What Speech Is Protected?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Recently, Jimmy Kimmel thought he was being funny by discussing how Melania Trump glowed like a soon-to-be widow. She confronted him and called for him to lose his job.

It was “reckless political speech,” according to Ben Shapiro in his article published at The Daily Signal. 

Americans love arguing about free speech. We invoke the First Amendment as a kind of political force field: You can say whatever you want, whenever you want, without consequence.

But the First Amendment only restricts government action. It does not guarantee you a career, a platform or immunity from backlash. The real question is not whether certain speech is legal but rather what kind of speech deserves social consequences – and what kind doesn’t.

And if we’re talking about reckless political speech, we should talk about Jimmy Kimmel. Years ago, he abandoned comedy in favor of applause lines, tearful monologues, and the occasional performance of empathy. He’s an unfunny late-night scold who treats half the country as a punchline.

As annoying as that is, being unfunny is not a crime. The bigger issue is when media figures cross the line from tastelessness into rhetoric that creates a permission structure for violence. To understand the difference, it helps to break political speech into three categories.

First: illegal speech.

Yes, illegal political speech exists in America. A classic example: “I want to kill the president.” That’s not merely commentary. It is an actionable, direct threat.

There is also incitement. Under the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg standard, speech qualifies as incitement only if it is intended to and likely to produce imminent lawless action.

“Someone should do something about the president” is protected, though irresponsible, speech. “Go kill the president” crosses into territory the law can punish. It’s speech but also an attempt to trigger violence.

Second: typical inflammatory rhetoric

American politics is filled with heated language. “Fight like hell.” “We’re going to war with the other party.” That sort of rhetoric can be ugly and excessive, but it is also normal.

We’ve seen how absurd it becomes when people try to treat that as literal incitement. After Gabby Giffords was short, some on the left blamed Sarah Palin because a campaign graphic had “targeted” certain districts.

That was ridiculous. Using combative imagery is not the same as directing violence.

Third: the permission structure for violence

A permission structure for violence is created when people repeatedly portray political opponents as monsters.

This is how you create the mental environment where unstable people conclude that violence is justified. If the president is a traitor, rapist, pedophile, and mastermind behind a corrupt system, then how else could he be stopped?

This kind of rhetoric leads directly to chaos.

It is also the kind of rhetoric Kimmel has trafficked in for years.

Recently, Kimmel tastelessly joked that Melania Trump had “the glow of an expectant widow.” It was disgusting, and she has every right to be furious. But it wasn’t a call to violence. It was a cheap, ugly joke suggesting she secretly wants her husband dead.

Kimmel later claimed he rejects violent rhetoric, then immediately pivoted to blaming Donald Trump for rhetoric that supposedly inspires violence. It was the standard modern play: Insult someone, then wrap yourself in moral superiority.

But when it comes to rhetoric that encourages violence, it isn’t the widow joke that should be the focus; it’s the conspiracism.

Kimmel has repeatedly called Trump a pedophile, suggested he is connected to Jeffrey Epstein and involved in a coverup, called him a rapist and accused him of protecting pedophiles, coming after voting rights, enriching billionaires while harming the poor, and manipulating the system to evade accountability.

That is not “normal political speech.” It is speech that turns a political opponent into a movie villain – a figure so corrupt and monstrous that extreme actions begin to feel righteous.

This kind of conspiratorial framing has a track record. It fuels ugly episodes of modern political violence: a steady stream of baseless accusations designed to convince audiences that the other side is not merely wrong but evil.

If someone eventually acts on that belief, we shouldn’t pretend it came out of nowhere.

So should Kimmel be fired?

Firing him for the Melania joke would be punishing the wrong offense. A tasteless, bad joke is not the central issue.

The central issue is rhetoric that treats political opponents as criminals without proof, assigns monstrous motives without evidence, and creates a cultural climate where violence feels justified.

If America wants to lower the temperature, scrutiny should be directed at conspiratorial storytelling that teaches people to hate.

 

Why Is Religious Freedom Critical for Restoring and Repairing America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is religious liberty and its importance to all people. Religious freedom says that all people have the right to worship who and/or what they choose.

In their article published at The Daily Signal, Jason Chahyadl and Jordan Lorence claim that “Defending religious liberty for all is a timely political issue that can help restore and repair the severed tapestry of American political life.” Their reason is that “A comprehensive defense of religious liberty fosters civic virtues such as charity, restraint, and a willingness to accommodate differing viewpoints.” They also claim that these civic virtues are the foundation on which the “survival of our constitutional order depends.” 

