[VIDEO] Ted Cruz - Free Speech Under Assault May 11, 2015

Via: You Tube

[VIDEO] Judge Jeanine: Free Speech Is Non-Negotiable

Via: You Tube

A&E, Duck Dynasty, and the Climate of Intolerance in America

A&E enjoys rights to free contract and free speech in determining whom they employ and what they allow them to say. But just because you have a right to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

In a series of instances we have seen the gatekeepers of civil society attack those who hold Biblical views about marriage and sexuality—Chick-fil-A, Barilla Pasta, Craig James who was fired from ESPN, and now Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty.

It is even worse, of course, when it is the government that penalizes those who hold Biblical views. That should be anathema in America. While A&E exercised its rights, in a growing number of incidents, government has not respected the free-contract and free-speech rights of Americans.

In August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony — even though doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs as a Christian.

Christian adoption and foster-care agencies have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. Other cases include a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a T-shirt company, a student counselor, theSalvation Army, and more.

These and other laws are creating a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that we are created male and female, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. These state and local laws are used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading....

Democratic Platform Calls for Constitutional Amendment Limiting Free Speech

(CNSNews.com) – The 2012 Democratic Party platform includes language calling for a constitutional amendment restricting free speech rights during elections, saying that the Supreme Court decision in theCitizens United case should be overturned.

“Our opponents have applauded the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and welcomed the new flow of special interest money with open arms. In stark contrast, we believe we must take immediate action to curb the influence of lobbyists and special interests on our political institutions,” the 2012 platform says.

“We support campaign finance reform, by constitutional amendment if necessary,” it adds.

In its 2010 decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the political speech of activist groups or other independent organizations by limiting how much money they could spend during an election cycle. The court also struck down federal limits on when independent groups could engage in election-related activities such as running television ads or publishing political materials.

During oral arguments, the Obama administration argued that federal campaign finance laws allowed the government to ban the publication of books, pamphlets, or any other material it felt qualified as election-related communications.

By calling for a constitutional amendment – as President Obama has in the past – the Democratic Party is saying it supports an amendment restricting the First Amendment rights affirmed by the Supreme Court. Such restrictions, by the Obama administration’s own admission, would allow the government to ban the publication of books, pamphlets or any other type of material by independent political groups.

Via: CNSNews

Continue Reading...