Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate another free speech victory coming out of the Supreme Court as it ruled against a Minnesota law that banned political apparel at the polls. They also remain confused at President Donald Trump’s praise for the murderous North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un. And they look at the initial details of the long-anticipated Inspector’s General report about Comey, Lynch, and the Hillary Clinton private server investigation.
By: Joshua Paladino
The California Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Tuesday regarding a bill that supporters say protects the LGBTQ community and critics believe is a gross violation of free speech and freedom of religion.
Pro-family groups gathered outside the California Legislature to protest AB 2943, which would make illegal “advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”
Proponents of the bill say it will prevent counseling and conversion therapy that some psychologists believe may lead to “depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.”
Opponents of the bill, including the California Family Council, say AB 2943 could threaten First Amendment rights.
Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Matt Sharp explained the possible implications of the bill: “It’s ultimately a restriction on speech when it comes to discussions of sexual identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, it says that this is now a fraudulent practice to engage in this. And so whether you’re a church holding a conference where you’re discussing these issues, you could see a bookstore selling a book helping people address some of these issues, counselors wanting to help a middle-aged mom that’s struggling with some confusion.”
Sharp added that such restrictions could perhaps outlaw the sale of the Bible itself.
Assemblyman Evan Low, a Democrat from Silicon Valley and a sponsor of AB 2943, says the opposition misunderstands the bill. “This bill is express in its terms of limiting the practice of conversion therapy as a commercial service in exchange for monetary compensation. It does not apply to the sale of books or any other kinds of goods. It does not prevent anyone from speaking or writing on the subject of conversion therapy in any form.”
He added that the Bible “absolutely would not be banned.”
The bill passed the California General Assembly on April 19 with a 50-18 majority vote. The bill is expected to clear the California Senate Judiciary Committee and head to the full Senate, where Democrats hold a super majority.
By Mitchell Sanders
The French parliament is set to debate a bill on Thursday designed to regulate campaign-related misinformation.
If passed into law, the billwould allow French authorities to bar the publication of any information they deem false in the run-up to elections. Additionally, the bill would
allow the state to yank foreign broadcasters off the air if they are judged as attempting to destabilize France. It would also compel social media
networks to introduce measures that would allow users to flag content for official government review
The bill has sparked fears of censorship; critics assert it could be used by authorities to block unflattering or compromising stories. Legal expert Vincent Couronne insists that the law is “not only imperfect and unnecessary but also dangerous for the peace and diversity of public debate.”
Other experts agree, saying that the bill is a step towards censorship and insisting that the bill will turn judges into arbiters of true and false.
French politician Marine Le Pen questions, “Is France still a democracy if it muzzles its citizens?”
Under the bill, judges would have only forty-eight hours to make their decision.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are happy to Republicans senators like Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse, and John Kennedy pin down Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on critical issues like censorship, free speech, and user policies that actually benefit Facebook members. They also react to House Speaker Paul Ryan announcing his retirement, looking both at his record and the increased likelihood that Democrats will take back the House this year. And they have fun with London’s ridiculous new knife control push after 50 stabbing deaths in the city this year, including police confiscating scissors and pliers as deadly weapons.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over a California law requiring pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about how to obtain abortions, a requirement that the pro-life movement considers a direct infringement on free speech.
However, the pro-life side is also optimistic that the court will rule in its favor.
The legal battle is over a 2015 California law known as the FACT Act, which forces openly pro-life centers to prominently display information on how to get an abortion.
The sign reads: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care and abortion for eligible women.” It also provides contact information to learn more about abortions.
“This case really isn’t about abortion or Roe v. Wade. It’s about free speech. It’s a basic question about whether the government can compel private speakers to speak a message that they disagree with or, frankly, they just don’t want to say for any reason,” said Denise Harle, a legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the plaintiff in the case, known as National Institute of Family Life Advocates vs. Becerra
“American’s can’t be forced by the government to promote messages that conflict with their beliefs. The first amendment guarantees that free speech means that Americans cannot be compelled to speak or forbidden to speak,” said Harle. “California has enacted a law forcing pro-life speakers to advertise for the abortion industry.”