The authors are not the only ones with the above belief. They note that Yuval Levin, in his book “American Covenant,” “discusses how the polity of republicanism requires a type of citizen for its sustainment.” So what is that type of person? The type of “citizen needed to preserve a republican system of government” has “traits like selflessness, restraint, and accommodation.”

Abraham Lincoln shared a similar thought in his second inaugural address: “With malice toward none. With charity for all.”

James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 a statement that is now famous, and the authors paraphrase the statement: “The reason why we need checks on governmental power is because men are not angels, neither are they naturally inclined to pursue such a status.”

Citizens that succumb to selfishness and the desire to dominate political opponents will find it near impossible to properly function in a system of ordered representation and the checks, balances, and compromises necessary for diverse peoples to live together.

The Founders also recognized both the necessity and rarity of civic virtues….

At the same time, the Founders acknowledged that the law is a teacher and can shape the character of its constituents. That recognition motivated the Founders to draft a constitution that could channel human fallibility toward a system of government that promotes liberty and justice for all through the structure of federalism, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights.

Among other virtue-encouraging constitutional provisions, few, if any, are more prominent than the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Protecting our first freedom of religious liberty, the free exercise clause is also a pedagogical instrument for promoting the anthropology of republicanism. For religious citizens, it clarifies that firmly held beliefs and civic accommodation are not mutually exclusive, thus promoting both forbearance and religious formation. One can believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ provide the only way for forgiveness of sins against God and restoration to fellowship with the Father, while still permitting those who disagree, such as Jews, Muslims, and others, to freely worship in their own ways, or to believe nothing at all.

Our constitutional system allows Americans of different religious backgrounds to accommodate each other while, at the same time, strengthening their own religious beliefs, convictions, and practices….

The free exercise clause provides wide latitude for Americans to hold and exercise religious beliefs. Subsequent statutes like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act reinforce this constitutional provision….

Moreover, the free exercise clause and its statutory descendants invaluably protect an individual’s right of conscience and decisions to live out general religious convictions that emanate from the conscience….

The protection of religious liberty necessarily extends to the protection of the individual conscience, or “inner voice,” and beliefs about ultimate questions. The basis for protecting the conscience is the biblical concept that all people are created in the Imago Dei and are thus entitled to liberty in exercising their reason when considering life’s biggest questions.

This is why the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom also affects areligious Americans. Even though they do not subscribe to any religion, areligious people also make decisions based on their conscience and contemplate deep questions about reality and human purpose. Were it not for the free exercise clause, the government would be able to mandate a specific religious viewpoint, and by extension, interfere in the inner conscience and place the intellectual freedom of all Americans at risk.

When the government tries to dictate to citizens what to think, that threatens the whole constellation of constitutional liberties. If the government was allowed to control citizens’ thoughts, there is no defense against a snowballing infringement of external constitutional rights, like the right to bear arms, receive a trial by jury, or by protected from cruel and unusual punishment. That is why the First Amendment is first among equals….

It is with gratitude that we reflect on the Founders’ decision to amplify this message by way of enshrining religious liberty with the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

Do Churches Have the Freedom to Determine How It Uses Donations?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns donors demanding that churches return money that they paid in tithing. The case was the focus for much of American religion centered on “the lawsuit that James Huntsman filed seeking the return of $5 million in tithing he donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Tad Walch reported on the court decision. 

Faith organizations, including specific religious groups, colleges and universities, as well as charities, didn’t just await a verdict, they had filed their opinions and arguments with the judges who would decide the case in half a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the positions of the Latter-day Saints.

On Friday, they responded with gratitude when a panel of 11 judges on the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the church summary judgment. The judges ruled unanimously in favor of the Latter-day Saints without allowing the case to get to trial.

“This lawsuit is extraordinary and patently inappropriate, a not-so thinly concealed effort to challenge the church’s belief system under the guise of litigation,” four of the judges wrote. “The majority is correct that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation even on the terms of plaintiff’s own allegations. But it would have done well for the en banc court to recognize the obvious: There is no way in which the plaintiff here could prevail without running headlong into basic First Amendment prohibitions on courts resolving ecclesiastical disputes.”

