This past weekend marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.  Protesters, dubbed Occupy the Courts, gathered at the Court to voice their disapproval of the decision:

As Institute for Justice campaign finance expert Paul Sherman explains in the video above:

The irony of those protests is that you had groups of people getting together to speak out against a Supreme Court decision that protected the right of people to get together and speak out.

Indeed, people should not lose their right to free speech simply by exercising their right to freely associate.   And when people group together—be it on the steps of a courthouse, in the form of a trade union or as a corporation—they don’t lose their freedom to speak out.

Occupy the Courts protesters also mistakenly believed that the Citizens United ruling held that “money is speech.”  In fact, the Court never said that.  Rather, it ruled correctly that money facilitates speech.  And if the government has the power to control how much money you can spend speaking, then it effectively can control your speech.

Importantly, the law in question in the Citizens United case empowered the government to fine and even imprison ordinary people for engaging in certain types of speech.   The government argued in court that it had the power to ban videos and books.  I don’t believe that many Americans, including the Occupy the Courts protesters, think the government should be in the business of banning books.

(more…)

This week the United States Supreme Court made a landmark unanimous decision that protected the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, rejected an argument made by the Obama Justice Department, which sought to eliminate the “ministerial exception” in employment discrimination law.

The ministerial exception allows religious organizations to terminate employees who perform religious responsibilities. The Hosanna-Tabor decision reinforces the First Amendment principle that religious organizations can continue to choose their own leaders.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts stated that although protecting employee rights against discrimination are important, the First Amendment dictates that the right to exercise ones religion freely is more important.

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Roberts opined.

“But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” When those principles are in conflict, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.”

The case involved Cheryl Perich, a Redford, Michigan teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School who was fired in 2005 after she was diagnosed with narcolepsy, which would typically be considered a violation of the American Disabilities Act.

(more…)

May the city of New Orleans subject local tour guides to hundreds of dollars in fines and five months in jail for engaging in unauthorized talking?

This is the question the Institute for Justice (IJ) seeks to answer in a federal lawsuit filed on December 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Four New Orleans tour guides are joining forces with IJ to strike down New Orleans’ tour guide licensing scheme as a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights:

According to First Amendment expert Matt Miller of the Institute for Justice, seen the above video:

The government cannot be in the business of deciding who may speak and who may not.  The Constitution protects your right to communicate for a living, whether you are a journalist, a musician or a tour guide.

New Orleans requires every tour guide to pass a history exam, undergo a drug test and pass an FBI criminal background check every two years merely for speaking.  People who give tours without a license face fines up to $300 per occurrence and five months in jail.

City officials are currently breaking up tours led by guides that don’t have the government’s permission.

(more…)

McIntyre: permission to occupy the bench! (Photo credit: AP)

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Frances McIntyre, who was prematurely panned for granting Occupy Boston a temporary reprieve (and for being a Mitt Romney appointee), delivered an elegant decision against the protestors today:

Plaintiffs claim that their occupation of the site and the community they have established thereon are protected by the First Amendment. They seek a preliminary injunction against their removal by the defendants.

But the injunction is denied because, while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during the protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit…[T]his court seriously doubts that the First Amendment permits the plaintiffs to seize and hold a public forum to the exclusion of others. (1, 15)

Judge McIntyre noted that “the setting up of tents, sleeping, and governance” on a public square is “expressive conduct,” albeit subject to local regulations that have a merely “incidental” impact on free speech, and which are consistent with established time, place, and manner restrictions on the First Amendment. However, the fact that protesters sought to “Occupy” that public square crossed the line from speech into land seizure.

(Time to rename that movement, perhaps?) (more…)

For very good and valid reasons, Americans understand the extraordinary importance of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right peacefully to assemble for redress of grievances.  That, of course, is the rationale for the Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) movement by which thousands of protestors are encamping in various public places around the country.

Our courts recognize few exceptions for the placing of limits on this exercise of free speech and in fact have themselves studied the issue in cases unrelated to OWS.  Courts recently have been debating whether limits on speech enacted by legislative bodies are constitutional.  As an example, a law prohibiting candidates for public office from lying about their opponents’ voting records during campaigns is drawing judicial scrutiny as an unconstitutional prohibition on protected free speech.  This matter is a serious one and whether we agree or not with OWS protestors (or tea party assemblies) we need to treat the subject based on constitutional principles rather than our own political predilections.  So why have the authorities suddenly stirred themselves to action to clean out OWS sites?

