35 Burst results for "First Amendment"
Jenna Ellis Analyzes Supreme Court Justices During Abotion Case Arguments
"Jenna Sonia Sotomayor came in I don't even know It's so unprepared or I don't know She's not bright I mean I don't want to attack the woman's intellectual capability but the questions were so ridiculous and believe me I'm trying to I am an avid supporter of life I am a pro lifer through and through But I really tried to listen calmly and objectively her questions were bizarre I mean at one point she seemed to imply that the child in the womb feeling pain was not an indication of life And I'm thinking to myself wait what Did she just say that So you have a child in the womb recoiling in pain from a procedure but don't worry that doesn't mean that child is a lively That's kind of a ridiculous thing to say in it It's insane This is the same left that if you found one cell on Mars would claim oh my gosh we found life right They're so full of it This is them trying to bend themselves over backwards to not answer the moral question which is what justice Alito got at very well The moral question of when life begins And it is philosophical of course but just to say that viability is somehow more workable and that there is no advance in science since 1973 Clearly factually false And no the left doesn't have any arguments And justice Thomas raised a very good question He asked okay what right is really an issue here Because the left is talking point saying that there's a right to abortion is absolutely false that is nowhere in the text of the constitution or even implied And so what right is really an issue And what counsel for Jackson health argued is that this is a right to liberty that's found in the Fourteenth Amendment and he went back and it was so brilliant because he said okay so at the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted what state constitution or statute actually provided for a liberty interest in abortion The answer of course is
Michael J. Knowles Reacts to Mississippi Abortion Case Arguments
"And the pro life lawyers did a great job And I think you said it very well This is the issue A lot of times whenever a conservative makes any kind of argument you'll hear the liberals and the squishes push back and they'll say oh is this really the hill you want to die on And first of all I never intend to die on a hill But when it comes to this issue if there is going to be a hill to die on it's got to be this one because this is the most basic issue it is literally about life and death And as you point out if we don't stand up on this issue then conservatism doesn't make any sense America doesn't make any sense if we don't stand up on this issue In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson predicates the country on the unalienable rights given to us by our creator those rights to life liberty and property You can't have a reliability in the pursuit of happiness might be understood as property You can't pursue happiness if you don't have liberty You can't have liberty if you don't have life It all comes down to life Go through every bite that you have in the Bill of Rights every legal right you've got in any state in this country none of them matter whatsoever if you don't have the right to life And as we have seen as we heard the lawyers discussed today the roe versus wade decision was incoherent Justice Thomas asked very well He said so is this about the right to abortion Where is that You asked me about the Second Amendment and I know where that is But the right to abortion where is that And the pro abortion lawyers ran their mouths on a filibuster basically Just tried to say a bunch of words to make it seem like a coherent sentence They have no answer There is no right to abortion in the constitution It's one of if not the single most egregious error in the history of American jurisprudence and its long past time we
Kyle Rittenhouse's Reaction to Thomas Binger Attacking His Fifth Amendment Rights
"And obviously, you know, it was compelling to millions and millions of people because the more you talked, the more people like this is a normal kid who, you know, got caught into something that you don't even want to get caught into. And obviously defended yourself. And so you get up there and then binger starts to then go after your Fifth Amendment rights. Talk about that. So I was on the stand and bingers starts commenting on my post arrest silent. And I was like, what the I was like, this is basic middle school constitution test stuff. I know this stuff. You don't comment on a defendant's post arrest silence. I literally every TV show movie you have the right to remain it's the first thing to write against self incrimination. So what's going through your mind at that point? I mean, I'm like, did he really just go there? And I was, I was astonished. I was in shock. I don't know about you, how you were when you heard that. I was like, I was pretty verbal in the gallery. I was like, oh, come on. Because it was just appalling. And then the judge stepped up, who, by the way, the judge is being wrongly attacked as being on your side. He was on the side of the constitution. Exactly. Not your side, definitely not being your side, because binger is a crazy person. Because by the way, this judge is known for if you, you know, if the jury comes back with a verdict of guilty, he's known for being a harsh by the book. Sentencer. So talk about this. So then the judge intervenes and issues one of the most harsh condoms. What was going through your head at that point? It took a lot to hold back.
Rep. Chip Roy Talks About New Defense Bill Where Women Would Be Drafted
"Explain that you text me about two things that drew my immediate attention Tell America what's going on Yeah well this week we've got two big bills that are going to be coming up The national defense authorization act which course is important for funding and authorizing our defense But in it is a new provision that we've never had before a provision that would add women to the draft The second thing that's up is the continuing Let's slow down on that Hold on let's do that one first Okay Add women to the drift You know chip I'm older than you And I remember when actually we would have a national discussion about these things before people get slipped this crap into these bills Now who put it in the bill Do we know and did any Republicans vote for it Well this is the exact point right The national defense authorization act the NDAA passed out of the House of Representatives with two thirds two thirds mark of Republicans voting for it with a provision in it that included drafting women also a provision that had red flag laws in it to go after guns of our service members as well as all sorts of garbage for climate training and diversity stuff But importantly drafting our daughters for the first time in history And so a lot of us have raised that issue It's gone over to the Senate and they're about to vote on it They voted on closer tonight Now good news They actually denied cloture Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans denied cloture tonight So I think there's a debate on the other amendments to the bill So I'm trying to elevate and I wrote a letter to Mitch McConnell and to Kevin McCarthy saying the official position of Republicans should be that under no circumstances should we vote for the national defense authorization act if it continues to include this provision to draft women or at least as an at least get rid of the draft
Democrats Go on the Offense With Biden's Agenda
"Christian cinema is the subject of Selena zito's latest column in the New York Post and it's a terrific one. Selena joined me from Pittsburgh also in morning after a football lost this weekend, like the browns. Good morning, Selena, happy November 30th, to 29th to. Good morning, happy November 29th year as well. You know, I am very beleaguered by the browns lost late last night to the ravens the Steelers got blown out. We are both not likely to go to the playoffs, though it's possible for the browns. I don't think it's possible for the Steelers anymore. So you might be depressed, but I like your cinema piece because I read a lot of the build back better Texas this weekend. I'm up to page 800. It's a nightmare for Democrats. Yeah. I mean, I haven't been that diligent in reading it because I've fall asleep. But I completely agree with you. There's so much in there. And, you know, it's really interesting, I think, to me, here in western Pennsylvania, the amount of ads being run by Democrat affiliate organizations that would side with the Democrats pushing them not only to vote for this, but also to make more amendments to add more things. And I'm just sort of stunned. Watching these ads call senators Casey. Make sure he adds this to build that
Maybe Joe Biden Was Smart to Pick Kamala Harris as VP
"EPO I always quarrel with people who say you know Biden stupid Biden stupid but not actually Biden may be the most maniacally smart politician we've seen in some time because he picked her I mean you think about it Clearly the man doesn't have his faculties He just turned 79 years old He can barely put together a coherent sentence because God knows what's going on in that adult brain of his And there's no I'm sorry There is no possible way he's running for reelection in 24 And people are already sort of like you know it's like what's the old Chris Rock joke when he would go into a neighborhood and people would pick up their phones and down 9 one and then just wait right People are just they're sitting there with their hand on the Twenty-fifth Amendment button Just waiting to push it because he's so close to just completely losing it in front of all of us And yet the one thing that is looming there The one major decision Joe Biden made before he was elected anything They always say the first most important decision of future president makes is who is running mate is going to be Who will be the vice president who does he pick Prices have gone up And families and individuals are dealing with the realities of that bread costs more the gas cost more She is the greatest presidential insurance policy of all time
Nikole Hannah-Jones Says Americans Have 'An Obsession With Guns'
