FrontPage Magazine | The Left's War on the First Amendment FrontPage Magazine Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism. Once upon a time there was a liberal media. Like most left-leaning institutions it ... |
See more here:
The Left's War on the First Amendment - FrontPage Magazine
The Church of Scientology maintains the universe is 4 quadrillion years old and that most of mankinds problems are traceable to an imperialistic alien named Lord Xenu. Some 75 million years ago, Xenu won an intergalactic battle by stuffing thetans sort of like human souls into volcanos, on which Xenu then dropped hydrogen bombs. Millions of these immortal thetans later attached themselves to humans, causing humans to become sick, confused, depressed and insecure.
The goal of Scientology is to help humans to clear their bodies of thetans by devoting hundreds of thousands of dollars to cleansing processes developed by the religions founder, L. Ron Hubbard, who holds the record for the greatest number of books published by one author (1,064). His sacred science fiction works are stored in a nuclear-blast-proof vault below the surface of planet Earth.
Despite having only 25,000 American members by some counts, the Church of Scientologys liquid assets of $1 billion exceeded those of the Roman Catholic Church in 2013. But the Los Angeles-based Church of Scientology almost collapsed in the 1990s under a $1 billion bill from the Internal Revenue Service for unpaid taxes. The IRS finally restored the organizations tax-exempt church status in 1993 in exchange for the church halting a barrage of lawsuits it had filed against the agency, including 2,300 Freedom of Information Act suits.
Today, a big labor union is using a strategy against the Freedom Foundation similar to the strategy the Church of Scientology used to defeat the IRS. The Service Employees International Union has filed multiple expensive lawsuits against the Foundation, an SEIU detractor, in hope of defunding it. To SEIU, bleeding the Freedom Foundation dry is as good as a court order blocking the Foundations freedom of speech.
Freedom Foundation Managing Attorney Greg Overstreet told me in June that SEIU is running out of arguments. Consequently, theyve hit us with a barrage of frivolous lawsuits and campaign-finance complaints. In substance, theyre no different from cases weve always won before. But each one requires a response. [T]he unions arent filing these new cases with any expectation of winning. Their true objective is simply to overwhelm our capacity to defend ourselves and thereby bankrupt their most persistent and effective adversary. It wont work.
I hope Overstreet is right that SEIUs strategy wont work, even though the same strategy has brought the IRS and other Scientology detractors to their knees. In 1973, the church sued Paulette Cooper, author of The Scandal of Scientology, 19 times and falsified evidence to arrange her indictment by a grand jury for sending bomb threats.
One advantage the Freedom Foundation has that the IRS lacked is citizen appeal. Few private citizens have gone to bat for the IRS. But history is rich with people willing to risk a great deal to defend freedoms supposedly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Many of the people who should start sticking up for the Freedom Foundation would gain by doing so. The Freedom Foundations only crime is informing people about existing law. In 2014s Harris v. Quinn, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled SEIU violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of home health caregivers by automatically extorting agency fees which are essentially union dues paid by non-members from them.
In the wake of Harris, the Capital Research Center reported in May 2017, the Freedom Foundation launched an outreach program that employed dozens of paid canvassers who have gone door to door all across the state and into neighboring Oregon to inform health care providers of their right to opt out of paying dues or fees to SEIU.
The Foundations outreach efforts were successful. In response, however, SEIU has orchestrated a litany of frivolous lawsuits against the Foundation to stop it from speaking to workers, Freedom Foundation Litigation Counsel David Dewhirst told me in July. The unions have even convinced the Washington State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, to pile on and prosecute the Foundation for not reporting as campaign expenditures its various pro bono legal services to citizens across the state.
Laborers are being scammed, but not by an intergalactic alien monster. The West Coast has its own labor lord, and it has government reinforcements.
Michael T. Hamilton (mhamilton@heartland.org, @MikeFreeMarket) is a research fellow and editor at The Heartland Institute. He drew facts about the Church of Scientology from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Lawrence Wrights book Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief (2013), which HBO made into a documentary in 2015.
Excerpt from:
Big labor bullies First Amendment with Scientology playbook - OCRegister
Google is asking the California court to declare that the rights established by the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act are not merely theoretical, in response to an order from the Supreme Court of Canada to de-list all instances of suspected fraudulent company Datalink.
Google has already de-indexed 343 Datalink sites from the Google Canada branch of its search engineby the early days of 2013, in cooperation with demands made by Vancouver-basedEquustek, from whom Datalink allegedly stole trade secrets and relabeled products.
Not content with its actions, Equustek is pushing for Google to be forced to completely de-list Datalink from its search engine worldwide, rather than limit itself to the Canada-specific Google.ca. A court in British Columbia granted that demand, which was further upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In response, Google has asked the U.S. court to uphold its right to [publish]within the United States search result information about the contents of the internet. They assert that right under both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts them from liability for the actions of most users.
