Podcasts about free speech clause

Today, David looks at what esteemed jurist Joseph Story said about the First Amendment’s “Free Speech Clause”—debated this week in the U.S. Supreme Court—and a type of harm it did not protect. Today, even that harm makes no sense, and so it is allowed to proliferate. David explains what is missing in even doctrinally sound Christian thinking that prevents the scourge of pornography from being addressed properly in our law.

Today, David looks at what esteemed jurist Joseph Story said about the First Amendment’s “Free Speech Clause”—debated this week in the U.S. Supreme Court—and a type of harm it did not protect. Today, even that harm makes no sense, and so it is allowed to proliferate. David explains what is missing in even doctrinally sound Christian thinking that prevents the scourge of pornography from being addressed properly in our law.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, David looks at what esteemed jurist Joseph Story said about the First Amendment’s “Free Speech Clause”—debated this week in the U.S. Supreme Court—and a type of harm it did not protect. Today, even that harm makes no sense, and so it is allowed to proliferate. David explains what is missing in even doctrinally sound Christian thinking that prevents the scourge of pornography from being addressed properly in our law.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump's Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block). The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms' (and their clients') Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)? Recorded on March 31, 2025.

The Harrisonburg City school board enacted a policy that required school staff to affirm the board’s view on gender identity including when it conflicted with the staff’s own religious beliefs. Upon any child’s request, the school district policy required staff to immediately begin using opposite-sex pronouns and forbid staff from sharing the information with parents. Middle-school teacher, Deb Figliola challenged the board’s policy as violations of the Virginia Constitution’s Free Speech Clause and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After arguments before the Rockingham County Circuit Court, the school district agreed to provide a religious accommodation to Figliola and other teachers. Join ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, director of the ADF Center for Parental Rights, who represented Ms. Figliola and Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation as they break down the case.Featuring:Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Parental Rights, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation

The common law right to freedom of speech is being lost in Europe and even England where it developed. Will the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prevent that loss in our nation? Don't say yes too quickly. Today, I explain why the Christian understanding of that right can be made to yield to lies. The United States Supreme Court has us headed in that direction. Freedom of speech, like everything else, depends on what kind of world our various magistrates (and the public that elects them) think we live in.

The common law right to freedom of speech is being lost in Europe and even England where it developed. Will the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prevent that loss in our nation? Don't say yes too quickly. Today, I explain why the Christian understanding of that right can be made to yield to lies. The United States Supreme Court has us headed in that direction. Freedom of speech, like everything else, depends on what kind of world our various magistrates (and the public that elects them) think we live in.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Vidal v Elster.      In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? The case was decided on June 13, 2024. Steve Elster sought to register the trademark "Trump too small" for use on shirts and hats, drawing from a 2016 Presidential primary debate exchange. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration based on the "names clause" of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of a mark that identifies a particular living individual without their written consent. Elster argued that this clause violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the PTO's decision, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Federal Circuit's decision, holding that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court found that while the names clause is content-based, it is not viewpoint-based, as it does not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. The Court also noted that the names clause is grounded in a historical tradition of restricting the trademarking of names, which has coexisted with the First Amendment. The Court concluded that this history and tradition are sufficient to demonstrate that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that its decision is narrow and does not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does application of the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? The case was decided on June 30, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs that convey messages with which the designer disagrees. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The First Amendment exists to protect an “uninhibited marketplace of ideas” and individual liberty, which means the government generally cannot compel a person to espouse its preferred messages. The wedding websites Lorie Smith seeks to create in this case are “protected First Amendment speech.” Colorado's law, intending to enforce non-discrimination, would compel her to express messages contrary to her beliefs. Although public accommodations play a key role in promoting civil rights, these laws must bow to constitutional imperatives and cannot be used to compel individuals to express messages they disagree with. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, lamenting that, “the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided two cases in which it held that certain restrictions against registering certain kinds of marks violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam (2017), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing terms disparaging toward a person or institution. In Icanu v. Brunetti (2019), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing scandalous or immoral terms. The Supreme Court has now decided Vidal v. Elster, in which it adopted this question presented: “Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [Lanham Act section 2(c)] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” At issue was an application to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL on various clothing items. Lanham Act section 2(c) prohibits registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.” The Federal Circuit held that this proscription violates the Free Speech Clause as applied in this mark-registration application. This Courthouse Steps presentation will discuss the background leading to Vidal v. Elster, review the Court's decision, and discuss its implications for trademark law and free speech. Featuring: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP Moderator: John B. Farmer, Attorney, Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC

