Tag: First Amendment

Hail Satan? Documentary is an Entertaining Civics Lesson in Separation of Church and State

Official trailer:

I found “Hail Satan?” on Hulu, and it is also streaming on various other services listed here:

http://www.magpictures.com/hailsatan/watch-at-home/

The film follows The Satanic Temple from its inception to its activities today, including a few growing pains along the way.

Simply put, The Satanic Temple is a bunch of Atheists who found standard Atheist organizations to be a bit dull at the same time as the Christian right seemed to be sneaking some questionable practices into law.

One of the more high profile projects has been confronting 10 Commandments monuments installed on government property, including disputes with Oklahoma and Arkansas. To drive home the point that the US is a secular nation, the organization has created a monument named “Baphomet,” and once one religious statue or monument is approved for display on government property, The Satanic Temple applies for a permit to place Baphomet on the property as well, demanding equal treatment under religious freedom laws.

Here’s Baphomet on a visit to the Little Rock, Arkansas State Capitol, where a 10 Commandments monument is also displayed.

All photos courtesy Magnolia Films.

Baphomet was met by angry protesters in Little Rock. Note the sign claiming “blasphemy is not free speech.”

The Satanic Temple members, many dressed in costume, showed up in Little Rock to support the placement of the Baphomet monument.

Lucien Greaves, the star of the show, mastermind and spokesman for The Satanic Temple, is a soft-spoken, intelligent and constitutionally and legally well-informed leader of the organization. When he spoke in Little Rock, he was advised to wear a bullet-proof vest.

The documentary takes an unexpected turn when one of the members who organized the Detroit Chapter went off the rails a bit in a public ceremony and was dismissed from The Satanic Temple all together. It’s an interesting segment in the flim.

The website explains in detail the difference between The Church of Satan and The Satanic Temple, as the two are often confused and have quite different missions. Neither actually believes in Satan, by the way.

https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/what-is-the-difference-between-the-satanic-temple-and-the-church-of-satan

The organization survives on donations and sale of merchandise. They are also active in legal action when necessary.

The film was featured at Sundance and has a 96 percent positive rating among critics on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

Report: 9 in 10 American colleges restrict free speech

 

By FIRE December 11, 2018

  • In 11 states, at least half of colleges rated earn FIRE’s worst rating for “clearly and substantially” restricting free speech rights.
  • Almost 800,000 students at top U.S. colleges must find a “free speech zone” to exercise their expressive rights.

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 11, 2018 — The vast majority of students at America’s top colleges and universities surrender their free speech rights the moment they step onto campus, according to a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Released today, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses analyzes the written policies at 466 of America’s top colleges and universities for their protection of free speech. The report finds that 89.7 percent of American colleges maintain policies that restrict — or too easily could restrict — student and faculty expression. All of the analyzed policies are accessible in FIRE’s Spotlight Database. FIRE rates schools as “red light,” “yellow light,” or “green light” based on how much, if any, speech protected by the First Amendment their policies restrict.

“Most colleges impose burdensome conditions on expression by maintaining policies that restrict students’ free speech rights,” said FIRE Senior Program Officer Laura Beltz, lead author of the study. “Colleges should be a place for open debate and intellectual inquiry, but today, almost all colleges silence expression through policies that are often illiberal and, at public institutions, unconstitutional.” 

More than a quarter of institutions in the report (28.5 percent) received FIRE’s poorest, red light rating for maintaining speech codes that both “clearly and substantially” restrict freedom of speech.

Alarmingly, red light schools still make up at least half of FIRE-rated institutions in the District of Columbia and 11 states: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.

Only 9 percent of institutions (42 schools) do not maintain any policies that compromise student expression, earning FIRE’s highest, green light rating. This total is up from only 2 percent in 2009. Meanwhile, the number of institutions earning a yellow light rating is swelling: from 21 percent in 2009 to 61 percent today. While less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies still prohibit or have an impermissible chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.

“Many states have made incredible strides toward eliminating speech codes — whether that’s through collaboration with FIRE, legislative action, or nudging from peer institutions,” said Beltz. “In other states, too many students are left to fend for themselves to protect their rights against policies that — whether explicitly or covertly — erode student expression.”