"The call Hannah Jones included Listen to this cut 11 go We have an article that talks about the Second Amendment That's by doctor Carol Anderson in out of Emory And really argue that our obsession with guns we are What is an obsession with guns me What does that mean These phrases that the marxists use we have an obsession with guns You know as an exception with guns the communist Chinese government The Cuban communist government the communist vet Venezuelan government the police states have obsession with guns They have the obsession with taking them from you So they can overpower you with their own guns Now the call Hannah Jones is a moron The police are systemically racist Because they're there to keep in place this white dominant society which we know is unjust in every respect Meanwhile you are obsessed with guns so you need to be disarmed And it all goes back to slavery You're going to what Oh yes indeed That's how much she knows about the Bill of Rights in the constitution All goes back to slavery Did you read the Second Amendment Nicole Hannah Jones does it say only white people and slave owners have a right to gun Is that what it says Cut 11 go We have more guns than almost any society in the world Who cares What does that have to do with anything What does that have to do with anything Why does it matter Are we supposed to compare ourselves to France
Rep. Jerry Nadler Calls for DOJ Review of Kyle Rittenhouse Case
"Jerry Nadler has come out and he has said that we want to have the Department of Justice have a review of the Kyle rittenhouse case. Now, it's almost hard to believe that the Department of Justice would come out and press charges against an 18 year old after he gets acquitted by a state and local jury of his peers. But I wouldn't put anything past this regime. Jerry Nadler has called for a federal review of the verdict by the U.S. Department of Justice. He said, quote, the heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice, he says. And so it's a dangerous precedent, which justifies federal review by the Department of Justice. Justice can not tolerate armed persons crossing state lines, looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment protected protests. Okay, I mean, let's just go to this statement. First of all, armed people crossing state lines. What does that have to do with anything? I know that in the state of New York crossing state lines might be like a really big deal, but in the Midwest people cross state lines all the time, Illinois Wisconsin, it's just you do it all the time. The reason is that he wants to try to provoke the federal government to try and charge Kyle. That's
Randy E. Barnett Explains the Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment
"The original meeting of the Fourteenth Amendment tell us a thumbnail sketch What's in the Fourteenth Amendment And what did the drafters intend Right Well after the Civil War the Republicans in Congress prohibited slavery in the Thirteenth Amendment and they had every reason to believe that once slavery was abolished then the freed men and the Republican allies in the south would be able to go about their business But that of course is not what happened What happened instead was the imposition on African Americans of the black codes which were discriminatory set of laws that basically reduced our freed men to something close to slavery as close to slavery as they could get And white Republicans in the south were also being put upon by militiamen and other armed terrorists and everybody there especially African Americans were the subject of massacres and other sorts of abuses And so in response to this white supremacy this movement is organized terrorism on behalf of white supremacy The Republicans and Congress did a lot to fight back They passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which protected fundamental rights but it was vetoed by president Johnson who said they didn't have the authority to pass it Most Republicans thought they did They overwhelmingly approved it over the retail But just to be sure and to make sure that the law wouldn't be repealed when the Democrats came back they enacted the Fourteenth Amendment So the Fourteenth Amendment goes beyond the Thirteenth Amendment to protect the fundamental rights of each and every one of us as citizens of the United States from being abused by our government So every time the members of your audience have heard about a First Amendment challenge to the states or a Second Amendment challenge to the states they are really actually hearing about a Fourteenth Amendment challenge as you know Mark Although they're doing the challenges are happening under the wrong
Randy E. Barnett Analyzes the Modern Use of the 14th Amendment
"What has happened to the Fourteenth Amendment Anything Well the court has used it for good purposes eventually They got around to enforcing most all the rights that are in the first ten events we call the Bill of Rights against the state Only most recently they did the excessive fines clause but it wasn't until 2010 that the right to keep their arms was applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment So that's all good The problem is that they've limited themselves to rights that are in the text of the amendment of the first ten amendments So for example during this whole COVID thing if a COVID regulation restricted the free exercise of religion then the courts would step in But if it just restricted your right to pursue an occupation the right to earn a living which I would think is every bit as fundamental as the free exercise of religion Yeah the right thing They wouldn't step in The right to eat the right to work These are not considered to be protected rights as privileges or immunities of citizens as they should be as they were At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted The right to pursue a lawful occupation was considered a fundamental right As is the right to raise your own children If you limit the protection of rights simply to the ones that happen to be listed in the first 8 amendments you don't include the right to pursue an occupation to support yourself You don't include the rights to raise your own children as you see fit These are fundamental rights that have long been enjoyed by citizens of the United States and which the court should protect against unreasonable regulation It doesn't mean that legislatures can't reasonably regulate in all of these areas including the First Amendment in the Second Amendment but it does mean that when they do that courts need to look at it skeptically which they did during COVID with respect to free exercise but they did not with respect to every other aspect of how the COVID regulations have affected our
Are the Rittenhouse Prosecutors Really Dumb or Really Bad?
"Obviously we're all still waiting for a verdict in the rittenhouse case No no news I have nothing new to report We discussed in the beginning of the show and then in the second hour with a terrific guest the great Leo Terrell is a also a host on KABC one of our favorite radio stations one of our blowtorch stations out in Los Angeles We're always happy to be on there Leo's on there too But Leo came on We were talking about all the prosecutorial either miss feasts or malfeasance I don't know what it is The prosecutor and the written house cases he just really dumb or just really bad And the answer is I don't know Possibly a blend of both I mean between implying that the invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is somehow an indication of guilt which is law school one O one orientation stuff It is not an indication of anything You have the right to remain silent A lot of people take advantage of it for all kinds of reasons because if you read your Miranda rights anything you say can and will be used against you So most people say well I'm not saying any of this mean they're guilty The prosecutor in the written House case apparently didn't know that Not measuring the barrel of the rifle yet charging him with a short barreled rifle possession charged despite not measuring that darn rifle is another one of those things that makes you shake your head And then yesterday sending over a video of substandard quality to the defense attorney while keeping a high resolution copy of the video for yourself and then blaming an air drop malfunction because the defense attorney had an Android rather than an iPhone is just I mean clown car stuff It's a case where the kid's life is at stake So we're gonna keep our eyes on that But again no new news to report
Lawyer Alan Dershowitz on the Rittenhouse Prosecutors' Violation of the Constitution
"Right now, the jury is deliberating or there arguing over many different kind of technical aspects or issues of evidence being provided. You know, professor Dershowitz, you are the expert on this. Have you ever seen a prosecution act like this prosecution did, especially in regards to potentially challenging the Fifth Amendment rights of Kyle, the defendant? Do you think that was an intentional tactic to try to trigger a mistrial? What's your take on that with all of your experience? Tragically I've seen this happen over and over again, prosecutors constantly violate the constitution and judges let them get away with it. Discharge has been criticized, because he hasn't let them get away with it. If the shoe were on the other foot, if this were a black lives protester who had killed and was being charged and was claiming self defense, the hard left media would be taking exactly the opposite. You know, it'd be praising the judge et cetera. So this is clearly a violation of the constitution, what the prosecution did. And I said, from day one, because this case is going badly for the prosecution. They may win. I can't predict the outcome of the case. But because they thought the case was going badly, they may have deliberately tried to get a mistrial without prejudice so that they could start all over again and do a better job. The same thing happened in the O. J. Simpson case. When the O. J. Simpson case wasn't going well, the prosecution tried to get rid of jurors. And go below them 12 numbers in order to do it again. I actually argued that aspect of the case went to LA and prevented them from doing that, but prosecutors will do that from time to time.
