Mediaboss Marketing

In a victory for religious citizens in Mississippi and in a promising sign for all religious Americans the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Thursday in favor of a bill that protects religious-liberty and conscience rights in the realm of marriage.

The bill, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), allows religious organizations and businesses to operate in accord with their religions teaching on marriage and sexuality, forbids the government from silencing or firing its employees for expressing their religious beliefs, and protects employees from being forced to participate in activities that violate their consciences.

The courts ruling is also a positive sign for those hoping to enact such protections at the federal level. A federal version of FADA has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, and President Donald Trump has pledged to sign it if it crosses his desk.

The ruling means that Mississippis legislation can serve as a template for any state seeking to balance two interests: the conscience rights of those who believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and the intrinsic dignity and civil rights of LGBT individuals.

The conflict between those two interests has intensified in the last two years, in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which saw five justices redefine marriage, for the entire country, as a union between two consenting adults regardless of gender. As a result, many Americans, religious and otherwise, who continue to hold the traditional definition of marriage have been marginalized and, in some cases, required by law to sanction same-sex marriages.

For example, in a number of recent, high-profile cases, religious business owners have been sued by customers or fined by state commissions for refusing to provide services for same-sex wedding ceremonies. So far, courts have uniformly sided against the owners, ruling that to deny service to any homosexual person is unlawful discrimination, regardless of religious belief.

Faithful Americans such as these business owners are routinely maligned by left-wing activists and politicians not to mention popular culture, as in this late-night comedy sketch that portrays religious-freedom laws as an expression of hatred many of whom argue that Christian are bigots who deny the humanity of LGBT people.

Such critiques either misunderstand or outright ignore the essential distinction between serving gay or lesbian clients and providing services for their wedding. For religious Americans, this is a crucial distinction, because the latter involves participation in an event that violates their faiths understanding of marriage.

Contrary to what most media reports suggest, the Mississippi bill would not permit anyone to deny service to individuals because of their sexual orientation. In fact, not a single religious-liberty bill has been proposed to allow such discrimination, at either the state or the federal level. To suggest otherwise is supremely dishonest, and it poisons any possibility of finding a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Whats more, bills such as FADA must be understood in the context of our post-Obergefell society, where people who hold the traditional view of marriage are often treated by popular culture as if they were no better than racists. In such a climate, it is essential that religious citizens be given legal protection, especially since the government itself has embraced a conception of marriage in contradiction to the view of a substantial plurality of the public.

The Fifth Circuits legal rationale in upholding FADA provides a helpful context for understanding the best way to balance the two sets of rights at stake in this debate. The court noted, in particular, the plaintiffs lack of standing, due to their failure to assert anything more than a general stigmatic injury or to demonstrate injury-in-fact.

With this explanation, the court seems to point to the fundamental distinction between material and dignitary harms, the first of which merits a higher level of legal protection. Dignitary harm is considered a lesser category: It can sometimes be permitted by law, for the sake of preserving other fundamental rights.

Applied to FADA, the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate injury-in-fact and instead simply stigmatic injury suggests that the right to religious freedom is fundamental enough that states can permit some dignitary harms for the sake of preserving the right. If FADA were to permit religious Americans to perpetrate material harms against LGBT individuals the court argued that the bill does not the ruling would probably have been different.

Regardless of ongoing contention over the definition of marriage, most Americans agree that we ought to be able to coexist peacefully even when we deeply disagree, and this bill works to that end. Progressives must be willing to admit that Mississippis FADA isnt a weapon of discrimination wielded by bigots against LGBT individuals. One can disagree with the bills specific policies and still acknowledge that some legal protection is needed for a minority group whose beliefs have fallen out of favor.

At the same time, those on the right who care about the future of religious freedom must continue to testify to the inherent dignity of LGBT individuals, regardless of ones view of marriage. That will enable more people to understand that religious Americans can fully respect their neighbor even as they are free to live out the tenets of their faith in daily life. Such an understanding, coupled with prudent legal defenses such as Mississippis FADA, is the best path forward for true compromise on this issue.

READ MORE: Obergefells Toxic Judicial Legacy Are Millennials Following the Success Sequence Hey Guys, Put a Ring on It: Married Men Are Healthier, Wealthier, and Happier

Alexandra DeSanctis is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

See the original post here:
In Mississippi, a Bill to Protect Religious Liberty Gets the Green Light - National Review

Rhode Island's General Assembly has the chance to become the 13th state to pass a law protecting the rights of student journalists.

Earlier this year, student journalists at a Kansas high school decided to write a profile about their newly hired principal. As they researched the principals background, they began unearthing questions about her educational credentials.

For example, the young reporters found that she had received master's and doctoral degrees from a school, Corllins University, that was not currently accredited and that had been portrayed in articles as a "diploma mill." Four days after article ran in The Booster Redux, the principal resigned.

