|
Free Speech On Social Media – The Complete Guide
The First Amendment protects speech from government censorship. But what about free speech on social media? Social media platforms are private companies and are not bound by the First Amendment. In fact, they have their own First Amendment rights. This means they can moderate the content people post on their websites without violating those users’ First Amendment rights. It also means that the government cannot tell social media sites how to moderate content. Many state laws to regulate how social media companies can moderate content have failed on First Amendment grounds. Read more here.
A Free Speech Firestorm – Liberty Nation Radio Can the First Amendment weather the tide of censorship? A recent edition of Liberty Nation Radio examined the threats to free speech in the U.S. and abroad. Listen here. Venezuela Just Proved Why Gun Rights Matter As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…” If Venezuela has taught us anything, it is that the people’s right to bear arms will save our Republic, not destroy it. Let’s take heed of this warning, and remind the naïve among us who are flirting with socialist ideas that you can’t vote your way out of a dictatorship. Read more here. Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Injunctions Blocking Biden’s Pro-transgender Title IX Rewrite The new “Biden Rule,” released in April, added gender identity to Title IX, thus allowing female-identifying men into women’s bathrooms and requiring others to address them with their preferred pronouns — alongside other provisions unrelated to transgender issues. The SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of the injunctions in 10 states blocking the new rule. Read more here. U.S. Appeals Court Rules Geofence Warrants Are Unconstitutional A federal appeals court has ruled that geofence warrants are unconstitutional, a decision that will limit the use of the controversial search warrants across several U.S. states. It found that geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment,” which protects against unwarranted searches and seizures. Read more here. Judges, Not Bureaucrats, Interpret the Law The separation of powers works only if the branches actually stay in their own lanes. The Supreme Court’s June 28th decision ending Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo was a big step toward making that happen. Read more here. “Another Federal Court Rules Against Teen’s ‘Only 2 Genders’ T-Shirt”
After a disappointing loss in federal trial court and a denial of his request for an injunction, Liam Morrison, now 13, appealed his free speech case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit—only to lose again. Both courts made the same determination—that Liam’s speech, while not necessarily disruptive, interfered with the “rights of others.” Read more here. “Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri Ruling: A Blow to Free Speech Protections” "Last week, in Murthy v. Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court hammered home the distressing conclusion that, under the court’s doctrines, the First Amendment is, for all practical purposes, unenforceable against large-scale government censorship. The decision is a strong contender to be the worst speech decision in the court’s history." Read more here. “Invoking The 25th Amendment Is Constitutional - And Is Democrats’ Best Hope” “The Democrats’ public struggle session over what to do with the problem of Joe Biden must end. They know, we know, and, most terrifyingly, America’s enemies know that our commander-in-chief is mentally incompetent. As such, the answer is clear, and the Constitution provides it: Joe Biden must be removed from office and the vice president sworn in as president.” Read more here. “American No Longer Has A ‘Common Cause.’ Our Forefathers Would Be Ashamed.” "We’ve ceded too much power to the government because generation after generation slowly let their foot off the pedal and became willingly complacent via distractions. It’s why we ended up with an administrative state that lets unelected bureaucrats write their own laws." Read more here. “Yes, America Is Exceptional. Happy 4th of July!” “One (of the things that makes us exceptional) is the Constitution, the greatest document ever to govern a free people. Drawn up by a body of highly educated, widely experienced, and exceptional men, our Constitution—including the subsequent first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights—has been an enduring guide in changing times. It was designed for a moral and religious people, yes, but also for humans, flawed and vain and avaricious and fickle.” Read more here. “Missouri sues New York over reprehensible ‘lawfare’ against Trump: Poisonous to American democracy’” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s lawsuit alleges New York’s "illicit prosecution, gag order, and sentencing" of Trump has undermined his ability to campaign for president, sabotaging Missourians’ ability to hear from him and cast a fully informed vote for a presidential candidate mere months before the election. Read more here. “California city censors police and fire chaplains, ordering not to pray in Jesus’ name”
Carlsbad, California has reportedly forbidden its volunteer police and fire chaplains to invoke the name of Jesus while praying with members of public agencies, calling it ‘a form of harassment’ and ‘creating a hostile work environment.’ Read more here. “Get Ready for the New Digital Censorship Regime”
“The Next POTUS Should Reclaim The Constitutional Spending Power Congress Stole” Under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) — as interpreted by many in Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) — if the president intentionally tries to spend less money than Congress appropriates to get the job done, he is breaking the law. Example: The Democrat-controlled House impeached President Donald Trump, in part, because he paused the spending of about $200 million in funds for Ukraine for 60 days to conduct a policy review over national security concerns. Read more here. “Dem Lawfare Campaign Takes Aim At Conservative Media Before Election” The Democrats’ unprecedented lawfare campaign is extending beyond former President Donald Trump to target conservative media ahead of the November election. Later this month, the Supreme Court will rule on the permissibility of the federal government’s scope of authority to implement a censorship regime in the landmark lawsuit Murthy v. Missouri. Read more here. “This Week In Lawfare Land: Was Jack Smith’s Appointment Unconstitutional?” Read here about the latest information you need to know about each prosecution Democrats are waging against the Republican presidential candidate and how Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith potentially violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. “Houston Astros Fan Wearing ‘Free Trump’ Shirt Faces Security Screening” Teneea Tate said she was only allowed to enter Minute Maid Park after she covered up the shirt. Tate said the ticket taker pulled her aside and directed her into an “extensive metal detector scan for no apparent reason.” “They quickly phoned another person telling them about my shirt and the seats I was in (to keep an eye on me),” she said. “They threatened to kick me out if I didn’t change or cover up my shirt.” “We are being silenced and our rights are being taken from us,” Tate wrote on Facebook. “Wake up America! It’s happening everywhere.” Read the story here. “100 Syrians, 50 Iranians Cross Biden’s Open Border in October, Says Source”
“The source says, absent any significant intelligence indicting [sic - indicating] a Special Interest migrant may pose a known threat to the United States, they are generally released into the U.S. to pursue asylum claims.” Read the article.
