Mediaboss Marketing

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the man who refused to create a specialty wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012. The stories that are dominating the coverage distort the publics understanding of the case and its serious implications.

For one thing, no matter how many times people repeat it, the case isnt about discrimination or challenging gay marriage. But when the news first broke, USA Today tweeted, The Supreme Court has agreed to reopen the national debate over same-sex marriage. The headline (like the story) on the website was worse; it read, Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddings. Others similarly framed the case. (And dont worry, religious liberty is almost always solidly ensconced inside quotation marks to indicate that social conservatives are just using it as a faade.)

There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesnt challenge, undermine, or relitigate same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasnt even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.

Therefore, the Associated Presss headline, Supreme Court to Decide If Baker Can Refuse Gay Couple Wedding Cake, and the accompanying story are also wrong. As is the New York Times headline Justices to Hear Case on Bakers Refusal to Serve Gay Couple, which was later changed to the even worse headline Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage.

A person with only passing interest in this case might be led to believe that Phillips is fighting to hang a No Gays Allowed sign in his shop. In truth, he never refused to serve a gay couple. He didnt even really refuse to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake. They could have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake for a gay wedding. Phillips didnt query about anyones sexual orientation. It was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that took it upon itself to peer into Phillipss soul, indict him, and destroy his business over a thought crime.

Like many other bakers, florists, photographers, and musicians and millions of other Christians Phillips holds genuine longstanding religious convictions. If Mullins and Craig had demanded that Phillips create an erotic-themed cake, the baker would have similarly refused for religious reasons, just as he had with other customers. If a couple had asked him to design a specialty cake that read Congrats on the abortion, Jenny! Im certain he would have refused them as well, even though abortions are legal. Its not the people; its the message.

In its tortured decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals admitted as much, contending that while Phillips didnt overtly discriminate against the couple, the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craigs and Mullinss sexual orientation, so it could divine his real intentions.

In other words, the threshold for denying religious liberty and free expression is the presence of advocacy or a political opinion that conflates with faith. The court has effectively tasked itself with determining when religion is allowed to matter to you. Or, in other words, if SCOTUS upholds the lower-court ruling, it will empower unelected civil-rights commissions which are typically stacked with hard-left authoritarians to decide when your religious actions are appropriate.

How could any honest person believe this was the Constitutions intent? There was a time, Im told, when the state wouldnt substantially burden religious exercise and would use the least restrictive means to further compelling interests. Today, the state can substantially burden a Christian because hes hurt the wrong persons feelings.

Judging from the e-mails and social-media reactions Ive gotten regarding this case, people are instinctively antagonistic not only because of the players involved but also because they dont understand the facts. In this era of identity politics, some have been programmed to reflexively side with the person making accusations of status-based discrimination, all in an effort to empower the state to coerce a minority of people to see the world their way.

Well, not all people. In 2014, a Christian activist named William Jack went to a Colorado bakery and requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible, one to be decorated with the Bible verses God hates sin. Psalm 45:7 and Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22, and the other cake to be decorated with another passage. The bakery refused. Even though Christians are a protected group, the Colorado Civil Rights Division threw out the case. The American Civil Liberties Union called the passages obscenities. I guess the Bible doesnt correlate closely enough with a Christians identity.

Or perhaps weve finally established a state religion in this country: one run on the dogma of social justice.

READ MORE: Three Thoughts on the Masterpiece CakeshopCert Grant The Supreme Courts Religious-Freedom Message: There Are No Second-Class Citizens Legal Radicals Dont Want the Separation of Church and State

David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case against Democracy. 2017 Creators.com

Go here to read the rest:
This Is a Fight for the First Amendment, Not against Gay Marriage - National Review

justgrimes/FlickrSeattle homeowners are tired of being forced to contribute tax dollars to candidates they do not support, some of whom campaign to further restrict their property rights.

A Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit challenges Seattle's Democracy Voucher program, which has so far dispensed $233,175 in special tax contributions to fund vouchers of up to $100 for city voters to contribute to their favorite local political candidates.

"When you are forced to give a certain amount of money to someone who then uses it to contribute it to a candidate," Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, says, "that's compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment."

Blevins is representing Mark Elster, a Seattle homeowner and self-described "robust supporter of free markets," who objects to being made to underwrite any part of a campaign for candidates, none of whom warrant his support.

So far, the voucher program isn't quite as democratic as envisioned by its progressive sponsors. More than half of the total amount of contributions has gone to Jon Grant, a candidate for an open city council seat and someone who could charitably be described as left-of-center.

A former head of the Washington Tenants Union, Grant has endorsed a range of left-wing housing policies including rent control, mandating affordable housing units in new developments, caps on move-in fees, and giving collective bargaining privileges to tenants.

His opponent, Teresa Mosqueda, and the incumbent candidate for city attorney, Pete Holmes, are the only other candidates who have met the eligibility requirements for the vouchers.

Grant is a strong proponent of Democracy Vouchers, having received 93 percent of all his campaign donations from the program. Prior to the program, "only 1.5 percent of Seattleites donated to a local campaign. This lawsuit clearly demonstrates that the Pacific Legal Foundation is only interested in protecting the interests of the 1%," Grant wrote in a blogpost on his campaign website.

A good deal of his field outreach has been directed at getting homeless people to sign up for the vouchers, and then give that money to him, a practice his campaign manager assures Seattle Weekly is not "exploiting the homeless."

Grant has called the Foundation lawsuit "anti-democratic" and "desperate."

The voucher program, Blevins said, has allowed Grant to do something remarkable. He has "pretty much drawn all his campaign money from a constituency that is inherently opposed to his positions," Blevins said.