The faith-based groups, representing tens of millions of religious Americans from Baptists to Methodists and Lutherans and Jewish coalitions, were grateful that the judges closed the door on the idea that donors could claw back donations.

They also were grateful that many of the judges supported the church autonomy doctrine, a long-standing legal precedent that says governments and courts should steer clear of wading into church affairs such as how leaders choose to use donations.

Walch’s article is much longer with lots of interesting information. Gene Schaerr is an attorney who represented eleven major religious denominations, from Jewish groups to Protestants and Scientologists.

Schaerr said the Friday’s ruling could have an impact on two other tithing cases, one pending at the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals and the other in U.S. District Court in Uth, which is part of the 10^th Circuit.

            “All three of these cases are essentially challenges to the church’s ability to determine for itself                 how it uses its own resources,” Schaerr said, “and there’s probably no more important issue of                 church government than how a religious body chooses to use its own resources. I think these                 five judges are absolutely right that it’s just not possible, consistent with the First Amendment,              for these kinds of claims to be litigated in court at all.” 

Is Hate Speech or Misinformation Protected by the First Amendment?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech. Last week, Elon Musk and Donald Trump had a two-hour long discussion via X Spaces in which they discussed all kinds of information.

Prior to the actual conversation, Musk received a letter from Thierry Breton, European Union (EU) Internal Market Commissioner, a French citizen, and former CEO of France Telecom. Michael Barone (a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics) discussed the contents of the letter as well as its ramifications.

… The letter purports to remind Musk of the European Union’s Digital Services Act’s requirements of “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures” regarding “detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.”

In other words, X must censor questions to and answers from an American presidential candidate and keep the EU informed of its censorship procedures.

What must be censored? “The amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation.” Breton reminds Musk of “formal proceedings … already ongoing against X under the [Digital Services Act].”

Nice little digital company you’ve got there. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.

It would surprise America’s Founders not a little that the unelected head of a European multinational organization would feel entitled to demand the words of an American presidential candidate be censored and to be informed of the censorship tribunal’s procedures and decisions.

Some Americans, however, might not be surprised at all. They might think Breton is very much on the right track.

As one example, Barone used Washington Post reporter Cleve Wootson Jr’s question at a White House press briefing. Wootson wanted to know what the White House or Joe Biden was going to do about this “American issue.”

Another example used by Barone was the Team Biden enlisted “social media companies to suppress dissemination of The New York Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s laptop.” One of the top players was Antony Blinken, who was then a Biden staff and is now Secretary of State. Blinken “organized the letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials or current CIA consultants charging that the laptop had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.’” After Biden was inaugurated, we now know that Blinken’s letter was disinformation – “But it got him the secretary of state job for four years.”

The public can expect more of the same if Vice President Kamala Harris is elected this fall. “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., Harris’ vice presidential candidate, told MSNBC in 2022.

Liberals tried to excuse Walz on the grounds that he was talking about spreading false information about the dates and procedures of elections, and the First Amendment does not preclude remedies for fraud and libel. But the decision-makers in such cases are supposed to be neutral courts, not partisan officials.

But it is long-settled constitutional law that the First Amendment does indeed prohibit censorship of what partisan officials may believe, sincerely or self-servingly, is hate speech or misinformation. On the contrary, the remedy for bad speech, as Thomas Jefferson advised people more than 200 years ago, is more and better speech.

And no one should be reassured that Walz actually does understand the First Amendment by his campaign cries of “mind your own damn business” directed against, among other things, banning books. But the only reference to banning books in recent political discourse has been the law of Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., barring sexually explicit books in school libraries from kindergarten to fourth grade.

 

What Does Free Speech Mean?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns freedom of speech, particularly censorship by big tech platforms. Paul Sacca at The Blaze reported that the Supreme Court agreed to accept “a landmark free speech case that could have major ramifications for censorship by big tech platforms.” The Supreme Court is hearing a decision made by a lower court that favored the Biden administration. 

“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news,” Alito wrote in a 5-page opinion. “That is most unfortunate.”