“More than 10 million people have been reported illegally entering the United States since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, the largest number in American history.” Read more here.
“Federal Judge Orders Biden Administration To Stop Cutting Razor Wire In Texas” Border agents not only have been cutting the concertina wire at the border but are attaching the wire to rope and pulling it out with their trucks. Thousands more illegals poured through the border as a result of those actions. Read more here. “David Harsanyi: ‘Canceling’ People Who Celebrate the Wanton Murder of Women and Children Is Also Free Expression” “’Canceling’ people who disagree with you over ordinary political issues is bad for civil society.... [but] Exercising your First Amendment right to free speech and free association to shun and call out people who spread odious ideas in public life is a moral imperative.” Read the article. “Supreme Court to Hear NRA Free Speech Case” “The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether an official violated the First Amendment when she encouraged companies to stop doing business with the National Rifle Association.” Read the article. “America’s Crisis of Faith: Poll Reveals More Americans Are Rejecting the Constitution and Embracing Violence” “We are now in an existential struggle to preserve the values that founded the most successful constitutional system in the history of the world.” Read more here. “Independent News Publisher Sues US Gov, NewsGuard Over Alleged First Amendment Violations” “Consortium for Independent Journalism filed the lawsuit against NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. and the U.S. government in the Southern District of New York, accusing the organization of defaming Consortium News and conspiring with the government to violate the First Amendment.” Read the article. “Millennials Are Starting to Shift to the Right”
“Liberalism is not what it used to be before the 2000s. Being liberal in today's society does not mean walking around barefoot, selling flowers along the highway, and burning your bra.” “According to data from Nate Cohn with the New York Times, millennials are shifting towards the Republican Party.” Read the article. “Victor Davis Hanson: This is a full-fledged cultural revolution against traditional America” “Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson takes a deep dive into the Left's war on American values on 'Hannity.'” Watch the video here. “Michigan county declares itself a sanctuary for ‘constitutional rights’” “A county in western Michigan has declared itself to be a "constitutional county" in an attempt to shield its residents from government overreach at the state and federal level.” Read article here. “Hillsdale history professor Paul Moreno in his new book How the Court Became Supreme: The Origins of American Juristocracy. He provides readers with a comprehensive history of the concept of judicial review, beginning in England in the 17th century and through to the latest developments in the US Supreme Court. Moreno’s conclusion is that judicial review was a good idea but has gone terribly awry.” Read more here.
“Law schools hate the Constitution because it limits them and empowers you. That is why “constitutional law” often involves finding ways to get around the Constitution. It was otherwise designed to maintain a wall between your private life and government. Law schools profit by breaching that wall in any way they can, even (or especially) if it means designing rules or legislation that break it. Read more here.
“As patriots, we may feel that the situation is hopeless. To avoid catastrophe, we need to work to share the news of the excesses of the current administration and support all efforts of the Republicans in the House of Representatives to bring the corruption, unfairness, and dishonesty of the Executive Branch to light.” Read more here.
"Ultimately, "the overall agenda in expanding power beyond the Constitutional Authorization – the end result is to make the American people beg for communism." Read "The Tyranny in America" at the American Thinker, by Eileen F. Toplansky
The 15th of December was National Bill of Rights Day, based on the fact that on that day in 1791, proposed amendments 3 through 12 received the required ratification of 3⁄4 of the states. I hope you didn’t celebrate by arguing with your spouse that the long shopping lines at this time of year constitute cruel and unusual punishment. There is typically a whole day of activities at the National Constitution Center in Washington – exhibits, seminars and presentations galore. If you didn’t get there --maybe next year.