Clown in a Suit: Rittenhouse Prosecutor Mocked Over Closing Claim Against Self-Defense
"The takeaway headline from yesterday's closing arguments in the Kyle rittenhouse case, which you the defense arguments you didn't hear if you were watching MSNBC. They opted not to carry the Kyle rittenhouse defense closing arguments. Can you I mean, I know you can believe it. But isn't that disgusting? Isn't that just sick? That that's how corrupt and bias they are. You know, you can not like Fox News because of the prime time shows or the conservatives who appear on Fox News. They never pull stunts like that. They carry it at all, prosecutors closing arguments, defense attorneys, the judge, how about the prosecutor? How about this doozy? Now, I'm gonna bet that some of the jurors from Kenosha Wisconsin believe in the Second Amendment and cherish the right to keep and bear arms. And probably do so. I don't know the makeup of the jury. 18 men and women, they're going to see 12 of them to deliberate, beginning today. Not sure how long it's going to take. Kenosha is boarded up, ready for a verdict. The phrase that resonated through social media last night about assisting assistant district attorney Thomas binger was clown in a suit. And I believe he earned that title honestly. They have to convince you that Joseph rosenbaum was going to take that gun and use it on the defendant because they know you can't claim self defense. Against an unarmed man like this. You lose the right to self defense when you're the one who brought the gun. When you're the one creating the damage, danger. When you're the one provoking other people. Really? Well, that's news to millions of people who own a gun for self defense.
Beto O'Rourke Steps Into Texas Gubernatorial Race Against Abbott in 2022
"The Democrats have an agenda to try to turn Texas blue. They keep saying it's going to turn blue. Big news today, beto o'rourke, he's back. Running for governor challenging Greg Abbott, let me get the dean of Texas talk show hosts responds to that big breaking news. For those who don't remember 2018, beto o'rourke came out of virtually nowhere in El Paso member of Congress and managed to excite enough Democrats that he came to within two and a half percentage points of Ted Cruz, our biggest conservative rockstar. That was 2018. This is three years later. What's different now? Well, one thing he's running for governor and not for the Senate, the other thing is three years of time passing. The questions become, does he still have the same kind of moths to a flame drawing power for Democrats that he had three years ago? I think the short answer to that is yes. Democrats are naturally thrilled by the notion of having a rockstar like beto, run for governor. But you know what other kind of group beto energizes? Conservative voters. Who for three years have had a good solid memory of how crazy he is on the Second Amendment. In deeply wrong he is on boarders and the economy. He is saddled with the albatross of Joe Biden in this gubernatorial race. And so in taking calls on the fly about it, this very morning, I found two types of voters who were stoked that beto is running. Democrats ready to vote for him? Republicans ready to vote against him, so the key question is going to be which is the larger group. I think beto finishes closer to Greg Abbott, presuming he's the nominee. He does have competition. He finishes closer to Abbott than any other Democrat would have, but do I think beto is going to be the next governor of Texas? I decidedly do
Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and Their Battle to Save America's Soul With Brian Kilmeade
"I'm talking to Brian kilmeade, author of the president and the freedom fighter, and you just shared something that I really was I never thought about this. So when Lincoln is elected in 1860, a number of states had seceded. First South Carolina 6 more. Okay, and so that's before his inauguration. Before he gets to The White House. Okay, so he's elected. They secede. And then on the assumption he's going to free the slaves and they're not going to deal with it. And he says to get them back into the union, he says you can have your slaves. Thirteenth Amendment could be yours. Okay, so that's the freed slaves. You could be enslaved. And so exactly how did that go? So obviously you said that Frederick Douglass feels betrayed. So it took him some time. I mean, it's kind of funny because you get this with Lincoln. He takes off everybody and at some point, right? And a real conservative today would say suspending habeas corpus. I don't know. You know, it's like it's very interesting that real leadership will do that. It will take off everybody in a way. But so for a while, it seems to me that Frederick Douglass must have not been very pleased with him. Absolutely not. And then when he brings up colonization to solve the problem of the African Americans in America, he say, listen, we made a big mistake. It happened before we were born. So can we send you back? So he invites newspapers, all the press with him, like selective members of the press. And he brings in African American leaders, doesn't invite Douglas. And he says, made a big mistake. Obviously, blacks and whites can't live together, and it's part of this part of the reason this is the reason for the war. So I would like to make you an offer give you plenty of money to go back to Central and South America or wherever you want to go. Douglas, everyone in South America or Africa. Africa, too. He said you could go wherever you wanted to go. We will send you. So we will free you and let you go. Absolutely out of the country. Out of the country. And this bothered Douglas. Beyond by these, I'm an American. I don't want to go anywhere. Where am I born? I'm born here. You got to send me elsewhere. Since when camp blacks and whites get together, remember, and I haven't brought this up yet, but they have another similarity. They both read this book called the Colombian orator. The Columbian order teaches how to speak publicly, teach how to hold yourself and also has great essays from these people like Cicero, Socrates, George Washington, people in our past, and they're thinking big and grandiose. So you wonder why that speech worked at 28? Lincoln's been reading every day since 7. That's right and envisioning himself on that level without the cockiness and ego with the humility to know that it may be what he was capable
Why Can't the Country Come Together?
"That people say, well, Charlie, why can't the country come together? I hear this all the time. Charlie was so divided. Everything is one side or the other. And I say it's about time. We know where everyone stands. It's about time we have some clarity. I would much rather have clarity of what the left in this country believes in stands for and what we believe in stand for than this false moderation that has been plaguing our country for 40 years. And let me be very clear what I mean by that is that for so long we have had this kind of mindset in the Republican Party where we need to sue for peace and we need to go to the middle, and they get everything they want, right? And instead what we always should have been doing is we should have been dismissing them from the beginning. He said, wait a second. I reject the premise that somehow we need, you know, activist people on the courts or that the Second Amendment is null and
Joy Reid and Don Lemon Don't Talk About Who Rittenhouse's Perpetrators Were
"What angers joy Reid and Don lemon What angers them is here's a young guy who actually stood up for himself and defended himself He didn't crawl around on the ground in a fetal position and wait to get his face bashed in or ribs broken and kicked in or a bullet to the back of his head He defended himself And he used the Second Amendment to defend himself And he had an AR-15 which is a pretty much a run of the mill rifle as far as rifles go And so Kyle rittenhouse also being white goes against the racist anti American narrative that the media put out including joy Reed and Don lemon every single day And so the fact that one of the perpetrators who was shot was a child molester was a bale jumper and had multiple cases of domestic abuse that they don't want to know The fact that one of the others had multiple cases of domestic abuse that they don't want to know The fact that the last guy who had his right bicep shot the smithereens with one bullet pointed a pistol at Kyle's head before he was shot that they don't want to know The fact that it was they who were hunting him down that they don't want to
The Media So Badly Wants Kyle Rittenhouse to Be Guilty
"Chris Hayes, on MSNBC says, do we want a society in which political conflict is settled on the streets between people with guns? One of which everyone is armed and can therefore view the other person as a plausible threat. Let's just take a timeout. Why was this a problem? It was a problem because the police were not doing their job, and because the National Guard was not deployed by governor Evers, all under the series of Floyd palooza were Jacob Blake was killed and I don't think Jacob Blake was killed. He was just shot, right? He was paralyzed? Is that right? Shot in Kenosha, therefore, we say, well we got a lot of destroy. We gotta let him get it out of their system. Play cut 84. If you're watching this in your gun owner or someone who considers yourself a defender of the Second Amendment abstractly, right? Ask yourself, do we want a society in which political conflict is settled on the streets between people with guns? One in which everyone is armed and can therefore view the other people armed as a plausible threat. And that's not even what this is not even close to what that's about. Instead, it's a simple case of self defense, but the media wants so badly. Kyle rittenhouse to be guilty because all they have is the narrative. All they have is the narrative is that white people are walking on the streets trying to murder black
"first amendment" Discussed on On The Media
"That the it shouldn't change there was plenty of investigative reporting before times sullivan and lots of criticism of the government. So why was this so crucial talk about the criticism of the cia and essay and all of the major debates. We have now. Those debates would be very different if the public officials involved in them felt that they could sue successfully under state law to prohibit people from criticizing them for one or two or three minor mistakes. You know sometimes when you look at the context of new york times versus sullivan. You don't wonder about the ruling you wonder why it took so long. Six score seven score eight score years after the bill of rights is enacted. You have this very strong ruling. That says listen. There is a place in america for public dissent against public officials. They're not going to be able to use these libel and slander laws as offensive weapons to chill speech and yet there are states that have passed food libel laws so if you say something bad about a piece of steak you can get sued. Yeah those laws. Do implicate the first amendment in some respects. I think those laws are going to be challenged. I think the supreme court is very different today. Obviously in terms of its ideology than it was back in nineteen sixty. Four but.