In their words, the Canadian order is repugnant to those rights, and the order violates principles of international comity, particularly since the Canadian plaintiffs never established any violation of their rights under U.S. law. And additionally, thatthe Canadian Order is further repugnant to United States public policy because it issued an injunction against Google, an innocent non-party, merely for the sake of convenience.'
Furthermore, forcing Google to edit access to content based on the order of a single foreign government creates a precedent that they must follow the restrictions of any government that objects to certain search results. In an e-mailed statement to Ars Technica, Google lawyer David Price said:
Were taking this court action to defend the legal principle that one country shouldnt be able to decide what information people in other countries can access online. Undermining this core principle inevitably leads to a world where Internet users are subject to the most restrictive content limitations from every country.
Staunch advocates for freedom of speech have taken a decisive stand with Google on their complaints. Among them,The British ColumbiaCivil Liberties Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Human Rights Watch.
In all of this, only Google has been targeted as the determinative player in allowing harm to occur. Yahoo and Bing have received no such orders, and continue to freely list all Datalink sites.
FollowNateChurch@Get2Churchon Twitter for the latest news in gaming and technology, and snarky opinions on both.
P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.
See the original post here:
Google Asks American Court to Protect its First Amendment Rights ... - Breitbart News
Years after controversy in the community, the City of Crystal will pay a $20,000 settlement to Communities United Against Police Brutality and receive annual Open Meeting Law and First Amendment training, according to court orders stemming from a lawsuit filed by the organzation in May 2016. The organization sued the city after allegations that members First Amendment rights were stifled by city leaders at council meetings, and that the council illegally conducted closed-door sessions and engaged in a closed meeting via email, both of which actions were in violation of Minnesotas Open Meeting Law. The allegations occurred during a period spanning from December 2012 through December 2014, when CUAPB members said they were silenced or denied the ability to freely participate in open forums during council meetings, primarily to voice opposition to the termination of two whistle-blowing Crystal police officers. According to allegations, officers Alan Watt and Robin Erkenbrack were fired in retaliation for speaking out against misconduct in the citys investigation of a 2008 incident, during which the now-disbanded West Metro Gang Strike Force confiscated the belongings of the Ramirez family of Crystal, who later filed a theft report. The city maintained that both Watt and Erkenbrack were terminated with just cause and that an investigation had proceeded, although Erkenbrack later settled with the city for $160,000 and was reinstated as a sergeant.
Continue reading this Sun Post story.
See the original post:
Crystal settles with community group over First Amendment violation allegations - ECM Publishers
President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have laudably made passing tax reform real tax reform, not just shuffling money from one group to another a top priority. Now, however, some supply-side economics skeptics are open to the possibility of taxing free speech a constitutional right to fill Washingtons coffers.
As you read this, the Big Six are meeting to discuss which deductions to keep oreliminate, and Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady must quell these whispers of taxing advertising. Imposing such a levy would trample on our countrys liberty and values, setting a dangerous precedent for further constitutional breaches in the foreseeable future.
As substantial pay-forssuch as the border adjustment tax begin to fall out of the publics favor, some in Congress have begun to look at provisions from Dave Camps 2014 tax reform proposal as a blueprint for replacement. Camps proposal would have changed the tax treatment of advertising from a normal, 100 percent deductible business expense to one that is only 50 percent deductible, with the rest being amortized over the course of a decade.
Self-proclaimed liberty-loving conservatives whoare prepared to advocate for such a provision need to reflect on American history after all, what did we fight the American Revolution over?
Perhaps the biggest boiling point for the then-British colonists was the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed an advertising levy of two shillings for every ad, among other printed material, no matter its circulation or cost. The provision was wildly unpopular so much so that the colonists engaged in mob violence to intimidate stamp-tax distributorsinto resigning, forcing the British Parliament to repeal it just a year later.
The principles and rallying cries that were brought on from the Stamp Act's introduction led to the colonists' rising in armed rebellion against their mother country a decade later.
The Continental Army won that war, and when they formed their new country they made sure to prevent the government from getting in the way of the freedom to advertise, as per the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
This is a law and precedent that has been abided by for centuries. Aside from some exceptions related to false and misleading content, the federal government has always respected the constitutional mandate to leave advertising alone. That's why the Supreme Court case Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) was overturned the bench's declaration that "the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of 'purely commercial advertising'" was 100 percent unconstitutional.
Now Congress wants to limit free speech by regulating the First Amendment one of our country's core founding principles as an excuse to extort more wealth from American businesses' pocketbooks? Camp's 50-50 proposal would treat advertising like an asset, such as a machine, instead of like an expense, such as research and salaries an unprecedented, unconstitutional move. (go to page 2 to continue reading)
Read the original:
Republicans Toy with a Misguided Tax on the First Amendment ... - LifeZette