Harle offered more details on what message the signs convey.
“The sign has to be in 48-point font in the waiting room. It actually gives a number to call,” she said. “The law says it has to be clear and conspicuous placement in multiple languages that tells them where to get a free or low-cost abortion.
“If they call that number, they will actually be referred to Planned Parenthood or another abortion clinic,” added Harle.
The FACT Act also makes advertising difficult for the pro-life facilities.
“The law also requires for certain centers to put in every single one of their advertisements this 29-word disclaimer in multiple languages and it makes it completely impossible for them to do internet advertising, newspaper ads, billboards,” said Harle.
In addition, Harle says the law applies only to explicitly pro-life pregnancy centers.
“It only applies to pro-life speakers, which I think is so concerning about this law. It exempts all other doctors. It exempts out all for-profit health care providers. And it exempts out the non-profit general community clinics if they aren’t primarily pregnancy focused,” said Harle.
Legally speaking, Harle says the law places a tremendous burden on the clinics.
“It interrupts the pro-life center’s message to women. Not only is it confusing, but it’s a severe burden on the consciences of these centers that exist solely to defend life because they believe life is precious and encourage childbirth. For the government to force them to promote abortion is just completely wrong,” said Harle.
Harle says working on this case has been a joy because of the pro-life convictions of the directors and volunteers at the centers. But she says they are wrestling with conscience issues over this law.
“This law just adds layer upon layer of burden. So not only are the clinic workers having their consciences burdened, they have a really serious decision about whether to work in a place that post signs promoting free abortion,” said Harle.
“Can you imagine having your whole existence being based on pro-life views and yet having to be a billboard for free and low-cost abortions,” she added.
It could also dry up resources for such centers.
“Donors are burdened with a conflict. What am I doing now if I’m supporting these centers but they’re having to advertise for abortion. Is this something I can continue to support?” said Harle.
At the Supreme Court Tuesday, the four liberal justices seemed to argue that pro-life centers ought to be required to inform patients of other options since that is the rule for abortion clinics as well.
The remaining justices seemed sympathetic to the argument that these signs conflict with the first amendment, with Justice Anthony Kennedy accusing the law of “mandating speech.”
Harle believes the oral arguments bode well for her clients.
“We’re very hopeful that we have several justices who agree that that’s a basic first amendment violation,” she said.
If the court sides with California, Harle says the consequences would be chilling.
“There almost seems to be no limit to what a government could do if it doesn’t like a certain viewpoint. If they don’t like a certain advocacy group or ideology and it’s going to impose these burdensome on them, that is going to silence and suppress free speech.
“Anyone on any side of any issue should be really concerned about a government that has that much power,” said Harle.
The Justice Department announced the indictment of 13 Russians on charges of attempting to defraud the United States by meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, but a former federal prosecutor says the charges may have a chilling effect on free speech here at home and around the globe.
On Friday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the indictments handed down from a grand jury connected to the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian activities during the race for the White House.
While all 13 Russians face defrauding charges, some of them also face wire fraud and bank fraud charges as well.
However in addition to the indictments, Rosenstein also announced that any Americans participating in the operation did so unwittingly. Many media outlets immediately went wall-to-wall with breathless coverage of the news, but former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy isn’t sure what the bombshell is.
“I don’t think there was any doubt that the Russians were trying to meddle in our election because I think they meddle as much as they can in all our elections. In fact, this indictment says this particular scheme to meddle in the elections goes back about five years. So it’s long before there even was a Donald Trump campaign,” said McCarthy.
McCarthy further says there is a big gray area about what sort of foreign involvement in American politics is legal and what is not. In this case, he says the indictments suggest Mueller sees the Russian bot activity as an in-kind political contribution.
He also says the plan is deeply frowned upon by the Justice Department, which cannot properly register those involved in the plot as foreign agents since they operate anonymously. The State Department also has reason to be furious since the Russians came to the U.S. on visas, giving very different reasons for being here.