"first amendment" Discussed on The Glenn Beck Program
"This is the glenn beck program. There is a new podcast that we released last night for blaze. Tv at noon eastern Today we are just putting it up on youtube. don't know if it's gonna last Because it is it is very controversial. Not for you. Not for any normal american. That hasn't just you know taken the blue pill the The author Of a of a book. That says what we're doing. What trans active act as activists are doing to our children in school is literally killing them. She said some amazing things to me. She said about public school. She said it's over. There is no way to correct the public schools. They have to be closed now. This is a wall street journal reporter who is not anti trans is not anything that everybody's saying but she is so effective that they are doing everything they can't shut her down. Let's play clip. I'm afraid that so many things are like Are like crt where you can stand up against it and you think you want but you haven't morphed a will come out and tell you and then they realize oh crap Not everybody likes this and so then. They'll they'll fight it for a while. Then they'll start to claim which they are on. Crt that's not even taught as it is nowhere and as you say it's in the curriculum it's just not where you think it is right so there may be no hope for the public school system. Let me just say that outright. I don't know that there's any hope there. That's a big statement. While i but but we're i mean just to be honest. It so thoroughly infiltrated you have teachers at behaving like activists across the country who have no interest in actually teaching. They believe their job is to remake your child. This is an amazing statement coming from her. Because that's exactly what woodrow wilson said. Remember the job of a university or a school system is to make the sun the most unlike their father as possible. You remember that She is she's remarkable. Her name is abigail schreier She wrote the book irreversible damage and It's very very frank on what's going on in the medical community in our school systems in our society. Big news about her this week to because she's trending today again yesterday and today what was it is some big Publishing organization publishing organization reviewed her book. included it right like in you can potentially order this book correct and they said just just us mentioning it. I'm trying to remember what they said was a serious and violent incident just recommending the book a serious recommending. It was just it wasn't even recommending it right. it was just basically saying it exists. You order it the yeah. The american booksellers association said sending her book to others is a serious and violent incident. We are at book burning. And this woman you when you hear her and the research that she has done for years it is a serious serious warning that every parent needs to hear. I've never heard this side of the argument before. And you must today's podcast. It's posted at noon eastern today..
"first amendment" Discussed on Absurdity with Ryan Becker
"Some government website. State Department website and says Hispanics are dirty right if the government says that on on their on the State Department website. And you're like well. That's defamatory. The government can't say that the government says hey, you know h-h-hispanics. You can't speak Spanish in America. That sounds like an infringement of speech and First Amendment would apply to that because the government is acting. Towards citizens through the Internet. So I don't know and. I don't know if saying that. If the Internet was controlled by the government at first, amendment protections would apply overall, because then the government would own all the social media platforms, the government, run, Youtube, and facebook and twitter, and so on and so forth. So in that case, sure I guess, but one. Is that something we want and to? Limit already applies the government actions on the Internet. Yeah, you know cool. I never thought about it until we started having this conversation, so I was just curious No, so thank you for that answer and by the way it was at Sern in Geneva Switzerland. Yeah I was like I. Don't see this sounds familiar, but I can't. It's Tim Burners Lee. He was the scientists that published the very first website. Jim Thank you tell you go. Yeah, thank you, Tim. This goes out to you, Tim. So. Do, you think moral and ethical arguments really have any place in the conversation regarding constitutional rights like the First Amendment rights in potential infringements. For sure. I think morality and ethics has always a place in awe. A huge place. That's how we legislate we. We don't legislate from a place of no morals or like a blink ethical sleep, you know. Everybody believed the legislatures legislating from a place of. We like to thank you know. Morality. They say you can't legislate morality, but you know, don't. You'd like to believe that they're not legislating immorality..
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People
"The government accomplishing its goals in there's just better ways for us to live in a pluralistic society where people have different deeply health beliefs sometimes often on controversial issues and the answer is not to let the government picks the one right answer and then punish the minority view the answer is to have a framework that allows us to have a plurality of voices a plurality of beliefs and that's what we do in the context of other for swim it rights that's what we do even in the context of anti discrimination issues we we have seen how the court has dealt with the the exact rule of what it would look like if smith was overruled in the antichrist interesting context with the example of how the supreme court has dealt with that question when sometimes people have asked for protections for anti-discrimination laws for their speech concerns one case that i mentioned was the the parade case there's another case dealing with boy scouts and there's another case dealing with the jaycees and what we see from those cases is that sometimes the person with the first amendment claim wins and sometimes they don't the government looks at with how graves the harm is going to be to the individual that the anti-discrimination laws were meant to protect if there's a monopoly if there's another way that individual can get those services and if they're in how broad the claim is going to impact them so the court has a workable way i think for balancing very important competing interests and i'm and the the thing that i think is really valuable about a rule that allows us to balance those interests again is that it's not saying that religion is always going to win it just means that was special we have minority religious beliefs like other pre smith cases in dealing amish who also had costs that impacted third parties including children who the government argued should have been able to go receive education at which would run contrary to the religious beliefs of the parents in that case so when we have religious beliefs like minorities of amish groups or six in the military or muslim prisoners or jewish groups we stamp out those religious beliefs if the rule is just if it's generally applicable lie in your beliefs don't matter and i don't think that's the way to run a pluralistic nation like ours the last word is to you and the question is the same should the smith case be overturned if it were overturned how big a deal with that be and why should are we the people listeners care about this question smith is a harsh rule accommodating religious belief is immensely important and it's particularly important actually for some of the reasons that stephanie said at the very end that that when you leave questions to the to up to majority rule religious minorities are the ones who lose out but accommodating religion has to be done in a way that doesn't rough ride roughshod over other people's religion or other fundamental rights so revisiting smith is is is not at all about idea but doing it in the right way is incredibly important and i fear that the the conversation that goes on so much of the time right now in in so many cases is taking an extreme view that doesn't end up actually respecting the religious freedom of everyone because when when people get to impose their impose their religion and us government to impose their religion on others when they get to discriminate in the name of religion that that that that is not a recipe for the happy pluralism that i think stephanie wants to present it as that's the recipe for the civil strife the religiously based animus.
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People
"The government to satisfy strict scrutiny because what it means when we're saying that the government has to apply strict scrutiny is not that the first amendment rights automatically win it just means that the government doesn't get a blank check and the government has to prove that it has a good reason for doing what it's doing which is really important for protection of minority rights that often are overlooked in legislative process and to the point about we can't we can't allow the protection of rights if they're going to harm someone eighty professors sunshine at homes have a great new book out not brand new but newish book out called the cost of rights the talks about how every single constitutional right we have imposes harm in cost on other people and so if we were not willing to countenance any sort of harm from any sort of protection of rights we would have no rights and you see this in a lot of examples of cases where we protect the rights of religious minorities for example when we protected the rights of a muslim prisoner to bail to grow a beard government argued that was imposing costs and increasing risks of harm to two other government employees and other presented mates and yet we protect that anyway because the government didn't have strong enough reason that it couldn't try and avoid that harm by doing other things their cases where sick temples have been trying to establish just a place where they can worship in neighbor have complained in said you're going to increase traffic and noise and that's a harm to us and so we wouldn't we wouldn't protect sick by noren groups if we just said okay that's a harm so so you don't get a religious right and in the prison context last example i give the government has also argued we shouldn't have to accommodate jews who want to have a kosher diet because that's an increased cost that takes away goods had benefits from other inmates so the idea that we could just have a rule that you can have your constitutional rights as long as they don't inconvenience or harm or resulted any sort of cost anyone sounds deceptively simple and appealing but what it means in practice is that we are completely visceral that institutional right for all of those really illuminating examples for exploring effects of strict scrutiny on religious exemptions and also for.