Section 1052(c) of Title 15 provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be refused registration if it "[c]onsists of or comprises a name * * * identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent." 15 U.S.C. 1052(c). The question presented is as follows: Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

In this compelling episode of Faithful Politics, Political Host Will Wright goes one-on-one with Professor Caroline Mala Corbin of the University of Miami School of Law. While Faithful Host Pastor Josh Burtram couldn't join in, the episode doesn't skip a beat in addressing some of the most intricate legal and social issues facing America today. A central theme is the U.S. Constitution—specifically, its role in shaping modern American society and safeguarding individual freedoms. Caroline offers unique insights into how the Constitution isn't just a historical document but an evolving tapestry that continually informs our civil liberties.The conversation then shifts to the First Amendment, dissecting its two main clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause. This segment is a goldmine for anyone interested in the delicate balance between state and religion, as well as the boundaries of free speech in an increasingly polarized world. Caroline illuminates these topics with examples, case studies, and personal viewpoints, making complex legal jargon accessible to all. Another enriching theme touched upon is feminism, particularly its relationship with both faith and law. Caroline delves into the complexities of gender issues within religious and legal frameworks, offering a nuanced perspective that is both academic and relatable.This episode is a treasure trove of knowledge for anyone at the intersection of faith, politics, and law. Whether you're a law student, a legal practitioner, a faith leader, or simply someone intrigued by the complexities of American society, this episode has something for youGuest Bio:Caroline Mala Corbin is Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches U.S. Constitutional Law I, U.S. Constitutional Law II, First Amendment, the Religion Clauses, the Free Speech Clause, Feminism and the First Amendment, and Advanced Topics in Reproductive Rights. Her scholarship focuses on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, particularly their intersection with equality issues.Professor Corbin's articles have been published in the New York University Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Boston University Law Review, and Emory Law Journal, among others. Her writing has also appeared in the online editions of the Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Michigan Law Review, California Law Review, and Virginia Law Review. As well as writing for Take Care Blog, ACSblog, and NBC Think, Professor Corbin is a frequent commentator for local and national media on First Amendment questions.Professor Corbin joined the Miami law faculty in 2008 after completing a postdoctoral research fellowship at Columbia Law School. Before her fellowship, she litigated civil rights cases as a pro bono fellow at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and as an attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. She also clerked for the Hon. M. Blane Michael of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Professor Corbin holds a B.A. from Harvard University and a J.D. from Columbia Law School. She was a James Kent Scholar while at Columbia Law School, where she also won the Pauline Berman Heller Prize and the James A. Elkins Prize for Constitutional Law.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