For one thing authorities have suddenly recognized some very important public principles:

First, public facilities are being taken over for the benefit of a few people as part of their attempt to advance solely their cause.  Parkland in central cities is very scarce and has been misused by groups who pitch tents from end to end in these parks and prevent (and in some instances intimidate) ordinary citizens from using public land.  Often these tent cities are abandoned during the day while the occupiers leave and go about their regular lives (going to work, going home, attending entertainment venues, etc.)

Recently, there has been a major spike in violence including shootings.  In Oakland protestors succeeded in shutting down the ports, which are a major, job producer in that city.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle “OWS protestors gathered up for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful.  A faction of the protest group has advocated violence as a ‘diversity in tactics’ approach to demonstrating.”  Deaths have occurred in other cities as well, including Burlington, Vermont.   Secondly, there is an important public health issue that has arisen.  Protestors have been overwhelming the sanitary facilities at nearby businesses, cleaning and relieving themselves at bathrooms not built for such volume.  Finally, city authorities who have appeared to be looking the other way see that they have to take action.

(more…)

The local Republican Party made the unusual move of endorsing 4 of the 15 school board candidates who were on the ballot this year in Michigan’s Plymouth-Canton school district, according to the Detroit Free Press. What’s even more amazing is that the local teachers union found something wrong with that.

Teachers unions are infamous for trying to hire their own bosses by closely vetting and endorsing school board candidates in just about every district in the nation. Their strategy is to elect a majority of union-friendly board members who will give them their way at the bargaining table, and hire administrators who will let them call the shots at work.

While that certainly sounds like a conflict of interest, union participation in school board elections is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

But Ken Fistler, president of the Plymouth-Canton teachers union, had the gall to suggest that First Amendment rights shouldn’t apply to the local Republicans. He said the party’s endorsement of certain candidates “takes away the ability from anyone who isn’t affiliated with a party to run.” Ha! Local unions not only pick their favorite school board candidates, but provide funding and manpower to assist their campaigns.

(more…)

The radicals at “Occupy Dayton” were not too happy when one of their activists was caught on video shouting: “F*ck the military, f*ck your flag, f*ck the police!”

The video aired at Breitbart.tv and was subsequently picked up across the blogosphere.

In response, the “Media Committee” of Occupy Dayton issued the press release below, in which organizers threaten to sue… someone… for libel:

OccupyDayton1

Occupy Dayton Threat to Sue –

The case that Occupy Dayton relies on, Becker v. Toulmin, 165 Ohio St. 549 (1956), does not have any relevance here. The video merely publishes the activist’s own words, which he stated volubly and in public.

Furthermore, the activist depicted is involved in a matter of public concern, and therefore is a public figure for the purpose of Occupy Dayton. He would therefore have to meet a higher–in this case, impossible–standard of proof.

Neither he, nor Occupy Dayton, has a case.

(more…)

REP. CHARLES RANGEL:  Hiya boys and girls.  It’s me again, your Uncle Chollie in Washington.  I help your Uncle Sam take care of you and your mom, and your dad, too, if he hasn’t run off yet.

I’m here to introduce someone special, a person who can calm the raging Maxine Waters with a look, sell solar panels below cost and still make a profit, and cause the stock market to plummet with a single word.

C’mon, kids, give it up for the President of the United States, Baraaccck Obama!

FADE TO:

A Command and Control bunker deep beneath the White House.  Wearing a headset, the President is sitting at a console facing three large-screen HD monitors showing complementary views of a tactical assault in progress.   He is issuing orders.

At a break in the action, the CIC swivels to face the camera, covers his mike, and whispers:

Hey kids.  Good to see you again.   Hold on a sec; I’m just finishing up a mission here.