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People
"Language they're talking about drastically cutting back on protections under free exercise i think is accurate that what the court did there was backed protections for free exercise in a way that we don't see that same sort of limited protection for other sorts of fundamental constitutional rights and i think that the court is honing in on the disparity in protection that it's drew's prudence right now offers to those important rights richard please give us your sense of the history and current status of smith what came before it what it justice scalia holden smith why have both liberals and conservatives both praised and criticized it and what's the significance of for justice adjusting they might be willing to overrule it the the basic holding in smith is that is that when a law is the technical terms are neutral generally applicable which then the fact that they that the law happens to burden people based on their faith more heavily or at all is not something that's legally constitutionally cog nisab what that means is when the law doesn't single out any religion for favor or disfavor and just happens to have some effects on people because because of their beliefs that that the law still applies the sort of the easiest example that contend like a caricature but isn't it sort of gets to the heart of things is we have laws against murder if you have a faith that in which if you had a faith in which human sacrifice was a sacrament then then you wouldn't get to say well i get out from the murder law because i have a religious belief that i have to i have to engage in this religious practice but look when smith was decided we in americans united for separation of church and state immediately and roundly criticized it most most most people in most groups across the the religious and civil rights political spectrum did and we were part of the coalition that worked to get a statutory fix passed in its wake and that's what ended up producing the religious freedom restoration act right now we're working for passage of the do no harm act which restores refer or would restore refer to its original purpose and intent that we're all still struggling with smith is no surprise because it's a rule that does have harsh consequences whether you as you said jeff whether you're on the right or on the left there's going to be some application of it that you don't like often that's actually a virtue of legal rule it's neutral it's impartial you it's not one group has always the winner in one group is always the loser but there are some there are some problems here and it's not at all to say that we can't do can't do better right now is an interesting time to consider doing that because we're living in a moment when the fundamental principles of religious liberty are being distorted dangerously the language of religious liberty is being co opted everyday to defend discrimination it goes like this i shouldn't have to comply with the anti discrimination laws when i'm performing my government job or running publicly funded social service program or operating a shopper restaurant or hotel open to the public my religious beliefs give me a free pass to discriminate to discriminate on the basis of religion or race or sex or sexual orientation because because i have particular beliefs and ice should be able to to operate in my government job in.
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People
"Of all those students and all those families it was it was not just dealing with garcetti but it was also respecting the funt fundamental religious freedom right it's of students in families and when you're a public employees it is your job to do that you don't get to say hey i'm going to act in ways that impose my faith on my students because i think it's important or i think it's valuable or it matters to me so it should matter to them that's up to those students and their families and their own houses of worship so stephanie richard raises a whole series of new questions which is has the supreme court defined coercion to broadly or narrowly justice anthony kennedy who recently retired favorite kind of coercion tasked about whether or not people were were coerced by their teachers into praying a favor to reasonable observer test we talked on this podcast about the infamous lemon test which justice scalia described as a ghoul that keeps rising from the grave at the end of a horror movie so to what degree is the question richard is put on the table about how to define constitutional coercion relevant to the future disposition of these cases i think it's a hugely important question and one that the supreme court is actually likely to take up in another case pending for the court right now and that is an american legion case it's dealing with a bladensburg piece cross and we can get into the facts little bit of that if you want jeff at the bottom line is it's a it's a cross that was originally erected by private groups eventually for safety reasons the government acquired that property and so now there's a a memorial on government property a big question that case is gonna raise how much coercive tests should be relevant or whether limit is still good law or not there are certainly scholars like professor michael mcconnell who pointed out that if you look it sort.
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People
"The courts of appeals in a whole string of cases have looked at garcetti in the context of schools just like they did here and what they said is that you're supposed to look to see whether a teacher a coach is is performing the duties of the job is really is really acting as a teacher or a coach and if so the school gets to regulate the conduct of the teacher the reason for that is if you think about it actually there there are cases from the third include from the third circuit when justice alito was on that court and wrote a decision saying that thing that the institution decides what's taught so that if for instance you have a math teacher who decides that he really wants to teach poetry instead of math the school district gets to say no you have to teach math and if you if you don't wanna do that then you can't be employed here as a math teacher what went on here was the ninth circuit looked at the looked at the schools regulation of coach kennedy's conduct and said look you have you have to you have to do the job of being a coach and a schoolteacher which means that you are in the presence of students you're monitoring and supervising students they're looking to you as a role model and you're in the middle of this of this special special circumstance on the fifty yard line immediately after the game when the kids are all supposed to shake hands with the other team and closed down the the ceremonies for the game you're on the field only because you can because you're the coach that's the only reason you can be there and you're in charge of the kids and they see that you're having this this prayer on the fifty yard line that you've done for many years and so they they know that it's what you want is the coach and you should go along coaches get to control your game time they get to or whether you ride the bench and the and the and the court was well aware of that problem i also if i could wanted to say one other thing about justice go back to what justice alito said about the ninth circuit's opinion 'cause i think respectfully he miss read that opinion the court goes through an recounts all of coach kennedy's prayers over time not to say that we're holding him responsible for all those things but to say two things one is we're going to look at what he was actually doing which was this this practice of having prayers on the fifty yard line and the other was when it pointed to the fact that he had prayers silently in the stands during the time when he was on administrative leave the court was saying the school district didn't have any problem with that allowed him to do that didn't interfere didn't try to punish him for it didn't tell him anything about that and that that was the school yet again respecting his his beliefs so the school was understanding the difference between on-duty conduct by coach supervising kids and conduct that isn't in that same context the the ninth circuit took that seriously and i think that's what garcetti is supposed to be all about so stephanie justice alito did suggest that the nicer to read garcetti too broadly said under its interpretation of gross eddie if teachers are visible to the student while eating lunch they can be ordered not to engage in any demonstrative conduct of a religious nature school could regulate what teachers do during a period when they're not teaching preventing them from reading things that could be spotted by students the court has never read garcetti to go that far and if the nicer continues to apply interpretation of garcetti in future cases involving public school teachers are coaches review by this cord may be appropriate richard says that on the facts that's wrong because here the coach was allowed to pray in the stands but just not on the.
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People
"That was what the school district said he couldn't do it didn't say couldn't pray it didn't say couldn't practices faith it didn't say that religion was banned from the schools it said that he couldn't be doing something that has the effect of coercing students to participate and and when the school district was taken to court the courts the lower courts all said that the school district gets to ensure that its employee's are watching the kids monitoring the kids appropriately and and abiding by the law stephanie justice alito focused on how relevant the backstory was just as a leader said in his opinion instead of attempting to pinpoint what the petitional is likely to be able to prove regarding the reason or reasons for his loss of employment the ninth circuit recounted all of petitioners prayer related activities over the course of several years and justice leader added that the court should have decided what the position was likely to be able to show regarding the reason reasons for his loss of employment what was just as lido getting at and how is this relevant to the constitutional issue what justice alito is honing in on here is that there were sort of two different basis that were given by the school as far as why the the coach last is job one was that he was essentially neglecting his responsibility to take care of players into supervise them after the game and the other was that they found his religious expression unacceptable and the problem justice alito said for the supreme court to take this case is they really needed to know which one was it because if if the reason that he lost his job had more to do derelict of duty than that doesn't raise the constitutional questions in the same way but if it would have been clearer that the primary basis for him losing his job was based on his engaging in that religious expression than justice leader said that would have raised much graver concerns about about his first amendment rights at issue injustice lido said if i was the appellate court i had to had mandatory jurisdiction over this case i would vacate what the district court did and send us back until the court go be clearer make findings about which was the actual basis but since i'm not that's not what the purposes of the supreme court we we only take very limited proportion of cases this just isn't a good vehicle for us to decide this question but he did go onto express some real concerns about the way the night circuit had decided the case i'm happy to address those at some point too justice alito did suggest that if the likely reason was simply kennedy's neglect of his duties his speech claim would fail on the other hand the claim it have greater weight if kennedy could have established he wasn't really on duty or that he was on duty only in the sense that his work they had not ended and one of the cases that was central to that second question is a case called the garcetti case in which the supreme court held that when public employees are speaking in a public capacity their speech is not protected and justice alito said that according to the ninth circuit's reading of this course eddie case which was from two thousand six public school teachers and coaches can be fired if they engage in any expression the school doesn't like when they're on duty in the ninth circuit thanks teachers and coaches are always on duty can you richard give us a sense of what garcetti held and how the lower court applied it in this case and whether you think it correctly a plaque or city so the garcetti decision involved and assistant district attorney in los angeles who wrote a memo to the district attorney criticizing how the office was was applying the law he said hey we're doing something wrong here and and we should fix it he was fired for that conduct the case went up to the supreme court and the supreme court held that when you are engaged in the performance of your job duties you as a public employees don't have free speech rights not that you don't have free speech rights at all but that when you are employed to perform a job as a government employee you're supposed to do your job and if you're not doing it then then you can be let go now how that applies to this situation is is kind of interesting.