Question at hand: Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

Caroline Mala Corbin is a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches classes involving the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, the Religion Clauses, the Free Speech Clause, Feminism and the First Amendment, and Reproductive Rights. Her scholarship focuses on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, particularly their intersection with equality issues.We spoke about the Supreme Court's recent decisions, the fear of the legal challenges that lie ahead, what could happen when non-Christians use "religious freedom" arguments in court, and more.Please support the show at https://www.patreon.com/friendlyatheistpodcast0:00 Intro1:36 How bad are things right now?2:42 What was the "303 Creative" case?7:05 Does it matter that no gay couple asked Lorie Smith to design a wedding website for them?10:30 How worried should we be about the ruling in 303 Creative?15:26 Can Colorado do anything to circumvent this ruling?17:25 Should atheists or Satanists use this ruling to discriminate against Christians?20:30 Why did Neil Gorsuch compare this case to the 1940s' Barnette case involving the Pledge of Allegiance?28:55 How do you teach Constitutional Law when this Supreme Court continues to ignore precedent and distort existing law?30:38: What was the Groff v. DeJoy case all about?33:44: What does it mean that SCOTUS changed the previous minimum standard to one that requires substantial costs to a company?42:30 What religious liberty issues are coming down the pipeline? What should we be paying attention to?45:05 Do teachers have a First Amendment right to refuse to call students by their pronouns? Is the government controlling their speech by forcing them to acknowledge trans identities?49:33 Why do students in Texas and Florida need their parents' permission to get out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance?53:22 Will the expansion of "religious liberty" rights be a useful tool for non-Christians pushing for progressive interpretations of the law?58:06 What's your prediction for the next big change to SCOTUS, barring an unexpected death?58:53 When you meet with constitutional lawyers, what do you all talk about?Professor Corbin's website: https://people.miami.edu/profile/f8a9f100455e712842ae5c0a6ab128ffHer paper on the Pledge of Allegiance: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3941233Her paper on whether teachers should have to use students' pronouns: https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/corbin.pdfHer other papers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=797431 See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Caroline Mala Corbin is a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches classes involving the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, the Religion Clauses, the Free Speech Clause, Feminism and the First Amendment, and Reproductive Rights. Her scholarship focuses on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, particularly their intersection with equality issues. We spoke about the Supreme Court's recent decisions, the fear of the legal challenges that lie ahead, what could happen when non-Christians use "religious freedom" arguments in court, and more. Please support the show at https://www.patreon.com/friendlyatheistpodcast 0:00 Intro 1:36 How bad are things right now? 2:42 What was the "303 Creative" case? 7:05 Does it matter that no gay couple asked Lorie Smith to design a wedding website for them? 10:30 How worried should we be about the ruling in 303 Creative? 15:26 Can Colorado do anything to circumvent this ruling? 17:25 Should atheists or Satanists use this ruling to discriminate against Christians? 20:30 Why did Neil Gorsuch compare this case to the 1940s' Barnette case involving the Pledge of Allegiance? 28:55 How do you teach Constitutional Law when this Supreme Court continues to ignore precedent and distort existing law? 30:38: What was the Groff v. DeJoy case all about? 33:44: What does it mean that SCOTUS changed the previous minimum standard to one that requires substantial costs to a company? 42:30 What religious liberty issues are coming down the pipeline? What should we be paying attention to? 45:05 Do teachers have a First Amendment right to refuse to call students by their pronouns? Is the government controlling their speech by forcing them to acknowledge trans identities? 49:33 Why do students in Texas and Florida need their parents' permission to get out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance? 53:22 Will the expansion of "religious liberty" rights be a useful tool for non-Christians pushing for progressive interpretations of the law? 58:06 What's your prediction for the next big change to SCOTUS, barring an unexpected death? 58:53 When you meet with constitutional lawyers, what do you all talk about? Professor Corbin's website: https://people.miami.edu/profile/f8a9f100455e712842ae5c0a6ab128ff Her paper on the Pledge of Allegiance: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3941233 Her paper on whether teachers should have to use students' pronouns: https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/corbin.pdf Her other papers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=797431 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Instagram launched its new Twitter clone called Threads yesterday. After a full day we dive into the app and what we think. Plus Twitter is still busy looking for a new way to make money. And on Tuesday Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty issued an injunction barring some officials in the White House, CISA, the FBI, and Homeland Security from contacting social media companies about moderation content protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.Starring Sarah Lane, Justin Robert Young, Roger Chang, Joe.Link to the Show Notes. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/dtns. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Instagram launched its new Twitter clone called Threads yesterday. After a full day we dive into the app and what we think. Plus Twitter is still busy looking for a new way to make money. And on Tuesday Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty issued an injunction barring some officials in the White House, CISA, the FBI, and Homeland Security from contacting social media companies about moderation content protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Starring Sarah Lane, Justin Robert Young, Roger Chang, Joe To read the show notes in a separate page click here! Support the show on Patreon by becoming a supporter!

On This Independence Day, We Celebrate the Court Decision on Religious Liberty Constitutional attorney and former Ohio Senate President Larry Obhoff breaks down the recent SCOTUS decisions on religious liberty.  Carson v. Makin (2022) - Maine case involving school vouchers. Maine had a broad-based voucher program, in part because Maine has big rural areas where they literally don't have public schools. The state forbids vouchers from being used at religious schools. The Supreme Court struck down this policy. (I worked on this case for Buckeye Institute.) Kennedy v Bremerton (2022) - A football coach was fired for saying a silent prayer after games at the 50-yard line. Supreme Court held it violated the Free Exercise Clause. Shurtleff v Boston (2022) - The city of Boston allowed hundreds of organizations to use the city flagpole to fly their own flags, 284 flags without ever rejecting one. Told a Christian group they could not use the flagpole. Supreme Court said (unanimously) that this violated the Free Speech Clause. Geoff v DeJoy (2023) - decided last week. The Postal Service repeatedly punished an employee for not working on the Sabbath.  Supreme Court unanimously held that he was protected by federal civil rights laws. 303 Creative v Elenis (2023) decided last week. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the state of Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which she disagrees. On one hand, these victories suggest a bunch of wins for religious liberty. On the other hand, the fact that five cases like this ended up in front of the court in an 18-month window suggests that government intrusion on religious liberty is widespread. Part 2   The state budget breakdown with Greg Lawson, Research Fellow with the Buckeye Institute.  Historic expansion of universal school vouchers is the state school budget 