Few of the 410,000 registered voters in Seattle can make use of the Democracy Voucher program, even if there were candidates they wanted to support. The tax dollars that fund the vouchers is first come first serve, and not nearly enough is collected each year to ensure that each Seattleite gets a chance to participate.

The funding is capped at $3 million a year, meaning 30,000 or 7 percent of eligible Seattle voters are allowed to make campaign contributions in an election year. As the Seattle Times noted when it editorialized against the 2015 ballot initiative that created Democracy Vouchers, "the proposal counts on people not participating."

In this first election since the program launched, it remains to be seen whether Grant's manipulation of it will be followed by other candidates. The City Council designed the program for a review after 10 years.

Blevins hopes the court recognizing the vouchers for the constitutional abominations they are will end the program years before a review.

"When you are forced to become an unwilling vessel for a message you disagree with," Blevins says, "that violates human dignity and it certainly violates the First Amendment."

The rest is here:
Lawsuit Calls Seattle's "Democracy Vouchers" Compelled Speech ... - Reason (blog)

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a $100,000 lawsuitfiled by apolitical candidatewho claims his free speech rights were violated during the 2013 election campaign.

David J. Mongielo, who has a long history of run-ins with the town government, ran for Lockport town supervisor as a Conservative in 2013. He lost to the Republican incumbent, Marc R. Smith, who is now the town's economic development director.

During the race, Mongielo self-published a free newspaper that accused Smith of "ballot manipulation."

The paper also carried an advertisement for a fundraising event to benefit the South Lockport Fire Company, of which Mongielo was then a member.

But not for long.

According to the lawsuit, the fire company's then-president, Peter Smith - no relation to Marc Smith - suspended Mongielo on Election Day 2013 after Marc Smith threatened to cut the fire company's aid from the town. Mongielo immediately resigned from the fire company and has never been reinstated.

The town did not reduce its funding for the fire company.

His lawsuit contends his resignation was forced and resulted from retaliation for Mongielo's exercise of freedom of speech.

"He was suspended. That's the retaliation," said James M. Ostrowski, who's Mongielo's attorney. "Whether they carry out a threat doesn't matter."

Mongielo filed suit in U.S. District Courtlast November, three years after the allegedincident,against Marc Smith, Peter Smith and the South Lockport Fire Co., seeking $100,000 plus punitive damages.

U.S.District Judge Michael A. Telescarejected the defendants' effort to have the case dismissed in a May 16 ruling.

The case may turn on a text message Peter Smith sent to Mongielo on Election Day 2013.

According to the lawsuit,the textsaid, "I hate to do this but I feel I need to suspend u until Friday when we have a special ex meeting. I ts over the articles/ad in the community news. Judt got off phone with marc smith and his council is all over this. If we dont act Im afraid the situstion will only worsen. So for now please stay away per your suspension. We will discuss it further on Friday."

Peter Smith's lawyer, Eric M. Gernant, acknowledged in his written answer to Mongielo's complaint that Peter Smith sent a text to Mongielo, but denied that Smith told Mongielo that the supervisor had threatened the fire company's town funding.

Daniel T. Cavarello, attorney for Marc Smith, denied in a court filing thatthe then-supervisorthreatened South Lockport's funding.He argued that Smithcouldn't have taken unilateral action against the fire company, and at any rate, the fire company had a binding contract with the town to receive its annual stipend.

"The legal relationship between the Fire Company, Marc Smith, and the Town Board may ultimately foreclose (Mongielo's) claim against Marc Smith," the judge noted.

Link:
Judge refuses to dismiss Lockport candidate's First Amendment lawsuit - Buffalo News

Miami Herald

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree Miami Herald I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, added, Freedom ... and more »

See the article here:
Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Miami Herald

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute released the results of its State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans' views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted this year in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans' changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.

The results of the 2017 survey show that, despite coming out of one of the most politically contentious years in U.S. history, most Americans remain generally supportive of the First Amendment. When asked if the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed.

However, there are ideological divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on the amount of protection the First Amendment should provide in certain scenarios. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that those who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

This year, 43 percent of Americans agreed that news media outlets try to report the news without bias a significant improvement from only 23 percent in 2016. However, a majority of Americans (53 percent) expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views, demonstrating that many Americans may not view "biased" news in a negative light. The 2017 survey also attempted to assessthe impact of the "fake news" phenomenon. Approximately 70 percent of Americans did not think that fake news reports should be protected by the First Amendment, and about one-third (34 percent) reported a decrease in trust in news obtained from social media.

Regarding freedom of religion, 59 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups, even those widely considered as "extreme" or fringe. The age group least likely to agree with this is Americans between the ages of 18 and 29: Just 49 percent of them supported protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.

On free speech, 43 percent of Americans felt that colleges should have the right to ban controversial campus speakers.Those who strongly agreed or disagreed with this tended to be current students and/or activists (people who had participated in political actions over the past year, such as signing a petition or attending a protest) on both sides of the political spectrum.Other Americans even those in the 18 to 29-year-old millennial demographic were more lukewarm on this issue.

"We were glad to find that most Americans still support the First Amendment, although it's troubling that almost one in four think that we have too much freedom," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It's also troubling that even people who support the First Amendment in the abstract often dislike it when it's applied in real life."

The 2017 survey was conducted and supported by Fors Marsh Group, and contributing support provided by the Gannett Foundation.

Click here to view the complete survey.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-amendment-center-releases-2017-state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-results-300481542.html

SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center

Home

Here is the original post:
First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First ... - PR Newswire (press release)