We covered the fact that a 2020 presidential Democratic candidate has called for the silencing of President Donald J. Trump by removing him from Twitter, thus effectively blocking him from communicating with American citizens and his most ardent supporters. We questioned what sort of person would actually make stopping free speech a cornerstone of their campaign. Well, we got our answer. It looks like the only person loony enough to do that is one whose press secretary considers “free speech” to be a Fox News talking point.
On Wednesday, 2020 Democratic candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was asked whether she agreed with Sen. Kamala Harris of California after the bottom-tier candidate sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey requesting that President Trump’s Twitter account be removed from the platform. Rep. Gabbard did not agree. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/10/02/kamala-harris-press-secretary-says-free-speech-is-a-fox-news-talking-point-n2554056
i ask were dose Fox New’s come in to this?
Really? that not what the Us Supreme Court says, The Three Most Important First Amendment Cases of 2018 Any of these crucial litigations before the nation’s highest court could shape freedom of speech and religion for generations to come
1.) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case. I had the privilege of attending the arguments with the Alliance Defending Freedom team representing Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips.
2. ) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. In March, I was honored to argue this case before the U.S. Supreme Court, where I represented the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and its affiliated pro-life pregnancy centers in California.
3. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The Supreme Court heard this case at the end of February, and it could have major First Amendment implications.,
The following is a list of all Supreme Court cases since the 2000-2001 term that have involved the First Amendment.
2018-2019 Supreme Court term
The Court held that the display and maintenance of a large memorial cross by a local government does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Iancu v. Brunetti (PDF)
The Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, in Section 2(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Nieves v. Bartlett (PDF)
The Court held that the presence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims (based on allegations that voting maps drawn by state legislatures violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights) are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts.
2017-2018 Supreme Court term
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (PDF) This case is all ready posted above:
The Court’s ruling had the effect of permitting a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding, but only because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission seemed hostile towards religion.
Trump v. Hawaii (PDF)
The Court found that the Trump Administration can implement an immigration ban despite evidence that the ban was originally constructed with an intent to discriminate against Muslims.
National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra (PDF) This case is all ready posted above:
The Court ruled that a Californoa law violated the First Amendment by requiring “pro-life” pregnancy centers to provide notices about the availability of abortion services.
Janus v. AFSCME (PDF) This case is all ready posted above:
The Court found that mandatory union fees for public sector employees violate the First Amendment, even if just for collective bargaining services.
The Court struck down a law prohibiting individuals from wearing political apparel at or near polling places.
The Court recognized that arrests can have a chilling effect on speech and found that an arrest can be an act of unlawful retaliation by the government, even if it had “probable cause” at the moment for making the arrest.
2016-2017 Supreme Court term
Matal v. Tam (PDF)
The Court held that a provision of trademark law that prohibits trademarks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
The Court ruled that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media violates the First Amendment, due to the prominence of social media in modern communication.
The Court ruled that excluding religious organizations from otherwise neutral and secular and aid programs violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Court found that a New York law that prohibits surcharges on credit card transactions (but allows businesses to offer discounts for customers who pay with cash) is a regulation of speech, not just conduct, because such a law regulates how businesses communicate prices to their customers. The Court did not determine whether or not this particular law violated the First Amendment; it remanded the case to the lower court to answer that question.
2015-2016 Supreme Court term
The Court ruled that a public employee would be protected under the first amendment if an employer issued a demotion to limit their speech.
2014-2015 Supreme Court term
The Court held that the government of Texas was entitled to reject a proposal for a license plate featuring a Confederate battle flag, as Texas’s specialty license plate designs constitute government speech.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (PDF)
The Court held that a municipality’s sign code provision that imposed more stringent restrictions on signs directing the public to a meeting of a non – profit group were considered to be content – based regulations of speech that couldn’t survive strict scrutiny.
