[BartSimpson]

Dr. Caleb, rather timely press release here...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/departme ... eech-claim

$1:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Defending Photographer on Free Speech Claim

The Department of Justice today filed a Statement of Interest in federal court in Kentucky, explaining that a Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government law, which requires a photographer to photograph same-sex weddings in violation of her religious objections, violates the U.S. Constitution. The United States’ brief explains that the photographer, Chelsey Nelson, is likely to succeed on her claim that requiring her to photograph weddings against her conscience constitutes government-compelled speech that violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment forbids the government from forcing someone to speak in a manner that violates individual conscience,” said Eric Dreiband, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The U.S. Department of Justice will continue to protect the right of all persons to exercise their constitutional right to speech and expression.”

The law at issue prohibits businesses from discriminating on various bases, including on sexual orientation. Ms. Nelson brought suit against the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government and several of its officials, and sought a preliminary injunction preventing the application of this law to require her to photograph same-sex weddings.

The United States’ brief explains that Ms. Nelson is likely to succeed on her Free Speech claim. The Free Speech Clause prohibits the government from requiring people to engage in speech supporting or promoting someone else’s expressive event, such as a wedding ceremony. The brief observes that “[w]eddings are sacred rites in the religious realm and profoundly symbolic ceremonies in the secular one” and thus are plainly “expressive activities” under the Supreme Court’s Free Speech cases. Moreover, the brief explains, photography is an expressive art form, and wedding photography in particular seeks to celebrate and honor the union being photographed. Forcing a photographer, against her conscience, to express her support for a wedding that her faith opposes violates the Constitution.

In July 2018, the Department of Justice announced the formation of the Religious Liberty Task Force. The Task Force brings together Department components to coordinate their work on religious liberty litigation and policy, and to implement the Attorney General’s 2017 Religious Liberty Guidance.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But it how does the government justify expropriating control of a privately owned, privately funded property/business and then dictating who has access to it?

IIRC, the courts have already ruled that if the public has access to an establishment, then you cannot discriminate based on skin or sexual orientation. If you are running a private establishment, ie: a membership or locked door, then you can cater to who you want.

Youtube requires accounts to publish things, so to me it would be publicly viewable, but privately controlled.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Because if I'm in New York City and I want to go somewhere where I can be comfy in the company of upper class white people all I have to do is pay for the privilege.

Check out Le Bernadin.

https://nymag.com/restaurants/reviews/l ... n-2011-12/

Want to keep them swarthy types away while preening yourself as a progressive social liberal? Just pay for the privilege and you're good!

. . .

Should they just jack up their prices to accomplish the same discrimination that Le Bernadin gets away with because it's a favorite with rich, white liberal Democrats?

HA! It's awesome that you chose Le Bernadin, because Eric Ripert is one of my favourite Chefs, He's also Buddist, and IIRC, gay.

And from what I can tell, he does not say that if you are Black or Democrat that you can't eat there. And by law, he can't.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

How does that square with the mantra of...

$1:

It is the governments business to make sure everyone is treated equally in the public space.

Most every country has something along the lines of the Declaration of Human Rights:

$1:

The principles of equality and non-discrimination are part of the foundations of the rule of law. As Member States noted in the Declaration of the High-Level Meeting on the Rule of Law, “all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to just, fair and equitable laws and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”(para. 2). They also dedicated themselves to respect the equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion (para. 3).

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seems to me the government is awfully selective about that equality of yours.

Myself, I'd rather them not get involved at all because doing so violates property rights and it also violates the First Amendment clause on Freedom of Association.

See, Freedom of Association is necessarily the freedom to discriminate.

I think you are assuming that every right is equal to every other. They are not. Courts often will weigh one right against another. Is your right to free speech more important to another persons right to safety and security? No. That's why hate speech is a thing. Is the right of freedom of the press more important than freedom of speech? No, that's why there are libel laws.

The same with freedom of speech, and the right against discrimination. "All men are created equal" wins in that scenario.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Like I've long said, I prefer to err on the side of freedom and liberty...warts and all.

But don't so so at the cost of other rights, like speech or security.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Dr. Caleb, rather timely press release here...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/departme ... eech-claim.

Not the same as Youtube's right to maintain content on it's platform.

$1:

"Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment," the court said.

[CharlesAnthony]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Like I've long said, I prefer to err on the side of freedom and liberty...warts and all.

You are dreaming.

When The Almighty Government rules the air-waves and the big 6 air-wave companies rule The Almighty Government, any talk of freedom is bullshit. The distinction between public/private does not exist.

[stratos]

We should be rejoicing the courts have clearly said that youtube is not a source for news. So going to YouTube as your means of information is can no longer be considered a legitimate source.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

We should be rejoicing the courts have clearly said that youtube is not a source for news. So going to YouTube as your means of information is can no longer be considered a legitimate source.

Even if it's a News organizations official Youtube page?

Anyone who was using people's opinions on Youtube as actual news deserves the consequences.