The case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, according to CBS News, “stems from a suit brought by five social media users and the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. They alleged a host of federal agencies and officials coerced social media companies to suppress speech on their platforms in violation of the First Amendment.” The following came from the Supreme Court on Friday:

This application concerns an unprecedented injunction installing the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana as the superintendent of the Executive Branch’s communications with and about social-media platforms – including senior White House officials’ speech addressing some of the most salient public issues of the day. The lower courts held that federal officials had transformed the private platforms’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove COVID-19 misinformation, highlighting the risk of disinformation from foreign actors, and responding to the platforms’ inquiries about matters of public health. The courts then entered a sweeping preliminary injunction governing thousands of federal officials’ and employees’ speech concerning any content posted on any social media platform by anyone. That injunction flouts bedrock principles of Article III, the First Amendment, and equity….

The case notes that “two lower courts found to be a ‘coordinated campaign’ by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues.”

The case claims that “popular social media companies had either blocked their use of the companies’ platforms or had downgraded their posts on a host of controversial subjects, including ‘the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.’”

The case accuses federal government officials of being the ones who were “pulling the strings,” meaning that these officials “coerced, threatened, and pressured [the] social media platforms to censor [them].”

The Court of Appeals found “the district court was correct in its assessment – ‘unrelenting pressure’ from certain government officials likely ‘had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.’”

 

Do Americans Have Freedom of Speech?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The freedom to say or write whatever we choose is guaranteed to all Americans, yet this right has been curtailed by various individuals, groups, or companies in the United States. In many of the cases, taxpayer funds are used to pay for limiting the right to share thoughts and feelings freely. Jack Denton wrote the following in his article on this topic: 

Woke academics and Democratic Party loyalists are using taxpayer dollars to police the internet and suppress the voices of Biden administration critics. 

In the 2020 election cycle, the deep state and Silicon Valley worked tirelessly to limit the reach of conservatives on social media platforms. Today, the departments of Homeland Security and State are supporting the same cabal’s efforts to police social media platforms during the midterm election campaign. 

In early September, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in his state, released emails that indicate collaboration between President Joe Biden’s executive branch and Silicon Valley to censor Americans online. The emails show that more than 45 officials at various federal agencies and numerous White House staffers are in regular conversation with social media companies about removing “undesirable” content from their platforms—content coming from the administration’s political opposition.

But a private sector progressive operatives group is also pitching in, funded by millions of dollars in grants from DHS and the State Department. The group—the Election Integrity Partnership—has a proven record of limiting the reach of conservative voices on social media platforms. 

On Sept. 30, Just the News released a report documenting how the Election Integrity Partnership, a private consortium, worked throughout the 2020 election cycle to flag social media accounts or posts that allegedly propagated misinformation. Working tirelessly, the group focused on posts from “right-leaning blue-check influencers” and flagged more than 4,800 URLs that were shared more than 22 million times on Twitter.

The group’s politically charged work was funded through federal grants. The constitutionality of this public-private partnership is questionable. But this hasn’t stopped the Election Integrity Partnership from raking in millions in additional grant money since the 2020 election. 

Now, flush with federal cash and equipped with improved methods of censorship, the Election Integrity Partnership is wreaking havoc with conservatives’ use of social media in the 2022 midterms. 

Denton has much more in his article. However, we can see from the above information that taxpayers’ funds are being used to keep essential information from them. Even worse, members of the Biden administration and employees of government agencies are working with private companies to control the information that Americans see.

This behavior borders on being unconstitutional because the First Amendment forbids the federal government from prohibiting the ability for Americans to communicate with each other. The Fourteenth Amendment extended this prohibition to state and local governments. I know that conservative views are being suppressed because the page views for my blog dropped to one-fourth the number before Joe Biden was inaugurated as POTUS.

The Founders wanted Americans to have full opportunity to study political information and to make informed decisions. Democrats and leftist organizations do everything in their power to take this freedom away from Americans. They take these actions to affect elections and to retain power. Free speech is essential to maintaining freedom and liberty. This behavior is one more sign that our American way of life is in danger of being overthrown.

Rule of Law

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the simple fact that the rule of law has not been completely lost in America. Numerous higher education institutions fight against the right to free speech on their campuses. Their mantra seems to be that liberals can say or do whatever they please, but conservative speech and behavior is against the First Amendment. This may be changing because one institution is being held accountable for the words and actions of some of its students.

            In November 2016 a student at Oberlin College entered Gibson’s Bakery in Oberlin and stole a bottle of wine by hiding it inside his coat. Allyn Gibson, the great-great-grandson of the founder of the business, caught the thief and stated that he was going to call the police. He attempted to photograph the youth with his cell phone, but the thief slapped the phone out of his hand and ran out of the store with Gibson right behind him.