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People
"I'm jeffrey rosen president and c._e._o. the national constitution center and welcome to we the people a weekly show of constitutional debate the national constitution center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people on this episode we explore the free exercise clause and the future of religious exemptions last week the supreme court denied sir sharara in a case called kennedy versus bremerton school districts and that was a case brought by joseph kennedy who's a high school football coach who was fired when he refused to stop praying the fifty yard line after games justice samuel alito wrote a really interesting concurring opinion in the sir denial in which he suggested he and other justices might be open to overturning a case called and clement division versus smith which will explore detail on this podcast and joining us to cass slight on this crucially important question of the future of religious exceptions under the excise laws are to america's leading experts in the constitution and the first amendment religion clauses stephanie barkley is associate professor at b._y._u. law school where she teaches the first amendment and she is of counsel at the becket fund and organization dedicated to defending the free exercise of religion she's litigated many free exercise cases as the trial and appellate level stephanie thank you so much for joining thanks so much for having me and richard caskey is the legal director and americans united for the separation of church and state for he litigators first amendment establishment clause free exercise clause and free speech cases he also teaches at the american university washington college of law and he wrote an amicus brief on behalf of remington in the ninth circuit richard it's wonderful to have you with us really nice to be here jeff thank you so much wonderful will let us begin with the kennedy and remers fan case stephanie one at you begin by telling us the facts of this case why was joseph kennedy preying on the fifty yard line what did he think he was trying to accomplish and what the lower court said when it required him to stop praying yes so this is a case where the coach after the game was over would pray silently on the fifty yard line and and what happened was the superintendent essentially gave him a letter that was threatening him to lose his position if you continue to engage in his religious practices and the letter is a little bit confusing as to why it but the coach did again say prayer after the game silently on the fifty yard line and and so he ultimately lost his job because he was engaging his own as he described his private religious practice richard to add to the fact of the case have prayed in different places different times and what can you cast on his conception of his prayer in the lower court said sure so the the history of of what was going on here matters a whole lot for something like eight years kennedy who is an assistant football coach had held prayers on the on the field before games and had given little religious homilies religious a motivational speeches to the students in a prayer circle after the games on the fifty yard line when the school district told him that he was supposed to stop that he i did and then he decided that he wasn't going to do that anymore so he went out onto the fifty yard line after the game he was surrounded by students who were all participating with him and led prayers and so the school school district said look you kept telling him look we respect your religious practice you can pray we can we can accommodate your religion in all different sorts of ways and really tried to bend over backwards to do that but he insisted that the only the only thing acceptable to him was to be on the fifty yard line immediately after the game in the in the closing game ceremonies when he's surrounded by the students and in fact if you look at the briefing opposition filed by the school district the opposition to the cert petition you'll see at the back of photo that shows that what he was doing is nothing like praying by himself this isn't individual religious practice this was this was showing the students what mattered to him so that they would go along and they did and.
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"But who who who decides what is and what isn't violent, right? I mean, there is like it's it's such a gray area because there is like law saying that police law enforcement, they can't use force against any sort of peaceful protests like that right like a legal. But when you have these situations that spiral out of control, and you can't tell who's made the first aggression. Yeah. Once aggression starts whether it is from police, or is from protesters than police law enforcement are like that like they're allowed to you know, retaliate with ours. They're not using it. I I mean, that's why that's why the the, you know, the Charlottesville thing was such a tipping point. Because. People are are allowed to protest and in these horrible ways. And then, but but there was somebody but somebody got killed. And that was the thing. It is very American to be like, well, I don't agree with that. But I'll let you talk, and there's this sort of knee jerk reaction of, you know, don't don't shut, you know, three speech. Don't you can't fight against it? That is something that we hold varied very sacred in this country is the idea you can say whatever you want. But but I mean, there's yeah. And then there is a woman was killed. Somebody was killed in that is. And that is when people actually start taking things seriously, I suppose, right? You see the danger of that gray area? Right. Where it's like. Yeah. Me just saying, you know, the the white racial be the only race isn't necessarily inciting violence that when you are a person of color in your hearing that like, right? You're just we appraises. Yeah. Active, you, know, aggression. I think but it's technically not. Yeah. And I think it's just a very limited in white way of thinking. It's all I mean. Yeah, it's it's it's it's hard in it's confusing. And it's something that we're still we're still battling it yet. But so there are like rules on where you can like if you are disturbing people's peace. You can't yet. I mean, I mean, there's like the obey various, no it like, you know. I mean, you apply for permits in such like that you have to tell like where you're going to be in when and you know, you have to give a specific routes, which is why counter-protestors always know where these things are going to be right? Yeah. Because it is like a public thing that you have to register for as long as you're not committing other crimes doing it. So he's like disturbing. Yes. In that sense. Like doing something three. I'm that's you know, that's that would be doing. If you're doing it at noon, I guess you're not. And that's why is that. I mean is that why when when they can they like always police on their if there's protests like any legal protesting is you have to get a permit before protesting that seem so. Yeah. But like like a planned, you know, all the plan protests, or even if you wanna have like, you know, like a party in a park that's over certain amount of people, even if you're not like protesting anything you have to get a permit to be on like government land. You can't like you can't certainly unlike private property the people who own that property within have the right to kick you out. Yeah. It just it just also seems so funny to me that like, you know, we're producing against this, by the way, can we protest this. It's. Yeah. Exactly. Is something that pops up. In this country and the person at there's a lot of like you can do this up. But you can also do this late. I said you can do that. But only when it's under these various acidic circumstances. Otherwise, it's this. Oh, that's that's all mine. Very big else. You wanna I Bank Howard a lot. We we really hard not to. Full. Thank you so much for her being on talking with us now. My pleasure. Thank you so much for having me morts, and you mentioned stuff in the beginning. But is there anything that? You wanna like anything on a plug anything coming up yet? You can also if you like animation or have kids, I am doing voice on the show. Big hero, six on Disney. I'll let you see who play at somebody very different than myself, which is the beauty of voiceover and. Yeah. And also again, you can find more of my reading and subscribe to more at Mara dot sub stack dot com. Awesome. Thank you so much Mara. Thank you. Thank you..