[stratos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

stratos stratos:

We should be rejoicing the courts have clearly said that youtube is not a source for news. So going to YouTube as your means of information is can no longer be considered a legitimate source.

Even if it's a News organizations official Youtube page?

Anyone who was using people's opinions on Youtube as actual news deserves the consequences.

Yep. You see the 1st amendment covers NEWS organizations (The Media) also. Many people forget that aspect of the 1st amendment and think it only speaks of individuals.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

stratos stratos:

We should be rejoicing the courts have clearly said that youtube is not a source for news. So going to YouTube as your means of information is can no longer be considered a legitimate source.

Even if it's a News organizations official Youtube page?

Anyone who was using people's opinions on Youtube as actual news deserves the consequences.

Yep. You see the 1st amendment covers NEWS organizations (The Media) also. Many people forget that aspect of the 1st amendment and think it only speaks of individuals.

I asked because you said that Youtube isn't a source for news, but many news organizations maintain their Youtube pages themselves. So Youtube can be a source for news, if you are not prone to conspiracy.

[stratos]

$1:

I asked because you said that Youtube isn't a source for news, but many news organizations maintain their Youtube pages themselves. So Youtube can be a source for news, if you are not prone to conspiracy.

Not according to the ruling by the court. If it's not protected by the 1st amendment then it should not be considered a news source. Sorry you can not have it both ways. It is either covered and thus considered a viable news media or it's not covered and any news on there is NOT to be considered viable news.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

$1:

I asked because you said that Youtube isn't a source for news, but many news organizations maintain their Youtube pages themselves. So Youtube can be a source for news, if you are not prone to conspiracy.

Not according to the ruling by the court. If it's not protected by the 1st amendment then it should not be considered a news source. Sorry you can not have it both ways. It is either covered and thus considered a viable news media or it's not covered and any news on there is NOT to be considered viable news.

I think you are confusing the part of the first amendment that deals with freedom of the press, with the issue Prager U had with Youtube.

Prager U claimed that Youtube violated it's right to free speech by banning Prager U from Youtube. The court said Youtube has no requirement to protect free speech, the Constitution only holds the Government to that standard. It had nothing to do with freedom of the press.

[Public_Domain]

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prager U claimed that Youtube violated it's right to free speech by banning Prager U from Youtube. The court said Youtube has no requirement to protect free speech, the Constitution only holds the Government to that standard. It had nothing to do with freedom of the press.

So if You Tube can refuse someone over a First Amendment issue then why can't a restaurant refuse to serve anyone they don't want to serve?

Also, you said,

$1:

I think you are assuming that every right is equal to every other.

You might want to reevaluate your notions about rights because they just ain't right.

https://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-principles

$1:

Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights, regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural or ethnic background. Inalienable because people’s rights can never be taken away. Indivisible and interdependent because all rights – political, civil, social, cultural and economic – are equal in importance and none can be fully enjoyed without the others.

[stratos]

$1:

I think you are confusing the part of the first amendment that deals with freedom of the press, with the issue Prager U had with Youtube. Prager U claimed that Youtube violated it's right to free speech by banning Prager U from Youtube. The court said Youtube has no requirement to protect free speech, the Constitution only holds the Government to that standard. It had nothing to do with freedom of the press.

Yeah Dr. seems I am confusing the grounds of the case on which it was argued.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prager U claimed that Youtube violated it's right to free speech by banning Prager U from Youtube. The court said Youtube has no requirement to protect free speech, the Constitution only holds the Government to that standard. It had nothing to do with freedom of the press.

So if You Tube can refuse someone over a First Amendment issue then why can't a restaurant refuse to serve anyone they don't want to serve?

Because Human Rights and rights against discrimination trump rights to free speech. see: Hate Speech.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Also, you said,

$1:

I think you are assuming that every right is equal to every other.

You might want to reevaluate your notions about rights because they just ain't right.

https://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-principles

$1:

Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights, regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural or ethnic background. Inalienable because people’s rights can never be taken away. Indivisible and interdependent because all rights – political, civil, social, cultural and economic – are equal in importance and none can be fully enjoyed without the others.

Since when does the UN write the laws in any given country?

The SCOTUS has often ruled that Freedom of Expression is more important than Freedom of Speech.

$1:

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct,[10] speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.[11][12] Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons, restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander and libel), and communications while a person is in prison. When a speech restriction is challenged in court, it is presumed invalid and the government bears the burden of convincing the court that the restriction is constitutional.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... ted_States

[BartSimpson]

Yeah, sorry. We do not have bullshit 'hate speech' laws in our country because if we did then whoever has the power to define hate speech will do so.

The Freedom of Speech is meaningless absent the right to offend.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yeah, sorry. We do not have bullshit 'hate speech' laws in our country because if we did then whoever has the power to define hate speech will do so.

I never wrote you did. I wrote that the Freedom to love, or dress, or be who you are is considered more important than someone elses' right to free speech. "Free Speech" is not an absolute.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Freedom of Speech is meaningless absent the right to offend.

It when another person is denied their rights that Speech becomes less important.