Tag: 1st amendment

Christian bookstore in Colorado Springs sues Colorado over new anti-discrimination act

The owners of a Christian bookstore in Colorado Springs are suing the state over a new anti-discrimination law they claim violates First Amendment rights by forcing them to use pronouns that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of Born Again Used Books, a family-owned bookstore operated by Eric and Sara Smith, with the aim of “seeking to uphold religious and commonsense beliefs about biological sex.”

The lawsuit challenges the Kelly Loving Act, a new state law named after a woman who was killed during the 2022 Club Q shooting.

The act, signed into state law in May, amends the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) to expand protections for transgender individuals, recognizing misgendering and deadnaming as forms of discrimination and prohibiting such acts in public spaces.

Under the revised CADA, businesses classified as “public accommodations” – including bookstores – are prohibited from denying services, advertising in a discriminatory way, or making customers feel unwelcome based on gender expression.

In the lawsuit, the bookstore owners argue that this amended policy infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom by forcing them to express beliefs they don’t hold.

The lawsuit states that the bookstore’s owners believe that “God created everyone in His image, male or female,” and that “sex is immutable.” Born Again Used Books says it welcomes all customers, but cannot affirm “gender choices” that contradict its religious views.

“Although Born Again Used Books happily sells its products to everyone, Colorado now compels the bookstore to speak using pronouns and titles based on a person’s preferred gender expression—thereby requiring the store to prioritize a person’s professed identity over biological reality,” Alliance Defending Freedom said in a release. “That violates the Christian bookstore’s beliefs and the First Amendment.”

In the lawsuit, the store says it wants to be transparent with customers by formalizing this policy into a written pronoun policy and publishing blog posts explaining its reasoning – but the owners believe these actions would now be illegal under the amended Colorado law.

“Because CADA now makes all this illegal, Born Again Used Books must instead profess an ideological view it opposes … and avoid explaining its Christian beliefs about human sexuality in store and online,” the lawsuit reads in part. “In effect, the law requires this Christian bookstore to abandon its core religious beliefs.”

The bookstore is now asking a federal court to block Colorado from enforcing parts of the anti-discrimination law. Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop the enforcement of provisions related to gender expression and pronouns.

Keep reading

President Trump Signs Executive Order to Prosecute People Who Burn American Flags – “It Incites Riots… You Burn a Flag, You Get One Year in Jail”

President Trump on Monday signed the “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag” Executive Order into law, prioritizing the prosecution of crimes that involve the burning of the American flag and potentially opening challenges to the interpretation of the First Amendment protections for flag burning. 

It does not appear to make burning the American flag a crime, but crimes that involve burning a flag will be prioritized.

“Our great American Flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America, and of American freedom, identity, and strength,” the order reads.

“Desecrating it is uniquely offensive and provocative. It is a statement of contempt, hostility, and violence against our Nation — the clearest possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves our rights, liberty, and security. Burning this representation of America may incite violence and riot.”

The order also describes the act as “a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth,” used by foreign nationals, and it directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek removal from the United States, pursuant to Federal law, including 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), 8 U.S.C. 1424, 8 U.S.C. 1427, 8 U.S.C. 1451(c), and 8 U.S.C. 1227(a).”

It further argues that flag burning, “conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to ‘fighting words,’” is not constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

The order directs the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to “prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent possible of our Nation’s criminal and civil laws against acts of American Flag desecration that violate applicable, content-neutral laws, while causing harm unrelated to expression, consistent with the First Amendment,” including “violent crimes; hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens, or other violations of Americans’ civil rights; and crimes against property and the peace, as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate, and aiding and abetting others to violate, such laws.”

The Attorney General is also permitted to “pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.”

White House Staff Secretary Will Scharff told the President, the order “charges your department of justice with investigating instances of flag burning, and then where there’s evidence of criminal activity, where prosecution wouldn’t fall foul of the First Amendment, it instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute those who are engaged in these instances of flag burning.”