He turns back to direct the closing moments of the operation:

Zulu 1: secure perimeter.  Henderson: white SUV fleeing site.  Task Predator to take it out.  Bravo 1: Standoff See-Through Infrared shows targets at top of stairwell. Body signatures confirmed.  Authorization granted. [pause] Roger that.  Well done.  Bring me back some ears. (more…)

Get a load of how some in the Left view the role of the media:

While covering the latest demonstration outside the office of Congressman Paul Ryan, MacIver News Service’s Bill Osmulski learns some protesters are upset that he has not been helpful to their cause. Because he has consistently and accurately reported what’s been going on in Wisconsin, some liberal activists attempted to prevent him from working.

Their idea of a real journalist is apparently someone who is ‘helpful.’

“Obviously you’re doing something wrong as a journalist if people don’t want you here that badly,” one protester told him.

That some protesters think a reporter’s job is to be helpful to their liberal cause should be offensive to every traditional, mainstream, journalist.

Well, you’d like to think so.

(more…)

There has been a good deal of discussion of late about whether or not the IRS should launch an investigation into Media Matters’ tax-exempt status.  In today’s part two of a three part series from FOX Business’ Elizabeth MacDonald, details of the civilian complaint filed by C. Boyden Gray demonstrate why the former White House counsel to President George W. Bush believes that Media Matters should have its tax-exempt status yanked.

Citing a pattern of “unlawful conduct,” Gray writes in his petition, which FOX Business has obtained, that the nonprofit has “executed a partisan strategy” in violation of U.S. tax law as it exists “no longer to educate the public but, rather, to declare ‘war on FOX,’” Gray says, quoting from an interview its founder, David Brock, gave to the website Politico.

Also unlawful, Gray says, is the nonprofit’s reported goal to “disrupt” the commercial interests of News Corp. (News Corp. is the parent of FOX News and FOX Business.)

Read the whole article, Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters’ Tax-Exempt Status.

Among the activity noted in the complaint:

• Conducting a campaign to get chain book retailers to stop selling the book, “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry”
• Advocating for legislation such as the Fairness Doctrine, which would be in violation of tax law if such activity exceeds an insubstantial amount
• Stating that it is “looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network,” and intending to “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to [sic] disrupt his commercial interests.”
• Using tax-free dollars to fund the “Progressive Talent Initiative,” an endeavor “geared toward members of the Netroots community” and aimed at producing “camera-ready liberals” who can speak to the media on progressive issues

So many other examples not even mentioned in the article are readily available.

(more…)

Those of the Left rarely like to admit or acknowledge that they are of the Left.

Witness their repeated vacillations on what they call themselves.  It was “progressive” – until people figured out what that meant and loathed it.

So they bastardized the classical definition of “liberal” – until people found out what they meant by that and loathed it.

So they are now back to “progressive” – hoping that no one remembers how much they loathed it the last go ‘round.

So too is it with the Leftist grievance groups.  The assemblages that exist aren’t really to promote their alleged agenda items – but to grow government, and demonize and silence those who stand opposed to their so doing.

To give you but one example of this misdirection, let us consider the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).  The name says it all, right?  They purport to stand for the “Advancement of Colored People.”

But they really do not.

(more…)

In the year that has passed since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, the liberal elites have waged a war against the First Amendment.  Liberal politicians including President Barack Obama and Senator Harry Reid, liberal media corporations like the New York Times, and labor unions have joined together to support restrictions on speech and liberty.

Their proposals for “reform” have fallen flat, in large part because they have been exposed as efforts to chill the Freedom of Speech.  These attacks on the First Amendment have used populist rhetoric in an attempt to silence corporate speech.  These efforts to silence corporations are difficult to reconcile when one sees that the New York Times, a media corporation, published a new proposal for “reform” authored by the founder of a non-profit corporation, aimed at silencing speakers that do not support their liberal world view.

In the April 4, 2011 edition of the New York Times, David Callahan launched an ideological attack on the boogeymen de jour, Charles and David Koch.  Callahan sets the tone of his article by attacking the Koch brothers for “conceal[ing] the recipients of their largess.”  In order to prevent this from occurring, Callahan would “require all nonprofit organizations that engage in political advocacy to reveal their donors.”

While Mr. Callahan alleges the current system can be utilized by the left and the right, he seems particularly offended by David Koch’s support of “ideologically driven organizations like the Cato Institute.”  Callahan argues that such groups should be treated differently from other not-for-profit organizations.