That story ended up earning the students widespread praise and national news coverage. But that story probably would never have seen the light of day if Kansas hadn't had a student press-freedom law on the books, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, based in Washington, D.C. They had the courage to go forward because the law protected their backs, he said.

In May, Vermont became the 11th state to pass a student press-freedom law. In early June, Nevada became the 12th state to enact such a law. And now, as the General Assembly nears the end of this years legislative session, Rhode Island has the chance to become the 13th state to pass a law protecting the rights of student journalists.

State Sen. Gayle L. Goldin, D-Providence, said the Booster Redux scoop bolsters the case for her bill, the Student Journalists Freedom of Expression Act (Senate Bill 0600). What it shows you is the value of having the freedom for students to do that kind of investigative journalism, she said. They were able to bring accountability to their school and to the whole school system, and on top of that, it was an incredible educational experience for them.

State Rep. Jeremiah T. OGrady, D-Lincoln, has introduced a similar bill (House Bill 5550), which extends protection to college journalists as well as the high school journalists protected by Goldins bill.

Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said, "Student journalism is perhaps the greatest civics lesson we can teach in our schools. By allowing students to write about whats important to them, we are sending the message that what they say matters and needs to be heard. This is empowering not just for them but for the entire community that needs to know what is happening in our schools and to have the opportunity to do something about it. These student journalists arent just our future watchdogs. They are our eyes and ears right now.

LoMonte had a simple message for Rhode Island officials: I would tell them that journalism is not a problem for schools its a solution.

With the advent of social media, it is futile for schools to try to stop students from learning about and having conversations about controversial topics, LoMonte said. You cant hold back the flood of information," he said. "Its much better to manage it in a journalistically responsible way. I always tell people its their choice: The discussion of controversies will take place either in a supervised, accountable newsroom or on social media. But its definitely going to take place.

LoMonte said he has heard of no organized opposition to the legislation in Rhode Island. The only thing is hallway chatter that high school students are too young to be trusted with press freedom," he said. "My answer to that is: Read the bill. Its filled with safeguards.

For example, the Rhode Island legislation would not authorize or protect expression by a student that is libelous or slanderous or that incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of an unlawful act or the violation of school district policy.

But the legislation would protect student journalists, and their advisers, from retaliation and censorship when articles address controversial topics.

Mike Donoghue, executive director of the Vermont Press Association and first vice president of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said Vermont legislators heard from student journalists about pushback they received from school officials when writing about controversies such as an impasse in teacher negotiations, sexting cases involving students and a bond item to repair schools. Such issues are reported by other media and theyre discussed by students in other settings, so students should be free to report on them, he said.

In its 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a public high school in St. Louis, Mo., to censor student newspaper stories about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children. States such as Massachusetts reacted to the Hazelwood ruling by passing press-freedom acts, and now a second wave of anti-Hazelwood bills are moving forward.

To help in the effort, Donoghue said he and LoMonte tried to get Vermont-based Ben & Jerrys to create a new flavor of ice cream called Hazelwood is Nuts. But Rhode Island shouldnt wait for Ben & Jerry; it should provide student journalists with protection so they can get their own scoops.

Edward Fitzpatrick is a former Providence Journal columnist,a board member of the New England First Amendment Coalition and director of media and public relations for Roger Williams University. His First Amendment column will appear monthly in The Journal. This piece first appeared on the university's First Amendment blog at rwu.edu/about/blogs/first-amendment-blog.

See the original post here:
The First Amendment: A bill to protect RI student journalists - The Providence Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on Monday in a closely watched religious rights case involving limits on public funding for churches and other religious entities as the justices issue the final rulings of their current term.

The nine justices are due to rule in six cases, not including their decision expected in the coming days on whether to take up President Donald Trump's bid to revive his ban on travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries in which an emergency appeal is pending.

Of the remaining cases argued during the court's current term, which began in October, the most eagerly awaited one concerns a Missouri church backed by a conservative Christian legal group. The ruling potentially could narrow the separation of church and state.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

A decision in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, located in Columbia, Missouri, set the stage for more public money to go to religious entities. The church sued after being denied state taxpayer funds for a playground improvement project because of a Missouri constitutional provision barring state funding for religious entities.

Trinity Lutheran could be headed for a lopsided win, with two liberal justices joining their conservative colleagues in signaling support during the April oral argument. It was one of the first in which Trump's conservative appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, participated.

The dispute pits two provisions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment against each other: the guarantee of the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause requiring the separation of church and state.

A broad ruling backing the church could hearten religious conservatives who favor weakening the wall between church and state, including using taxpayer money to pay for children to attend private religious schools rather than public schools. President Donald Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is a leading supporter of such "school choice" plans.