But while McCarthy urges the government to prosecute visa fraud as aggressively as possible, he says the Mueller indictments might create more problems than they solve.
“I don’t really understand the point of this. I don’t even know if these people are prosecutable. I don’t know that there’s a chance you actually get these people physically into a federal criminal court in the United States,” said McCarthy.
However, he says the long-term impact of this could create problems for the United States.
“It seems to sweep into it, potentially, a lot of behavior that Americans engage in and may result in retaliation on the part of foreign governments on activities that are pretty important to the spreading of American messages that we want to spread throughout the world,” said McCarthy.
And he says political involvement on the internet could also be greatly impacted by Friday’s actions.
“You’re talking about regulation of political expression of a variety that a lot of Americans engage in. It seems like they’re doing this as a sweeping prohibition on a theory that these government agencies have had their missions frustrated by the way that this scheme took place,” said McCarthy, noting that such freedom could be at risk all for a case that may never be tried.
McCarthy painted another unsettling scenario.
“Are we now saying that every time that somebody champions a candidate or a cause in social media that that’s an in-kind campaign contribution and that if you’re doing it anonynously or under a pseudonym that you’re defrauding the United States?” asked McCarthy.
“It would seem to me that that would be absurd, but it’s less absurd after reading this indictment than it would have been before,” said McCarthy.
In addition to the actual charges announced Friday, McCarthy says it is significant that Mueller and Rosenstein conclude that no Americans knowingly collaborated with Russian attempt to cause mischief in the campaign. They also pointed out that the bots stirred up partisans on both sides, certainly in the wake of the elections.
“It does say that to the extent Americans were involved in this it was “unwitting,” which means that if that’s the full extent of it, there obviously can’t be a collusion conspiracy because you can’t collude – I mean collusion is a nonsense word legally anyway.
“To be a criminal conspirator, you have to have an agreement to violate the law and that’s not something that someone can do unwittingly,” said McCarthy.
So much like every other development in this case, both sides of the Russia debate see vindication in Friday’s developments.
“Anybody who was interested in championing something that I think should have been beyond dispute – namely that the Russians tried to meddle in our elections – they get to say, ‘See, Russians meddle in elections.’
“And anybody who had a political interest in saying that Trump didn’t collude, they can now come away and say, ‘See, this thing shows there’s no collusion,'” said McCarthy.
A judge in British Columbia dismissed all charges against climate change skeptic Dr. Tim Ball, in what Ball calls a major win for free speech in an era where the effort to stifle politically incorrect opinions is “endemic.”
On Tuesday, Judge Ronald Skolrood dismissed the charges aimed at Ball by Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who is also leader of the Green Party in British Columbia and has a long affiliation with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Why was Weaver targeting Ball in court?
“The article (Ball authored) on Weaver was saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had so directed the focus of climate research and all of the funding by the way – we’re talking billions of American dollars towards CO2 and human-caused climate change. So for 30 years, there’s been no real advancement in our understanding of climate,” said Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg and the author of numerous books on climate science.
The trouble started soon after that article ran.
“The mistake I made was that after an interview with Weaver, I made some comments that I didn’t fully substantiate. And that’s what triggered the lawsuit,” said Ball.
“As soon as I got the lawsuit, I sent him a letter of apology for those unsubstantiated comments. That wasn’t enough for him to drop the lawsuit. He took it all the way,” added Ball.
Ball says Weaver relishes portraying himself as a victim.
“To give you a measure of what we’re dealing with, he posted that apology letter of mine on a wall in his academic office that is labeled the ‘Wall of Hate,'” said Ball.
“He’s labeled it that because he shows it to students to say, ‘Look, here’s all the people that hate me and this is what I have to go through to defend you and defend the planet from these climate change deniers,” said Ball.
Ball says his fierce participation in the climate debate is about science, not politics or hate.
“It’s laughable. I don’t hate him . What I dislike is the fact he’s using climate science for a political agenda,” added Ball.
“The judge heard all of that, heard about the ‘Wall of Fate,’ and came forward with his judgment of total dismissal of Weaver’s claims. By the way, when we got to the courtroom, (Weaver) didn’t present a single witness,” said Ball.