            The student and two of his friends attacked Gibson and had him flat on his back when the police arrived. There is a racial element to the situation because Gibson is white and all three youths are black. Therefore, other students protested the incident and accused the store of being racist. Even the Oberlin dean of students came to the protest. She said that it was to supervise, but she also handed out pamphlets. The school even cancelled its business with the bakery but resumed the arrangements later.

            The three youths pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges nine months later. They also read a statement recognizing that Gibson was justified in chasing after the youth and that his behavior was not racially motivated. The college claims that it is powerless in controlling the students and should not be held accountable for damages caused by the students. A jury thought otherwise and ruled that Oberlin holds some responsibility for encouraging its students to protest on false charges of racism. The college must pay $11.2 million to Gibson’s Bakery for damages of libel, slander, and other disruptions caused by the students.

            Oberlin is not the only college that believes it is protecting the students’ right to speak freely, but it may be one of the first to file bankruptcy because of the jury’s decision. Universities and colleges have the responsibility to provide a place and neutral atmosphere where ideas can be freely debated without anyone feeling threatened or being assaulted.  

            Liberal institutions across the nation are not doing so. In fact, they have a political agenda and indoctrinate their students with their liberal ideas. Then they encourage their students to support their left-wing agenda. Maybe it is a good thing for Oberlin to be forced to close by bankruptcy. Maybe other institutions will recognize the need for them to be more neutral in their teaching. We can only hope that some eyes will be opened by the decision.

First Freedoms

            The topic of discussion concerns some of our First Freedoms, or the freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment. The very first freedom mentioned is Freedom of Religion and close behind it is Freedom of Speech. These two freedoms were recently threatened for a governor.

            Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is currently being pressured to remove some posts concerning religion from his gubernatorial Facebook account. The Governor wrote, “He is risen” and then wished Christians a “happy and blessed Easter!” Ducey posted an appropriate picture and quoted this scripture, “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he may [die] he shall live’ John 11:25.” 

            The Secular Coalition – a nonprofit organization with the purpose of keeping state government secular – was quick to complain. The Governor replied that he has no intention of removing the religious messages. He added another post after receiving more complaints.

We won’t be removing this post. Ever. Nor will we be removing our posts for Christmas, Hanukkah, Rosh Hashanah, Palm Sunday, Passover or any other religious holiday.

We support the First Amendment, and are happy to provide copies of the Constitution to anyone who hasn’t read it.

            I see no problems with the Governor posting such comments as long as he posts for all religions. Whether he is right or wrong to do so, I believe that there would be fewer constitutional complaints if people would actually read the words of the Constitution and understand them in the context of the time they were written.

Joseph Smith and Freedom of Religion

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is once again the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As you most likely know already, freedom of religion is known as the First Freedom because it is listed first in the First Amendment. This amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Well, Congress has not made any laws against religion, but other folks are constantly making problems for people with religious conviction.

            Last week we learned that San Antonio International Airport refused to give a concessions contract to Chick-fil-a because the company made some donations to other business or organizations that do not serve people with same-sex attraction. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General, is now investigating the situation. 

The City of San Antonio’s decision to exclude Chick-fil-A based on the religious beliefs associated with the company and its owners is the opposite of tolerance. It’s discriminatory, and not only out of step with Texas values, but inconsistent with the Constitution and Texas Law.

The Constitution’s protection of religious liberty is somehow even better than Chick-fil-A’s chicken….

Unfortunately, I have serious concerns that both are under assault at the San Antonio airport.

            Not to be outdone by San Antonio, this week the Buffalo Niagara International Airport in Cheektowaga, New York, made the same decision. One day it announced that Chick-fil-A would be coming to the airport, and the next day it withdrew the invitation on religious grounds. The airport wants a company that does not “discriminate” against people. Assemblyman Sean Ryan might have something to do with the reversal because he tweeted the following statement. 

We hope in the future the NFTA will make every effort to contract with businesses that adhere to anti-discriminatory policies, and we’re confident another vendor who better represents the values of the Western New York community will replace Chick-fil-A as a part of this project in the very near future.

            Religious discrimination and hostility is nothing new in America as shown in an article written by Spencer W. McBride. Christians have been fairly safe until the past few years, but that has not always been the case. In 1833 mob violence drove more than 1,000 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from their home in Jackson County, Missouri. The Saints made their way to Clay County, Missouri, but they were driven from their homes there in July 1836.