FILE PHOTO: Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts (R) stands with associate Justice Neil Gorsuch during his investiture ceremony at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., June 15, 2017. Reuters

The most notable of three immigration-related cases in which rulings are due on Monday is a dispute over whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months while deportation proceedings unfold should be able to request their release. The case takes on additional significance with Trump ratcheting up immigration enforcement, placing more people in detention awaiting deportation.

The court also is set to decide a case that could clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be deported. Another involves whether the family of a Mexican teenager shot dead while standing on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Texas can sue for civil rights violations.

As the justices look to finish work before their summer break, they must decide what to do with Trump's travel ban, which was blocked by lower courts. His administration has made an emergency request asking for the ban to go into effect while the litigation continues.

The March 6 executive order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to let the government implement stronger vetting. Trump has said the order is needed urgently to prevent terrorism in the United States.

Read more from the original source:
US Supreme Court Case First Amendment Battle: Separation of Church and State Vs. Free Exercise of Religion - Newsweek

We periodically test and retest the limits of free speech in effect, revisiting the legal and societal implications of that old childhood refrain, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Recently, free speech has been winning...even when it hurts, as surely it sometimes does. A week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said a Seattle rock band called The Slants had a right to register its name over the objections of the Patent and Trademark Office.

The governments contention was that the name is a derogatory term for Asian Americans, and as such violated a federal act prohibiting trademarks that disparage...or bring...into contempt or disrepute. But Justice Samuel Alitos opinion in Matal v. Tam said that denying the trademark offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.

From this section: State recommends closing 2 beaches for swimming

Alito also rejected the idea that the governments role should include efforts to stamp out ideas that offend large groups of people. Such an active effort, he said, strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans...is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said protecting offensive speech also protects all speakers who hold views not shared by the majority of citizens: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all...The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

Granted, weve decided as a nation that some speech is outside the First Amendments purview: true threats and fighting words, blackmail, child pornography and attempts to immediately incite violence. But we must continue to narrowly define in law what is not protected, even if it means standing in defense of the rights of those who would provoke, challenge or even disgust most of us.

The same free and open discussion logic underlying the Matal v. Tam decision was expressed in 2011 by Chief Justice John Roberts, in turning back a civil lawsuit seeking penalties against the Westboro Baptist group that protests at the funerals of fallen U.S. military personnel, often with signs crudely opposing gay rights and other religious groups.

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and as it did here inflict great pain, Roberts wrote. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

We need to know the depth and manner in which all kinds of ideas exist, if only at times to understand how to effectively oppose or refute some of them. Such understanding is a necessary foundation for the marketplace of ideas that undergirds a democratic republic.

None of this says any of us have to passively accept that which we do not like, or abhor. We may bring our complaint in the court of public opinion rather than in its legal counterpart. Effective? You bet.

Just ask comedian Kathy Griffin, who quickly found out she crossed a line into unacceptable though still legally protected speech, when she posed with the faux severed head of President Trump. Faced with a deluge of criticism and cancellation of public appearances and a network TV deal, she apologized profusely: I beg for your forgiveness. I went too far, she said in a video posted on Instagram.

And turning to late-night host Stephen Colbert: The FCC properly refused to act against Colbert for a crude on-air reference to oral sex in a joke about President Trump and Russias Vladimir Putin. But after wide public outcry over both the words and the tenor of the joke, Colbert responded, While I would do it again, I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be.

We do at times find instances in which speech begets conduct that is not protected. In Massachusetts, a teenager will appeal a June 15 verdict in a suicide by text case. She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter as a result of her text messages to a suicidal boyfriend that the court found showed wanton and reckless disregard for the life of the victim. Free speech advocates say the decision could criminalize speech never intended to cause real harm, such as the childish taunt to go jump off a bridge.

This current list of contentious free speech issues also includes proposals in some state legislatures to limit public protests, debates over campus speech codes and speakers, and even wider arguments over how to deal with free speech on the Internet that is considered fake news. Each of those subjects merits their own lengthy discussion.

No one solution fits, or fixes, all. We must have the courage to defend against those who would take a shortcut through the First Amendment in the name of preserving good taste, protecting public sensibilities, or even in defense of truth.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute; gpolicinski@newseum.org.

Continue reading here:
Inside the First Amendment: In United States, law protects even ... - The Westerly Sun

NBCNews.com

A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court Charlotte Observer With rookie Justice Neil Gorsuch on board, the high court said Monday that it would consider the highly anticipated First Amendment case in the term that starts in October. The dispute arises from Gorsuch's home state, and will provide an early test ... Supreme Court to Hear Anti-LGBT Bakery CaseEater Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay coupleFox News Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddingsUSA TODAY The Week Magazine -ABA Journal -Washington Examiner all 136 news articles »

The rest is here:
A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court - Charlotte Observer