Ball still faces charges in a lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Mann, the originator of the the hockey stick explanation of allegedly rising global temperatures. Ball gave a talk in Manitoba that was highly critical of the hockey stick theory and the legal papers came flying.
“Within 12 hours, a lawsuit was filed on Michael Mann’s behalf. Here’s an American living in Pennsylvania filing a lawsuit in in British Columbia for an event that occurred in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This is what they call jurisdictional shopping. It’s a measure to me of the extent to which they’re using the law to silence people,” said Ball.
Ball is being sued under what are known as SLAPP laws, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and have been used to chill political speech. Eight of ten Canadian provinces have anti-SLAPP laws, but British Columbia recently rescinded it’s anti-SLAPP provisions, allowing the suit to proceed there.
Ball says Americans and Canadians need to fight back against this assault on speech rights.
“The use of the law to silence people is becoming endemic,” he said, noting that lawsuits are often aimed at media outlets who publish material critical of the climate change movement.
“When you start to lose an argument, you start to attack the individual. That’s what these lawsuits are, they’re silencing the individual. But they have a residual effect. People have said to me, ‘We wouldn’t go through what you’re going through, so we’re going to keep our mouths shut,” said Ball.
He says he hears some version of that fear on a regular basis.
“I’ve had scientists say to me, ‘We agree with you but we won’t say anything because we’ll lose our jobs,” said Ball. “Scientists have said to me, ‘Look, we’re Democrats or socialists . Even though we agree with you, we’re not going to say that because immediately we’ll be cast as right wing conservatives,'” said Ball.
When asked if this legal and financial road of hardship has been worth it, Ball says it’s complicated.
“It really doesn’t matter now. I’m in this and I’m not going to quit. I’m going to move forward with it. Truth be known, if I knew what I was going to go through, I probably wouldn’t have done it again,” said Ball.
“But of course, as Edmund Burke famously said that evil triumph when good people stand idly by,” said Ball.
The Supreme Court will probably not render a decision for months on the case of a Colorado baker being sued for refusing to bake and decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding, but the legal team representing the baker says the Constitution is clearly on their side and is encouraged by some of the comments of the justice likely to swing the outcome.
Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, represents Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Jack Phillips and several other clients who contend their sincerely-held religious beliefs on marriage preclude them from providing services for a same-sex wedding.
Phillips points out that he willingly serves homosexual customers so long as they are not asking him to affirm same-sex marriage. In addition, Phillips refuses to provide cakes for heterosexual bachelor and bachelorette parties or for weddings that constitute a second heterosexual marriage.
But David Mullins and Charlie Craig see it differently. When Phillips refused to decorate a cake for their same-sex ceremony, they complained to state officials who filed suit against Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing service to the men based on their sexual orientation.
Oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Right Commission took place Monday at the Supreme Court. ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco says his team went in expecting the justices to uphold the Constitution.
“Our assumption going in is that the right to be free from compelled speech, the right to have a situation in our country where the government doesn’t coerce – in this case artistic professionals – to create artistic expression that goes against their beliefs would be upheld,” said Tedesco.
He says the verdict in this case could have wide-ranging impact.
“The ruling in this case is ultimately going to bind other people. It’s going to effect other people. This time is may be a religious objector to same-sex marriage, but the next time it might be somebody who’s liberal, who’s objecting to something they don’t want to do,” said Tedesco.
Both sides are nervous about the outcome in this case. Just two years ago, the court ruled 5-4 that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Since then, the complexion of the court hasn’t changed much. Conservative justice Antonin Scalia was replaced by Neil Gorsuch, who is believed to have similar views on religious freedom issues.
That leaves Anthony Kennedy as the likely swing vote. Kennedy has authored three landmark decisions that sided with the LGBT lobby in 2003, 2013, and 2015. However, some of his questions during Tuesday’s arguments give allies of Phillips hope and allies of Mullins and Craig reason for concern.
“[T]olerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” said Kennedy.
Tedesco says that quote was encouraging to him because it shows Kennedy understands their position.