A case in which the Court held that applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. ​​

A case in which the Court will decide whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. ​​

SCOTUS ruling and the liberals are still freaking about about Elon Musk… and more on today’s CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. My name is Toby Sumpter and today is Tuesday, May 3, 2022. Yes, it’s already May, and that means, we’re 17 days away from the last stop of our CrossPolitic Liberty Tour in Phoenix, Arizona. So I need you to start making plans to meet us in Phoenix, as on May 19th, we’ll be joined by Pastor Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church, and Political analyst Delano Squires, who’s made appearances on the Blaze, and the Tucker Carlson show. Tickets are only $20, and we’ll be talking about the Five Stones of True Liberty. Sign up now at crosspolitic.com/libertytour. CNN Still Freaking Out About Elon https://twitter.com/JohnRLottJr/status/1521134619004837893?s=20&t=rT_C6Ws7R4YjLOjNaLrtGw Somebody’s got to do something. All they care about is making money. SCOTUS on Christian Flag in Boston https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag." The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. "We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution's free speech rights. Boston argued that flying the flag was government speech because it was the city’s flag pole – indeed the pole is normally used to fly the flag of Boston when it is not used for this program. During oral arguments, the city’s attorney Douglas Harry Hallward-Driemeier noted that the city’s website says "we" commemorate flags of many countries and "our goal is to foster diversity," which would indicate that it is the city’s decision to fly the flags in order to promote its own message. Attorney Mathew Staver, representing Shurtleff, argued during oral arguments that the city's policy specifically used the phrase "public forum," which would indicate that the flags would be an expression of the private speech of the group that applied. In the court’s opinion, Breyer recognized that there was evidence for both sides. He made clear that if this was government speech, Boston would have been within its rights to deny the camp's application to fly the flag. "The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. When the government wishes to state an opinion, to speak for the community, to formulate policies, or to implement programs, it naturally chooses what to say and what not to say," Breyer wrote. "That must be true for government to work." In cases like this, where "a government invites the people to participate in a program," he continued, "[t]he boundary between government speech and private expression can blur." In order to decide whether speech like the flag program is government or private speech, Breyer said, the court has to take a ‘holistic’ approach that looks at the context of the situation. In the past, he said, the court has looked at history, the likely public perception of the speech, and "the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression." Boniface Woodworking exists for those who enjoy shopping with integrity; who want to buy handmade wooden furniture, gifts, and heirloom items that will last for generations. From dining tables and church pulpits to cigar humidors and everything in between; quality pieces that you can give your children’s children tie them to their roots and transcend the basic function of whatever they are, becoming gifts! So, start voting with your dollars, and stop buying cheap crap from people who hate you! Visit www.bonifacewoodworking.com to see our gallery, learn our story, and submit your order for heirloom quality wood items. Psalm 122 https://open.spotify.com/track/1kMQ0zd97eRKnq1WShZKCd?si=ec0d440281104369 0:02-1:08 Amen! This is Toby Sumpter with CrossPolitic News. Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. Or find them on our App: just search “Fight Laugh Feast” in your favorite app store and never miss a show. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are building a cancel-proof Christian media platform, and we can’t do it without your help. Join today and get a $100 discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8, and have a great day.