Neither public nor private colleges have a monopoly on silencing students and faculty members. Just over 90 percent of public colleges maintain policies that don’t live up to their free speech obligations under the First Amendment.

Private institutions are generally not bound by the First Amendment but are responsible for living up to their institutional commitments to free speech. More than 88 percent of private institutions fall short of those promises. Only 6 percent live up to their pledged speech protections, earning a green light rating. Another 6 percent earn a “warning” rating for promoting other principles, such as religious values, over free speech.

Other findings:

  • Almost 800,000 college students attend an institution that maintains a “free speech zone” policy, through which student demonstrations and other expressive activities are quarantined to small or out-of-the-way areas of campus. Free speech zones have repeatedly been struck down by courts or voluntarily revised as part of lawsuit settlements.
  • For the first time, the percentage of private universities earning FIRE’s worst, red light rating dropped below 50 percent, coming in at 47 percent.
  • More than 50 administrations or faculty bodies have adopted statements in support of free speech modeled after the one adopted by the University of Chicago in January 2015. That’s up 15 from one year ago.

Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses can be read in full on FIRE’s website, along with previous speech code reports since 2006.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of liberty.

 

It’s not about Alex Jones: National Coalition Against Censorship Weighs In

Simultaneous removals of the alt-right media personality from online platforms raise questions about content regulation, censorship and who chooses what we can see.
This week, Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify removed posts, videos and podcasts from Alex Jones and his platform, Infowars. Many, across the political spectrum, breathed sighs of relief.

The removals shine a harsh light on the challenges tech companies face in applying their own content regulations.

Online platforms have been grappling for years with how to manage speech they–and many of their users–dislike. The New York Timeshas a good primer on how various platforms have approached regulating users’ content.

As private companies, these firms are free to take down whatever they want. They also serve as the largest global forums for the exchange of ideas–and presumably want to stay that way. But their guidelines surrounding offensive content remain vague, subjective and confusing. What happens when the gatekeepers dislike speech you agree with? Who decides what is offensive enough to ban? Who draws the line? Do you really trust them to do it well?

As Nadine Strossen writes, “Entrusting these powerful private-sector companies to decide what we can see, hear and discuss online is, simply put, a very bad idea.”

Where do we go from here?
Before we enthusiastically outsource control of the online public sphere to Big Tech, we need to consider the implications. There are other ways to confront the toxic conspiracy theories Infowars peddles in. We stand with our allies working in internet freedom, journalism and government transparency to defend free expression. As we deal with toxic online speech, we must remain true to our commitment to First Amendment principles.

Our democracy demands that we protect free expression. 

 

What do you think?

We need your stories of internet censorship, thoughts on current methods of content regulation and what solutions you’d like to see.
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!

The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure

A new book  authored by by First Amendment Expert Greg Lukianoff  and Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt  is set to be released July 17, 2018.

A timely investigation into the new “safety culture” on campus and the dangers it poses to free speech, mental health, education, and ultimately democracy

The generation now coming of age has been taught three Great Untruths: their feelings are always right; they should avoid pain and discomfort; and they should look for faults in others and not themselves. These three Great Untruths are part of a larger philosophy that sees young people as fragile creatures who must be protected and supervised by adults. But despite the good intentions of the adults who impart them, the Great Untruths are harming kids by teaching them the opposite of ancient wisdom and the opposite of modern psychological findings on grit, growth, and antifragility.  The result is rising rates of depression and anxiety, along with endless stories of college campuses torn apart by moralistic divisions and mutual recriminations.

This is a book about how we got here. First Amendment expert Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt take us on a tour of the social trends stretching back to the 1980s that have produced the confusion and conflict on campus today, including the loss of unsupervised play time and the birth of social media, all during a time of rising political polarization.

This is a book about how to fix the mess. The culture of “safety” and its intolerance of opposing viewpoints has left many young people anxious and unprepared for adult life, with devastating consequences for them, for their parents, for the companies that will soon hire them, and for a democracy that is already pushed to the brink of violence over its growing political divisions. Lukianoff and Haidt offer a comprehensive set of reforms that will strengthen young people and institutions, allowing us all to reap the benefits of diversity, including viewpoint diversity.