“That’s ultimately what this case is about. How do we live together in a pluralistic society like this, with deeply different beliefs about core issues like marriage and what that is. We don’t live together peacefully when one side of the debate has the ability to use the government to silence and punish the other side,” said Tedesco.
Another Kennedy comment also raised eyebrows. As an American Civil Liberties Union attorney tried to make the case that rejecting the message of Mullins and Craig was the same as rejecting them, Kennedy quipped, ‘It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.’
Tedesco says that is a crucial point.
“That’s always been the distinction we’ve made and it’s the right distinction. The Supreme Court has even recognized the distinction in past cases – all the way back to 20 years ago – that there’s a difference to objecting to the message than objecting to the person. When you’re rejecting the message, you’re not considering the person’s protected characteristics,” said Tedesco.
“When you object to the message, you exercise your first amendment right to say there are certain messages, ideas, and events that I’m not going to promote through my artistic expression or speech. That’s far different than saying, ‘I’m not going to serve you because of who you are,'” said Tedesco.
“The other side always tries to mischaracterize what these cases are about by analogizing them to class-based discrimination,” he added.
But Tedesco cautions that Kennedy was tough on everyone on Tuesday.
“Justice Kennedy asked difficult questions of both sides and made comments during argument from attorneys on both sides that were difficult questions and telling comments. So it’s hard to say Justice Kennedy will lean our way and rule for us,” said Tedesco.
Tedesco knows these cases often get decided along ideological lines but he hopes all nine justices see the fundamental rights at stake for Phillips and all Americans.
“I’ve always been confident in the case because those kind of first principles are the things that make our society great. We don’t want to see those rights and those privileges of living in this country be chipped away,” said Tedesco.
Nonetheless, Phillips lost earlier rounds in court and florists, artists, and videographers represented by ADF are also facing legal setbacks. So if the constitutional principles are clear, why are the verdicts going the other way?
“My best explanation of it is that there have been times throughout American history where things that have seemed culturally imperative were used at least temporarily to overrun first amendment rights,” said Tedesco, noting that the Supreme Court once allowed states to mandate schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before later reversing course.
“I think what you’re seeing is there’s so much cultural, political, legal momentum related to same-sex marriage that some of these principles are getting muddied and mischaracterized and maybe overrun for maybe a temporary time by lower courts,” said Tedesco.
Tedesco says even people who strongly supported the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage are very uncomfortable with the idea of the government telling people what they have to do.
“It’s illiberal and it’s contrary to the best practices and traditions of our country. It’s one thing to have same-sex marriage established as a constitutional right. It’s a completely different thing to force people to agree with and promote that idea against their will and their convictions, especially when you’re dealing with people who, like the Supreme Court said, who have decent and honorable beliefs about what marriage is,” said Tedesco.
And for those adamantly opposed to ADF in this case, Tedesco says their rationale could one day put them in the same position as Phillips.
“That kind of rule can quickly be turned around and used to punish people on different issues. You can’t take this ruling, if it’s against Jack Phillips, and just limit it to him and just same-sex marriage. And that’s why I think ultimately, free speech and a free society, tolerance for different points of view will ultimately be the way this plays out. We will ultimately prevail on that point,” said Tedesco.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer a court decision that upholds Wisconsin’s right to work law and rejects the argument of organized labor that it has a right to part of workers’ paychecks. They also shudder as a new study shows students of all political stripes evenly divided on whether “hate speech” should be protected speech, whether it’s OK to shout down speakers they don’t like, or even whether uncomfortable views should be allowed on campus. And they have fun with a political ad that is a horrible parody of a famous scene from “Top Gun.”
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are happy to see Ben Shapiro was able to give his speech at Berkeley without incident in the auditorium and minimal unrest outside, which this year counts as very good news. They also unload on Harvard for offering convicted spy Bradley Manning, who now identifies as Chelsea Manning, a position as a visiting fellow, and only rescinding the offer after the intelligence community denounces the move. And they groan as a terrorist attack on the London tube injures 22 people and suggests terrorists there might be changing their tactics.