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"Because there was a case that I have here Brandenburg verses Ohio on knighted sixty nine which God. Yeah. Was basically the KKK wanted to, you know, do their speeches and demonstrations in stuff in the supreme court ruled the that that was okay because it didn't present clearing a present danger. Yeah. I mean, I remember talking about this with by college boyfriend, which shows you the kind of nerds we were. And I remember us talking about how I think like a lot of free speech organizations have supported these these things of the sort of like, I don't agree with what you say. But I will defend your right to say it, and so they have defended groups like like, the KKK, and like Nambla, which is all about men, and boy, you know, men men should be able to have romantic relationships with boys like really young boys and ends yet. And I remember thinking about that that I was like, okay. But but these groups like actually do want to pause physical harm to people. Right. Exactly. I mean, I guess I guess people could could say if they were going to say something like abhorrence, that's one thing. But but these people want the rights to actually if they want the rights to actually carry it forward in hurt somebody, right? You know? Just because you don't name a single person or a single child doesn't mean that you're not advocating for like broad actions against a particular group really saying like a Radic ating. You know, you know, this Pacific race feels. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Feel starting feels like it's inciting will it's it's really. It's like weird thing. Like, you can talk about these things. But you can't say I am going to do this. Like I've heard before that like people be like a prank calls early Gle. But I've heard that in a lot of places they aren't it's only if you say I'm gonna come to your house in hurt you or something like that. It's only if you make an actual threat that then you can be like arrested for it. You know, there's there's but we're still trying to figure that out. And God knows we're still trying to figure that out with the internet too. I mean, the whole like the the creation of the internet. I feel like is just gonna continue to turn on its head. Because it's like, you know, what cannon can. You say when it's like not yet. Right. When it isn't in front of somebody, can you incites hate or like be threatening over the internet. Yeah. It's it's hard. And we're we're still figuring that out. But I mean, we we didn't even figure it out before the internet. So so it's just a mess here. Really unsolved problem that we've only made worse yet yelling. This feels very murky in great own now, I can do like remotely right all the time with a device in my hand. Okay. The last very less little section say little Vic section is the is the right to assemble which has like a lot of the same as if speech all the same undertone. Yeah. Yeah. But just supreme court cases that I have here. It's again, it's against Edwards versus South Carolina, which is a night to sixty three which was black student. Protesters were arrested for marching against segregation. And supreme court ruled stuck again, you can't keep people from assembling marching protesting because you don't ever their message. So the same theory that works with the KKK Nazi party. It also works for people who are protesting for something. That's good. Which is nice. And then there's there's a lot of like legislation about how the states and local authorities like what they can can't do as far as allowing it to happen. Like the can never deny it. If it's, you know, if everything's will well than yet or not, you know, doing something crazy, you're committing a crime you'd like do not allow tonight at their loud to like put certain sort of restrictions on it like, you know, let the can't be three a m in a neighborhood in your blessing can't be disruptive Graham, sue other to like the people around you. I guess, but again, it's to me a Nazi March is disruptive to me at any hour of the day. I should rows country saying there's also I mean there were so many cases in the early twentieth century of like unions striking strikebreakers coming by and getting really violence, and and police, and it makes me wonder like people be like, oh, we'll just don't get violent. And it's like, okay..
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"In fact, this whole fake news things in like, the things you see in the media about people in the administration throwing around the of punishing journalists yet having database of journalists, and yeah that like that's worrisome because it's I mean, it's dot is the foundation of yet. It's a very slow because that's the first step. What's the next step? And we've seen that in in other countries, you know, happened in other countries have dictators and face Turkey people in it won't point. You know? It's like, well, what's the what's the list for what are you going to do with it? I mean, it's the same argument that people who believe in the second amendment have about a gun registry. You know, what are you gonna do with that? You're gonna come take away my guns. But here, it's okay. That we keep track of all the members of the press, you know. It's slow makes the I think this transition very nicely into freedom of speech because we're talking about flip Ray slopes. And I wanna bring up something that I found in my research, which like freedom of speech is always been like, you can say whatever you want as long as it's like the only things that are protected. Our hate speech things that are like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater with EMC. They always say fire in a crowded theatre. That's that's become the thing. But hate speech, hate speech. Still a lot of times is still allowed. It's that's a that's sort of fine line. I know it's doesn't incite violence. Does it not you know, that kind of thing? In my notes when I was researching because I was looking at reading things about court cases that are in sleep, you know, back in the day with Nazi party from protesting. They're like they're allowed to assemble in meat in whatever in March because just because you don't agree with their message doesn't mean that it's hate speech, and I just feel like take speech. Let house races his I don't know. But you're right. It is this weird gray area that I can't seem to get a get true clarity on from from Scotus over the years. But before like way back in the day. There is something called the Sedition Act of seventeen ninety eight which it a sedition happened twice once in nineteen or some sorry seventeen ninety eight and then again in nineteen seventeen in in this time, we passed the alien and sedition acts alien Accion like making it very difficult become a legal citizen of the United States end in the Sedition Act being you can't criticize the government is having doing John Adams presidency. Who was not I don't he was not not a great president. He was he was a really good lawyer is really good Sankar. But he was not very. Popular as president. No. That was the first citizen acts that happened in the second one happened a weird enough in reaction to war one. Woodrow, right. I remember hearing about this. Yeah. Gets the same thing like criticizing the government's beat. You know, it makes yet crime, and they actually prosecuted like two thousand people under this law before it was it was struck down. Yeah. I feel like Woodrow Wilson was a little bit of a wet blanket. He was a Jack people people love to talk about him. But he said he said and did a lot of terrible things. Yeah. I'm not another winter Wilson fan there. I said now, I'm not either number leisure. Up here now. No, Woodrow, if you're listening, which I know you are not fans. Fan. Also like what is Woodrow? What is that name? We're a navy another Woodrow that's such a good point who by gateway anything Navis stupid. When that World War because he did he did he literally did he literally saw Hitler was like you're gonna pay all of this. You're gonna I'm gonna stop you over time. Not not what now. Other things about free speech again, like going back to just this idea of what protects me, what's not protected speech..
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"If you go back, I it really does go back to Federal's anti-federalist. Does it like do we control these things or two we not? So what are some what are some fresco cases? I have a couple of those a big one. Just changing the tuna bit with the New York Times the United States in nineteen seventy one which was the Pentagon papers case. Which Ressam round that essentially the New York Times wanted to to print these papers that gave classified information about the Vietnam war. Don this very positive information. And the government was like, no, we're gonna stop like you can't do that. Again, the supreme court ruled in favor of the times in that they could print stuff. I wish I read the full decision on like why that wise, but I assume it has to do with the fact that the American people deserve to know or something obnoxious like that. Yeah. Probably. Like, we should know why we're at war with a country that we're not we've never actually had conflict with I'm so that was a big one another this. I don't think was asked to me a super fascinating which was Simon and Schuster versus members of the New York state crime victims board. This wise, this is because I'm just like true crime fanatic, it there was a law called the son of Sam law, which basically meant that inmates convicted of a crime who wrote a book those way would have to go to the state, and so that's creepy pricey into this. This supreme court case essentially struck down that law because it was you know, it's it wasn't benefiting the victims in that money wasn't going to the victims of these criminals. It was going to state in it just made zero sense. I remember hearing son of Sam laws meant met that you couldn't the person couldn't make money off writing books or or that's or maybe I'm thinking of a different law. There is one I know where where if criminal if they, you know are convicted felon rights book, they can't sell it and make money off of it. They don't get the money, but the. Extinction. Here was that the money would go to the state. Yeah. And it wasn't like the publishers Simon and Schuster sued because they're like we we made it. Yeah. Like, you know, get a percentage or whatever they weren't being allowed to do that because of the law like the Sony things we time to come up with this. You know what else? Do I have is the one that was just brought by. About Trump and Twitter. He can't block people. And who was wait. What was the group? Oh, it was night institute on. This kind of bleeds into the right to petition or protests. The government essentially, they will do illegal for Trump to block people on Twitter because as the present like he can't rice Stibal speech stifles free speech out for just for basically for criticizing him yet. You're allowed to criticize the government. That's what our that's what our whole country's sounded on yet is the to be like USA. But he, but I mean, he still has people blocked though, I have like friends of mine have been blocked by him is just the peeling it. And I don't know that it's when they're appealing if it's like still don't know. But that was the ruling that's come out or or knowing Trump probably just is Norring it probably, but the, but I did see that the judge recommended that he mute people as. As worse if you must it's literally talking to child and being like, thirty means you just ignore ignore. It turns the other turn the other cheek, you know, take the high road and flows. Host my mind. I mean, like, you know, the the idea free press..