(more…)

Following the recent resignations of NPR President and Chief Executive Vivian Schiller and NPR Foundation Senior Vice President Ron Schiller, the heat is on. James O’Keefe’s sting reminded Middle Americans how NPR unapologetically bashes conservatives and Christians at every turn, while continuing to carry water for the Democrats that fund their existence. No wonder those who had barely begun to countenance the idea of defunding NPR following Juan Williams’ firing are now boldly (and publicly) calling for the feds to pull taxpayer monies immediately.

But as revealing as O’Keefe’s sting proved to be, there has long been another aspect of NPR operations that, although equally egregious, seems to escape many Americans: Namely, the fact that NPR has not-for-profit 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, which means they not only live off the public dole, but do so without paying taxes on the money the public is forced to give them. (It also means that when Democrat fat cats like George Soros dump tons of money into NPR’s coffers, those fat cats get to deduct the donation or at least a portion of it, from their taxes.)

Moreover, although NPR holds the same tax-exempt status as a Church, and the Church is barred from espousing political speech, NPR regularly lambasts Republicans: especially conservatives.

Thus, while both entities hold a 501(c)(3) status, of the two only the Church is required to remain apolitical or lose its tax exemption. (Apparently, the IRS has no problem with the way NPR throws its hat in with the Democrats as each election cycle rolls around.)

When did this double standard arise in our?

(more…)

What do you get when you mix bureaucrats with a bunch of adorable puppies?

In Kim Houghton’s case, you get a major First Amendment lawsuit.

Kim Houghton decided after a successful, 20-year career in advertising that she wanted more.  She wanted to realize her American Dream and become an entrepreneur in a business focused on dogs.

She had the gumption to quit her job and make her dream come true:  Wag More Dogs is a high-end canine daycare located next to a popular dog park in Arlington, Virginia.  Kim commissioned an outdoor mural on her wall that has cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints as a way to give something back to the park she’d frequented for years, and build up some good will for her new business.

The mural was a big hit.  After all, who doesn’t like puppies?   Things were smooth for a few months.

And then Arlington bureaucrats got involved.

Officials blocked Kim’s building permit and told her that she could not open unless she painted over the mural or covered it with a blue tarp.

Her crime?

Painting a piece of art that—in the eyes of government officials—had too strong a “relationship” to her business.

(more…)

After watching the spectacle of blame unfold during the days following the tragic January 8^th Tucson shootings, one angry community is no longer biting its tongue. Saying it will no longer be victimized by political opportunists on the left, the Word community has finally broken its long taciturnity.

An estimated 5,000 very upset words held a rally today in the plaza directly across from the national headquarters of the American Library Association at 50 E. Huron Street in Chicago. The keynote speakers of the group—which calls itself Words of Wisdom (WOW)—were WOW President, the Honorable word Reason, and Vice-President and WOW Founder, the Venerable word Ridiculous.

Reason—a bespectacled old word with a long gray beard—took the podium first. “This just doesn’t make any sense,” argued the six-letter noun.

“Not only is there no demonstrable nexus between the demented shooter and the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, there’s absolutely no proof that the curtailment of free speech will result in fewer crimes of this sort in the future. Civility is nice, my fellow Words—but liberty is nicer.”

The crowd—many of them prepositions, conjunctions, or mere adverbs who came out of a sense of semantic solidarity—cheered in enthusiastic support. “Wooooohoooo!” screamed Exclamation from the back. “Save free speech!” hollered Indignation. “Screw the frickin’ censors!” Vulgarity bellowed.

After Reason’s opening statement, Ridiculous made her way to the podium. Clad in a Lady Gaga meat-dress and light fur, once she opened her mouth, Ridiculous—thankfully—did not live up to her name.

(more…)

Can a private citizen be subjected to a smear campaign by government officials for merely questioning a politician? That’s the issue at the heart of the lawsuit on behalf of Joe Wurzelbacher, known to most as “Joe the Plumber.”