This is a book for anyone who is confused by what’s happening on college campuses today, or has children, or is concerned about the growing inability of Americans to live and work and cooperate across party lines.

About the Authors

Heather MacDonald + Steve Simpson + Dave Rubin Ask: Are We Killing Free Speech?

Livestream available on Dave Rubin’s Youtube Channel begins at 8 pm PST

Berkeley, Calif. — On Thursday, March 8, Heather Mac Donald, Dave Rubin and Steve Simpson will appear at the Hearst Field Annex at UC Berkeley to discuss this critical question. Journalists are encouraged to attend. https://www.facebook.com/events/1763255417040811/

Instances of students using force to silence non-conformist speakers have become commonplace on college campuses. In the last year there have been numerous violent disruptions of speakers’ appearances at universities, including Middlebury, Claremont McKenna and UC Berkeley itself, effectively stifling the public voicing of alternative viewpoints.

“The free speech crisis on college campuses threatens the very possibility of a peaceful, civil society,” says American political commentator, essayist, attorney and journalist Heather Mac Donald, “But that crisis is an outgrowth of an even more dangerous problem: the cultivation of a victim mentality in an ever-growing number of individuals and identity-based groups.”

Steve Simpson, director of Legal Studies at the Ayn Rand Institute, emphasizes that “the purpose of the right to free speech is to protect our right to think for ourselves and to communicate with others, which are two of the pillars of a modern, free society.”

This event, hosted by Berkeley College Republicans and the Ayn Rand Institute will be a lightning rod for those intolerant of politically incorrect voices and promises to be controversial.

Ayn Rand once said that “a gun is not an argument.” “The reverse is also true—” wrote Simpson recently in The Hill, “an argument is not a gun. If we forget the difference, we will end up with guns settling our disputes, rather than arguments.”

Steve Simpson is a constitutional lawyer and director of Legal Studies at the Ayn Rand Institute. He is the editor of Defending Free Speech (ARI Press, 2016).

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Dave Rubin is an American political commentator, satirist, and talk show host. He is the creator and host of the political talk show The Rubin Report.

About ARI

The Ayn Rand Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes the works and philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The Institute fosters a growing awareness, understanding and acceptance of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, to create a culture whose guiding principles are reason, rational self-interest, individualism and laissez-faire capitalism—a culture in which individuals are free to pursue their own happiness.

Atheist Challenges Court Sentence Requiring AA Meetings as First Amendment Violation

James Lindon, a self-described Atheist and Humanist, has filed in Civil Compaint in Ohio Courts claiming state coercion to participate in religious activities by asserting his right to be free from religious compulsion. No secular alternative to participation in the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-Step program was offered to him.

The lawsuit is available to read here:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/LindonComplaint.pdf

The Freedom from Religion Foundation addresses this subject in detail:

Court-Ordered Participation in A.A.

Can a court, prison, or probation officer sentence me to attend A.A., which is a religious program?

The trend of current case law shows that forcing a prisoner or probationer to attend A.A. or N.A. or other religiously centered rehabilitation program is increasingly seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Information for Prisoners and Probationers Required to Attend A.A., N.A., or Other Religiously Centered Drug and Alcohol Rehab Programs

Summary

The trend of current case law shows that forcing a prisoner or probationer to attend A.A. or N.A. or other religiously centered rehabilitation program is increasingly seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Courts from the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits have all explicitly or implicitly ruled that this is true. In order to establish such a claim, prisoners must generally show three things: (1) that the program is religious; (2) that if they do not attend the program they will either (a) lose some benefit they are otherwise entitled to or (b) be subject to some detriment or punishment; and (3) that there is no secular alternative available.

Argument

The fundamental rule of the Establishment Clause is this: “It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which ‘establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.’” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992).

In analyzing cases where the state requires an individual to partake in a program with a religious element, courts applied what is called the “coercion test.” Here “only three points are crucial: first, has the state acted; second, does the action amount to coercion; and third, is the object of the coercion religious or secular?” Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 479 (7th Cir. 1996).