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"He doesn't want to make. They basically were like, no the Colorado rents commission treated the the Baker. As like they were mean to him yet. That's that's the thing. That bothered me was like they were mean to me. And that is that is the thing that they were like, okay. Yes. They were mean to you like he's still discriminating based on his religious beliefs, which is not protected by the first amendment and didn't. I mean, good mar. Sorry. I was gonna say, yeah. I mean that was the thing when I read it, it, it there was it was sort of a, you know, it was sort of good news, bad news, kind of thing or bad news. Good news. I suppose where it was like, okay. This is a this is a ridiculous ruling. But the good news. Is it probably doesn't have. That much effect on future rulings because it's just very specific. It was just like him basically being like, well, I just want apology or some nonsense like that, you know. And that's basically like what it was like you were unfair to me you treated me unfairly. And it's like, wow. Yeah. Imagine that imagine being treated unfairly. Right. Exactly. Yeah. It's it's so it's it's so specific that they've been like, yeah. It probably won't affect very many other cases in the future. Yeah. No, you're absolutely right. I think the thing that does just on me is that even if he was being they ring mean to him for a better word. It's still there right of speech. If it's a free speech case to stand up for the couple and say, this is a discriminatory action. Like, they still have the right to say that. So even if you interpret that as a as a negative as as like as meanness or being, you know, derogatory in some way, like the. Commission in the people who are in that meeting. Still have the right to say, but you were discriminating against this couple, do you know what I mean? Like it gets into these weird. If these weird sort of like in is it is it is it state sanctioned, the belief that they they are discriminating against him because they were like, hey that was a dick move. Or is it is kinda reminds me of like how sometimes and I'm sure it's probably come up again. I think it's the one of the church of Satan's there's a couple in or like a temple of of this will will specifically protest against things. Like, they will say they will say and their whole thing is basically like kind of like performance art, where they'll say like, hey, if you're going to give out fliers at school for extracurricular activities that are Christian. We are going to give out ones that say this or they'll say things like it is our religious belief that women deserve birth control. So if it is against your belief, you have to respect our belief, and they'll they'll like countersue and do these these. Weird kind of the things where they're like. Well, actually in our religion, we believe it to be this opposite way to sort of challenge. See how how you know how far that can go. I think it's brilliant, especially if you can just like create a church have to be particularly well thought out, you can go in create it and. Yeah. And then vile in federal court onsite as long as it's not a Greek Lasik be everybody will be as that's literally the only guy can confide where courts are like. Are you ready to move onto the next section of? Press. When you press the press are some it's truly under attack. Now, what was the court case Mara that you that you wrote about in your project because I looked it up. And I was like this is so interesting. It was the one about the the students in the newspaper. Oh, yeah. Let me see can look that up student news paper. Oh is that the one where? The like school edited Hazelwood yet Hazelwood school district versus be become I r- which was that the case concerned the censorship two articles in the spectrum the student newspaper. There was there was one about divorce and what about teen pregnancy? And and so they they they were like, oh, we don't know about this because the teen pregnancy thing might be to too..
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"Apparent admitted this, you know, that's what they've they've ruled in cases such as Ingle versus by talamante, sixty two in Abington school district versus snip, which was a couldn't have school. Sponsored viable readings. School sponsored any sort of religious things. The supreme court has like very consistently ruled against which is interesting to me because when you get to light using religion to justify actions like what we just saw with this pre court case the cake shop. You know, when they ruled in favor of that to me it felt like so out of character. Like they've been ruling one way for a consistent track record of ruling again like you can't use this too late for discriminatory actions. Or you can't do something that sabers a certain religion over other religions, right? Yeah. Well, I mean a lot of times it gets down to the to the just minutia of like, well, it's not this way. But it's this way in the things that has faced on our, you know, the seemed completely faulty to to you know, to to the rest of us, but I feel like people have been wanting prayer in school for a really long time. And and I I mean like was there like a time? Do you think when when it was a common thing, and then it was challenged? Just look the other way on because the word like one nation under God wasn't originally in the pledge of allegiance, right? Then. Yeah, under God was under God was put in there sort of to to just sell ourselves from those godless commies. Godless, dummies got his I think that's what it was. I think it was a Cold War thing because it wasn't added. It was at in the fifties. There's so much about like the McCarthy era in the Cold War fear of communism. But like we had dealt with that correctly awfully being such a better place. You're right..
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"Exclusive stuff and collaborations with friends and. Weird experimental stuff and probably even scripts for some of these alleged BBC shows will great. So I think a great place to start is this is sort of how he always start. Our episodes is just like at the very beginning of time. Because it's it's really interesting to see why these things came about. And even something simple as the first amendment aka like with the Bill of rights and all that stuff. Right. What we've learned is that at the dawn of America. Singapore to like when it was just Virginia, and it's twelve friends. Yeah. That there were two separate local parties federalists and anti right, basically, pro central government, anti central government, and the anti central government were like we need documentation to protect our civil liberties and thus to go up rights yet. Right. So the first thing that came about was the verse minute, and I'll just read what it is. It's you know, in in the here here yet language, which is congress shall make no law respecting in stablishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging, the freedom of speech or of the press or right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for rent dress of grievances. This is yes. So that's that's the all time language with the essence that looks like Fs student. I'm talking. About. Yeah. I remember going to going to Philadelphia and Boston and being and seeing the yeah. And I never been exactly the rule was with that. Why did some of the SS look like s and some did not it's but it, but it made for very amusing reading that. I feel like the only thing that people did. Well, back was right. Pretty you know, like that was the penmanship was spectacular. You're only thing that came out of the seventeen hundred. They also had a lot of. I mean, they also had a lot of of. Yeah. A lot of very flowery language is in a lot of introductions to introductions to to this. There was a title, and there was a subtitle than there was a sub subtitle than there was an introduction. And. Yeah, it was it was very long. I mean, like a matching we wouldn't be in several the predicaments we are in now if like our founding fathers were like, hey, free speech means this yet legend, this separation of church and state means this women have rights leg. We literally a lot would be solved. At forethought because I go back in time. That's how I would rewrite the constitution just those things and therefore we would have. Yes. So the way we kind of rugged down. We did like religion cases speech cases, press and then like the right to assembly STA, so we can kind of go through we can go through each topic. We'll religion. Let's divert the complicated stuff dive right in. Well, what I found super interesting about doing just like research on the different major supreme court cases is finding out how much they ruled against having religion in schools, especially in stuff like that. Which I don't know why surprise because we do live in separation between church and state society. But we also still lived a predominantly Christian willing. We have linked based on Christian values, and for some reason can't seem to shake. That. Well, I think I think in some ways there's that sort of there's that paradox. There of like like if you look at the U K, they're not as religious despite having a state religion. Right. And eventually wonder like is it is it, you know, if you say something is not if you take something is is, you know, like people people don't care as much of it's mandatory. But if it's the free to express it in whatever way, they can I mean that's used to be that's used to be thing. And in a lot of countries that aren't explicitly religious, sometimes or they will they will become more religious than the countries that actually do have a state church, right or a state religion. For the church of England was born out of Henry, the eighth trying to divorce his wives. And it just like what a beautiful way like what a beautiful foundation for really pure. You know, divorce in lots of murder. Yes. So yeah. So major ones were a lot of like the ones where it's like is it against the first amendment's who? Have things like school prayer that shows a lot and.