            The Prophet Joseph Smith went to see Martin Van Buren in Washington, D.C. to ask for help for his people, but the President denied the request. The President gave the reason for his denial as being that it would hurt his chances for reelection. The Prophet then went to Congress for help. Congress held three days of hearings in February 1840 and then declined to help the Saints in reclaiming their property and receiving compensation for their losses. They told the Prophet to petition Missouri for redress, the same state that had expelled his people.

            Meanwhile, members of the Catholic Church were treated just as badly. About 1834 the Catholic Ursuline convent in Charlestown, Massachusetts, was burned to the ground. It seems that people did not like all Irish Catholic immigrants who had recently come to the United States. The government at least condemned this violence, but the Catholics received no financial compensation.

            As a result of the religious persecution against his own people, plus seeing the charred ruins of the Catholic convent, Joseph Smith became an activist for religious freedom. He advocated for peace, equality, and “religious freedom of all people.” He not only talked the talk of religious freedom, but he walked the walk also.

Amid these petitioning efforts, Joseph made strides toward establishing real religious freedom in his own community. As a member of the city council of Nauvoo, Illinois, he introduced an ordinance that “the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-Day Saints, Quakers, Episcopalians, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims], and all other religious sects, and denominations, whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges, in this city.” This declaration was passed and entailed more than a tolerance for those affiliated with other churches to reside in the city; it proposed religious freedom in its truest form by extending a guarantee of all citizenship rights regardless of one’s religious convictions. As the First Presidency explained, the Latter-day Saints were signaling that they would “claim no privilege but what we feel cheerfully disposed to share with our fellow citizens of every denomination.”

            The First Amendment guarantees the protection of freedom of religion. However, the government is made up of mere humans, and some of them get their priorities mixed up. President Van Buren was afraid that helping the Saints would affect his reelection, and the members in Congress apparently had the same concerns. Now we have city leaders San Antonio, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, who are pushing their own agendas against Chick-fil-A.

            The Jews have endured persecution for thousands of years. Christians in foreign lands are being murdered by the hundreds, while Christians in the United States are finding it more and more difficult to exercise their freedom of religion.   

   

            In a letter to a newspaper editor named Wentworth, Joseph Smith outlined the beliefs of his people. That list of beliefs is now known as The Articles of Faith. The eleventh Article of Faith states: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim the right to exercise our freedom of religion and allow the same freedom to all other people.

Freedom of Speech for College Students

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that the freedom of speech on college campuses is threatened in America. This is so even though its protection is guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It seems that educational institutions do not understand that their campuses must have freedom of speech in order for education to be more complete for each student. It also seems that each incident must be fought in court.

            Kevin Shaw, age 27, is a student at Pierce College, and was barred from passing out free Spanish copies of the U.S. Constitution. It seems that he was not in the designated “free speech zone” on campus when he did so. He felt that he had a right to pass them out on campus and sought assistance from The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). A law suit was filed in March 2017 against the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) that represents nine schools including Pierce College. A federal district court in January 2018 denied a request from the District and Pierce College to dismiss the lawsuit. The court found that “the open spaces of public colleges are traditional public forums for student speech regardless of regulations.” LACCD agreed to settle the lawsuit this week. As part of their agreement, they agreed to revoke “a district-wide policy that declared all property on the district’s nine campuses to be `non-public forums’ with speech restrictions” and to pay $225,000 for Shaw’s attorney fees. Shaw was supported by “Folks of all political dispositions” who came together to declare the “freedom of speech is essential to the educational process.”

            It appears that LACCD is not the only college district or campus to declare that freedom of speech does not apply on their campuses. An article dated December 11, 2018, begins with this statement: “The vast majority of students at America’s top colleges and universities surrender their free speech rights the moment they step onto campus, according to a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education” (FIRE). 

Released today, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses analyzes the written policies at 466 of America’s top colleges and universities for their protection of free speech. The report finds that 89.7 percent of American colleges maintain policies that restrict – or too easily could restrict – student and faculty expression. All of the analyzed policies are accessible in FIRE’s Spotlight Database. FIRE rates schools as “red light,” “yellow light,” or “green light” based on how much, if any, speech protected by the First Amendment their policies restrict.