There is a substantial body of case law recognizing that A.A. (and N.A.) is a religious body for purposes of 1st Amendment Analysis. See Cox v. United States, 296 F.3d 89, 108 n.11 (2nd Cir. 2002) (finding that A.A. is a religious organization under the Establishment clause and stating: “To the best of our knowledge, no court presented with an Establishment Clause claim implicating A.A. or a comparable therapy program incorporating religious concepts has reached a contrary [conclusion]”).

Recent trends make clear that the coercion test is the proper vehicle for analyzing claims by prisoners or probationers that they are being forced to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings under the threat that they will be punished or that some benefit or right will be withheld if they do not participate. See Kerr, 95 F.3d at 480; Warner v. Orange County Probation Dept., 115 F.3d. 1068 (2nd Cir. 1997); Bobko v. Lavan, 157 Fed. Appx. 517, 518 (3rd Cir. 2005) (unpublished disposition) (case dismissed where secular alternative available to defendant, court said: “The government violates the First Amedment’s Establishment Clause when it requires a prisoner to participate in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program with a religious component”); Munson v. Norris, 435 F.3d 877, 880 (8th Cir. 2006).

Using the coercion test, a number of courts have recently found that forcing prisoners or probationers to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings under the threat that some benefit or right will be withheld for failing to attend is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. See Id. at 480; Warner, 115 F.3d. 1068; Turner v. Hickman, 342 F.Supp.2d 887, 893-894 (E.D. Cal. 2004); Catala v. Commissioner, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31695 (D. N.H. 2005) (unpublished disposition); Edmondson v. Curry, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45119 (D. N.H. 2006) (unpublished disposition); Rainesv. Siegelman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15542 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (using coercion test, court found no violation where plaintiff had secular alternative); Cummings v. Darsey, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4257 (D. N.J. 2007) (unpublished disposition).

Conclusions and Recommendations

A growing body of law shows that prisoners and probationers may not be forced to attend A.A., N.A., or any other religiously based organization. Prisoners and probationers who feel they are being forced attend a religiously centered organization should request a secular alternative. If that request is denied, or if there is no secular alternative, prisoners should gather information about the program to show that it is religious in nature. Prisoners should then request that authorities not condition any benefit or threaten any punishment based on their refusal to attend the religious organization. If authorities refuse to comply, suit should be brought in Federal District Court alleging Establishment Clause violations under Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) and its progeny, Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 479 (7th Cir. 1996), Warner v. Orange County Probation Dept., 115 F.3d. 1068 (2nd Cir. 1997), Bobko v. Lavan, 157 Fed. Appx. 517, 518 (3rd Cir. 2005), and Munson v. Norris, 435 F.3d 877, 880 (8th Cir. 2006).

With warm thanks to Michael J Fellows, Esq.

Courtesy Freedom From Religion Foundation Website:

https://ffrf.org/legal/item/14012-court-ordered-participation-in-aa

Interestingly, there are secular alternatives to Alcoholics Anonymous. In fact, Smart Recovery, a science-based, religion-free alternative was founded by humanists. To explore the Smart Recovery Program, visit https://www.smartrecovery.org/

Harvard Humanist of the Year Issues Call for Facilitators to Lead SMART Recovery Meetings

Christopher Hitchens on Free Speech: To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?

Excerpted from University of Toronto debate “Freedom of Speech includes the Freedom to Hate” held November 2006.

“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?”