SCOTUS ruling and the liberals are still freaking about about Elon Musk… and more on today’s CrossPolitic Daily News Brief. My name is Toby Sumpter and today is Tuesday, May 3, 2022. Yes, it’s already May, and that means, we’re 17 days away from the last stop of our CrossPolitic Liberty Tour in Phoenix, Arizona. So I need you to start making plans to meet us in Phoenix, as on May 19th, we’ll be joined by Pastor Jeff Durbin of Apologia Church, and Political analyst Delano Squires, who’s made appearances on the Blaze, and the Tucker Carlson show. Tickets are only $20, and we’ll be talking about the Five Stones of True Liberty. Sign up now at crosspolitic.com/libertytour. CNN Still Freaking Out About Elon https://twitter.com/JohnRLottJr/status/1521134619004837893?s=20&t=rT_C6Ws7R4YjLOjNaLrtGw Somebody’s got to do something. All they care about is making money. SCOTUS on Christian Flag in Boston https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a program of the city of Boston that allows outside groups to fly flags at city hall must permit the flying of flag with a cross that a camp referred to as a "Christian flag." The question before the court was whether flying the flag as part of a government program was considered government speech if the flag belonged to a private organization, in this case, Camp Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. "We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court's opinion, stating that as a result the city improperly violated Camp Constitution's free speech rights. Boston argued that flying the flag was government speech because it was the city’s flag pole – indeed the pole is normally used to fly the flag of Boston when it is not used for this program. During oral arguments, the city’s attorney Douglas Harry Hallward-Driemeier noted that the city’s website says "we" commemorate flags of many countries and "our goal is to foster diversity," which would indicate that it is the city’s decision to fly the flags in order to promote its own message. Attorney Mathew Staver, representing Shurtleff, argued during oral arguments that the city's policy specifically used the phrase "public forum," which would indicate that the flags would be an expression of the private speech of the group that applied. In the court’s opinion, Breyer recognized that there was evidence for both sides. He made clear that if this was government speech, Boston would have been within its rights to deny the camp's application to fly the flag. "The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. When the government wishes to state an opinion, to speak for the community, to formulate policies, or to implement programs, it naturally chooses what to say and what not to say," Breyer wrote. "That must be true for government to work." In cases like this, where "a government invites the people to participate in a program," he continued, "[t]he boundary between government speech and private expression can blur." In order to decide whether speech like the flag program is government or private speech, Breyer said, the court has to take a ‘holistic’ approach that looks at the context of the situation. In the past, he said, the court has looked at history, the likely public perception of the speech, and "the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression." Boniface Woodworking exists for those who enjoy shopping with integrity; who want to buy handmade wooden furniture, gifts, and heirloom items that will last for generations. From dining tables and church pulpits to cigar humidors and everything in between; quality pieces that you can give your children’s children tie them to their roots and transcend the basic function of whatever they are, becoming gifts! So, start voting with your dollars, and stop buying cheap crap from people who hate you! Visit www.bonifacewoodworking.com to see our gallery, learn our story, and submit your order for heirloom quality wood items. Psalm 122 https://open.spotify.com/track/1kMQ0zd97eRKnq1WShZKCd?si=ec0d440281104369 0:02-1:08 Amen! This is Toby Sumpter with CrossPolitic News. Remember you can always find the links to our news stories and these psalms at crosspolitic dot com – just click on the daily news brief and follow the links. Or find them on our App: just search “Fight Laugh Feast” in your favorite app store and never miss a show. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are building a cancel-proof Christian media platform, and we can’t do it without your help. Join today and get a $100 discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8, and have a great day.

Boston's City Hall Plaza has three flagpoles; one flies the American flag and another the state flag. The city's flag usually flies from the third pole but groups may hold ceremonies on the plaza during which participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third pole. Over 12 years, Boston approved the raising of about 50 unique flags for 284 such ceremonies, most were other countries' flags, but some were associated with groups or causes. In 2017, Camp Constitution asked to hold an event on the plaza to celebrate the civic and social contributions of the Christian community and to raise the “Christian flag.” Worried that flying a religious flag could violate the Establishment Clause, the city approved the event but told the group it could not raise its flag. The district court and First Circuit upheld that decision. The Supreme Court reversed. Boston's flag-raising program does not express government speech so Boston's refusal to let Camp Constitution fly its flag violated the Free Speech Clause. Employing a “holistic inquiry,” the Court noted that the history of flag flying, particularly at the seat of government, supports Boston, but Boston did not shape or control the flags' content and meaning and never intended to convey the messages on the flags as its own. The application process did not involve seeing flags before plaza events. The city's practice was to approve flag raisings without exception. When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on “religious viewpoint”; doing so “constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.” * Credit: Justia US Supreme Court, available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1800/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Misinformation about COVID-19 (such as around vaccines, masks, and ineffective drugs) has circulated widely during the pandemic, and much of this misinformation is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Professor of Surgery and Perioperative Care and Professor of Law William M. Sage, MD, JD, from the University of Texas at Austin, is interviewed in this JAMA podcast. Related Content: Reducing “COVID-19 Misinformation” While Preserving Free Speech