“Most colleges impose burdensome conditions on expression by maintaining policies that restrict students’ free speech rights,” said FIRE Senior Program Officer Laura Beltz, lead author of the study. “Colleges should be a place for open debate and intellectual inquiry, but today, almost all colleges silence expression through policies that are often illiberal and, at public institutions, unconstitutional.”

More than a quarter of institutions in the report (28.5 percent) received FIRE’s poorest, red light rating for maintaining speech codes that both “clearly and substantially” restrict freedom of speech.

            Seeing that Alaska was considered “red” I discovered that the University of Alaska Anchorage and the University of Alaska Fairbanks are both considered to fall under the “red” label. I was curious about my home state and discovered that Utah State University and Utah Valley University are also considered to be “red.”

            More than 800,000 students attend institutions that have “free speech zones,” and 90 percent of public colleges maintain them. However, the number of private colleges who have “free speech zones” has dropped below 50 percent of “Red Light” ratings. Maybe it will take more students like Kevin Shaw fighting for freedom of speech for institutions to move into the real world of the United States.

Politically Correct Police

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the freedom to speak and to publish personal thoughts. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that Americans have freedom to speak and freedom of press. In the current politically-correct world, there are people who believe that certain things should not be said and try to enforce their belief by police action.

            C. Douglas Golden reports that a 75-year-old woman in England wrote something on her blog that brought attention from Suffolk Police. It seems that Margaret Nelson, a former teacher and journalist, was under the impression that gender is biological. She wrote on her blog that “gender is fashionable nonsense.”

            Nelson’s blog post discussed her intention to donate her body to science upon her death. She noted that the aspiring scientists would see her body as a female body no matter how she identified her gender. “So no, in life or in death, trans women are not women, no matter how many times you say it’s so…. It’s simply impossible to change your sex.”    

   

            It seems that the police – the actual police and not the thought police like in 1984 – did not like what Nelson wrote. She received a telephone call from a policewoman with a warning. Nelson was told that her words “could have upset or offended transgender people.” The policewoman asked Nelson to remove the offending posts and tweets and to stop writing that kind of stuff.

            The internet is good for a lot of things, and it came to Nelson’s rescue. When the news got out to her supporters, they raised an outcry that reached the ears of the police. They issued a public apology and a personal apology.

“We accept we made a misjudgment in following up a complaint regarding the blog,” a statement read, according to the Ipswich Star.

“As a result of this we will be reviewing our procedures dealing with such matters. We are sorry for any distress we may have caused in the way this issue was dealt with, and have been in contact with the woman who wrote the blog to apologize.”

            The above incident happened in England, and England seems to be further down the slippery slope than the United States. However, American freedom to speak and publish is under constant threat from the same kind of forces, and this same type of error could happen here. The only way to prevent such a thing happening in the United States is for Americans to realize that it could happen here and to stay alert to defend against it.

Freedom of Speech

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is freedom of speech, the right to speak without being censored. This freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but it often is censored by liberals who do not want to hear what is being said. Conservatives are censored or refused an audience on college campuses, by the media, and even by the National Football League (NFL).

            Colin Kaepernick was celebrated by using his freedom of speech to take a knee at football games during the National Anthem. Those who do not agree with him are often labeled as a “racist.” Kaepernick has the right to express his opinion, but it seems that no one has the right to oppose it.

            Paul Bedard posted a notice that CBS has rejected an ad for the Super Bowl from a company run by a veteran. The ad is definitely “pro-flag, anti-Kaepernick,” but it also thrills anyone who stands for the flag. Tyler Merritt, the CEO of Nine Line Apparel “ripped the rejection of his ad.”

CBS’s purported reason for rejecting a Super Bowl commercial that extols patriotism is totally out of bounds. Let’s call this what it is: a blatant attempt to censor a message that their politically correct executives find offensive. We urge Americans who believe it’s important to show respect for our flag and national anthem to join us in calling out this offensive bias. It’s time to give a penalty flag to CBS.

            The ad from Nine Line Apparel starts with this statement, “Don’t ask if your loyalty is crazy. Ask if it’s crazy enough.” It is narrated by Benghazi survivor U.S. Marine Mark Geist who makes some powerful statements such as the following.

Some people think you’re crazy for being loyal, defending the Constitution, standing for the flag. Then I guess I’m crazy.

For those who kneel, they fail to understand that they can kneel, that they can protest, that they can despise what I stand for, even hate the truth that I speak, but they can only do that because I am crazy enough.