FIRE names America’s 10 worst colleges for free speech: 2018
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 12, 2018 — Each year, colleges across the country find dubious ways to silence student and faculty expression. In the last year, administrators became embroiled in litigation for telling a student he couldn’t hand out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution outside a free speech zone, continued a years-long effort to ban a group from campus due to its political viewpoint, and even investigated a professor for a satirical tweet — eventually driving him to resign.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has identified America’s 10 worst colleges for free speech, published today with detailed descriptions on FIRE’s website.
This year’s list includes the following institutions, in no particular order:
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, N.Y.)
  • Drexel University (Philadelphia, Pa.)
  • Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.)
  • Los Angeles Community College District (Los Angeles, Calif.)
  • Fordham University (New York, N.Y.)
  • Evergreen State College (Olympia, Wash.)
  • Albion College (Albion, Mich.)
  • Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.)
  • University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley, Calif.)
  • Texas State University (San Marcos, Texas)
The institutions on FIRE’s annual list of worst colleges include one university that threatened the funding and editorial process of its independent student newspaper, another that erected fences around campus to keep peaceful student demonstrators out of sight of donors, and yet another that put a student through a months-long investigation and a four-hour hearing for a joke. (That student is still waiting to learn his fate!)
“College administrators, and sometimes even students, are going to greater and greater lengths to justify muzzling expression on campus,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “This type of censorship makes for a sterile environment where lively debate and discussion can’t thrive. The public deserves to know which colleges will defend free expression — and which ones will go to seemingly any length to silence it.”
For the first time, FIRE also awarded a Lifetime Censorship Award to one university that threatens the free speech rights of its students and faculty so often that it deserves individual infamy: DePaul University.
DePaul earned the 2018 Lifetime Censorship Award in recognition of its decade-long rap sheet of suppressing speech at every turn. From denying recognition to a student organization criticizing marijuana laws, to forcing the DePaul Socialists, Young Americans for Freedom, and College Republicans to pay for security in order to host speakers at their meetings and events, to forbidding a group from using the slogan “Gay Lives Matter,” DePaul has staked out a leadership position in stifling campus expression.
FIRE’s 2018 list includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment. Private colleges on this list are not required by the Constitution to respect student and faculty speech rights, but explicitly promise to do so.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses.

Neo-Nazis Driven Off CSU Campus After Turning Point USA Event

Courtesy Unicorn Riot:

Fort Collins, CO – On Friday night, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a right-wing xenophobic student group, held a “Smashing Socialism” speaking event featuring its founder Charlie Kirk, at Colorado State University (CSU). A call to protest the event came from the Northern Colorado Antifa Collective, who has stated they oppose TPUSA because the organization provides “sanctuary” to “dangerously prejudicial sentiments.” The evening ended with police dispersal orders as an amassed crowd of antifascists confronted a small group of neo-Nazis who arrived at the end of the event, driving them off campus.

In the days leading up to TPUSA leader Charlie Kirk’s speech on Friday night, fliers from the national socialist Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP) were found on campus. Various news outlets began to report that TWP members were planning to attend the February 2 event. While CSU president Tony Frank condemned the TWP fliers, TPUSA chapter president Isabel Brown, in statements to the Coloradoan, did not. Brown later backpedaled on her original support by stating that TPUSA condemns white nationalism; TPUSA head Charlie Kirk made statements to this effect during his Friday night speech as well.

The German anti-racist group HateXchange created a fundraising campaign to “adopt a Nazi enabler” and donate on behalf of the Traditionalist Worker Party members planning to attend. Donations from the campaign go to CSU Student Diversity Programs and to Life After Hate, an organization that works to help people leave hate groups.

Hours before the event, local police and EMTs were seen staging with vehicles and shields.

Full story and more photos from Unicorn Riot may be found here:

Neo-Nazis Driven Off CSU Campus After Turning Point USA Event

This tweet from speaker Charlie Kirk after the event denounced violence on both sides:

Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro: The Frontline of Free Speech

View this episode of The Rubin Report, recorded live on Jan. 31, 2018:

Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro join Dave Rubin for a live discussion about postmodernism, Trump, conservatism, free speech, and rules for life.

Renowned psychologist Jordan B. Peterson’s new book is currently a bestseller. What does everyone in the modern world need to know? Peterson’s answer to this most difficult of questions uniquely combines the hard-won truths of ancient tradition with the stunning revelations of cutting-edge scientific research.

Ben Shapiro entered UCLA at the age of sixteen and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and graduated Harvard Law School cum laude. At seventeen, Shapiro was hired by Creators Syndicate, becoming the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. He has appeared on hundreds of television and radio shows and is the author of the national bestsellers Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future, and Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House. Shapiro is married and lives in Los Angeles.