While signing the order into law, President Trump reasoned that the action causes people to go “crazy” and that “what it does is incite to riot.”

“And what the penalty is going to be if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits, no nothing,” he said. “you will see flag burning stopping immediately, just like when I signed the Statue and Monument Act— 10 years in jail if you hurt any of our beautiful monuments. Everybody left town. They were gone. Never had a problem after that, it’s pretty amazing.”

Keep reading

Senator Amy Klobuchar Can’t Take A Joke, Demands Censorship Law

Senator Amy Klobuchar has acknowledged what opponents of her legislation have been warning all along.

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, she confirmed that her proposed NO FAKES Act would be used to censor AI-generated parody.

Her target is a meme video that pokes fun at her reaction to an American Eagle jeans advertisement featuring actress Sydney Sweeney.

Rather than brush off the obvious satire, Klobuchar doubled down on the need to suppress it. “As anyone would, I wanted the video taken down or at least labeled ‘digitally altered content,’” she wrote.

She applauded TikTok for removing the clip, praised Meta for tagging it, and expressed frustration that X would not help her attach a Community Note.

This public complaint confirms that the NO FAKES Act, Senate Bill 1367, is not just about preventing identity theft or stopping fraud. Klobuchar is one of the bill’s lead authors, and she is openly calling for legal tools to remove content that ridicules her.

The bill gives individuals the right to sue over the creation or distribution of “unauthorized digital replicas.”

It also places heavy compliance burdens on platforms, which would face steep fines for failing to remove flagged content quickly or for not implementing policies to suspend repeat offenders.

While the bill claims to allow space for parody, satire, and documentaries, Klobuchar’s statements make it clear that those exemptions offer little practical protection.

The parody video in question shows an AI-generated version of Klobuchar speaking at a fake Senate hearing, ranting about Democrats needing more visibility in advertising. The fictional version of the senator says, “If Republicans are going to have beautiful girls with perfect titties…we want ugly, fat bitches wearing pink wigs and long-ass fake nails being loud and twerking on top of a cop car at a Waffle House ‘cause they didn’t get extra ketchup.”

Keep reading

Democrats Can’t Take A Joke, So They’re Trying To Outlaw Free Speech

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., wants to make one thing perfectly clear: She has never said Sydney Sweeney has “perfect [breasts].” Nor has she accused her fellow Democrats of being “too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside.”

The Minnesota leftist attempted to clear the air earlier this week in a New York Times opinion piece headlined, “Amy Klobuchar: What I Didn’t Say About Sydney Sweeney.” 

Klobuchar wrote that she is the victim of a hoax, a “realistic deepfake.” Some trickster apparently put together and pushed out an AI-generated video in which Klobuchar appears to make (hilariously) outrageous comments about Sweeney’s American Eagle jeans ad — after liberals charged that the commercial is racist and an endorsement of eugenics. 

‘Party of Ugly People’

The doctored Klobuchar appears to be speaking at a Senate committee hearing, She demands Democrats receive “representation.” Of course, the satirical video has gone viral. 

“If Republicans are going to have beautiful girls with perfect ti**ies” in their ads, we want ads for Democrats, too, you know?” the fake Klobuchar asserts in the vid. “We want ugly, fat bitches wearing pink wigs and long-ass fake nails being loud and twerking on top of a cop car at a Waffle House ‘cause they didn’t get extra ketchup.”

“Just because we’re the party of ugly people doesn’t mean we can’t be featured in ads, okay?” the AI Amy implores. “And I know most of us are too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside, but we want representation.” 

She appears — and sounds — so sincere.  But Klobuchar wants you to know it certainly was not her saying such “vulgar and absurd” things. That’s why she’s urging Congress to pass laws to ban such AI videos, which would be as absurd as social justice warriors calling American Eagle white supremacists for paying a blue jeans-clad, beautiful actress to say she has great jeans. 

Any such law would certainly and rightly be challenged in court. 