A federal district court (erroneously in our view) dismissed Joe’s claims. Judicial Watch lawyers have since filed an appeal for Mr. Wurzelbacher in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Here is why we’re asking the appellate court to review the lower court’s decision, according to our brief, which you can read in its entirety here:

Ultimately, review of the issues in this case is important, not just to hold these state officials accountable for this abuse of their power and the harm inflicted on Mr. Wurzelbacher, but because it goes to the heart of free expression and political participation in this nation.

Private citizens should not have to worry whether their letter, phone call, or simple question to a political candidate will cause them to be targeted for investigation. Mr. Wurzelbacher and all Americans should have the freedom to openly participate in their government without fearing reprisal from partisan government officials.

Now let’s quickly review the facts of this lawsuit.

As you may recall, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Wurzelbacher was throwing a football with his son in the front yard of his home when then-candidate Barack Obama and his campaign entourage passed by. Mr. Wurzelbacher, an employee of a small plumbing business, was given the opportunity to ask Obama a question about his tax policies affecting small businesses. Obama responded by famously saying, “It’s not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you — that they’ve got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

(more…)

Karen Sampson and her Colorado neighbors just won a serious victory for liberty.

In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Colorado’s disclosure laws for grassroots political groups.  This is a big deal.  As the Associated Press put it, “The issue is ripe for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The federal appellate court held that Karen and her neighbors in the tiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo., should not have been forced to register with the government and comply with burdensome campaign finance laws simply for opposing a ballot issue involving the annexation of their neighborhood.

I wrote previously at Big Government that Karen and her neighbors opposed an effort to annex their town into a neighboring city because it would raise their taxes without providing them benefits.  So they printed up fliers and yard signs.  And then they got sued.

Under what basis?  Colorado’s campaign finance laws, which state that any group of individuals that spends over $200 magically becomes an “issue committee” that is forced to register with the state.  Further, they had to track and report all their “contributions” and “expenditures” and disclose the identities of anyone who gave them money.

(more…)

Last week, Drummond Pike took his FOX News fight to a whole new level, this time painting all of the right with a scarlet letter. Coincidentally, Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald had also published a similar piece in much the same vein, only a week prior.

In his opinion contribution piece to Politico titled “Why Does the Right Hate Soros?”, the founder and CEO of Tides Foundation pondered aloud the imaginary reasons he’s fabricated in his mind for the animosity toward the Hungarian born billionaire.

His conclusion? Because we hate immigrants.

This is the typical left. When you don’t get the response you want, inject a new element of manufactured hate into the mix – when you can’t make it about race, make it about immigration. Drummond Pike even decided to step up the rhetoric, implying that George Soros is in danger because of right-wing media outlets and bloggers. But the sad truth behind this piece, behind all of these public letters, boycotts and petitions is that they are all coordinated, and they are all aimed at turning the public opinion against those who do not share the ideals of the leftist agenda.

Some highlights from Pike’s opinion piece:

(more…)

Hey mom and dads, it’s election week!  Does your child like to argue?  Does he like to boss his younger siblings around?  Does he love the sound of his own voice?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, your child is a natural born politician.  Now to ensure his success in the political world, send him to Camp Politics for a three-week intensive training program:

Once he gets elected to office, the most important thing for him to learn is how to stay there.  If he does a bad job, people will want to get him out of office.  So your child will need to learn how to silence those that want to speak out against him.

Of course, this violates basic free speech rights.  But Camp Politics has figured out a sure-fire way around the First Amendment that means politics will remain a game for special interests and political insiders.

It’s called campaign finance laws.

We all know that speaking takes money.  And the only way ordinary Americans can speak out effectively about politics is to pool their resources with their friends and neighbors.  But campaign finance laws limit the amount of money people can spend on political ads and organizing and they wrap people in red tape to the point that they can’t even speak!

(more…)

Carla Main wrote an outstanding book called Bulldozed.  A veteran journalist, she brought to life a heart-wrenching, true-life tale of eminent domain abuse in a Texas fishing town.  She told the truth.  And for that, she’s being sued.

Today, Carla is fighting back.

This morning, Carla asked a Texas appeals court to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed against here by a developer involved in the Texas case.

Some background:

The Texas developer behind this abuse project is H. Walker Royall.  As the video makes clear, millions of taxpayer dollars later, the project is now an epic debacle.

(more…)