            The ad is full of pictures of heroes, such as military, police, and fire fighters, who run toward danger in order to save lives. It is patriotic and skillfully made. CBS was wrong to reject it! You can see the ad here. I hope that you enjoy it!

Rights and Responsibilities

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the mainstream media. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” In other words, the government will not prevent anyone from saying or publishing anything that they want. However, the right to say or publish carries the responsibility to say or print the truth.

            There has been a problem with the media putting out fake news for several years. President Donald Trump frequently points out that they are publishing fake news, but the media continues to pump it out. It is as though they think that the news will become the truth if they tell it often enough. Isn’t this one of the rules of Saul Alinsky?

            We know that a free press is essential for a free society to function properly (Thomas Jefferson). This is the reason why the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

            Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal  points out that this freedom does not mean that media outlets can claim freedom from criticism from anyone. He says that there are lessons to be learned from the media circus about the incident between the “Covington Catholic students and a Native American activist.” The coverage of the event certainly shows that the media has a problem with their journalists. Stepman says that the “media damaged it reputation and revealed its bias” in “three major ways.”

1.) Botching the narrative, then deflecting blame.

The media botched the entire episode between the Covington Catholic students and Native American activist Nathan Phillips from the start.

Initial reports … portrayed Phillips as the victim who had been peacefully protesting until being mobbed by kids in “Make America Great Again” hats.

That was wrong, and nearly the opposite of the truth.

Then, the full story came out and exonerated the boys. What response did those same media outlets give?

Some issued genuine apologies for the failure, but many refused to accept that they played such a large role in spreading misinformation.

Writers for The Washington Post shifted blame to social media and even President Donald Trump….

            CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers actually tweeted out that the real victims in all this  

            were the journalists.

2.) The media failed to be skeptical.

One of the reasons this story spiraled out of control is the simple fact that members of the media failed to be skeptical of a story that seemed too good to be true….

3.) After all of these failures, many in the media continued trying to dig up dirt on Covington Catholic High School.

Perhaps worse than all these failures, many in the media simply couldn’t let the story go without tarnishing the Covington Catholic students….

Perhaps instead of digging deeper to prove to the world their biases were correct all along, the media should behave more responsibly, ensure that it faithfully gathers the facts before publishing stories that could destroy the lives of children, and behave in a way that will convince Americans that they aren’t “fake news….”

            The media outlets did not do themselves a good turn when they ran with the Covington story. More Americans now understand why President Trump calls them “fake news,” and Trump gained more allies. Media outlets seem to be their own worst enemies when they succumb to “Trump Mania.” They need to get their hysterics under control and publish the truth.

Amendments Work Together

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the fact that the amendments listed in the Bill of Rights can and do protect each other. A recent example is a case where the Second Amendment protectors are being defended by the First Amendment. This case brought a big surprise to many people because the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is defending the National Rifle Association (NRA) against political leaders in New York who are trying to put the organization out of business.

            The ACLU argued in federal court last Friday that “New York’s attempts to compel banks and insurance companies to remove the NRA as a customer is a violation of the First Amendment.”  This brief by the ACLU supports the NRA in its lawsuit against New York.

            Declan McCullagh reports on the case here. Even though the ACLU’s official view is that the Second Amendment protects a “collective right rather than an individual right,” it is helping the NRA in this case. The author calls New York’s actions “strong-arm efforts to compel banks and insurance companies to ditch the NRA as a customer” and says they are “a glaring violation of the First Amendment.

            Even though the ACLU brief “never says the group agrees with the NRA’s position on firearms,” it does argue that the First Amendment rights of NRA and its members are being used by regulators to punish those with different political views. 

Although public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints or groups they view as inimical to public welfare, they cannot abuse their regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and to impose burdens on those organizations’ ability to conduct lawful business.

            I am surprised that the ACLU would defend the NRA. They are, in my point of view, very liberal. At least, it seems to me that ACLU usually defends liberal causes. I now have more respect for the ACLU simply because I learned that they are supporting and defending a conservative organization! 

            The liberals - in New York and otherwise - do not seem to understand that conservatives can play the same game. Just as liberal politicians in New York are threatening the First Amendment rights of the NRA, conservative politicians in other states could threaten the same rights of liberal organizations. This is not a good game to start on either side of the political situation. I am grateful that the ACLU is standing for First Amendment rights even though they do not necessary agree with the NRA’s stand on the Second Amendment.