Keep reading

Millions of immigrants could now be scrutinized for ‘anti-Americanism’ and ‘antisemitism’

The Trump administration is making a drastic change to how it decides which immigrants can receive certain benefits.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, is changing its policies so its employees are required to consider “circumstances where an alien has endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused the views of an anti-American or terrorist organization or group,” according to the document.

The document said those circumstances could include “antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, and antisemitic ideologies,” with no further specifics.

The change could impact millions of immigrants who are not citizens and deal with the agency, for issues including changing their immigration status or applying for a change of status. Consequences for expressing anti-Americanism or antisemitism could include a denial of whatever benefit the individual applied for, like a change of status, or a visa renewal.

“They’re saying that they can broadly use their discretion to deny people who have been involved in any kind of anti-American activity,” said Matt Cameron, a local immigration attorney.

“There’s no definition of antisemitism in the law,” he added. “We’ve seen with Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, that the definition of ‘antisemitic’ has been expanded to really anyone who opposes what Israel is doing in Gaza.”

Attorney Mahsa Khanbabai represents Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish Tufts doctoral student who was detained by ICE agents for co-authoring an op-ed urging her university to stop funding Israeli companies supporting the war in Gaza. She has since been released as she continues deportation proceedings.

“We’re waiting to see what further guidance the administration is going to be providing to its immigration officers as they try to decide what is anti-American or antisemitic in terms of adjudicating a person’s benefits application,” said Khanbabai, who is based in Massachusetts.

The limitations the Trump administration is imposing on immigrants’ First Amendment rights is playing out in court, but attorneys say this policy change is a new way to limit immigrants’ freedom of expression.

Keep reading

California Content Law Design Code Faces Free Speech Clash

Efforts to implement California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code continue to face resistance from both the tech industry and digital civil liberties groups, who argue that the law’s restrictions violate constitutional protections and would compel sweeping surveillance and censorship online.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents companies including Google, Amazon, Meta, and eBay, recently filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case NetChoice v. Bonta.

Stephanie Joyce, the group’s senior vice president and director of its litigation center, condemned the legislation in blunt terms: “The Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what lawful content readers can see, and it extends that protection regardless of the reader’s age.

Though well-intentioned, California’s internet age restriction law is unconstitutional, and the court of appeals should affirm the decision to block it.”

The case marks the second time this legal clash has reached the Ninth Circuit. Previously, the court blocked only a portion of the law and returned the rest for further review.

Now, with renewed scrutiny, the court could determine whether the entire statute fails to withstand constitutional challenge.

NetChoice, an industry coalition that includes many of the same members as the CCIA, has led the charge against a wave of so-called “age assurance” laws.

These policies would require digital platforms to verify the ages of users and potentially restrict minors’ access to content deemed unsuitable. But free speech advocates warn the consequences would be broader and more dangerous than legislators admit.

Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) have also weighed in with their own amicus brief, arguing that the law’s age estimation mandates undermine essential First Amendment rights. “CDT and EFF’s brief argues that the appeals court should uphold the injunctions solely on the basis of its overbroad, unconstitutional age verification requirement because that requirement is not severable from other provisions and should doom the entire statute.” The brief warns that such mandates not only chill access to lawful speech but also erode online anonymity and place users’ personal data at risk.

They also emphasize that minors’ ability to engage freely online is a critical part of their development and civic participation. “Social media helps minors develop their own ideas, learn to express themselves, and engage productively with others in our democratic public sphere,” the brief states.

Keep reading

Court Rules New York County Denied Free Speech Rights to Pro-Life Advocates

A federal court has ruled that Westchester County, New York, violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life sidewalk counselors, marking a significant victory for free speech in a legal challenge brought by Thomas More Society attorneys. The decision in Hulinsky v. County of Westchester found the County liable for enacting an unconstitutional provision in its 2022 “Reproductive Health Care Facilities Access Act,” or Chapter 425, which restricted peaceful pro-life advocacy near abortion facilities.

The decision awards plaintiffs Oksana Hulinsky and Regina Molinelli nominal damages for the chilling of their life-saving sidewalk counseling for over two-and-half years as a result of the unconstitutional law, even though the County attempted to avoid liability by repealing the offending provision earlier this year.

