuses around the country have been embroiled in intense anti-Israel protests. Elite college campuses have seen particularly aggressive demonstrations that have frequently included outright support for Hamas.

On December 5th, the college presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) appeared at a Congressional hearing, where they were grilled on their schools’ response to allegations of campus anti-Semitism. During the hearing, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), asked all three if “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate their school’s policies. 

“It is a context-dependent situation,” University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill responded. “If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment,”

Outrage over Magill’s answer—both from those who wished to see her commit to banning legal but offensive anti-Semitic speech and from those who pointed out Penn’s consistent record of punishing professors for much less offensive expression—culminated in her resignation on Saturday.

While First Amendment advocates have expressed hope that these recent controversies would show just how easily abused anti “hate speech” rules on college campuses are, many administrators seem to be taking the opposite position, advocating for more censorship, not less.

On Sunday, Claire O. Finkelstein, who is a member of Penn’s Open Expression Committee and chairs the law school’s committee on academic freedom, took to the pages of The Washington Post in an article titled “To fight antisemitism on campuses, we must restrict speech.”

In it, Finkelstein farcically argued that “the value of free speech has been elevated to a near-sacred level on university campuses,” adding that, “as a result, universities have had to tolerate hate speech.”

The idea that free speech is treated as “near-sacred” on college campuses is beyond absurd. Far from being treated as sacrosanct, free speech and free expression are constantly under fire at American college campuses, elite colleges most of all. 

As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) CEO Greg Lukianoff points out, over the past decade, “we know of more than 1,000 campaigns to get professors punished for their free speech or academic freedom. Of those, about two-thirds succeeded in getting the professor punished.” 

The most disturbing detail? Lukianoff says that almost 200 of these professors were fired, “nearly twice the number estimated for the Red Scare.”

Keep reading

Affiliate ACLU Members Revolt After Left-Wing Group Agrees To Represent NRA

Infighting at the American Civil Liberties Union shortly began after the group revealed on X on Saturday that it would represent the National Rifle Association in an upcoming Supreme Court case. 

Several of the ACLU’s affiliates, such as the ACLU of Montana, the ACLU of North Carolina, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, wrote on X that they disagree with the ACLU’s move to provide legal representation to the NRA. 

As clarified yesterday, the ACLU emphasized that their support is not for the NRA’s Second Amendment goals but instead on the First Amendment issue, opposing the federal government’s blacklisting of an advocacy group based solely on its viewpoints.

Keep reading