Misinformation about COVID-19 (such as around vaccines, masks, and ineffective drugs) has circulated widely during the pandemic, and much of this misinformation is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Professor of Surgery and Perioperative Care and Professor of Law William M. Sage, MD, JD, from the University of Texas at Austin, is interviewed in this JAMA podcast. Related Content: Reducing “COVID-19 Misinformation” While Preserving Free Speech

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit of 52 U.S.C. 30116(j); and (2) whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Petition and assembly. The Petition Clause protects the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances". The right expanded over the years: "It is no longer confined to demands for 'a redress of grievances', in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters." The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances therefore includes the right to communicate with government officials, lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits with a legal basis. The Petition Clause first came to prominence in the 1830s, when Congress established the gag rule barring anti-slavery petitions from being heard; the rule was overturned by Congress several years later. Petitions against the Espionage Act of 1917 resulted in imprisonment. The Supreme Court did not rule on either issue. In California Motor Transport Co. v Trucking Unlimited (1972), the Supreme Court said the right to petition encompasses "the approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." Today, thus, this right encompasses petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the executive and the judiciary—and has been extended to the states through incorporation. According to the Supreme Court, "redress of grievances" is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain. The right protects not only demands for "a redress of grievances" but also demands for government action. The petition clause includes, according to the Supreme Court, the opportunity to institute non-frivolous lawsuits and mobilize popular support to change existing laws in a peaceful manner. In Borough of Duryea v Guarnieri (2011), the Supreme Court stated regarding the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause: It is not necessary to say that the two Clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition share substantial common ground ... Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance.

The intersection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and public employment. LSU self imposes an empty sanction Bowl ban at 3-5 instead of truly addressing the issues of sexual assault and violence against female students. Texas Senator John Cornyn smacks down the legal theories of Ken Paxton. An Arizona Judge does the same to Sidney Powell. Cop stories.

Charles discusses a range of issues including Texas Governor Abbott, allegations against Texas AG Ken Paxton and the Indictment of Netflix for lewdness in East Texas for airing the French film Cuties.

James E. Whitfield, Founder/CEO of Our Turn Social Media Network, Inc.,(OTSMN) and Ex-Offenders Resource Network, Inc.,(EORN) discusses his triumphs and trials with operating a social media platform, and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, his struggles as an amatuer filmmaker with entries in various film festivals.  Lucy Bones aka Samantha Walker, Host of Rebirth Radio's - "Another Perspective" discusses what 2019 has been like for her, and what the future of 2020 holds in store for her, and her Radio Program. Rohan Sharma, CTO for OTSMN, based in India, shares his visions for 2020 and the decade ahead. Points of discussion will center around the U.S. Supreme Court case Austin vs. United States (2019), wherein the matter of whether "revenge " is protected under the "Free Speech Clause". Coincidentally, James E Whitfield, produced a film "The Unseen effects of Revenge " for a Minnesota Film Festival, however, its Music Composer for religious reasons backed out of writing the films musical score. This film may be released after some edits.  We will also, cover the recent Impeachment of U.S. President Doanld J. Trump, and what could be a Second impending Impeachment Trial, after the Senate Trial. If this goes forth, I believe that he will be the first ever U.S. President to be Impeached TWICE. 

A case in which the Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, in Section 2(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, in Section 2(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC, one of the most highly publicized of the term, was decided 7-2 in favor of the petitioner.The facts of the case are as follows: two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law and Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society, will join us to discuss this important decision.Featuring:Prof. Dale A. Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law; Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of LawKim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC, one of the most highly publicized of the term, was decided 7-2 in favor of the petitioner.The facts of the case are as follows: two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law and Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society, will join us to discuss this important decision.Featuring:Prof. Dale A. Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law; Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of LawKim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