This ruling builds on a March 14 decision that rejected the County’s attempt to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against part of Chapter 425 prohibiting so-called “interference” with abortion access “by deceptive means or otherwise”—a sweeping and unprecedented restriction adopted as part of the County’s furor over the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.The Court rightly held the provision “criminalized large swaths of protected speech” on pain of jail, fines, and civil liability, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.

Keep reading

The Israeli flag just became the only national flag illegal to burn in the United States. Yeah. I’m dead serious.

The Flag America Protects

This week in Washington, D.C., a federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor N. McFadden declared that the Israeli flag — with the Star of David at its center — is not a political symbol at all, but a racial one.

He ruled that tearing it, grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest, is not free expression but racial discrimination.

Think about that. In the United States, you can burn the American flag — the Supreme Court has said so for decades. But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The one national flag protected in American law today isn’t our own. It’s Israel’s.

You can burn the flags of all 50 states. You can torch the American flag all you want. You can burn the flags of the UK or France or Brazil or China.

But not Israel.

Keep reading

President Trump’s War on “Woke AI” Is a Civil Liberties Nightmare

The White House’s recently-unveiled “AI Action Plan” wages war on so-called “woke AI”—including large language models (LLMs) that provide information inconsistent with the administration’s views on climate change, gender, and other issues. It also targets measures designed to mitigate the generation of racial and gender biased content and even hate speech. The reproduction of this bias is a pernicious problem that AI developers have struggled to solve for over a decade.

A new executive order called “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” released alongside the AI Action Plan, seeks to strong-arm AI companies into modifying their models to conform with the Trump Administration’s ideological agenda.

The executive order requires AI companies that receive federal contracts to prove that their LLMs are free from purported “ideological biases” like “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” This heavy-handed censorship will not make models more accurate or “trustworthy,” as the Trump Administration claims, but is a blatant attempt to censor the development of LLMs and restrict them as a tool of expression and information access. While the First Amendment permits the government to choose to purchase only services that reflect government viewpoints, the government may not use that power to influence what services and information are available to the public. Lucrative government contracts can push commercial companies to implement features (or biases) that they wouldn’t otherwise, and those often roll down to the user. Doing so would impact the 60 percent of Americans who get information from LLMs, and it would force developers to roll back efforts to reduce biases—making the models much less accurate, and far more likely to cause harm, especially in the hands of the government. 

Keep reading

Mocking Elected Officials Is a Sign of a Healthy Democracy

There’s little question that President Donald Trump and his MAGA devotees can dish it out. Few things epitomize this populist movement more than its irreverence toward established institutions and its willingness to obliterate traditional standards of civility as it targets political enemies (and erstwhile friends during some internecine squabble). Trump’s social-media posts and statements are filled with invective and merciless mocking.

Trump’s schoolyard taunts rarely are sophisticated, as they frequently zero in on personal appearance. “He’s got the smallest neck I’ve ever seen. And the biggest head. We call him watermelon head. How can that big fat face stand on a neck that looked like this finger?” Trump said about Sen. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.). OK, I laughed when he called him “Adam Schifty Schiff,” but that’s only because it was so childishly stupid. That’s its appeal, I suppose.

One of Trump’s ugliest insults—dating to his first election—was when he mocked a disabled reporter by imitating his hand motions. The Wall Street Journal published a piece called, “The Art of the Insult.” We know this is how Trump operates. You can find hundreds of examples with a Google search or on his Truth Social account. Even the official White House account does this—when it’s not portraying Trump as a Kim Jong Un-style superhero.

It’s so very funny. Whenever anyone calls them out on this, Trump defenders act as if they are just so above it all. “Don’t you know the president is just trolling?” “Get a sense of humor.” “You must be suffering from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).” Yadda, yadda. In full disclosure, I greatly value humor and have mocked my share of politicians over the years. But I find bullying taunts to be crass and the sign of those displaying low human capital.

Keep reading