Elonis v. United States (PDF)
The Court held that the Third Circuit’s instruction of only negligence in the communication of a threat was not sufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
The Court held that Florida’s ban on the personal solicitation of campaign funds by candidates for judgeships does not violate the First Amendment.
Holt v. Hobbs (PDF)
The Court held that an Arkansas prison policy that prevents a Muslim prisoner from growing a half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
2013-2014 Supreme Court term
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (PDF)
The Court held that regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, as applied to closely held corporations, requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
McCullen v. Coakley (PDF)
The Court ruled that a Massachusetts law which makes it a crime to stand on a public road or sidewalk within thirty-five feet of a reproductive health care facility violates the First Amendment.
Lane v. Franks (PDF)
The Court held that testimony in a criminal prosecution by a government employee about fraud in the program where he works is protected by the First Amendment; however, the supervisor who fired him in retaliation for that testimony has qualified immunity from suit because it was not “beyond debate” that the employee’s testimony was protected.
The Court held that a preenforcement challenge to an Ohio statute that prohibits certain “false statements” during a political campaign is justiciable, and the challengers have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for purposes of Article III, when they have pleaded specific statements that they intend to make in future election cycles that are arguably proscribed by the Ohio law and there is a history of past enforcement of the law insofar as one challenger was the subject of a complaint in a recent election cycle.
The Court held that a town’s practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents.
2012-2013 Supreme Court term
McBurney v. Young (PDF)
The Court held that Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, which grants Virginia citizens access to all public records, but grants no such right to non-Virginians, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects only those privileges and immunities that are “fundamental.” The Act also does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause: it neither prohibits access to an interstate market nor imposes burdensome regulation on that market; and in any event, a state does not violate the Clause when, having created a market through a state program, it “limits benefits generated by [that] state program to those who fund the state treasury and whom the State was created to serve.”
The Court held that the requirement that nongovernmental organizations wishing to receive funding from the federal government for HIV and AIDS programs overseas adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution violates the First Amendment.
2011-2012 Supreme Court term
Reichle v. Howards (PDF)
The Court held that the petitioners – two Secret Service agents — are entitled to qualified immunity from suit involving a claim that they arrested the respondent in retaliation for remarks he had made about then-Vice President Cheney because, at the time of the arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to a First Amendment violation.
United States v. Alvarez (PDF)
The Court held that the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about having received military honors or decorations, violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The Court held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws. Moreover, because the respondent in this case was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer.
The Court held that because the FCC failed to give Fox and ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the FCC’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague.
Golan v. Holder (PDF)
The Court held that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act does not exceed Congress’s authority under the Copyright Clause.
The Court held that the structure by which nonmembers of a union have to pay chargeable expenses and must opt out of any others already strains the limits of the First Amendment. The actions of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) went beyond this allowable extension and infringed upon nonmembers’ First Amendment rights. By failing to provide a new notice and a new chance to opt out, the union did not abide by the established procedure for handling nonmember payment. In order to respect the First Amendment rights of nonmembers, the special assessment should have come with a notice that allowed nonmembers to opt in. The Court held that, while it can be difficult to determine the yearly dues ahead of time, the union should err on the side of having nonmembers pay too little rather than too much and infringe on their constitutional rights.
2010-2011 Supreme Court term
Snyder v. Phelps (PDF)
The Court held that the First Amendment protects those who stage a peaceful protest on a matter of public concern near the funeral of a military service member from tort liability.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association) (PDF)
The Court held that the challengers to an Arizona tax credit, which provides tax credits for contributions to tuition organizations, which then use the contributions to provide scholarships for, among others, religious schools, lack standing under Article III because they are challenging a tax credit, rather than government spending.
The Court held that maps describing the location of explosives do not qualify for withholding under Exemption 2 of the Freedom of Information Act, which shields from disclosure only records that relate to employee relations and human resources issues.
NASA v. Nelson (PDF)
The Court upheld NASA’s background checks for employees of companies working under contract.