Last week we explored the idea of an America without the Bill of Rights. I argued that under the view of the Founders prevailing at the time the Constitution was drafted, our Bill of Rights could be entirely repealed without jeopardy because the federal government had been provided no power that would impinge on our rights. Thomas Jefferson stipulated in 1776 that our natural rights were unalienable, irrevocable. Unfortunately, both the view of rights as unalienable gifts of God as well as the view of a government of limited enumerated powers no longer hold sway with either the ruling elite in Washington nor even many Americans. Many Americans seem to want a powerful central government, even if that power occasionally steps on the liberties of some of our less empowered citizens. We’ve subscribed to Mr. Spock’s philosophy that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” This of course is the central tenant of democracy; a political system the Founders soundly rejected. I also mentioned last week that had the Bill of Rights not been adopted, the State Constitutions would have still provided their citizens many protections, but these protections varied from state to state. There used to be a comparison of the rights contained in the various state declarations of rights. But the old link onhttp://teachingamericanhistory.org no longer seems to work. Pity, it was a good comparison. Virginia’s original Declaration of Rights, while superior to the Bill of Rights in many respects, had no protections for free speech, peaceable assembly, defense against double jeopardy or use of a Grand Jury. These deficiencies were ultimately corrected in later Constitutions, and the Virginia Supreme Court is on record as stating that Virginia’s statement protecting free speech is now even stronger than that of the U.S. Bill of Rights. But assuming that the Bill of Rights had never been adopted, and neither did state constitutions have rights protections, what could life be like in America? Without a Sixth Amendment, criminal trials, if you got one at all, would not have to be conducted in public or be speedy, and a jury, again, if you got one, would have no requirement to be impartial (did you know there is no Constitutional requirement for “a jury of your peers?”). You could be tried anywhere, even outside the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. You would have no right to be informed of the charges against you, no right to confront witnesses against you, nor any ability to compel witnesses in your behalf. If you could afford an attorney you’d probably have one, otherwise you’d go without -- echoes of England’s infamous Star Chamber. Without the Seventh Amendment there would be no requirement for a jury trial in common law matters, and if the prosecutor didn’t like the innocent verdict you received he could try you again in another venue until he obtained the verdict he was looking for. Without the Eighth Amendment, bail could be set way above any amount you could afford or borrow, thus ensuring your confinement until your trial date (remember, the trial needn’t be “speedy,” so you could be in jail quite a while). It would be interesting to see whether we the people would vote to resume drawing and quartering people for certain particularly heinous crimes. Probably not, but hangings, firing squads, maybe even the guillotine, all quick and cheap means of dispatching the condemned could certainly return. Without the Ninth Amendment, we might easily forget that we have other unalienable rights that have not been heretofore specified. But here there is also danger. Under our Constitution, who has the authority to identify and define unenumerated rights – the people or the government? I answer: Whose document is it? Does it begin with “We the people” or “We the government?” If the people forsake their authority over the Constitution, government will gladly step in. Take the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Here the Supreme Court identified and defined a right of privacy that had thus far been unknown to the Constitution. The Court did not ask the American people whether a general right to privacy was to be protected or how it was to be defined, the Justices went ahead and defined it themselves. From Griswold came Roe v. Wade. Did a majority of the American people want to have the Constitution protect an essentially unrestrained right to kill unborn babies? Clearly no, but that is what we now have thanks to the Supreme Court. Without the Court’s usurpation of the people’s authority there would likely be 50 million more wage earners in the workplace today, enough to keep Social Security solvent, for instance. I firmly believe in a natural right to privacy and that this privacy should be secured by our Constitution, but I also believe that the people have the sole power to determine how that right is to be defined and secured. Without the Tenth Amendment, the idea of nullification would itself be nullified and states would be left without a basis for resisting the unlimited power of the federal government. All governmental power would clearly reside at the federal level; none would be retained by the states or the people. I think you can see that without the Bill of Rights, government’s power would grow unrestrained (Oh wait, that’s happening already). We would still have a republic, but it would be anyone’s guess as to what rights would be protected. On the plus side, we would certainly not be experiencing a flood of illegal immigrants coursing across our southern border to live “La Dolce Vita” -- there’d be little “dolce” in our “vita.” Perhaps if they had not ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 the American people would have gradually seen the need for its protections and demanded amendments be added, one by one. Maybe we’d have ended up with something similar, perhaps something very different. But the fact remains: we do have the Bill of Rights, and it is incumbent upon all Americans to understand what it secures: unalienable rights. © 2014 This essay first appeared in the Fairfax Free Citizen on 18 Dec 2014. Reproduction for non-profit purposes is hereby given. Prepared by: Gary R. Porter, Executive Director, Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. for The Breakfast Club. |
The Web Team
Our web team is dedicated to bringing you Constitutional news you can use. Archives
August 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
Photo from Fibonacci Blue