No clause in the Constitution draws more judicial encomia to liberty than the Free Speech Clause. But as Justice Robert Jackson warned, extending freedom of speech to unworthy expression can actually “belittle great principles of liberty.” Courts today regularly confront opportunities to expand free speech protection--for example, whether there is a speech right to flash one’s headlights to warn oncoming drivers of police speed traps or whether law enforcers can restrict the social-media posts of their own officers. The Ninth Circuit has already confirmed the right to view executions, but current litigation seeks to expand the scope of that right. On the other hand, our law also recognizes many categories of unprotected expression--libel, fraud, perjury, intimidation, mislabeled drugs, and exposure of military secrets, to name a few. What these categories have in common is a conclusion that speech’s harm can--and often does--outweigh its supposed entitlement to protection. The panel will explore the intersection of criminal law and procedure with First Amendment jurisprudence with a particular focus on evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of further expanding free speech protections. Dominic Draye, Solicitor General, ArizonaProfessor Thane Rosenbaum, NYU Law SchoolSteve Simpson, Ayn Rand InstituteJoseph Tartakovsky, Deputy Solicitor General, NevadaModerator: Hon. Tim Tymkovich, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth CircuitIntroduction: Joe Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Colorado Attorney General's Office

No clause in the Constitution draws more judicial encomia to liberty than the Free Speech Clause. But as Justice Robert Jackson warned, extending freedom of speech to unworthy expression can actually “belittle great principles of liberty.” Courts today regularly confront opportunities to expand free speech protection--for example, whether there is a speech right to flash one’s headlights to warn oncoming drivers of police speed traps or whether law enforcers can restrict the social-media posts of their own officers. The Ninth Circuit has already confirmed the right to view executions, but current litigation seeks to expand the scope of that right. On the other hand, our law also recognizes many categories of unprotected expression--libel, fraud, perjury, intimidation, mislabeled drugs, and exposure of military secrets, to name a few. What these categories have in common is a conclusion that speech’s harm can--and often does--outweigh its supposed entitlement to protection. The panel will explore the intersection of criminal law and procedure with First Amendment jurisprudence with a particular focus on evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of further expanding free speech protections. Dominic Draye, Solicitor General, ArizonaProfessor Thane Rosenbaum, NYU Law SchoolSteve Simpson, Ayn Rand InstituteJoseph Tartakovsky, Deputy Solicitor General, NevadaModerator: Hon. Tim Tymkovich, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth CircuitIntroduction: Joe Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Colorado Attorney General's Office

On December 5th, The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC. The case, one of the most highly publicized of the term, involves questions of religious liberty, expressive acts, and compelled speech.Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom at the Christian Legal Society, will attend oral argument and join us to discuss her impressions. Featuring:Kim Colby, Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On December 5th, The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC. The case, one of the most highly publicized of the term, involves questions of religious liberty, expressive acts, and compelled speech.Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom at the Christian Legal Society, will attend oral argument and join us to discuss her impressions. Featuring:Kim Colby, Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Former Online Editor Anthony Zangrillo and Former Senior Notes and Articles Editor Joey Gerber take a break from BAR prep in order to discuss "one of the most important First Amendment free speech cases to come along in many years" Matal v. Tam.1 In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has refused to register trademarks considered that disparage a particular person, group or institution. On June 19, the Supreme Court unanimously held (8-0) that the disparagement clause (Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act), is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The specific case in controversy involved a Portland, Oregon, rock band “The Slants.” All the members of the band are of Asian decent and the name represents a move of empowerment in reclaiming a historically derogatory term. Simon Tam filed a trademark application to federally register the band’s name, “The Slants.” The PTO refused to register the mark as “derogatory or offensive” based on the dictionary meaning of ‘slants’ or ‘slant-eyes.’ Tam lost an appeal to the PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), but this ruling was reversed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the disparagement clause is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause. On this podcast, Anthony and Joey discuss the Supreme Court decision and the ramifications this could have on future trademark applications, as well as other decisions such as the recent controversy over the Washington Redskins.2   Don’t forget to also subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/fordham-intellectual-property/id1158550285?mt=2) and leave a review!

On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Lee v. Tam. Simon Tam of The Slants, an Asian American rock band, applied to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office, but the application was denied. The Office claimed that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent,” citing the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” Tam appealed to a board within the Office but was again denied. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a panel of judges determined that the Office officials were within their rights to refuse the application. The Federal Circuit then reviewed the case en banc and found that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment and that the Office should not have refused the application. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. -- To discuss the case, we have Megan L. Brown, who is Partner at Wiley Rein LLP.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments last week in Lee v. Tam. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it "[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." The question presented by the case is whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School and Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law dissect the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and explore current debates over its meaning.

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School and Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law dissect the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and explore current debates over its meaning.