Kim Davis’s appeal against a $100,000 judgment for denying same-sex marriage licenses was argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Her lawyer, Mat Staver, argued that the payment is unwarranted, citing the First Amendment and questioning the quantifiability of emotional distress. Conversely, the plaintiffs’ attorney contended that Davis violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights while acting under color of law, emphasizing that her actions weren’t protected by the First Amendment in her official capacity. Staver aims to reach the Supreme Court, hoping to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges using similar reasoning as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Read More
The Trump administration’s plan to cancel student visas of pro-Palestinian protesters raises serious concerns about free speech and due process. How exactly they would identify these protesters is unclear; a vague definition could lead to arbitrary targeting and a chilling effect on political expression.
The potential for misidentification is significant. Is a simple guess sufficient? Or would there need to be concrete evidence linking a student to protest activities? The lack of clarity in this process is deeply troubling.
This action directly contradicts the principles of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. The government’s attempt to punish individuals for expressing their political views, regardless of how unpopular those views might be, is a blatant violation of this fundamental right.… Continue reading
Following the arrest of Wilson Velásquez, an asylum seeker, at a Georgia church, a coalition of Quaker meetings sued the Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s reversal of a policy protecting houses of worship from immigration raids, arguing it violates the First Amendment and acts arbitrarily. The arrest, part of increased ICE enforcement, targeted Velásquez despite his having a work permit and regularly checking in with authorities. Plaintiffs contend the new policy creates fear and disrupts religious practices within immigrant-serving congregations.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal ban on TikTok, citing national security risks posed by its Chinese ownership. The ruling allows the ban to take effect unless TikTok is sold by its parent company, ByteDance, a sale that currently seems unlikely. While existing users may retain access initially, the app will become unusable without updates and new downloads. The Court rejected First Amendment challenges, emphasizing Congress’s determination that divestiture is necessary to address national security concerns.
Read More
President Biden has declined to enforce a law mandating TikTok’s divestment or ban, deferring implementation to President-elect Trump. This law, passed last year, requires TikTok’s parent company to divest by January 19th or face a US ban. Trump is reportedly considering a 90-day delay via executive action, while the Supreme Court is reviewing a challenge to the law’s constitutionality. Supporters of the ban cite national security concerns regarding user data access by the Chinese Communist Party, while opponents raise First Amendment concerns.
Read More
ABC News’s $15 million settlement with Donald Trump, stemming from a lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos’s accurate but technically imprecise use of the word “rape,” exemplifies the media’s self-censorship. This capitulation, far from an isolated incident, reflects a broader trend of media organizations prioritizing appeasement of Trump over defending press freedoms, as seen in various instances of self-imposed restrictions. This self-censorship allows Trump to effectively silence dissent without needing legal changes, rendering the media complicit in eroding its own First Amendment rights. Ultimately, the future of press freedom depends on the public’s willingness to reject media outlets prioritizing self-preservation over truth.
Read More
The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding a potential TikTok ban, focusing on national security concerns versus First Amendment rights. The justices largely sided with the government’s argument that ByteDance’s control poses a security risk due to potential Chinese government data access and manipulation. Debate centered on the extent of China’s influence over TikTok and whether less restrictive measures could address these concerns. The Court also considered the potential consequences of a ban, including the impact on TikTok users and the possibility of President-elect Trump’s non-enforcement.
Read More
A Tennessee law mandating age verification for pornographic websites was largely blocked by a federal judge who ruled it violated First Amendment rights and would be ineffective at preventing minors’ access. The judge cited the effectiveness of parental controls and the potential for circumvention via VPNs. While the state is appealing, the ruling follows similar legal challenges in other states, with the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on a related Texas law. The law’s opponents argue it is unconstitutional and ineffective, while supporters maintain it protects children.
Read More
The Supreme Court will hear *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, a case concerning a Texas law requiring age verification for online pornography. This law is nearly identical to a federal law struck down in *Ashcroft v. ACLU*, which the Fifth Circuit Court defied by upholding the Texas law despite the precedent. While Texas argues for modifying First Amendment protections regarding pornography, it also suggests the existence of privacy-preserving age-verification technology that could justify such laws. A ruling could either reaffirm existing precedents or significantly alter the balance between protecting minors and adult access to sexual content.
Read More
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal to ban drug advertisements from television is garnering unexpected support, even from those who vehemently disagree with his other stances. The idea itself seems straightforward: remove the constant barrage of pharmaceutical commercials from our screens. It’s a sentiment shared by many who find these ads manipulative, misleading, and ultimately, unhelpful in making informed healthcare decisions.
However, the practicality of such a ban is far from simple. The pharmaceutical industry wields significant political and financial power, making a legislative victory unlikely without a substantial public outcry and unwavering political will. The sheer amount of money at stake makes any attempt to significantly curtail these ads a formidable challenge.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood